Challenge to Obama’s Citizenship Denied by Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy yesterday denied the appeal of Truther Philip J. Berg claiming Obama is a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be President.
There’s a sense of anticlimax, since everyone apparently assumed that the denial of another lawsuit ten days ago took care of all the lawsuits. But it’s just as well, since this lawsuit was no more meritorious than any of the others.
I’m a pretty staunch right-winger and even I think that this whole “birther” suit is pointless and meritless. I mean come on, the State of Hawaii has a birth certificate for the guy. What else is necessary?
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:39 amJRW,
The problem is the O is not being open as he said he would. Why not release his true BC and his college files?
If you think Nixon invented Stonewalling, and W was secretive, then you are going to go to a whole new KGB level with Obama.
PCD (7fe637) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:44 amI do believe the state of Hawaii did come out and say that they have seen the original actual Birth Certificate (not the COLB) and confirm Obama meets the reqs. Clearly there is something on tht document that is embarrassing to OBama (I can’t see how anything on there should be, since he wasn’t able to affect it).
But I agree that this is not a legal battle that can be won… it is a great example of how terrible Obama has been about open government. He has shown a terrible lack of interest in keeping his promises, and that’s unsettling fior me… even though I really don’t want him to be the man he campaigned as.
Character counts. This is a man who promises not to run and starts running that day, who promise public financing and go private in a way that destroys this important institution, who claims he will be open but tell reporters that tough questions are ‘wasted,’ promises change and gives us countless status quo appointments, and promises hope while promising worse terror attacks and a worse economy, etc etc etc.
He’s unreal. His refusal to end this drama with the stupid document requested causes a lack of faith in democracy. He is being the smaller man here. We know nothing about his medical situation, his Columbia record, or his other important details. But the voters elected him, so I hope he learns about character quickly. H is inner circle is stuffed with Blagovich’s best friends (he himself was crucial to Blago’s election), so I don’t see that happening.
But we’ll have plenty of other examples of Obama’s character and I don’t mind seeing this one die. Eventually.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:02 amObama is doing exactly the right thing. Letting his worst enemies pound their heads against a wall to their heart’s content while he does what he wants. Stupid f______ morons!
nk (bdc27b) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:05 amBerg is an idiot. The fact that either Kenya or Indonesia could consider Barrack Obama a citizen has no bearing on the question whether he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
United States citizenship is based on the laws of the United States not on the laws of other countries.
My father was born in Ireland, came to this country and was naturalized. Married my mother, a native born United States citizen and they had seven children. All their children were born in the United States.
However, Ireland considers my siblings and myself entitled to Irish passports. Getting an Irish passport does not mean renouncing United States citizenship and, as a pratical matter, travel to some countries would be easier if you could show an Irish passport rather than an American one.
longwalker (ce69ff) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:07 amNo, the Hawaiian bureaucrat said she’d seen a paper certificate, not that the information on it was valid to establish citizenship, or invalid to do so. But even so, at the time you could get a Hawaiian birth certificate even if born elsewhere–like Barry’s sister Maya, who was born in Indonesia. She’s got a Hawaiian birth certificate.
There are still about a dozen lawsuits to go. Obama is a fake, a phony and a fraud–just as if John Edwards became president-elect and never explained where that kid came from.
The AOL poll on this agrees:
Q: Do you think there is any merit to the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s citizenship?
Yes 52%
Official Internet Data Office (01744f) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:14 amNo 42%
Not Sure 6%
Right, AOL polls are the very essence of scientific polling.
There’s absolutely no evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.
nk’s post sums it all up just right.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:49 amThere’s absolutely no evidence that Obama was born anywhere
other than Honolulu, Hawaii.Better.
Official Internet Data Office (01744f) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:31 amI’m with nk on this one.
Look, folks, I dislike Obama as much as anyone. I think he’ll end up being a bad president. I also think that the worst things about his policies will reveal themselves fairly easily, so why not FIGHT THOSE instead of this ridiculous fantasy. If you truly believe that any of you will ever succeed in somehow removing Obama from the presidency over this birth issue, you are in serious need of mental therapy. Just drop it already, and focus your energies where they will be far more useful (fighting CardCheck, mandatory national service, nationalized healthcare, whatever).
PatHMV (653160) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:51 amPerhaps, but Juan’s (#3) does it better.
Old Coot (a8acc7) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:55 amAll of you are misunderstooding him. He has a commitment to transparency and openness. It is taking an amazing amount of personal courage to NOT release copies of his birth certificate or the details of this internal investigation of the Blago/senate seat matter. We are fortunate to have such a leader at this time in our history.
Huey (99686e) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:03 amWell, this being a law blog, let’s assume for the moment that:
What effect would the Supreme Court ruling have if Mr Obama had already been accepted as the legitimare victor and inaugurated as President of the United States?
My guess is: nothing, he’d still be the president.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:10 amTHE solution was for Obama to have given certified copies of his birth certificate to one or more of the courts to which this issue has been brought. If the court was satisfied that they had a true copy they could have ruled that Obama is 35 AND is a natural born citizen of the U.S. — end of story.
But no, we have to screw around with standing and never address the real issue. No recognized competent authority has ever seen and ruled on the merits. It would have been a short and sweet hearing. Obama would have prevailed. Even idiots have a right to go to court and to expect to see constitutional requirements upheld.
Then again, I’m the type who feels that we have to actually vote and count the votes before we know who has won an election. Unlike some who ‘just know’ and could easily dispense with the niceties.
Charles Harkins (971090) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:15 amI am troubled that we have constitutional requirements to be President but that nobody has standing to enforce those requirements. WTF is that all about, anyway? Seems that common sense would indicate that every American citizen would have not only the right but the responsibility to demand that the President Elect prove his illegibility to be President. It’s only the most important job in the world at this time in history!
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:36 amWhat effect would the Supreme Court ruling have if Mr Obama had already been accepted as the legitimate victor and inaugurated as President of the United States?
Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. says:
“. . .if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be ‘removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture.”
Official Internet Data Office (01744f) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:50 amBerg, Donofrio, Andy Martin, Alan Keyes, and other people challenging Obama on his reluctance to release his birth certificate have done so without the support of most Republicans and/or conservatives. Their cases will succeed or fall on their merits before the Supreme Court. Knowing these things are true, why the virulence toward people who would like to see these cases through and force Obama to act as if he’s not hiding something?
Is it because you think you will somehow suffer guilt-by-association with a “truther” (which only fits Berg, not the other plaintiffs) even though nobody has associated you with them due to your lack of condemnation? Why is that working among you all of a sudden? Has that stopped you from taking firm positions in the past? Did you, for example, support Obama because you were afraid people would say you were a racist if you didn’t?
Others have suggested that these challenges are cries of “WOLF!” that will fatigue the inattentive public, and that when “real” corruption or illegality in the Obama WH needs to be exposed, this controversy will be mentioned as a sleep-enducing agent advising the masses to ignore it. If that’s what you believe, consider this: There WAS fire where there was smoke when Bill Clinton and Al Gore would dissemble using lawyer lingo (“No controlling legal authority” … “I am not going to parse the statement” … “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”). Barack Obama has heretofore been more precise in his language and more secretive than Clinton was, but eight years after Slick Willie left the Oval Office in a flurry of dubious Presidential pardons “cleared” by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, you’re giving Chicago’s Obama — who has named Holder his AG — the benefit of the doubt. From my perspective, you’re the ones who are fatigued and snoozing — even before BHO takes office!
Some of you that are normally skeptical and suspicious of the accuracy of news coverage of Obama fail to acknowledge the MSM’s laziness (at best) and malpractice (at worst) in the way it has allowed editorial comment to infiltrate ostensible news reports about the challenges. Some of you — you know who you are — are still vouching for the accuracy of wire stories saying Hawaii Health honchette Dr. Chiyome Fukino stated for the record that Obama was born in Honolulu in her October 31 press release. In reality, she did no such thing. You’re so impatient to move on from this that you have switched off your media bias alarm.
And then, there’s the rest of you. The name-callers, the profane ranters, the argument-challenged flame artists. You are acting like a teenage boy so eager to prove to his knuckle-dragging BMOC friends that he’s not gay, he’ll offer to beat the next effeminate boy they encounter to a pulp — even if it’s a friend. Grow up.
Barack Obama ran on transparency. If he really meant it, he would stop playing legal games, release his Birth Certificate from 1961, and get this whole thing over with. The fact that he won’t do it indicates he’s either 1) hiding something, or 2) politically insincere. Saying “it will never satisfy them!” is not an excuse for not doing everything HE could to end it. And if he’s holding on with a death grip on this issue, imagine what’s coming the next four years. IMHO, it’s a good thing if he knows he won’t have a free ride.
L.N. Smithee (d29858) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:52 amOIDC, Veiera’s comment is silly.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:53 amL.N.Smithee, your analysis of those of us who are ridiculing the Nirthers is really quite off base.
We are ridiculing those who are getting so excited by this nonsense because of the conduct of those advocating it, because they are conspiracy nuts, because they use wild illogic and irrationality, because they invent non-existant “facts” from whole cloth as such conspiracy nuts do and not for the reasons you list.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:56 amHarkins writes “Even idiots have a right to go to court and to expect to see constitutional requirements upheld. ”
Not really. There are many constitutional provisions that have problems with standing to enforce.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:57 amL.N., Like what if Obama and his staff did something illegal in conjunction with Blago trying to sell O’s empty Senate seat? Are we to shut up and let him pass because he was elected President? What about all the Democrat trolls here who NEVER gave Bush his just due because he was elected President?
PCD (7fe637) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:00 pmSPQR, yeah but what do you expect from someone who signs his name “, J.D.?”
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:05 pmSPQR writes: “Not really. There are many constitutional provisions that have problems with standing to enforce.”
Well, I happen to think that being a registered voter should give you standing to determine the qualifications of those standing for office. Everyone I’ve read on this subject to seems to think that members of the Electoral College would have standing because they cast a ballot directly for President whereas peons like me cast our ballot for the Elector. Problem is, Electors are not known until after the election and it is legitimate to ask “What the hell would we do then?”. I think the court should recognize that Electors really do not act independently. They reflect the voters who elected them and a challenge on something as simple as this (and yet as potentially consequential) should be settled early in an election cycle. How the hell can voters, who are the basis of the whole process, not have standing as regards the candidates for whom they will be voting?
I believe that Obama is a natural born citizen. I know that would be a simple matter to settle.
No one is asking for standing to challenge a search and seizure that they have absolutely no personal involvement with. I am, and all voters are, personally involved in the selection of the President.
Charles Harkins (971090) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:15 pmHarkins, to oversimplify, the US Supreme Court precedent is to deny standing to individuals of a group so large that everyone in the country is potentially in it. There are a few exceptions ( Establishment Clause is basically it ).
SPQR (72771e) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:27 pmXrlq, it is usually a clue, is it not?
SPQR (72771e) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:28 pmIf this is not THE case for why we have & keep birth certificates, and why we have courts, then what is?
Barack Obama put his birth certicate in issue when he chose to run for the office of president of the U.S. (said to be the most powerful office in the world). Our Constitution mandates that to be president, one must be natural born.
The Courts (staffed by judges who take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution) are there to ensure that our Constitution & our laws are complied with. Why have all these judges punted when it is their duty to ensure Obama meets the Constitutional requirements?
Americans more and more and more are skeptical of and have less and less and less trust of their government. So again, why have all these courts & judges, not pubicly done there job to order Barack Obama to produce the proof?
As Justice Louis Brandies stated: “The most important political office is that of private citizen.” That is who has brought each of these lawsuits.
Justice Robert Jackson stated: “It is not the function of Government to prevent the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to prevent the Government from falling into error.” Theese citizens are attempting to do just that here, and yet everyone in gov’t seems all to willing to fall into error. Why?
Obama said he would be OPEN & TRANSPARENT. Then why has he repeatedly refused to produce his birth certificate for public examination? What is he hiding? And why is he allowing this issue to percolate? Why has he caused all these lawsuits to be filed, attorney fees to be paid and courts resources to be prepeatedly expended.
We the People, have to produce our birth certifcates for many, many, reasons, among them to get a passport.
What does Barack Obama have to hide?
Why has he continued to allow this issue & and distrust to fester, when all he had to do is simply provide his birth certificate?
Gary L. Zerman (43725e) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:34 pmThanks, Xrlq. Thanks, a lot.
It is racist and twooferish to even ask Baracky to produce his damn birth certificate and put an end to all of this nonsense.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:42 pmI see my buddy SPQR is joining Xrlq in dogging me.
JD, not the douchebag pretentious ,J.D. type (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:46 pmEt tu, SPQR ?!
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:58 pmJD, I trust that you get my point about individuals who advertise their failure to pass the bar by appending “JD” to their names, as opposed to individuals whose initials just happen to be JD.
It may or may not be racist, but it certainly is trutherish to demand a second birth certificate of a President-elect who has already provided one more birth certificate than any other candidate in recent (or all?) history, and there is no evidence that birth certificate was forged. Instead we have a bunch of ranting loons who ignore Hawaii law and claim the first birth certificate isn’t a birth certificate at all, or that it doesn’t really certify what it clearly states. That’s trutherism. I don’t blame Obama for seeing a decent chunk of his opposition making fools of themselves, and getting out of the way. If I were David Axelrod I’d have advised him to do the same.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:49 pmI was just playing with you, Xrlq.
Xrlq – Where did he produce a birth certificate?
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:52 pmNot a COLB. A birth certificate.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:52 pmThis is rich. I repeatedly claimed that Obama had met his burden of proof on his citizenship. That was never rebutted by you or anyone else.
In return, you told me I was whipped and afraid of the truth.
If anyone’s afraid of the truth, it’s those who wish to perpetuate this fool’s errand, all in the name of trying to make Obama look bad.
Steverino (69d941) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:57 pm2 separate, but related problems with this assertion here, steverino.
LN rebutted your assertions, at length, in at least one thread. And, it is not his duty to prove you wrong, as the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
Again, you speak in overly broad generalities in a dismissive manner of all that do not share the exact sentiments that you share.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 2:01 pmI agree with JD that it is ok to doubt OBama’s eligibility.
We have seen the depths of corruption Obama is involved with. Like it or not, but Obama was part of Blago’s campaign and whether he was caught or not, he was neck deep in outright lying and stealing from the people (giving a senate seat away for favors is a tremendous theft).
So I cannot simply sit here and say ‘well Hawaii says the COLB is accurate, therefore it is’. I certainly can’t say ‘well standing was denied, nothing to see here!’ I do believe that Obama was born in Hawaii because it would simply be insane for the democrats to take that kind of risk (we can assume they have seen the documents and verified them), but there is no reason to have faith in the honesty of the government.
So those demanding Obama help restore some faith by simply giving this certificate to an impartial verifier (instead of Daily Kos) are making a legitimate request. They have every reason to believe those in power are lying when they keep all the evidence behind closed doors. Releasing a COLB is basically the same thing as saying ‘we have seen the original and promise it’s legit’. Some people just won’t accept that promise and want to see what is ont he original document.
A tremendous amount of money has been spent keeping Obama’s past a secret. Why? I don’t think it’s anything as crazy as Obama being ineligible, but I deserve to know what the hell is up with this guy.
Did he really buy crack cocaine at Columbia from black panthers or whoever? Did Ayers really write a book for him before he promised they barely knew eachother? Did he really take his kids to a church after hearing the preacher was a racist crazy? Those questions are a lot more important to me than the birth certificate question (I don’t think a birth certificate could ever be a window into someone’s character), but the same ‘YOU DON’T GET TO KNOW’ attitude prevails and I am getting pretty damn sick of it. What in the hell are we going to do when Obama is accused of leaking weapons secrets to our enemies? Or spying on Republicans? With faith in the military at an all time high, and faith in the elected at an all time low, we have a recipe for disaster if Obama can’t just honor us, the citizens, with obedience to legitimate requests he isn’t happy with.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 2:12 pmJD wrote: “Xrlq – Where did he produce a birth certificate?”
Indeed, where did he produce anything COLB or birth certificate or anything else that’s routinely accepted by let’s say a state or the passport office as proof. Does he have proof? I believe he does. Why doesn’t he provide it in response to one of the court proceedings? Because HE is THE ONE. How dare anyone ask him to do something so demeaning.
I’m so foolish that I would have ordered a few gross of certified birth certificates and had them fedexed all over the place, but especially to every court in which a suit was filed as an affirmative action to prove my qualifications.
Charles Harkins (971090) — 12/18/2008 @ 2:13 pmI’m amazed by the sudden reverence some outspoken advocates of liberty have for official government documents. This country got by for many, many years before birth certificates were routinely issued, and certainly long before they were microfiched and stored safely in fireproof government vaults.
Is a fact not true if the government doesn’t certify it in an official record? One of the reasons we have standing requirements is so that people (including government officials) don’t have to waste a great deal of time proving things that there’s no actual, sound reason to question. If you don’t want to vote for Obama because he won’t release his birth certificate, fine, that’s your choice. But neither he nor anybody else should have the burden of proving something which you have no real evidence to contradict.
PatHMV (653160) — 12/18/2008 @ 3:07 pmXrlq wrote:
*Sigh*
Like most conservatives, I detest intellectual dishonesty.
A perfect example of such is the way some deliberately distort the aims of these challenges by referring to Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (created in 2007 at the request of the campaign, posted on his website, but never examined in court) as his “birth certificate,” thus failing to differentiate it from his Certificate of Live Birth, created in 1961 shortly after his birth and never seen by the general public.
You have argued in the past the Certification is prima facie evidence in a court proceeding and as such, there is no difference between a Certification and a contemporary Certificate. The MSM has done the same, as have many conservatives dismissive of the challenges.
You’re all wrong. From the Hawaii Department of Home Lands site (italics theirs, bold mine):
Your failure to specify the clear difference between the documents is striking considering that you hold the liberals that run Snopes.com to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
Let’s say just *for the sake of argument* you were satisfied that the Certification was forged, Xrlq, and you were representing someone who agreed. How would you go about dealing with the Obama’s team defense that the forgery shouldn’t see the inside of a courtroom because your client doesn’t have standing?
L.N. Smithee (d29858) — 12/18/2008 @ 3:26 pmPatHMV says: “But neither he nor anybody else should have the burden of proving something which you have no real evidence to contradict.”
Me: “Officer I’d show you my drivers license, but you don’t have any evidence to prove I’m not licensed and I shouldn’t have the burden to prove that I am licensed unless you do.”
Try getting a job now without showing your Social Security card. Knowing your number won’t cut it. Showing the little, easy to forge, piece of cheap card stock is required.
Not voting for him because he won’t release his college transcripts is fine, that’s my choice. He’s not required to go to college much less provide me with info about what he did there. Not voting for a person who refuses to show he meets the minimal qualifications for the job that are required by the Constitution is different. It is not a matter of believing he is a natural born citizen who is at least 35 years old. He either is or he isn’t and he is the one who is in possession of the evidence that shows whether he is or isn’t.
Charles Harkins (971090) — 12/18/2008 @ 3:32 pmSmithee, go back and re-read the prior threads. I dealt extensively with the “COLB is not a certificate” canard, both by citing to the relevant statutes, and by citing the the DHHL language explaining why they require the original certificate – COLB doesn’t prove Hawaiian ancestry.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/18/2008 @ 3:59 pmXrlq wrote:
It’s not a “canard.” There is a
distinction between the two documents, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend there is not. You even refer to the 1961 Certificate as a “second birth certificate.” It’s NOT “a second birth certificate,” it’s the FIRST.
When are you going to get around to addressing how you would proceed if you were convinced Obama was foisting off a forged document on the electorate?
L.N. Smithee (d29858) — 12/18/2008 @ 4:55 pmWhy dont dude just produce the damn BC. That would be the biggest STFU i’d ever seen, and then, on that issue, i’d STFU, until then….NO…
“transparency you cant see through”
slizzle (4c3b4d) — 12/18/2008 @ 5:41 pm+1 slizzle
It seems self-evident: just produce the dang thing. I’m not one to get all truther (“nirther”) on this, but what’s so hard about just producing the BC?
steve miller (a29984) — 12/18/2008 @ 5:46 pmPerhaps the reason he has not produced this documentation is that he has already produced enough documentation to prove his Hawaiian birth.
The Supreme Court has already ruled. Get over it already. Gore didn’t whine this much, do you not have any self respect?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:37 pmHa maybe Gore didn’t but you idiots have been crowing about 2000 being a “stolen election” to this day.
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:38 pmThat is one strategy.
Another might be to rise above these types of political tactics and allow his rhetoric to match his deeds about transparency and openness.
Given that the President-elect is legally qualified to be President and given that he has met his legal obligation, why not produce the Birth Certificate?
Revealing it would deliver a debilitating strike on his opponents. It would also lend credibility toward his stance on transparency. More importantly, he could begin to fashion his bond with the American People on the basis of honesty and integrity.
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:40 pmThe Supreme Court has already ruled
No, the Supreme Court did not rule. They declined two stays and one injunction, and denied a hearings. But they did not rule on anything.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:46 pmThe Supreme Court has already ruled.
No they didn’t. They refused to hear or rule on the case. Another strangely easy to refute comment. How… predictable. I’m sorry, TNJ, but I can only award 3 trollstars to this one.
The Gore comment was gratuitous and stupid. No one really cares about that.
Steve, I simply can’t break the impression that there is something embarrassing on the birth certificate. I suppose the race or religion could be noted in an inconvenient way. Or the father could be someone surprising. Who knows? I suspect it’s something Obama realizes is completely unfair to attack him with (such as a ‘white’ or ‘muslim’ on his certificate), which is why he has been so clueless about this issue.
Obama is the man who got Blago elected. We don’t trust him. Even his own campaign workers don’t trust him. He is paying a price for refusing to provide the original document, and perhaps it’s just to make fools of the truthers on the right, but I think there’s at least something being hidden. to some extent, I feel sorry for Obama on this. His certificate’s flaws are simply not his fault, and he was elected fairly.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 7:52 pmOkay… so they didn’t even think it was worth hearing. Is that better?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:02 pmNo, it’s not better. Juan is correct. You can’t assume that any of the Supreme Court justices thought anything about the merits of any case that was denied a hearing. All we know is that a hearing was denied. Maybe they’re busy with other cases. . . nobody knows.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:09 pmIt is a pretty serious charge to ignore because they were busy. That is a mighty large supposition you are making OIDO.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:14 pmActually you were not supposing anything. But, I will go one further and say that they thought it was without merit, for the reason that it is a pretty serious charge.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:15 pmSmithee:
I never denied that there is a distinction between the two. The original birth certificate contains far more information than the COLB. That’s the difference. And since both tell us everything we need to know to determine whether one is constitutionally eligible for the Presidency (as opposed to whether one is eligible to apply for benefits reserved to native/aboriginal Hawaiians), it’s no distinction at all.
What is intellectually dishonest is YOUR insistence on pretending that the short-form birth certificate, a.k.a., COLB, is not a birth certificate at all, despite having had the relevant statutes pointed out to you that make it clear that it is.
So? They have equal evidentiary weight.
After you concede that you are full of crap about birth certificates. One issue at a time, please.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:18 pm“It is racist and twooferish to even ask Baracky to produce his damn birth certificate and put an end to all of this nonsense.”
Obama can resolve this so simply! All he has to do is turn over his birth certificate to some government officials who can examine it. Maybe someone from Hawaii, since they would know that place and its Birth Certificates.
Then that official could issue a “certificate” certifying the validity of Obama’s birth, place of birth, etc…
Then Obama can scan that certificate and place it on his website for us all to see and be satisfied by.
WHY WONT HE DO THIS SIMPLE THING?
imdw (fed8bd) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:26 pmIMDW: See previous comment by XRLQ.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:28 pmBzzzzttttt. Wrong. They did not rule on the merits.
Really. Name one Court where he has presented a physical original able to be inspected.
Gore is still whining.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:30 pm“There is a
distinction between the two documents, and it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend there is not. ”
One has more information than the other. Information that is relevant to the DHHL but not relevant to the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
imdw (ff952f) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:31 pm“IMDW: See previous comment by XRLQ.”
Read my comment a bit more carefully.
imdw (ff952f) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:32 pmJunior:
No, Gore isn’t, though the rest of the country is because Bush was/is f-ing awful.
Um… Night Court? Obviously the Supreme Court thought the case was not worth hearing. This is the same court that has been heavily appointed by republican presidents. That is the end of the line. That is it. No more. It is done. Do you get it? I don’t think you do.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:33 pm\
Beee boo boo boo boo (computer noises)
Done. Read his again a bit more carefully.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:34 pmGiven that you concede he has met his legal obligation, why should he do anything more? What on earth are you arguing about? The issue is closed.
When Secretariat won the 1973 Belmont Stakes, they didn’t make him run another lap and cross the finish line a second time.
Steverino (b12c49) — 12/18/2008 @ 8:56 pmThat’s because Secretariat was a natural-born American horse.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:07 pmHow incredibly droll, OIDO.
Pons has admitted that (a) Obama is qualified to be President and (b) Obama has met his legal obligation. What else is there to decide? Why must Obama produce something that won’t prove anything already unproven?
No, he did not.
I pointed to the evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen. I pointed to the Hawaii Revised Statutes that affirm it. LN did not rebut those assertions, and has yet to post any evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, HI.
Project much, JD? If anyone disagrees with you, you are the first to call him names and dismiss him.
Okay, JD, answer this question: do you have any evidence that any COLB issued by the State of Hawaii is not proof of date and place of birth?
That should be simple enough for you to answer. I’m betting you’ll refuse, however, and try to claim I’m putting words into your mouth.
Steverino (b12c49) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:20 pmThat is obvious only to you.
He has no legal obligation to do so. Were there an obligation, he certainly has not met it, so your assumption was wrong on several levels.
steverino – I see you wish to persist in misrepresenting my positions and covering the exact same ground as always. As fun as that sounds, I will pass …
For the sake of honest argument, Baracky has not taken even the smallest of steps to even provide, by your standards, an actual BC or COLB for inspection by anyone, so the idea that he has proven anything is laughable.
Bullshit. Only with trolls, and people that appear to be being aggressively dishonest.
You can bet all you want, and you would be wrong. The COLB is what it is. Maybe Baracky could produce that. But he hasn’t. Some official said that she had seen it. The simple fact is that he could have made this all go away. Once and for all, and made all of the Clinton supporters that filed the lawsuits look like idiots. He chose not to, and at every turn, has fought doing so.
You are cool with that. Fine. Given his track record of dishonesty, I think otherwise. The law appears to be on his side, and we will never know.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:52 pmsteverino – So, how wrong were you?
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 9:52 pmSteverino, the disconnect you’re having from the other commenters appears to be that while Obama appears to have no further legal obligation to assume the presidency, there may be some moral obligation he isn’t meeting which would help save money and increase the transparency of government… and confidence in our system.
When someone says Obama ‘should’ do something, they may not be saying this as though it’s his legal requirement. It’s pretty obvious that there is no further requirement and that Hawaii officials have vouched for Obama… BUT that’s only good enough legally. Morally, with so much deep and rampant corruption surrounding Obama and government officials, and so many already proven false lies about Obama from his sychophants, that Obama has not proven anything to anyone just because an official claims something is true.
I do not think Obama was born outside Hawaii… I think that’s among the other remote conspiracy theories. But I think we’re at a unique time where there is low confidence in our government and Obama does not have the nation’s interests at heart when he lets a dubious lack of standing be the final word on this issue. He’s the one who promised transparency, and he promised that because of the exact problem he is contributing to.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:40 pmI concur.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:43 pmWe have argued this before and will not come to agreement.
The President-elect does not have to legally reveal his BC (in my humble opinion), but he would be wise to do so on at least two points:
Disclosure now will enable him to manage any embarrassing information which will almost certainly be revealed in time anyway.
More importantly, transparency is a value that he espoused (and it is a good one, in my humble opinion), perhaps the American People would like to see it happen in practice.
Certainly reasonable, although I know you disagree. What I do not understand is why you disagree. Is it because the President-elect should not have to hold himself to a higher standard than the Law?
I would be most interested in understanding your reasoning.
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:52 pmPS: I said legally qualified to be President 😉
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:56 pmPons has a great way of articulating the problem. Shouldn’t Obama do more than required? What if he were to cancel all his press conferences… would that be OK because he has no legal obligation to answer questions?
What if Congress granted him the power to do something terrible and he did it. Would that be OK just because he is within his legal rights? He was elected to a position of extreme responsibility and he simply is not living up to the office.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 10:56 pmThank you Juan, I think we are on the same page and are now expressing each other’s ideas in different ways. Your questions hit the nail on the head. I am now more interested in hearing the response to your example questions.
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:26 pmOIDO, you are correct that the Supreme Court did not rule on the substantive issues of these cases when it denied cert. However, every other court along the way did rule, with each one ruling (unanimously, if memory serves) against your crackpot theories. Why do you suppose that might be? And besides, with something as important as the Presidency hanging in the balance, don’t you think the Supremes might have found a way to work at least one of these cases into their busy schedule if they had thought there was a legitimate issue in there? They could have denied cert in Bush v. Gore, too, but no one thought for a minute that they would.
Pons, I still don’t see your point. Birth certificates come in two flavors, both of which are equally probative. Obama has already produced one. All he hasn’t produced is the longer one that contains more private family information. None of that additional information is remotely relevant to his eligibility to the Presidency, so what purpose does it serve to ask for it, other than to satisfy the curiosity of voyeurs interested in prying for prying’s sake? The State of Hawaii has already certified everything we need to know from a constitutional standpoint. Everything else on the original birth certificate is NOYFB, both legally and morally.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:19 amxrlq, your position is that, if a government official makes a claim, that is the end of the debate?
Why? We know government officials lie for Obama all the time. One of ’em resigned yesterday over one example. The issue is closed legally, and it’s more likely Vince Foster killed JFK than OBama was born off Hawaii (OK, not really, but both are remote as hell), but Obama is breaking his promise to be transparent and you don’t see a moral problem there? We need to know everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in his medical records. We need to know anything he could be blackmailed over, such as involvement with fringe groups at Columbia or drug abuse. We need to know whatever the hell he’s fighting so hard to keep secret on this certificate (which perhaps was just lost years ago and doesn’t exist anywhere… and yeah that means Hawaii officials have lied).
Government employees commit perjury all the time, so claiming the issue is closed in the absolute sense when we have only heard officials tell us they’ve seen something they could very easily just show us, is silly.
The people are bitterly divided and do not trust the government. A constitutional requirement is not being discussed in the Court because of standing. Obama’s acting guilty. It would be trivially easy for him to show us the meaning of transparency and ease fears that he isn’t eligible. Yeah, he is eligible and has no legal duty to do the utilitarian and categorical imperative duty. What is your moral framework based on that doesn’t demonstrate that Obama should tell the truth and keep his promises and lead from the front on transparency?
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:40 amHowever, every other court along the way did rule
by the way, this simply is not the case. The democrats refused to even respond to most of these cases, and standing has been a controlling issue at every level.
And I don’t really mind that too much, as our legal system would be crazy if anyone could sue the president for generalized reasons. But it does present a clear problem… The state is letting some provisions of the constitution be passive in enforcement, but not letting anyone sue (even other candidates). That is stupid. Just as letting Hillary be the Secretary of State, it sends a clear message that some are above the law. It’s stupid to not at least make an effort to satisfy every single provision. But stupid things are legal all the time, and I don’t see how the courts could have done a better job with this case.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:50 amFor whom? In what Court?
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:22 amI wonder if, on January 13, 2013, as outgoing President Barack Hussein Obama is preparing to turn over his office to his successor, President-elect Sarah Palin, we’ll still be seeing this birth certificate dead horse being beaten.
I didn’t want to see him win, either, but he did win, and that’s that. There is no mechanism save honesty which prevents a disqualified person from being elected or serving as president; if you manage to prove that he was born in Kenya, it won’t make one flaming bit of difference, because he’ll still be president.
It’s time to het over it on this question.
The Dana who has gotten over it (3e4784) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:39 amDana, you are 100% right. It’s over, from a legal standpoint and it really doesn’t matter all the much. We are a democracy and it would be a far greater tragedy for very popularly elected Obama to be ousted over something like his type of citizenship (that word’s definition is arguable anyway), that it would be for him to serve despite not being clear about this issue.
I just think he’s being a dick about it. I also think it’s not necessary to point the people upset about this as kooks and hysterics. It is a terrible thing that the constitution is basically a lie.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:47 amXrlq wrote:
Nonsense. There are 12 categories listed on the COLB and 23 on the “vault copy.” Not all of the categories pertain to Native Hawaiian lineage. Unlike the COLB, the name of the hospital is listed in the 1961 version. It’s also a signed, sworn statement that demands signatures from the attending physician and/or medical professional, the local registrar, and the parent. Why should Obama be running scared of the vault copy? Only he knows, but running scared he is.
The state of Hawaii had a purpose in naming the contemporaneous form the Certificate of Live Birth and the condensed, subsequent form the Certification of Live Birth. If they wanted there to be no titular difference, they wouldn’t have given the documents separate names. In discussing these legal challenges to Obama’s status, if you refuse to specifically make reference to the distinctions and differences between the documents every time, you aren’t telling the story accurately, because most of the cases hang on alleged divergences in the data on each document.
The MSM, when it stoops to address the challenges at all, is very careful to imply there is no distinction. For example, at PolitiFact.com (a project of the St. Petersburg (FL) Times and Congressional Quarterly), its June 2008 analysis refers to the Certification printout created in 2007 as simply the “birth certificate,” and the existence of a contemporaneous master in 1961 is not mentioned at all. This despite these chest-beating couple of paragraphs touting PolitiFact’s alleged standards:
Yup, those PolitiFact folks reeeeally dig deep. And you can’t dig much deeper than … asking around the office. The next paragraph, verbatim (bold mine):
Not helping matters is Janice Okubo, spokesperson for the Hawaii Dept. of Health, who is all over the map. In that same June PolitiFact story, Okubo referred to the website image of Obama’s Certification as “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” IsraelInsider.com, a blog operated by Obama COLB-doubters, contacted her shortly thereafter:
On October 30, 2008 she was again more careful with her words. From an article written by serial Obama suckup reporter James Janega of the Chicago Tribune: (bold, italics mine):
Janega then issues what Laura Ingraham fans call a “but monkey”:
Apparently, Okubo’s saying “it looks … the same” and Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s narrow affirmation that they have an Obama vault copy in their files was good enough for Janega to make this quantum leap regarding their opinions on the challenges reaching the Supreme Courtin a December 5, 2008 report(bold, italics mine):
“Hawaiian officials” havenot offered an opinion whether or not Obama meets the legal definition of “natural-born” (neither Okubo nor Fukino has addressed it, and neither is an attorney). Janega created that from whole cloth. On top of that, because of the imprecise language Janega and other reporters have chosen, readers of the December 5 story might presume Fukino was, in her famous press release, agreeing that the vault copy echoes what is on the COLB. She wasn’t. She legally cannot. Janega either a) doesn’t want you to perceive that fact, b) is a hack who has no business writing for a major daily paper, or c) is the victim of an editor re-writing his articles to assist Obama.
In any event, it’s really disappointing to see pundits and posters I admire ignoring media bias when it’s chewing on their cheeks, but even worse is the way truth doesn’t matter to them all of a sudden.
Which brings us back to you, X…
Once again — the COLB is not “evidence” if it is not presented as such. As the language on the bottom says, it’s prima facie in court proceedings. Obama never wants it to be entered into evidence. That Janice Okubo ‘What’s posted on Daily Kos looks like my birth certificate’ bull/horse/chicken is fine for dummies who don’t understand that no statement made affirming B-HO’s COLB authenticity has been made under oath.
Remember Joe Wilson? He was making headline-making charges against the Bush WH all over TV, got a book deal, and hit the bestseller lists. Then the Senate Intelligence Committee put him under penalty of perjury, and his story changed. If Obama doesn’t fear that kind of scrutiny, he sure is acting as if he is.
I frequently challenge people to address hypothetical situations, because it’s a good way to expose intellectual dishonesty. I asked you how you, as an attorney, would proceed if you were convinced Obama actually WAS foisting off a forged document on the electorate Your response:
“One issue at a time?” Dude, you passed the bar. If you can’t think and chew gum at the same time, spit out the gum, and answer a fair question!
L.N. Smithee (d29858) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:13 amSorry about not closing my italic tags.
L.N. Smithee (d29858) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:16 amit would be a far greater tragedy for very popularly elected Obama to be ousted over something like his type of citizenship. . .
It would be no tragedy; it’s the law. The rule is written into the Constitution, and for a reason. Besides, Obama could not be ousted from a position he technically never held, and could not hold.
If 52% of the population voted in a referendum to change the Constitution on any topic, they would, of course, fail to change anything.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:42 amOIDO, don’t get me wrong… it would be the right thing to do.
But obviously it would be a huge disaster. The country would tear itself apart and be ungovernable by Mccain (since Chairman Zero’s ticket was invalid).
It would indeed be a tragedy if this nation had elected a president that many saw as a civil rights landmark, and he was legitimately ousted.
Keep in mind that the definitions involved are not clearly defined anyway. Why is it that Obama isn’t a citizen if his mother was an American and he was born overseas? The legal oddities of that day, now defunct? It’s not actually clear that he had to be born in the USA to be an American at birth. It’s at least arguable, anyway.
Just imagine what this nation would be like, with the economic disaster, the war being a huge question mark, and race/partisan relations being absolutely destroyed in a way that makes Rev Wright and Sarah Palin look like best friends… that, my friend, would be tragic.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:54 amYeah, it would be hard. But why is it that the Constitution is hard to follow only if it’s a leftist in power? We’re told that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional & shreds the Constitution – heck, we get rulings from the Supremes that cause massive social change because those guys get it into their heads that the Constitution means something. We howl and protest – and move on. Schools are integrated & prayerless. Women have access to abortion clinics. Criminals get reminded of their rights at arrest.
Would it be so hard to say “look, you can’t be Secretary of State or President if you fail to meet the requirements of the Constitution”? How is that somehow threatening to America?
I can see how this is conflated with trutherism – the endless questions, the refusal to be satisfied. It might all be moot – maybe Bambi is a natural-born citizen. But why not just release the freakin’ original document?
steve miller (ba86f8) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:08 amFor what reason? Let me rephrase… what is your reason?
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:12 amThe constitution is kinda old… so old, in fact, that I don’t think Steve Miller’s reasoning actually came into play when the constitutional convention decided that our executive be loyal to no other nation (via the born as an American clause).
As with any other aspect of the constitution, if you think that’s a dumb clause, you can change it via the constitutional amendment process. You can’t just declare that it’s dumb and refuse to enforce is. well, I guess I’m actually wrong… they do that all the time.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:21 amWhy is it that Obama isn’t a citizen if his mother was an American and he was born overseas?
She did not meet the requirements of that time to pass on her US citizenship. For Barry to be a US citizen if foreign-born, his mom needed to reside in the US for 10 years, and for five years after the age of 14. She had only four years after the age of 14 when Barry was born.
The country would tear itself apart and be ungovernable by McCain
No, if Congress found Obama not qualified, the House would immediately choose a President from the top three qualified recipients of Electoral votes, and we don’t know that McCain was the only other person to receive at least one electoral vote.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:44 amEspecially the first ten. The current president had trouble with that.
http://www.nogw.com/lostbor.html
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:45 amTMJ, you’re just a troll & I refuse to engage with you any longer.
Be gone.
steve miller (ba86f8) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:48 amThanks, TMJ. A little moonbattery to lighten the mood is always fun. Liar.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:55 amJust refuse to engage with TMJ. He’ll go back to Nickelodeon.
steve miller (ba86f8) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:57 amOIDO, I am familiar with the law. While I would personally settle on the same definition you do, but point is that it is arguable that our definition is wrong. Nowhere else in US law is citizenship described exactly as it is in the presidential eligibility area. A lot of blogs have noted that it’s just not clear what the requirements entail.
I’m not saying there isn’t a clear answer. I’m saying that it will be easy to make a HUGE mess out of this in the minds of a huge number of Americans. I’m also not saying that this is a reason to ignore the law. I’m just saying that the consequences would be awful and NOBODY should hope that Obama is actually ineligible because it would be very bad for our country.
When I said Mccain would win in Obama’s absence I was thinking about the electoral college, which has now met and isn’t relevant anymore. Is it the case that the House can only choose among those with electors? If so, I guess I still was accidentaly right that Mccain would probably get the nod.
You do understand why he would be in an unenviable position, right? No one should want this kind of mess to befall the nation. If Obama is indeed proven to not be eligible, then that’s the way it has to be, but it will be a very sad day, even if Obama is not someone I would vote for in 1000 years.
Steve Miller, thanks for showing more restraint that I have with the egregious troll.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:04 amWhile I’m off on vacation and playing on the internet a ton more than I usually do this week (to the detriment of comment section readability all over the world!), shouldn’t truthnjustice be at school? It’s obviously the Friday before school lets out for the holiday.
Oh wait… truthnjustice admitted he was lying about being a teacher and he’s actually a university student.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:11 am“…and he’s actually a university student.”
Comment by Juan — 12/19/2008 @ 9:11 am
That is a fact that is yet to be determined.
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:24 amSee, AD, that’s just unfair. I just KNOW I’m right anyway, and I think that means I win the argument.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 9:34 amI didn’t even need to log on and I KNEW you were going to say that.
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:06 amYou guys seem to be experts on high school exam schedules. Congrats!
Here’s another one for you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory10.html
Yep, all I did was google ‘george bush and the bill of rights’ and I got all sorts of goodies. Turns our Your Savior isn’t really all he’s cracked up to be. I’ll bet Jesus wouldn’t vote for him.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:11 amNow TMJ is linking to Lew Rockwell’s site. The mind boggles.
Yet another example of what a ridiculous troll he is. Yet another link that make only TMJ look like an idiot.
What does it take for you to realize your incompetence, TMJ?
SPQR (72771e) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:20 amLew Rockwell used to be Cindy Sheehan’s boyfriend. I see no conflict here.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:29 amSmithee: still waiting for your link to the Hawaii statute that supposedly distinguishes “certificates” from “certifications.”. Don’t worry, there is no such statute. You simply made that crap up.
All other Obama truthers: just for grits and shins, let’s pretend there was a shred of evidence that BHO was born in Kenya, on Mars, or wherever the hell else you think he was born. Now take a gander at 8 U.S.C. 1401(g). Don’t skim that subsection; RTWT. Then come back and explain why you think he’s not a natural born citizen. Was Ann Dunham really not his mother? Was she not really a citizen? Had she resided less than 5 years in the U.S. (or less than 2 following her 14th birthday)? Was BHO really born before 12/24/1952? Etc.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:17 pmxrlq, I think that’s a very fair point.
But who are the truthers in here?
I don’t see (m)any.
Me, I just think Obama is giving us an indication of how immoral and above common respect for the constitution he will be. He’s a jerk, not a Kenyan. this is pretty well established, yet I keep seeing anyone who has whined about this issue labeled as a crazy kook akin to 9/11 truthers, the lowliest of the low. That’s absurd.
Something about Conservatives makes them want to prove they aren’t crazy by defending Democrats for no reason. Obama deserves all the flack he gets for this. he has to expect some people to think there is something dishonest going on when he behaves this way. That’s not my fault for expecting him to just put this to rest… it’s his fault.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:42 pmJuan – Somehow there is no middle on this issue. One is either a twoofer, or has their head jammed up their arse.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 12:49 pmThe Presidents life is open to the public (if that is an impediment, then he should not run). This is rightfully so; when one seeks the power of the Presidency – it is the price one must pay. He was not forced into this Office, he chose it. The President-elect knew this, as have all Presidential candidates. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.
A document as benign as a Birth Certificate is not unreasonable in light of the fact that millions upon millions of Americans temporarily surrender their BC almost routinely to government officials for inspection (myself included: military, employment, travel, security clearances, social security).
In his speeches, President-elect Obama has alluded to a higher and more transparent government. It is disappointing that he has chosen not to lead by example (and over such a minor point). To use your “NOYFB” term, he has decided to apply it to the whole Country; although within his legal rights, how disappointing (perhaps foreshadowing his operational philosophy of governance).
Pons Asinorum (5fa803) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:38 pmSeldom I write comments but resource really cool
piquisypsunse (65a74b) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:45 pm“Shouldn’t Obama do more than required?”
Like release a certificate from the state of hawaii? That much more?
imdw (8bb588) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:50 pmimdw, obviously, no.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 2:54 pmI proposed a solution at #53. That much more, is that ok?
imdw (8a983a) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:05 pmimdw, that’s enough for me, which is why I think the matter is closed, but it’s obviously not enough. I shouldn’t even have to explain this again. People don’t trust random officials because Obama sychophants lie and break the law. One resigned a couple of days ago for abusing her power ridiculously… and specifically to protect Obama.
The Hawaii official you’re talking about refuses to comment on the story, anyway.
Surely you realize Obama is acting suspiciously. Releasing the document to everyone who wants to look at it is basic, simple, and anything other than that, such as a legally sufficient COLB, looks like a cover-up.
I don’t think Obama is Kenyan. I don’t think him being born in Kenya would necessarily make him ineligible. I just think he is fighting very hard to avoid doing something very easy that we, the people, have a right to know: WHICH IS EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM THAT WE WANT TO KNOW.
Do you really believe that Obama couldn’t get some Hawaiian official to lie about seeing proof? I mean, it’s kinda stupid to go that route if you have the proof. There is a possibility that Obama doesn’t have the original document, and got a Hawaiian official to lie about seeing it, but the lie is basically accurate about Obama’s birth. And at this point it’s the coverup that is being covered up. I really can’t think of a better explanation.
this is Blago’s campaign leader, and a man who already has government nimrods lying about him. Of COURSE having a government official claim (and then backtrack) about his birth isn’t the best way to handle this.
Ugh. I don’t even find this scandal interesting. What’s interesting is that so many on the right are pretending those irritated about this are being irrational and paranoid conspiracy theorists. And that this is a very good indicator of how open Obama’s government will be. The easy and obvious and ‘best evidence’ is hidden, and the word of an official controls.
Obama doesn’t have any legal obligation to hold press conferences, but he has a duty to do so anyway, right? Do you disagree? He has duties beyond the law, such as disclosing all kinds of things about himself.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:17 pmTake your pick. There are a veritable cornucopia of sites devoted to Your Savior’s dismissal of the Bill of Rights.
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1115
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123765.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/12/28/bush-vs-the-bill-of-rights/
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:37 pmSeems like a double-standard coming from the back end of one of the most secretive presidencies in history.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:38 pmI would ask the same of Bush. There is no question.
I also would have voter for Hillary over Mccain… I’m not really a representative of the GOP.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:46 pmJuan, you must have missed the signs along the walkway….
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:00 pmPLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
but they’re hungry… =(
Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:28 pmAD: You don’t really feed anybody with any sort of relevent knowledge on here. I think what you meant to say it “let’s pretend Our Savior isn’t a direct hypocritical example of everything we claim to hold dear on this site”.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:43 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8gsaDdqGzA
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 4:59 pmOr maybe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz65AOjabtM&feature=related
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:01 pmWhile we are all laughing, let’s watch something that isn’t quite so funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:03 pmActually, this is MUCH more relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHlndekemtk&feature=related
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:18 pmThat has nothing to do with reality or my post, and I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. What is a troll? Am I one just because you disagree with me? Are you that exclusive in your social circles? Seems quite myopic dogmatic to me.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:23 pmTrust me, everyone else here thinks it’s funny.
I hope that every single time you post your nonsense, they post more troll related material. Until you find some other site to harass with your childish stuff, “teacher.”
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:25 pmOr, God above forbid, you quit acting like a troll.
Like that could ever happen.
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:26 pmYes, I am a teacher, but you can call me ‘sir’, EB. 😉
truthnjustice (d99227) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:27 pmRight. You betcha!
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:28 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUeSGMUK-6k
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:29 pmWay To Go, Eric!
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:32 pmHe’s just an undergraduate, AD. We all know it, and always have. Finals are over!
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:34 pm10th-grader!
Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:36 pmOver on the other thread, it attacks Republicans for not liking election results. But it was probably still in elementary school when Al Gore was playing games with ballots.
But as been said, it’s all just trollery. Did you know Sonny Bono was one of those “Troll” movies? Such bad movies that they are funny.
Sort of like…well, you know….
Eric Blair (e906af) — 12/19/2008 @ 5:40 pmXrlq, still dodging telling how he would act if he DID believe Obama’s COLB was a forgery, wrote:
The only one ‘making up crap’ is you.
I never said suggested there is a “statute that … distinguishes ‘certificates’ from ‘certifications'”, and you know it. What I am saying — and illustrated in detail in my last post — is that people like you who want to stop the challenges in their tracks are more than happy to confuse the issue by 1) misstating the arguments of the plaintiffs and 2) using language designed to deceive regarding the nature of the two different birth documents.
L.N. Smithee (55a4ed) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:14 pmSmithee, I know you never said there was a statute to back up your frivolous position that a “certification of live birth” is not a birth certificate. You simply made that crap up out of whole cloth. I’ve cited the statutes proving the opposite, which you ignored, but in fact, any dictionary would have sufficed. “Certificate” and “certification” are both based on the same root word, “certify.” Either the State of Hawaii “certified” the facts stated in the COLB, or it didn’t. If it did, the act of producing the document was a “certification,” and the resulting document itself was a “certificate.” If it didn’t, there was neither a certification nor a certification; in which case it would have been extremely odd for the state to have titled the document “certification” even though it hadn’t actually “certified” anything.
If it makes you happy, I’ll answer your question even though you have yet to produce any support at all for your position on the birth certificate you refuse to call a “birth certificate” even though Hawaii law refers to it as a “birth certificate.” If I thought the COLB was forged, I still wouldn’t take any of these goofy cases unless I had reason to believe that Ann Dunham wasn’t really his mother, or that she wasn’t really a citizen at the time of his birth, or that he was actually born before December 24, 1952. Another statute I linked to, which you apparently ignored. Why do I even bother?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:28 pmThose of you defending the alleged citizenship of that foreigner will receive the official John McCain Spirit of Bipartisanship Award.
Official Internet Data Office (64a689) — 12/19/2008 @ 6:54 pmIn order for anyone to state categorically that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, you’d have to believe that the Secretary of State (or whatever governing body qualifies candidates) of each and every state in the US either forgot to check his qualifications before putting him on the ballot or willfully allowed him on the ballot without checking (or in spite of checking).
Do you really believe that there isn’t a single Secretary of State that wouldn’t have done everything within the power of his office to stop Obama from getting on the ballot if Obama were not qualified?
Do you believe that every single state government is so inept or so corrupt? We’re talking beyond X-Files levels of conspiracy.
Steverino (b12c49) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:27 pm1) Can you point to one single person on this thread that has suggested that Baracky is not a natural born citizen?
2) Is there any evidence that even 1 Secretary of State checked his qualification before placing him on a ballot. Is there even one state that asked him to produce any type of documentation? S
o, basically what I am saying is that you are arguing with positions not held by others here … again.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:33 pmSteverino, it’s actually worse than that. See my comment above citing 8 U.S.C. 1401(g). For BHO not to be a natural born citizen, he’d not only have to have been born abroad; he’d also have to have been born a decade earlier than he was. All this assumes, of course, that even the Obama-truthers are not too far detached from reality to admit that Ann Dunham really was his mother. If we channel Andrew Sullivan and argue that she faked a pregnancy to cover for Kenya’s answer to Bristol Palin, all bets are off (or, to torture another dead horse, such incident would constitute a malfunction voiding all pays and plays).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:39 pmJD:
Yes, unless your working definition of “person” entails some minimum IQ. In which case, no.
Yes. Aside from the COLB itself – a certification in its own right – we have the statement by Fukino confirming that the original birth certificate is on file, and that the COLB we’ve all seen is valid. Not that it matters, anyway, as his mother’s U.S. citizenship would make him a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:44 pmXrlq – I stand corrected. Why all the hostility?
As for #2, who did he submit the COLB to so he could get on the ballot? Did a Secretary of State actually ask for that in order to get him on the ballot. You gave me your stock answer about the COLB, which is not really what I asked.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:47 pmXrlq’s point is that the Nirthers are engaging in a huge group masturbation. No matter how many all caps sentences they write, this nonsense goes nowhere.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:48 pmOf course Obama is a natural-born citizen. But of which country?
Official Internet Data Office (64a689) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:53 pmI know his point, SPQR. And he is right.
I just think that he and steverino go overboard in their black and white, we are right you are truthers, every SOS must have been in on it, ranting.
All I asked was if there is anything to suggest that SOS across our great land actually did what steverino suggested, vetted him if you will, to see if he is actually eligible for their ballot. I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.
Baracky has done everything in his power to not produce anything, and has been 100% successful to date. No chance that he was going to cough up a BC or a COLB for the SOS of Indiana, for example.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 7:56 pmYou are correct, JD, that no one “vetted” him. Its just not going to matter.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:04 pmSPQR – Again, I concur.
Reminds me of the guy in Catch Me If You Can.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/19/2008 @ 8:09 pmXrlq wrote:
W-R-O-N-G!
Dr. Fukino did not confirm “that the COLB we’ve all seen is valid.” As I wrote in my reply this morning that you ignored, she can’t confirm it.
Who says so? The department’s spokesperson, Janice Okuno, who cited H.R.S. § 338-18. Even an Obama suckup reporter acknowledged that two days prior to Dr. Fukino’s press release:
Fukino confirmed Hawaii DOH is in possession of Obama’s vault copy. She did NOT comment whatsoever on the COLB. But due to sloppy/lazy/biased reporting and the failure to constantly differentiate the documents, some people (and you know who you are) have been given that impression.
If you seriously want to put this whole thing to rest on merit, spend more time fact-checking and less time name-calling.
L.N. Smithee (55a4ed) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:00 pmXrlq finally wrote:
So you’re on record now, X. Even if you DID actually believe Obama was committing fraud on the electorate with a forged Certificate of Live Birth, you would still consider legal challenges to his eligibility “goofy,” and would do nothing to impede a person of such dubious character from being made our Commander-in-Chief and “Leader of The Free World.”
Got it. Thank you!
L.N. Smithee (55a4ed) — 12/19/2008 @ 10:29 pmOops! I meant “Certification.” 🙂
L.N. Smithee (55a4ed) — 12/19/2008 @ 11:34 pmJD:
I’m sure you’re right. I’m equally sure that every SOS didn’t vet John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Guiliani or Fred Thompson that year. Or John Kerry, Howard Dean or George Bush four years earlier. Or Al Gore four years before that, etc. So why make an issue of the fact that they didn’t do in BHO’s case something they rarely if ever did in anyone else’s?
Smithee:
For those incapable of putting two and two together, I suppose that’s right. I’m not such a person myself. Following your own link (the one that reads “did not” but actually points to what she did), you’ll note that she specifically confirmed having personally seen and verified his original birth certificate (that would be the only one you truthers acknowledge as a “birth certificate,” inconvenient Hawaii statutes notwithstanding) which was on file with the Department of Health. In that same statement, she also confirmed that BHO’s records had been handled by the state according to their normal procedures, with no state official from the governor on down having requested they be treated differently. That leaves only three options open for the COLB:
The COLB was forged.
Hawaii has a standard policy of issuing COLBs that falsely claim to be “certifications” even though they don’t really certify anything, and which falsely state that the individual was born in Hawaii, despite having on file an original birth certificate that proves otherwise.
The COLB is a valid certification by the State of Hawaii that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
If your position is that the COLB was forged, then by all means, let’s see the evidence to support that. However, I’m not clear as to why you wasted so many ones and zeros arguing over the supposed distinction between “certificates” and “certifications,” if the real issue was between genuine documents and forged ones. A forged document, whether it purports to be a COLB, an original birth certificate or anything else, “certifies” nothing.
If your position is that Hawaii knowingly and routinely issues documents falsely claiming that individuals were born in Hawaii even though they have the original document to prove otherwise, then you’re an incurable loony, and my only hope for you is that someday you might become a liberal and start discrediting them instead of us.
If your position is that the COLB is valid and not fraudulent (either on the part of the State of Hawaii or the Obama campaign), then you must concede I was right to deduce from Ms. Fukino’s statement that the COLB was indeed accurate. Failure to so concede indicates a failure to reason on your part, not laziness on mine or the MSM’s.
Actually, no, you didn’t get it, and probably never will. I’ve already cited to “it” several times, and each time you simply ignored “it.” By “it,” of course, I mean 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), which makes it clear BHO would be a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.
Character is a whole ‘nother matter. If it turned out that BHO knowingly presented a fraudulent document to the electorate, then I agree that that would prove he had horrible character. [It would also prove that he’s an idiot, as he had nothing to gain by fraudulently claiming to be a natural born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) if he actually was one under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), and both kinds are equally eligible to the Presidency.] As one who questioned his character early on, voted early, encouraged everyone I knew to vote against him, volunteered for local party efforts, and took Election Day off to volunteer for McCain’s legal team, I resent your claim that I would “do nothing to impede a person of such dubious character from being made our Commander-in-Chief and ‘Leader of The Free World.'” Quite the contrary, I did everything I could within the boundaries of the law to prevent that very individual from becoming President, and intend to do the same four years from now (or sooner, if he commits an impeachable offense in the interim). But you’re asking me to go outside the bounds of ethics and the law, and support frivolous lawsuits aimed at keeping him out of office under specious, untenable theories. That I will not do, and I resent the implication that I should.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/20/2008 @ 5:50 amThere aren’t just standing problems, but justiciability too:
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm
“The 2008 election cycle has been a busy one for legal disputes over the qualifications of presidential candidates, with federal cases having been filed to challenge both major candidates’ eligibility under the “natural born Citizen” clause. These cases unquestionably present vital questions of constitutional law, touching on matters of self-evident national importance. It is doubtful, however, that they are justiciable in lower federal courts. Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date. “
imdw (eb523c) — 12/20/2008 @ 1:30 pmGood point, IMDW. I considered bringing up justiciability and/or political question myself, but didn’t fancy the thought of Smithee’s head exploding.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/21/2008 @ 4:26 amHaving had fraudulent documents filed in a county recorder’s office on my mortgage loan so that some foreclosure lawyers could scam a piece of property due to a potential bankruptcy I was facing (land fraud is also a reason some of these foreclosures are going on, there are quite a few speculators in the boom Sunbelt states that operate in good and bad economies) politics and power bring out the worst in people, and just because there is a certificate, there has been some dispute compared with others filed within the same time frame. We have a Rule of Law and there was a reason for that provision – so that whoever led this nation’s loyalty would be to this country, and no other. Obama even campaigned in Europe, for goodness sake, and has espoused also his support for global agendas that truly are questionably in this country’s best interest with our economy now in the toilet (and for which he obtained campaign financing from quite a few of those supposed “bankrupt” financial concerns – seems the U.S. citizens are actually paying for the costs of the 2008 election campaigns for those candidates and Congressional members whether they supported them or not – the newest scam around the campaign finance laws).
The electoral college should not certify any election until those technicalities are addressed, especially if challeged, and before any candidate is included in any ballot throughout the country. If he technically cannot hold office, than none of his actions during the next four years would be Constitutional, and he would be a ursurper, and also would prevent the charge of treason or complicate impeachment proceedings. He also is swearing on the Constitution itself to uphold it, so if a pretender is not duty bound to so do and can trash it at will (sort of like Bush). His national health care plan is already outside the limits of federal authority, so if he was a Constitutional lawyer, doesn’t seem to me he’s read it.
Betsy Ross (d8ab22) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:45 pmAs far as standing, any U.S. citizen can bring suit, since these individuals are representatives of the people, bottom line. The Supreme’s bent again to political pressure instead of doing their job – as they more and more seem to do – they are even now using international cases in order to come to their decisions so the globalism agenda has seeped into the Court also. They’ve given foreigners “standing” to sue in our courts, which is definitely outside the provisions of the Constitution, and now denied a valid U.S. citizen’s petition for review. They are just as treasonous as Bush/Cheney and the lot of them have been the past fifty years.
Betsy Ross (d8ab22) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:48 pmBoth the Supremes and progressive administrations have made the Constitution not worth the parchment is is written on…..and there are now quite a number of mighty pissed off Americans, myself included. That bailout bill did it for me, and the continuing unconstitutional War in Iraq, and this last election between two questionably Constitutionally eligible candidates. And the circus this election became from the outset.
Betsy Ross (d8ab22) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:50 pmBetsy Ross: (1) the electoral college has already certified the election. (2) the election is required to be resolved in some fashion or another before January 20. (3) your description of the standing rules is not consistent with what the Court has said on the issue consistently for over two centuries.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/16/2009 @ 3:58 pmBetsy Ross, you obviously know nothing about standing. It’s not a question of whether you’re a citizen or not, but whether the alleged violation injures you in a way that sets you apart from the general public. Even if there were a shred of merit to the notion that BHO isn’t a natural born citizen – which there isn’t – the only person who would have standing to challenge the violation would be John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. Those three can point to offices they don’t hold now, but might well have held if BHO had been kicked off the ballot. No one else can, with the possible exception of some unknown individual who can prove HRC would have chosen him/her/it as a running mate.
All this assumes that courts would entertain a challenge like this in the first place. More likely they would not, leaving it instead up to the Electoral College and the political branches to decide who is or isn’t a natural born citizen. If that issue ever legitimately comes up. Which it didn’t this time, or just about any other time anyone has raised it in the past (Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, John McCain, etc.).
As to the “unconstitutional War in Iraq,” kindly identify the part of the Constitution that says “the United States shall fight no war in Iraq,” or admit that between this and your birther nonsense, you’re a constitutionally illiterate crank who is not worth listening to.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 1/17/2009 @ 6:26 am