TexasCHLforum.com

sugar land dave wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

baldeagle wrote: That's not how I read the Constitution. To me Natural Born means born to American citizens, whereever they may reside.

"natural Born" has never been defined in a court as far as i know

The Constitution on birth requirement for President:

"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."

He is a citizen, is he not? Over 35? Been here 14 years?

I believe the phrase "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" should have been all bolded rather than just the Citizen of the United States part. It appears it was a grandfather clause, which by now anyone who qualified at the time is now dead.

So was the sudden release of the birth certificate tied to the timing of the Osama attack. Kind of a one two punch to Trump, plus interrupting his show Sunday night. Obama seem so much more electable than just three weeks ago, but it is still a long ways to the election.

Getting Saddam Hussein didn't help Bush/the Republicans much in 2008. It's still a long time to the election. And I suspect that gas prices & the economy will have MUCH more impact than Obama. Oops, I mean Osama, whatever!

sjfcontrol wrote:Getting Saddam Hussein didn't help Bush/the Republicans much in 2008. It's still a long time to the election. And I suspect that gas prices & the economy will have MUCH more impact than Obama. Oops, I mean Osama, whatever!

Osama Bin Obama

sjfcontrol wrote:Getting Saddam Hussein didn't help Bush/the Republicans much in 2008. It's still a long time to the election. And I suspect that gas prices & the economy will have MUCH more impact than Obama. Oops, I mean Osama, whatever!

He (Saddam) was captured in December 2003. ¿Capped the Bush re-election campaign of '04?

Here's an angle I had not seen before:

As you all know, Donald Trump made a big deal about Obama's birth certificate. As of yesterday, the White House released the birth certificate.

I will tell you right now that I had never given this "birther" issue any credit. I watched the hype and the crazies come out. I completely dismissed the entire ordeal altogether. In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that it had gained my attention.

I am the studious sort of guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this document. While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good (and, got the crazies to crawl back into their holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.

First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.

The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?

Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I said, I thought that this was a non-issue until the actual certificate was released. Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found these issues, now I know that something is up. If you doubt me, just look at the following resources:

Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger here. http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-chil ... fault.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If any of you wish to know WHY this kind of thing is being done, look no further than Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". It is a playbook for leftists to utilize to basically run a "psyop". This whole darn thing is done this way ON PURPOSE. It creates dissension, deflects focus, and allows the left to pick the battleground. They put out a "birth certificate" with problems that can be found so that they then have a reason to call anyone who finds a problem with it, a nut, etc. The focus needs to be on the economy, jobs, fuel prices, the falling dollar, intrusive regulations, the national debt, all-but-nationalized companies, the way the war(s) are being conducted and all the other myriad of items that this administration has had a hand in...DO NOT get distracted. Stay on task...use fact and the real world to bolster your position. I don't care if this guy was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or on Mars...he has GOT TO GO...end of the story.

be careful, don't smear the ink