House passes anti-birther "Obama born in Hawaii" bill unanimously. RP didn't vote

[qh4dotcom]

Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the United States Congress on March 18, 1959;

Whereas Hawaii is `a place like no other, with a people like no other' and bridges the mainland United States to the Asia-Pacific region;

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;

Blah Blah blah the bill continues



http://www.dailypaul.com/node/101077

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll647.xml

[0zzy]

who would vote for such a thing.

[qh4dotcom]

It was unanimous 378-0...anyway this will likely come back to haunt these 378 Congressmen because the birther movement isn't going away and as Obama's approval ratings go down, more pissed off folks are going to start to pay attention to the birth certificate issue....remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky...the truth came out at the end.

[RSLudlum]

LMAO!!!!

If Congres saith, it must be so!

[constitutional]

Personally, I think the need to be born as a natural citizen in order to be a president is an obscure rule that should be amended in this day and age. I see no benefit in it unless someone wants to shed some light on me.

These kind of resolutions are so full of pity, I'd not waste my time voting on it at all.

[0zzy]

Personally, I think the need to be born as a natural citizen in order to be a president is an obscure rule that should be amended in this day and age. I see no benefit in it unless someone wants to shed some light on me.

These kind of resolutions are so full of pity, I'd not waste my time voting on it at all.

Exactly, and I'm surprised that so many people here are apart of this "movement." I thought we were apart of the liberty movement, not let's attack the president over some obscure thing that will never change policy in the end movement.

What is the birther's opinion on the newspaper that said Obama was born in America? I mean even Lew Rockwell is laughing at the birther movement, and he's pretty fringe on most issues!

[Imperial]

I sincerely hope either Dr. Paul wasn't there to vote or he has some good non-birther reason for not voting for this thing.

One good argument would be that we brought Hawaii into the Union by unconstitutional force and so its entry shouldn't be celebrated.

[blocks]

I sincerely hope either Dr. Paul wasn't there to vote or he has some good non-birther reason for not voting for this thing.

One good argument would be that we brought Hawaii into the Union by unconstitutional force and so its entry shouldn't be celebrated.

+1

[qh4dotcom]

I sincerely hope either Dr. Paul wasn't there to vote or he has some good non-birther reason for not voting for this thing.

One good argument would be that we brought Hawaii into the Union by unconstitutional force and so its entry shouldn't be celebrated.

My first reaction was that he should have voted no but then I read a comment on Daily Paul that said that it's inappropiate for anyone to vote yes or no when there's insufficient evidence...RP probably thinks he doesn't know where Obama was born.

[devil21]

Exactly, and I'm surprised that so many people here are apart of this "movement." I thought we were apart of the liberty movement, not let's attack the president over some obscure thing that will never change policy in the end movement!

It's turning into the new 9/11 Truth type movement. While I agree that it tends to be a distraction, we should always seek out the truth whatever it may be. Ignoring such a flagrant violation (if Obama is indeed constitutionally ineligible) on the basis of it being a distraction doesn't make much sense to me. Are people incapable of multi-tasking? Anyway, if the birthers are correct, then all of the other unconstitutional garbage passed by Congress and the Executive during US history pales in comparison to the ultimate coup of ushering in a foreign born president, the highest office in the country. The issue should be resolved one way or another, otherwise it will be a smoldering fire that doesn't go out, like the 9/11 story. But on the other hand, god help us if it's confirmed that Obama is ineligible. The country will be thrown into sheer chaos, which is what TPTB would like. Such is the risk of telling the truth in a sea of lies. Tough situation...

[RevolutionSD]

Personally, I think the need to be born as a natural citizen in order to be a president is an obscure rule that should be amended in this day and age. I see no benefit in it unless someone wants to shed some light on me.

These kind of resolutions are so full of pity, I'd not waste my time voting on it at all.

The idea that we need a president should be amended.

[Stary Hickory]

Exactly, and I'm surprised that so many people here are apart of this "movement." I thought we were apart of the liberty movement, not let's attack the president over some obscure thing that will never change policy in the end movement.

What is the birther's opinion on the newspaper that said Obama was born in America? I mean even Lew Rockwell is laughing at the birther movement, and he's pretty fringe on most issues!

The requirement is there for a reason, so that foreign influence cannot gain control of the white house. I get it you think it's obscure and pointless so you want to ignore the law on this one.

And yet you would complain when those in power think the constitution is dated, and really pointless and ignore laws. If a man is not willing to even respect the American voters or the constitution by defrauding his way into the white house, then what does that say about his respect for the Rule of Law? This stuff boggles my mind, what makes you want to ignore this? Personal bias? What? I mean to me it's outrageous, especially when you consider the potential cover up that was used(if it is indeed true). I mean this is going back to Soviet era cover ups....media, state government, foreign governments, and the use of the power of the presidency to issue executive orders for a personal cover up.

This is no simple matter, if this is true, Obama needs to answer for it. Look at all the entanglements and crazy mess we are into to if this is true........it would be huge. And the evidence is there to investigate it as well. And it will not go away, not until it is resolved.

[jmdrake]

Personally, I think the need to be born as a natural citizen in order to be a president is an obscure rule that should be amended in this day and age. I see no benefit in it unless someone wants to shed some light on me.

These kind of resolutions are so full of pity, I'd not waste my time voting on it at all.

As foreign powers usurp American sovereignty through the Fed, the IMF, the UN and other institutions we should just give them the presidency too? :rolleyes:

It is an issue that should be clarified though. Take the John McCain issue. While I'm no fan of McCain I would not disqualify someone born of two American parents on a U.S. military base from being president. Now whether we should even have foreign U.S. military bases in areas where we are not engaged in war is another matter. (I say no.) I think there are other better reasons to go after Obama on. Someone brought up Monica Lewinski. Well there were better things to go after Clinton on. (The 1993 WTC bombing that happened with FBI foreknowledge and participation is one.) I think the "birther" issue is a distraction. But it's sure making some people squirm.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[constitutional]

As foreign powers usurp American sovereignty through the Fed, the IMF, the UN and other institutions we should just give them the presidency too? :rolleyes:



Dear Mr. Drake,

And am I to presume that President of the United States has no influence on IMF, the Fed, and the UN? Those three institutions have been long standing, aided by the presidents we've had for century, undermining the sovereignty of United States.

The natural-born citizen requirement was a novel idea back in the late 18th century after the war when loyalists still made of 20% of the population and uneducated immigrants were pouring in from Europe in large numbers.

[jmdrake]

Dear Mr. Drake,

And am I to presume that President of the United States has no influence on IMF, the Fed, and the UN? Those three institutions have been long standing, aided by the presidents we've had for century, undermining the sovereignty of United States.


And so we help grease the skids?



The natural-born citizen requirement was a novel idea back in the late 18th century after the war when loyalists still made of 20% of the population and uneducated immigrants were pouring in from Europe in large numbers.

And we don't have uneducated immigrants pouring in from (fill-in-the-blank) in large numbers today?

Let's put the question another way. What possible benefit would there be for changing this provision of the constitution? I can think of detriments (like Arnold could become president) but absolutely no benefits.

[constitutional]

And yet you would complain when those in power think the constitution is dated, and really pointless and ignore laws. If a man is not willing to even respect the American voters or the constitution by defrauding his way into the white house, then what does that say about his respect for the Rule of Law? This stuff boggles my mind, what makes you want to ignore this? Personal bias? What? I mean to me it's outrageous, especially when you consider the potential cover up that was used(if it is indeed true). I mean this is going back to Soviet era cover ups....media, state government, foreign governments, and the use of the power of the presidency to issue executive orders for a personal cover up.

This is no simple matter, if this is true, Obama needs to answer for it. Look at all the entanglements and crazy mess we are into to if this is true........it would be huge. And the evidence is there to investigate it as well. And it will not go away, not until it is resolved.

Lets look at my post again.


Personally, I think the need to be born as a natural citizen in order to be a president is an obscure rule that should be amended in this day and age. I see no benefit in it unless someone wants to shed some light on me.

These kind of resolutions are so full of pity, I'd not waste my time voting on it at all.

In other words, I don't like the natural born citizen law so therefore in my opinion, we should amend it. No where did I mention the need to ignore the current law.

You said "If a man is not willing to even respect the American voters or the constitution by defrauding his way into the white house, then what does that say about his respect for the Rule of Law?"

Finding out that he is not qualified says nothing about his respect for the Rule of Law if he did not have it in first place to begin with. Just look at his voting record as a senator.

[constitutional]

And so we help grease the skids?



And we don't have uneducated immigrants pouring in from (fill-in-the-blank) in large numbers today?

Let's put the question another way. What possible benefit would there be for changing this provision of the constitution? I can think of detriments (like Arnold could become president) but absolutely no benefits.

At this point we should be coming to the conclusion that the law in its current existent is not stopping our nation from being undermined. It's the american people who greased the skids in the first place and it's them who you will have to educate in order to make sure we do not elect a president from an establishment.

No, we do not have large number of uneducated legal immigrants today. I tried to find some numbers for you but nothing came up. Anyway, today we do not simply hand citizenship to immigrants like we use to back then. It's a long process to gain citizenship.

What possible benefits there would be? Well, lets see, a person like me who is not a natural born citizen and loves this country can run for president.

Just because you see Arnold as a detriment, you are going to shut out all foreigners as detriment? I think you would be pleased to have a law that prevents all black and white people from becoming a president too. Problem solved! :eek:

In conclusion, the need to educate the people on important issues prevails over the natural born citizen requirement.

I see every man equal in this country and not discriminate based on his sexuality, race or what piece of land he was born on.

[Reason]

Funny, I don't see anyone getting all emo about the resolution the senate passed saying mccain being born in panama was legit.

[dannno]

Funny, I don't see anyone getting all emo about the resolution the senate passed saying mccain being born in panama was legit.

Both of his parents were citizens and it was on a US military base. I think that should be considered NBC.

Obama only had one parent who was a citizen, so according to..


John Bingham is the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Here he confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4] [5] [6]

“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham#Later_life

[Mini-Me]

I sincerely hope either Dr. Paul wasn't there to vote or he has some good non-birther reason for not voting for this thing.

One good argument would be that we brought Hawaii into the Union by unconstitutional force and so its entry shouldn't be celebrated.

The best reason not to vote for it is that this isn't the USSR, and I'm sure Ron Paul's reason for abstaining was similar to his reason for voting "no" on just about everything: The Constitution does not give Congress the power to legislate "official truths." When you recognize the bill for what it really is - an attempt to legislate truth by government force - it becomes apparent how absurd, pointless, and childish it really is. :rolleyes:

[constitutional]

Funny, I don't see anyone getting all emo about the resolution the senate passed saying mccain being born in panama was legit.

Learn to search and then make generalizations. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=135273

[Stary Hickory]

Funny, I don't see anyone getting all emo about the resolution the senate passed saying mccain being born in panama was legit.

If there were question s about McCain being legit I would more than happily talk about it. But being born on a military base is a common occurrence and it always means that the child is am American citizen. Or else military members would refuse to deploy if there future children would not be American citizens.

Anyways if there is something about McCain I should know about, bring it up.

[Sandra]

I would like to get the birther's slant on Jindal.

[Pepsi]

Here is what some of them that were alive at the time of the founders said about natural born citizen,

Historical Fact: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:

“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

Historical Fact: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”

[dannno]

I would like to get the birther's slant on Jindal.

I hope it never becomes an issue?

[Stary Hickory]

I hope it never becomes an issue?

Exactly I hold Jindal to the same requirements that I hold everyone else to. And I think Jindal holds himself to those standards too. I think most Americans would hold themselves to those standards.

[Jags~Beach]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fightthesmears-obama-confession.jpg?w=482&h=214

The only pertinent point that matters: ” That same Act ‘GOVERNED‘ the status of Obama Sr’s children”

Their words, NOT ours and they are in conflict with the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.:cool:

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 29, 2009 (http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/)






"Obama was born Aug 4th and the Nordyke twins were born on Aug 5th, both at Kapiolani. Obama’s birth was registered Aug 8th and the Nordyke twins on Aug 11th. So how is it that Obama’s certificate number ends 10641 and the Nordyke twins are 10637 & 10638.”


I still maintain, no birth certificate is needed, however, the birthers who do deserve to know why all the lies and cover-ups.

JUST SHOW THEM THE DOCUMENT!!!

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/m1139416728.gif?w=800&h=515
http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/birth_certificate_51.jpg?w=819&h=614

PS..just noticed one other thing in the document number discrepancy. Obama’s says 151-1961-o10641 & Nordyke’s say 151-61-10637 & 151-61-10638. The official number as shown in the Nordyke twins only has 10 numbers, Obamas has 13. Kind of reminds me of his selective service records with conflicting document locator numbers that don’t match.

Remember Nixon? It was not the crime that got him, it was the COVER-UP!

[torchbearer]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fightthesmears-obama-confession.jpg?w=482&h=214

The only pertinent point that matters: ” That same Act ‘GOVERNED‘ the status of Obama Sr’s children”

Their words, NOT ours and they are in conflict with the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.:cool:

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 29, 2009 (http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/)

good find.

[Sandra]

Exactly I hold Jindal to the same requirements that I hold everyone else to. And I think Jindal holds himself to those standards too. I think most Americans would hold themselves to those standards.

So do you feel he's eligible for the presidency knowing what you know?

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[devil21]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fightthesmears-obama-confession.jpg?w=482&h=214

The only pertinent point that matters: ” That same Act ‘GOVERNED‘ the status of Obama Sr’s children”

Their words, NOT ours and they are in conflict with the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.:cool:

Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on July 29, 2009 (http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/)


"Obama was born Aug 4th and the Nordyke twins were born on Aug 5th, both at Kapiolani. Obama’s birth was registered Aug 8th and the Nordyke twins on Aug 11th. So how is it that Obama’s certificate number ends 10641 and the Nordyke twins are 10637 & 10638.”


I still maintain, no birth certificate is needed, however, the birthers who do deserve to know why all the lies and cover-ups.

JUST SHOW THEM THE DOCUMENT!!!

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/m1139416728.gif?w=800&h=515
http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/birth_certificate_51.jpg?w=819&h=614

PS..just noticed one other thing in the document number discrepancy. Obama’s says 151-1961-o10641 & Nordyke’s say 151-61-10637 & 151-61-10638. The official number as shown in the Nordyke twins only has 10 numbers, Obamas has 13. Kind of reminds me of his selective service records with conflicting document locator numbers that don’t match.

Remember Nixon? It was not the crime that got him, it was the COVER-UP!

That picture is a fake. Not only did you pick out the number error, if you look at the number itself it's obvious that it was super-imposed over a blank space. It doesn't line up with paper while the rest of the text is slightly canted due to the angle the paper is being held. Another Photoshop job. And a bad one.