Birthers and the Obama Conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

I'm not too sure about what 'source' you'd like me to cite regarding my personal experience. Myself?
 

DeletedUser

The US Code disagrees.





The U.S. State Department agrees with me.


Yes that gives u U.S. citizsenship but not every person who becomes a U.S. citizen can be president.

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

usgovinfo.about.com
 

DeletedUser

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html

You'll have to have Excel to view the spreadsheet forms.

Straight from the horses mouth

Alright. Let's do a little bit of arithmetic here.

Let's say that everyone gets taxed at the same rate (which they don't, but I'm only writing this to state that numbers can be skewed to look like something they're not).

Person A makes $13,000 and is taxed at the rate of 15%, so they pay $4,500 in taxed annually.

Person B, however, makes 60,000 and is taxed at the rate of 15% so they end up paying $18,000.

They are both taxed at the same rate but Person B is actually responsible for 80% of the income tax! Great way to play with numbers and skew it to look like it's something that it's really not.
 

DeletedUser

Alright. Let's do a little bit of arithmetic here.

Let's say that everyone gets taxed at the same rate (which they don't, but I'm only writing this to state that numbers can be skewed to look like something they're not).

Person A makes $13,000 and is taxed at the rate of 15%, so they pay $4,500 in taxed annually.

Person B, however, makes 60,000 and is taxed at the rate of 15% so they end up paying $18,000.

They are both taxed at the same rate but Person B is actually responsible for 80% of the income tax! Great way to play with numbers and skew it to look like it's something that it's really not.

Right, but we're not dealing with numbers. We're dealing with percentages.

and with the current statistics the way they are. Say we split the tax paying population 50/50. (50% of Taxpayers earn less than 32000, and theother 50% earns more than 32k)

the upper 50% pays 97% of the taxes.

We can narrow it even more.

lower 50% pays less than 3%
51-75% pays about 11%
Top 25% pays 87%
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

If you look at my earlier example, how could you possible expect that everyone pays the same amount? The person who makes $13,000 doesn't even make enough to be taxed equally as the one who makes $60,000 and if Person B is taxed the same amount as Person A, they would only be contributing half the percentage.
 

DeletedUser

Yes that gives u U.S. citizsenship but not every person who becomes a U.S. citizen can be president.

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

usgovinfo.about.com

There are two kinds of citizens:

1) Naturalized citizens. People who were not citizens of that country when he or she was born.

2) Natural born citizens.

There is no third category. Someone born to a parent who is an American citizen is a natural born citizen.
 

DeletedUser

Also, both parents are not required to be American citizens, only one, in order to be a natural born citizen.
 

DeletedUser

I believe the concern the "birthers" cite in regards to his mother is the stipulation that "For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."

There have been questions raised about the length of time she spent out of the country, after she turned 14, but before B.O was birthed.

That is why they say the LOCATION of his birth is vital to his eligibility
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

If they're correct, and she was outside the country too much in the critical years after her 14th birthday, do you really think it's beyond the realm of possibly that a young mother would Lie, or bribe someone, in order for her child to have an american citizenship?
 

DeletedUser

Morph, they're wrong because it is not a true argument. If she was a U.S. citizen, it doesn't matter how long she was away from the U.S., the child is automatically determined to be a natural-born U.S. citizen.
 

DeletedUser

It isn't that she was out of the US too much after the age of 14. She had him when she was 18, so she had only lived in the US for 4 years after she turned 14. As long as he was born in Hawaii, that doesn't matter because he would be a natural born citizen.


I wouldn't be real surprised if they eventually figure out that all of the confusion came from the fact that he had another wife at that time, and she did live in Kenya.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Come'on, Morph. I think you're just arguing for arguments sake at this point, let's just put this whole thing to bed.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstrom,

I'm sorry that you choose to ignore the wording of the statute, which clearly delineates what constitutes "transfer of citizenship from one parent to a child" for the appropriate time period.

I would post it again, but since I've posted it in this thread before, as have others, I do not want to run afoul of the duplicate post rule I accidentally broke before.


The most recent post containing the text is post #112
 

DeletedUser

Why doesn't Obama just show us the Birth Certificate? Why is it that big of a deal, just show it at News conference and be done with it.
 

DeletedUser

Why doesn't Obama just show us the Birth Certificate? Why is it that big of a deal, just show it at News conference and be done with it.

He has already made his Birth Certificate available both online and individually to the press.

If you're talking about the long form...why should he bother? The short form is good enough to get a passport or for any other purpose that you need a Birth Certificate, for that matter. Why should he dignify the wingnuts who still can't see reality even when spoon-fed to them, with a response?
 

DeletedUser

Adelei, that 'certification of live birth' isn't any sort of birth certificate. He hasn't shown anyone his birth certificate, what he's shown is a Form that indicates a Birth Certificate exists.
 

DeletedUser

Why is this thread still going on?
One american parent = american citizen.

EOD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top