"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Nope. No help at all.

The question is, where is the information that "Every one of them
[President] has [published his birth certificate]. Along with their school
records (all of which seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)"

'Want to show us some, or tell us where they were published?

--
Ed Huntress

J. D. Slocomb wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

His parents were highly mobile, moving from country to country, around the
time he was born.

Therefore it's a reasonable question and he should have given the long-form
answer sooner.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
J. D. Slocomb wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

His parents were highly mobile, moving from country to country, around the
time he was born.

Therefore it's a reasonable question and he should have given the
long-form answer sooner.

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in
Hawaii and was certified by the appropriate officials there, is a fraud and
that the officials are liars? It contains all of the relevant information.

And if that's the case, what makes you think that the long form is better?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what
I have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the
short form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a
lot is missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a
fraud. Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

Well, then, you have no reason for Obama to supply the long one. I have the
short one. Most of the one's I've seen, except for those people who have a
copy made the week they were born, are short ones. I have one from the week
I was born, and it's a short form.

In any case, there was no reason for Obama to supply either one except to
shut up the birthers, who aren't going to vote for him anyway, under any
conditions. The Supreme Court hasn't even granted cert on the cases that
were brought, because the certification by Hawaii is enough to satisfy any
legal requirement.

Releasing it sounds like a bad precedent to me. But Trump was distracting
attention, so I understand why he released it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Really?

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:05:11 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

I did, particularly when it doesnt look like the other short forms and
appears to also have been "created"

Shrug

Gunner

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e5Fo...eature=related

Lots more out there...shrug

Im still keeping an open mind..but it sure doesnt look good for the
Demos

On the other hand...I, unlike the Dems here, are not blindly accepting
the documents even with so many questions asked..and no answers
forthcoming

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that. Although, come to
think of it, that could exclude anyone who was from their mother's womb
untimely ripped, a la Caesarian section.

And why is Trump getting so much press anyway? He's nothing but a
professional loudmouthed asshole anyway.

Thanks,
Rich

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

Ron Paul has been consistently supporting the Constitution for some time,
and that fact is on the public record.

http://ronpaul2012.com

Thanks,
Rich

On 2011-04-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a president.

i

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:27:05 -0500, Ignoramus15341
wrote:

On 2011-04-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a president.

i
Heads up boys..it mentions Natural Born Citizen...


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth
the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United
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.

The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided
an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who
were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The
first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential
Presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British
America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would
cover them.)[1]

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth
Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does
provide that "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."


And evidently neither of you know about the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution....

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
States wherein they reside.


And that old fellows..has been long resolved. And it appears at this
point..the Obamassiah probably doesnt meet the requirements for Natural
Born Citizen.

Im rather surprised you both are as ignorant of the Constitution as you
both appear. Particularly Iggy..whom I assume is now a US Citizen..and
he had to study the documents and pass a test.

I STRONGLY suggest you both read that Wiki article and then reread it.

Then neither of you will post something so...stup^^id...er..
misinformed....


Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:48:14 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:48:07 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Compare blocks 7d, 11 and 16. Same thing. Typewriters may have
been antiquidated pieces of ****, but the striking keys did not
jump all over the place like they do on this supposed long form
document.

That can happen when the ribbon is reused.


Can this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPX33ZNdmlo

Nope. But a manual machine may have variations on "miss strikes".
One of the classics is when what is to be a capital letter is typed
and the shift key is not held down properly. You wind up with the
bottom of one case and the top of the other both striking the page.
(This assumes a manual machine, not an electric one.)

Of course kids these days don't know from typewriters, having
faked all their notes on computers. B-)

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

Gunner Asch on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:37:43 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a president.

i
Heads up boys..it mentions Natural Born Citizen...


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth
the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United
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.

The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided
an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who
were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The
first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential
Presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British
America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would
cover them.)[1]

And a lot of "natural born Citizens" had no birth certificates, as
they were born at home. Some of them may even still be alive, for all
I know. I wonder how many hippie kids had no birth certificate
issued, as Mom & Dad were hippies and didn't want anything to do with
"The Man"?
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Gunner Asch on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:02:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:05:11 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

I did, particularly when it doesnt look like the other short forms and
appears to also have been "created"

Shrug

Gunner

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e5Fo...eature=related

Lots more out there...shrug

Im still keeping an open mind..but it sure doesnt look good for the
Demos

On the other hand...I, unlike the Dems here, are not blindly accepting
the documents even with so many questions asked..and no answers
forthcoming

It is scary some times. I remember pulling out a printout from a
program I had written, about nuclear weapon effects. The fact that it
was about Nuclear Weapons _and_ printed on green bar, seemed to some
of the folks in my dorm to mean it was some kind of "Official"
document. I was kind of flabbergasted at their ... naivety.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow.
"Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."

On Apr 27, 9:29*am, Ignoramus14859 ignoramus14...@NOSPAM.
14859.invalid wrote:
On 2011-04-27, rangerssuck wrote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...mas-long-form-...

Do you think the liars will apologize now?

i

You mean people like Gummer?

Never.

Fools never do.

TMT

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:26:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:02:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:05:11 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

I did, particularly when it doesnt look like the other short forms and
appears to also have been "created"

Shrug

Gunner

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e5Fo...eature=related

Lots more out there...shrug

Im still keeping an open mind..but it sure doesnt look good for the
Demos

On the other hand...I, unlike the Dems here, are not blindly accepting
the documents even with so many questions asked..and no answers
forthcoming

It is scary some times. I remember pulling out a printout from a
program I had written, about nuclear weapon effects. The fact that it
was about Nuclear Weapons _and_ printed on green bar, seemed to some
of the folks in my dorm to mean it was some kind of "Official"
document. I was kind of flabbergasted at their ... naivety.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow.
"Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."

College kids are often..well..niave and stupid. Not all...shrug..but a
significant number of them.

And far too many of them have not improved much after they graduate.

Generally..they tend to be Democrats too...shrug

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Apr 27, 10:12*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ignoramus14859" wrote in message

...

On 2011-04-27, rangerssuck wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...mas-long-form-....

Do you think the liars will apologize now?

i

Ha-ha! Are you kidding? Trump is already crowing. That's after he told
Anderson Cooper a couple of days ago that he had information that the
original record was "lost."

Now the rest of the country has seen what those of us in the NYC area have
known for years: Trump is a phony and a con man, a self-promoter who cares
about nothing but himself. And his hair. g

--
Ed Huntress

AP checked...the Donald never sent anyone to look.

The Donald is a joke.

TMT

On Apr 27, 9:19*am, rangerssuck wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...mas-long-form-...

Laugh...laugh..laugh..

And conservative heads across the land are EXPLODING....

TMT

Ignoramus15341 wrote:
On 2011-04-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a
president.

Well, one would tend to presume that a Natural Born Citizen would, in fact,
_HAVE_ a birth certificate.

But this is all moot anyway, the commie ******* has been in power for two
and a half years, and has already committed enough Treason against the
Constitution that he should be at the end of a rope somewhere.

Speaking of *******s, does the BC have any mention of his mother and
spermdonors' marital status? :-

Thanks,
Rich

On 4/30/2011 5:59 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich




Mr. Obama's mother was a US citizen, therefore HE is a US citizen. If
he had been born on Mars, he would still be a US citizen.

Period, end of controversy.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:46:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"J. D. Slocomb" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:58:45 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

J. D. Slocomb wrote:

Apparently neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have enough sense
to pound sand in a rat hole and we are presently governed by the
smartest guy in the whole bunch..... after all he must have slickered
everyone.

That's a reassuring way to look at it.

But I think he wasn't so smart or he would have had this released long,
long
ago.

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

If the answer is "because some disgruntled people don't believe him"
then what happens next? The same people start screaming "The
President's got a mole on his ass" and he has to moon them on national
TV?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"What happens next" is they start asking for his college transcripts.
Oh....that's already happened....

Well, they could ask for DNA tests of his children. Maybe next week.

Are we REALLY, REALLY, sure that he REALLY, REALLY, is Obama? Maybe he
isn't.........

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On 4/30/2011 10:24 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Finally, there can be no doubt Barak was in fact born with a divided
citizenship. He proudly admits as much.

That means if we were conscripted by draft into the United States
Military during a conflict, when he was 18, he could have avoided the
draft by simply returning to another country of his citizenship. We
know and he admits he was a citizen of Kenya at the age of 18 so he
could have returned with no penalty, to Kenya and not even I would call
him a draft dodger if had under those circumstances.

You are wholly one thing or another but not two distinctly different and
separate things that conflict with each other's existence.

He was born with a divided allegiance and is "Not a Natural Born
Citizen". Might be a citizen but, he ain't a Natural Born Citizen.


And so on and so forth.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

Gunner


I'll just assume that all the other kooks out there agree with Gummer
that the document Obama put out isn't valid. So to them Obama still was
born somewhere else. Okay, I accept that premise. But that means you
people who deny Obama was born in Hawaii have to tell us where he came
from. But your burden is that you have to supply proof that is better
than what you are rejecting from Obama's side.

You have to come up with proof beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly where
and when Obama was born. We want proof that is beyond question. But if
you can't come up with evidence that shows where and when Obama was
really born you have to stop questioning his story about being born in
Hawaii. If you can't come up with better evidence, and unequivocal proof
Obama was born somewhere else then you have to accept what he says as true.

Personally, I don't think you can prove Obama was born anywhere but
Hawaii, at least not according to the level of scrutiny you use on
Obama's evidence. And I don't think you can keep quiet when you can't
prove Obama was born somewhere else. But go ahead and try. We'll be
waiting for your "proof".

Hawke

On 4/30/2011 8:46 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

If the answer is "because some disgruntled people don't believe him"
then what happens next? The same people start screaming "The
President's got a mole on his ass" and he has to moon them on national
TV?

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"What happens next" is they start asking for his college transcripts.
Oh....that's already happened....

Well, they could ask for DNA tests of his children. Maybe next week.



I said right from the start, if you appease these people all they will
do is keep asking for more, and their requests will get only more absurd.

The proper way to respond to these birthers is to ignore them. That's
what bothers them the most, to be treated as insignificant, which they
are. The reason you don't answer their questions is because that's what
they want. You never give people like these nuts what they want. It just
encourages them to ask for even more. Unfortunately, the president
already buckled to them once. If he's smart he'll now follow my advise
and act like these people don't even exist. You just totally ignore
them. They hate that more than anything.

Hawke

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

"Treason against the United States shall consists solely of levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Which doesn't say *anything* about needing to produce a birth certificate.

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Apparently, that person was you, because I'm clearly better informed on the
subject than you are. Now produce a cite for your claim that a candidate needs
to produce his birth certificate, or STFU.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Really?

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to produce
his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's see the
proof.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:06:35 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

"Treason against the United States shall consists solely of levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."


Indeed. Need cites?

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:27:05 -0500, Ignoramus15341
wrote:

On 2011-04-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a president.

i
Heads up boys..it mentions Natural Born Citizen...

Yes, we know that. But *you* said that the *birth certificate* is a
requirement -- and it's not.


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth
the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United
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.

The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided
an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who
were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The
first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential
Presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British
America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would
cover them.)[1]

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth
Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does
provide that "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."


And evidently neither of you know about the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution....

I'm perfectly familiar with it. You appear to be completely ignorant of
the entire document, though, since you seem to think that it somewhere
requires that candidates produce a birth certificate to prove their
citizenship.

News flash: it doesn't.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
States wherein they reside.


And that old fellows..has been long resolved. And it appears at this
point..the Obamassiah probably doesnt meet the requirements for Natural
Born Citizen.

Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.

Im rather surprised you both are as ignorant of the Constitution as you
both appear. Particularly Iggy..whom I assume is now a US Citizen..and
he had to study the documents and pass a test.

I'm obviously more knowledgeable about the Constitution than you are. At
least, *I* know that it doesn't contain any requirement for birth
certificates.

I STRONGLY suggest you both read that Wiki article and then reread it.

LMAO! **YOU** need to go back and read it, *and* the Constitution, over and
over and over, until you realize that there's no requirement for a birth
certificate.

Then neither of you will post something so...stup^^id...er..
misinformed....

Ummm.... that would be you, Gummer. *You* claimed that producing a birth
certificate is a requirement. But it's not. And when challenged to produce a
cite for that [false] claim, you resort to insults and abuse.

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any of
his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1931.
Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890. Are/were
they not natural born citizens?

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:06:35 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

"Treason against the United States shall consists solely of levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."


Indeed. Need cites?

No. I know where that came from. I've actually read the document, and I don't
need Wikipedia to tell me what it says.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:06:35 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have
what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. So, to many people the
short
form doesn't look right. It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot
is
missing. That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has
been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

"Treason against the United States shall consists solely of levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort."


Indeed. Need cites?

Gunner

'Sounds like you and your Cullers, Gunner. Have you had yourself fitted for
a noose yet? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:09:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Which doesn't say *anything* about needing to produce a birth certificate.

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Apparently, that person was you, because I'm clearly better informed on the
subject than you are. Now produce a cite for your claim that a candidate needs
to produce his birth certificate, or STFU.

Doug..how do you PROVE you meet the criteria? Simply saying you do?

Thats hardly valid. Far too many crooks and unscrupulous individuals who
want a piece of power..or their nose in the public cookie jar would lie
their asses off to get in to power.

So why are you so upset that one has to prove one is a natural born
citizen to be president..in one valid form or another? The birth cert
being the easiest and fastest method out there?

Or do you think that having people swear you were natural born is good
enough? If Obama got say...Saul Alinksky and maybe Fidel Castro to
swear he was born inside the USA....

And why are you so testy? The question is very much out there..hell...a
lot of questions are very much out there..and given the track record of
te Obamassiah on this matter...they had best be answered to everyones
satisfaction..or they will indeed remain out there.

Say...you didnt...didnt vote for the Obamassiah...did you ?

Say it aint so.....


Gunner



--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:10:24 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.


Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Really?

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to produce
his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's see the
proof.

as I stated in my previous post of a moment ago..the Birth cert is the
quickest and fastest way of proof.

Can you come up with others that also work? Perhaps we can look at those
ways also.

Please, feel free.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On May 1, 1:22*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:06:35 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

So you're saying that the short form, which is an official document in

I'm saying more information is better, and most people probably have
what
I
have, which includes all the long form info. *So, to many people the
short
form doesn't look right. *It doesn't to me, because it looks like a lot
is
missing. *That's because of what I'm used to, not because it's a fraud.
Nevertheless I didn't have serious doubt about the short one.

And it's pretty much moot anyway, because the commie mother****er has
been
in power for two and a half years, and has committed enough High Treason
against the Constitution that he really belongs at the end of a rope.

"Treason against the United States shall consists solely of levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort."

Indeed. *Need cites?

Gunner

'Sounds like you and your Cullers, Gunner. Have you had yourself fitted for
a noose yet? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They charge extra for extra large sizes....I doubt that Gummer would
be able to afford his noose.

Like he does now in living on the public dole, he would have to be
hung at the public's expense too.

TMT

On May 1, 1:24*am, Rich Grise wrote:
Ignoramus15341 wrote:
On 2011-04-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:33:42 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving *the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- *Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
* * 5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

Blink blink...blink....Doug..you are not THAT stupid...are you?

Doug is completely right and you are completely wrong. The
constitution does not require or mention birth certificates to be a
president.

Well, one would tend to presume that a Natural Born Citizen would, in fact,
_HAVE_ a birth certificate.

But this is all moot anyway, the commie ******* has been in power for two
and a half years, and has already committed enough Treason against the
Constitution that he should be at the end of a rope somewhere.

Speaking of *******s, does the BC have any mention of his mother and
spermdonors' marital status? :-

Thanks,
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...sounds like a conservative head getting ready to EXPLODE....

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:19:53 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for 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."

-- Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any of
his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1931.
Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890. Are/were
they not natural born citizens?

Any of them try to become President? If not..the matter remains moot.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On May 1, 1:46*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug

Miller) wrote:

Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.

To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " *Jonah Goldberg (modified)

It's already been proven Stupid.

It's up to you to "disprove" it.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

Meanwhile it is time for you to start your creditors.

TMT

TMT