Debra Medina, Take 2
[Guest post by DRJ]
Earlier this week, Texas GOP Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina made news in a Glenn Beck interview when she refused to condemn 9/11 conspiracies.
Now we learn that, later that same day in an interview with Victoria station KAVU, Medina reportedly said that while she believes Muslim terrorists flew into the Towers and the “U.S. government didn’t put them up to it,” it was still healthy to question. Then, unbelievably, Medina brought up “the birth certificate thing”:
MEDINA: “The 9/11 Commission report, you know, great sections of that are redacted and are Top Secret. That makes us all wonder ‘Well, what’s happening back there?’ The same is true with the birth certificate thing. I think it’s healthy that people are asking questions.”
— DRJ
I am a birther – but then again who would voe for me anyway 🙂
AS far as Obama – my statement is – they questioned McCain – even took it to court. They questioned my daughter to attend West Point – we had to send for several certified copies of the original birth certificate
but the commander in chief – who has a foreign father for the first time in almost 200 years whose mother was overseas until just shortly before he was born – who lived much of his early life overseas – we cant ask to see his certified birth certificate.
I’m not concerned that Medina is a birther – there are degrees of birtherism – mine stems more from simple payback for his lying in his book and his handling of Ryan and McCain with legal challenges to their private lives and McCains birth.
Its the Petard thing – you try to embarass or de-legitemize your opponents while saying you are mister clean – hey – right back atcha fella –
EricPWJohnson (fef99c) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:22 amShe’s nuttier than a Chinese chicken salad.
Mike LaRoche (349322) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:55 amI’m not a birther … but I do want to know why Our President has gone to such a great effort to keep his birth certificate and his college records sealed.
What’s in there that he doesn’t want us to see?
Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:03 amWell her math skills are not all that great either
“My Great Great Grandfather fought in the first Texas Revolution”
She missed that by a couple of generations or more and she is saying something about the United Nations taking away our guns…..
This is on HER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE
Goofy goofy goofy
http://www.medinafortexas.com/gunOwnership.php
EricPWJohnson (fef99c) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:41 am“I am a birther ”
I operate on a definition similar to yours, not so similar to Mike G’s. I consider anyone not satisfied by the information up at places like snopes.com is a birther.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:44 amShe won’t get elected. But unless she decides to withdraw sooner rather than later, until the day of the primary election her name will show/scroll on all TV clips with the (R) as this one does, she will be printed in the Republican column on the ballot, and she will be more tea party fodder for lefty bloggers and Newsweek magazine. Since I live in a blue state, for practical reasons I’m more of a big tent defender than some because I understand that candidiates should at least attempt to reflect their districts.
However, Medina’s level of big tent is not good.
elissa (c7cd60) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:06 amConspiracy theories never die, they never get resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and they are corrosive. They are best confined to cocktail party and bar stool discussions, not political campaigns.
Nationwide, Medina’s campaign really is a cautionary tale for Republican primary voters to make sure they check out all of a candidates’ positions if that candidate is new to the political field before they throw their wholehearted support behind them.
Any candidate with tea party connections who makes gaffes like Medina has made in the past three days after they win the GOP nomination will not only kill their own campaign, but given the big media’s hatred for the tea parties and the people to supported them, they will become the official national face of the tea party movement and one of the country’s main conservative voices even if they’re running for the most isolated state elected positions or House seat in the nation (and, yes, if you don’t think the liberal big media wouldn’t love to suddenly announce right before the general election that 9/11 Truthers are all conservative activists despite the left’s championing of that claim for the past seven years, you’re either naive or in complete denial).
John (d4490d) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:25 amI agree with Mike G. The president was editor of the law review for goodness sake but we’ve never seen anything he’s written. The MSM went all the way back to when George Bush was in the National Guard for info. Sheesh.
Greg (96474e) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:51 am“The president was editor of the law review for goodness sake but we’ve never seen anything he’s written. ”
Yeah when will he ever publish a book or something.
imdw (085706) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:56 am“I consider anyone not satisfied by the information up at places like snopes.com is a birther.”
Wow, Snope.com, that’s a real clincher for all of us I’m sure.
This my friends is why we have the current POTUS in office. There was no vetting of the man, his credentials, or his background life story. What actually qualifies him to run for POTUS, much less be elected?
Just asking. And please no Snopes.com links.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:01 amThe Michael Moore wing of the Dems spouted all sorts of nut-job conspiracy nonsense. Yet, for some reason, that was considered all part of normal political discourse and Moore himself was given a place of honor at the Democratic convention.
Until the GOP invties Orly Taviz to sit next to Bush41 at the next Republican convention, I’m not gonna worry too much.
And I never did see any left-wing posters on any sites distancing themselves from Moore-style trutherism. So I feel zero responsiblity to say bad things about the birthers now and I’m contemptuous of anybody on the left who expects me to.
Subotai (4204ac) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:06 am#10
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:08 am“Prove me wrong” not “I can prove I am right” is the tactic of any conspiracy theorist.
“The president was editor of the law review for goodness sake but we’ve never seen anything he’s written. ”
Yeah when will he ever publish a book or something.
Comment by imdw
Two autobiographies by the age of forty does seem quite an achievement. On the other hand, the editor of the Harvard Law Review never published a scholarly article. I wonder why they elected him editor ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:12 amI’ll wait for one not ghost-written by Bill Ayers.
Old Coot (ddf8be) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:22 amA simple question:
After reading these comments or any number of other web site logs and comments:
Would any of you have ever thought this would be the commentary and conversation 1 year into this POTUS term?
Every thing that is posted these days is about the POTUS. And I believe that most of it now is posted in disbelief It’s almost surreal. It’s Through the Looking Glass surreal.
We are in a very bad place right now.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:38 am“Wow, Snope.com, that’s a real clincher for all of us I’m sure.”
You’re getting at it, but a little upside down. The information on there about this birther business is very basic. Which is why it makes it a good litmus.
“I’ll wait for one not ghost-written by Bill Ayers.”
Oh yes. I forgot this piece of wingnuttia. And how could I? Indeed we should drive away the birthers like red state, but this? completely acceptable.
“On the other hand, the editor of the Harvard Law Review never published a scholarly article. I wonder why they elected him editor ?”
Because he edits. He got his next job based upon the recommendation that a conservative scholar made — made on the basis of how Obama contributed to his article while editor of the law review. There’s a frontline piece on his harvard law days:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
Seen it?
imdw (22078e) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:57 amEditors of Law Reviews often do not publish themselves. They oversee the operation of the Law Review. The title is what is important to them. Harvard’s Law Review is larger than most because Harvard Law is a very big school. I think it operates in a fashion slightly different than other schools, with the Editor picked not so much based on scholarly merit, but more based on popularity among the members. Hugh Hewitt has a regular fill-in host, Carol Platt Lebow, that was a member of the Harvard Law Review at the same time Obama was Editor, and she has stated publicly that THE reason for his selection was that he was popular and everyone understood they would be electing the first AA Editor of the Harvard Law Review. She has said that she is not claiming he was unfit or unqualified to be Editor, just that everyone knew his selection was Politically Correct.
shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:05 amYou’ll also see that at that frontline piece he was thought to be good with conservatives, able to reach across the aisle and make common bonds.
I think he’s sorely mistaken if he thinks the house GOP is anything like those law review conservatives.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:10 amActually, I feel more hopeful about change than I have in a year, given Obama’s plummeting popularity. For the first time in his career, he’s got no one to cover for him and no excuses. This should be a very enjoyable November.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:10 amHey urdw, nice dance around the issue. When is your man going to answer any questions about his scholarship, or background without the assistance of a legal team. Why is it so important to POTUS to keep this in a safe place known only to ???
Why the dance? I don’t hear the music.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:11 am#3, Mike G, asked, “What’s in there (on Obama’s birth certificate and in his college records) that he doesn’t want us to see?
Birth certificates list the father’s name, and college records show who paid the tuition. Obama doesn’t want that information made public.
ropelight (4b5454) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:13 am“When is your man going to answer any questions about his scholarship, or background without the assistance of a legal team.”
What do you mean “his scholarship”? He never wrote any scholarly works.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:14 am“What do you mean “his scholarship”? He never wrote any scholarly works.”
imdw – We can see the evidence every time he mangles his understanding of the Constitution or a Supreme Court decision that he has none.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:20 amScholarship: noun–academic study or achievement;learning of a high level, etc.
I meant his grades at columbia or wherever and his those at Hahahahavahd. And his papers, theses, etc. I’m pretty sure those have been asked for and denied, along with those from the people in Hawaii re: his COLB certificates. What’s the BFD?
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:28 amI think the Birther thing is nonsense, but I’ve yet to hear a credible reason for why his grades are still under lock and key.
How about it, immmmdmmwww? Why on earth are his Harvard records still unsealed – after all, he’s the farking POTUS, for goodness sakes.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:33 am“imdw – We can see the evidence every time he mangles his understanding of the Constitution or a Supreme Court decision that he has none.”
Yeah who does this guy think he is ? some sort of teacher of law or something?
imdw (de7003) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:33 am“Yeah who does this guy think he is ? some sort of teacher of law or something?”
A fraud if you look at the course outlines and final exams that are available online.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:37 amWell he used to think so when he was a lecturer. And when he was spouting off in the SOTU message saying that he thought the SCOTUS didn’t interpret things the way he and the rest of the Liberals wanted it.
Regardless of those inane comments, why doesn’t he just come clean with us and respond as an elected representative of this country should?
Is he above the rest of us? Is he too elite for us mere citizens to understand his mission? OR Is he a complete and utter fraud?
I think the answer is the latter.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:43 amCarol Platt Lebow, that was a member of the Harvard Law Review at the same time Obama was Editor, and she has stated publicly that THE reason for his selection was that he was popular and everyone understood they would be electing the first AA Editor of the Harvard Law Review. She has said that she is not claiming he was unfit or unqualified to be Editor, just that everyone knew his selection was Politically Correct.
Comment by shipwreckedcrew
Exactly ! Obama has ridden the last wave of affirmative action to the top. The sad part is that there are black scholars and achievers whose efforts will come to naught or to less than they should because his failures will color everyone else who comes after for a generation.
Nobody will talk about it, of course, but the kids in college right now will pay for this left wing instant wish fulfillment that is going on.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:52 amI think it is interesting that it was Glenn Beck who smoked out these goofy notions she had.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:53 amEverytime I see her name I think of Debra Kadabra. That could be a good slam name for her I guess.
ms. docweasel (b970ac) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:53 am“A fraud if you look at the course outlines and final exams that are available online.”
Here’s what some other law profs have said about his exams and materials:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom/
Who says he’s a fraud?
imdw (89ba95) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:54 amOff topic
And I must ask why you think it is nonsense. I’m not completely convinced one way or the other. All I hear is that Birthers equate to Truthers (9/11 conspiraicies). Or that the MSM thinks the Birthers are nutjobs. Please inform us if you know something else.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:56 amObama is not eligible to the office of the presidency since he is not a natural born citizen (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). He is a fake, a phony, and a fraud. Years from now, he’ll be seen as an incompetent, radical anomaly who used racial preferences and quotas to build a resume, and then lied his way into the Oval Office.
Other than that, all I have to say is Quo Warranto. It was filed January 25, 2010.
Have a nice day!
Official Internet Data Office (279020) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:02 am[…] “Kadabra” Medina By docweasel The continuing adventures of I think of Debra Kadabra. Earlier this week, Texas GOP Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina made […]
Debra “Kadabra” Medina « docweaselblog (d9a4c0) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:04 amIt is telling that you rely upon a NYTIMES article published in 2008 to defend what your ONE won’t say himself. After all, he has his own website(s) to state and defend specifically what his critics are saying about him.
This is transparency? He’s opaque–not black or white. He’s half-honkey, all Donkey
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:09 amMedina reportedly said that while she believes Muslim terrorists flew into the Towers and the “U.S. government didn’t put them up to it,” it was still healthy to question.
It’s only “healthy to question” if the question pertains to something full of ambiguity and contradictions. 9-11? That’s about as ambiguous as the question of whether the sun is hot and the Pope is Catholic.
Leftwingers (or “progressives”) tend to be the ones who, more times than not, are severely lacking in common sense. But that mental defect can impact rightwingers too.
Mark (411533) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:29 amI think the Birther thing is nonsense, but I’ve yet to hear a credible reason for why his grades are still under lock and key.
Unlike 9-11, there are peculiar, non-obscure discrepancies surrounding the background of the current occupant of the Oval Office. And I’m not even including his close relationship with people like Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright. When someone is surrounded by as many flakes and flakiness as Obama is, ambiguity and contradictions are a given.
Mark (411533) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:37 am“It is telling that you rely upon a NYTIMES article published in 2008 to defend what your ONE won’t say himself. ”
What? Someone mentioned his exams and outlines. There they are. Did you read it?
“Have a nice day!”
Et tu oido?
imdw (3e65cb) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:50 amI quite agree. The White House staff is a paradigm case. And I’m surprised at the silence (on this comment blog) of his defenders now, i. e., imdb.
The ignorance of a majority of the U.S voting citizenry was a mind-blowing experience for me. And it showed me that we are just a few years away from a complete loss of liberty, should this cancer persist.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:56 amDo I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii? Yes.
Do I also believe there is a problem with his “original” birth certificate? Yes.
If you research Hawaiian law (HRS0338) you will find the statute that deals with children born outside the “territory or State of Hawaii” and how parents can obtain a “Hawaiian” birth certificate for those children.
You will also learn that Hawaii has a number of different types of birth certificates; a Certification of Live Birth and a Certificate of Live Birth. The Certification of Live Birth as first revealed on DailyKos, cannot be used when native Hawaiians are seeking certain benefits and the Hawaiian state web site recommends providing the Certificate of Live Birth in order to now slow down the process.
I also want someone to tell me why DailyKos, and not the Obama administration itself, was the first to publish Obama’s short form birth certificate (the long form includes the hospital and attending physician). Why did the copy provided by DailyKos pop up two days prior to the StopTheSmears website showing the exact same copy?
If the Obama campaign provided the copy to DailyKos, why? Why not provide it to a main stream media outlet like, perhaps, the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune?
I also want to know why Obama has spent millions in lawyer’s fees in court fighting the release of the “original” birth certificate (which would include the name of the hospital and attending physician)? What was the point; just allow the release of the damn thing and take a “gotcha” against the “birthers”?
And if you read the statements of Dr. Fukino on Obama’s birth certificate, she simply says that the State of Hawaii is in possession of the “original” bc. She does not state it shows he was born in Hawaii.
And what about those university records that he ordered sealed? And his Illinois Senate records that the Illinois Senate historican says were never turned over to him as is standard practice? Why does the Dunaham/Soetoro divorce petition list TWO children, one over the age of 18? Since when do you list the children of former marriages in a divorce decree when they are over the age of 18? Why did it not say “and one child, over the age of 18, from Mrs. Soetoro’s previous marrige”? Did Lolo Soetoro adopt Barack in order to enroll him in a Jakarta school?
You see, I have a problem with a man who promises all this transparency, yet his own life is anything but transparent.
retire05 (bab000) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:01 amsource?
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:04 amI’m not a birther… but, yeah actually I am.
Gasp! I’ll bet it lists his race as a terrorist! Is that what you’re implying? Or is it that he got a B in economics his sophomore year and that just doesn’t stack up to your standards for a U.S. president (see: Palin, Sarah college record).
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:12 amI have heard this before, and the relevant question is: on such birth certificates, what is listed for the city of birth?
This is not relevant. The qualifications for the office of President are not the same as those for Hawaiians seeking certain benefits from the state.
Why is the long form more probative? All Obama has to prove is his age and citizenship from birth, both of which could be ascertained from the date and place of birth, which both appear on the short form.
Actually, that’s not true
If you want to get really picky, you can read Hawaii’s laws regarding statements like this from the department of health: they are considered every bit as valid as a paper birth certificate.
Some chump (d97978) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:15 amI should read what–please inform me when B.HUSSEIN.OBAMA, the love of your life, actually publishes his own sh!te. I’m really into reading/seeing first-hand evidence, not some other BS.
URDW, you and your other buds really amaze me. Gullible is not the right term. Too tame. Willfully ignorant, I think that’s it. Willful because you think you are on a mission. And Willfully ignorant because you do not, repeat, do not ever want to have your pre-conceived ideas, or mission, tripped up or messed with the facts.
You people remind of the commies that I used to know. And you probably are the same mind-set.
My old and fun slogan was Kill A Commie For Mommy. I guess that suits me now too.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:16 amComment by fgmorley — 2/13/2010 @ 10:16 am
Communism? Did Karl Marx specifically discuss birth certificates? Write back soon!
thanks!
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:23 amEt tu oido?
Quo warranto?
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:47 amfgmorley, Birthers relationship to 9/11 Truthers is that both make up “facts” without any foundation, and won’t budge from them no matter how often rebutted. Its a similar mental disorder requiring one to be in possession of “secret knowledge” to feel more important.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:51 am@39 imdw — What? Someone mentioned his exams and outlines. There they are.
False. The blog cited by you and the related article had zero excerpts or samples of his writing; no grade or transcripts of any kind.
Did you read it?
Yes; did you?
—
I was so eager to read some of the writings of President Obama as a law student/teacher that I immediately went to the link. It was a blog.
The blog cited had zero references or citations regarding his writings and offered solely opinions. No matter, the related article was cited and I browsed there quickly.
The related article contains stories and praise for then student Obama. It had no objective data (such as grades) or any excerpts of his writing; nor samples of his work at the law review. Here is an excerpt of this article:
This was the second paragraph, but it goes on; three pages of this kind of fluff and zero facts of a pertinent nature. Rather than allow the reader to make his own judgments, it seems that hiding behind anecdotes and substituting the opinions of others is preferable than actual facts.
Those that cite this article as “evidence” of his grades, work, and writing are perhaps desperate to present the President as transparent, and simultaneously, as a brilliant scholar without actual reference to his works.
President Obama’s lack of transparency and honesty is his typical behavior. His inexperience as a manger, inability as a leader, and incompetence as a planner are emerging as inescapable conclusions.
Pons Asinorum (f6829b) — 2/13/2010 @ 10:51 amThanks for your response to my questions. I didn’t think that not having the facts or evidence constituded a mental disorder. I was just asking whether the COLB ( Certificate of Live Birth) had actually been produced and is someone’s hands, or whether it had been an online (prone to forgery) document.
Hey if you know that to be a fact and the truth, then so be it.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:01 amDear unIntelliology,
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:06 amKarl and I were buds and he told me you full of it. He also reminded me to say that you can’t win with the brainpower you have going now. Sorry. Pass it on to your attorney buddies.
fgmorley, another common element between Birthers and 9/11 Truthers is the obsessive repetition of irrelevant faux “facts”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:10 amGot to love that. How’s that Hoax and Chains working for you now?
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:12 amSo… What you’re saying is that communism never really addressed birth certificates and your likening this situation to communism is total bunk?
Kbye!
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:13 amAnother bedfellow of nuttiness to match Birthers and 9/11 Truthers are those that claim that the August 01 PDB warned of an “imminent” Al Queda plot to “use planes as weapons”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:17 amHere’s what some other law profs have said about his exams and materials:
You were asked a direct question about why he’s adamantly opposed the release of his transcripts from Harvard. Please answer.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:20 amWe’ve already had this conversation, SPQR. You are claiming victory by semantics. I disagree, and that makes me a liar. And the world keeps on turning.
I claimed that Bush was warned of these attacks and somebody (it may have been you) provided a link proving my case. Next topic.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:20 amSorry , what are the faux facts that you or I are referring to? I am just asking for the POTUS to produce the COLB. Is that a faux fact? Or is that something that is not producible. Or is that something that does not and never will exist? Just askng.
I have seen the online replicas of an ad stating the birth. I havealso seen a document (online) that says he was a birth child. I’m only asking about the documents that you and I have to present for whatever. I can produce mine. Whay can’t he produce his?
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:22 amI didn’t think that not having the facts or evidence constituded a mental disorder. I was just asking
Sure, you have no facts or objective sources for your rants, you’re just asking questions. Oldest and lamest dodge in the book – either provide actual objective proof of your inane speculations or get another supply of lithium.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:23 amIt’s a mistake to casually lump wacky 9/11 truthers like Debra Medina, Van Jones, Michael Moore and Ron Paul with so-called birthers. These are two completely different, unrelated topics. Besides, some of the wackiest and contrived theories in America today are coming from Keynesian economists, and they do real damage.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:24 amI was just asking whether the COLB ( Certificate of Live Birth) had actually been produced and is someone’s hands . . .
The birthers are so tiresome. Yes, Obama’s birth certificate was produced and examined and the results have been posted online for all to see. Yet, because birthers suffer from a mental illness that prevents them from budging no matter how often their crackpot assertions are rebutted, even this evidence was not sufficient. Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a citizen of the United States. I would advise birthers to spend their time more productively, but their obsession causes such advice to be ignored.
grs (c4740b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:25 amIntelliology, no. I provided a link to the actual PDB that showed your specific claims to be lies. That you doubled down on your lie only reinforced everyone’s opinion of your lack of integrity.
Which makes it amusing for you to attack others with no more claim to truthful statement than you have.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:28 amNo. You provided a link that proved you were lying. Then you claimed intellectual superiority based on your ignorance. Congratulations… I guess?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:30 amfgmorley, some repetitious fake “facts” that Birthers repeat are things like claiming that producing a birth certificate is a constitutional requirement, claiming that the citizenship of Obama’s father is a legal disqualification of natural born status regardless of his birth place, claiming that dual citizenship disqualifies Obama, etc.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:32 amIntelliology, the actual PDB confirmed my statements and showed your claims false. All of your attempts to deny this only reinforce your reputation for mendacity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:33 am“False. The blog cited by you and the related article had zero excerpts or samples of his writing; no grade or transcripts of any kind.”
Uh. What? Scroll down and you’ll find links to the exams and answer memos and syllabus for his course. That’s his writing all those people are discussing there.
“The blog cited had zero references or citations regarding his writings and offered solely opinions. No matter, the related article was cited and I browsed there quickly.”
Did you scroll down and see links like “1997 Final Exam | Answer Memo”
Anyway. Some moron up above said Obama’s teaching was “a fraud.” So I offered up the link so people could look at what he taught, as well as see opinions from a diverse range of law professors as to what they thought of his course. I have yet to see someone say he was a fraud. Well, besides the moron on this thread.
“You were asked a direct question about why he’s adamantly opposed the release of his transcripts from Harvard. Please answer.”
Oh I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t think it matters that much. I think we have enough to evaluate obama on. I don’t think anyone here wavers in their opinion of him. Do y’all?
imdw (603c39) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:34 amI’m firmly in the Breitbart camp on this one. Be a Birther, Truther, whatever. It’s just not a winning issue. We have much bigger fish to fry, so to speak.
sybilll (a49918) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:39 amNo, you are a liar because you have chosen to be dishonest; and no further amount of dishonesty is going to be semantically sufficient to change you into an honest person.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:41 amHello sir/madam, I’m not ranting. I didn’t state that I thought POTUS was not a citizen or that he was. You are the one who is ranting.
You are asking me to prove that something, which is non-existent up to this point, actually exists.
Hey, if someone asks you for proof of birth, what do you come up with?
I am asking you to provide me the evidence; that being a COLB.
Now who’s doing the ranting, madam/sir?
The oldest/lamest defense for no evidence is an ad hominem attack. Of which I have already quoted above. Please refrain.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:42 amYou can’t convince these tykes of anything, imdw. They have been denying that Bush was given any warning that Al Qaeda may attack .
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:43 amfgmorley, a birth certificate is evidence of birthplace, it is not “the” evidence. It can be proven in a number of ways.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:44 am“They have been denying that Bush was given any warning that Al Qaeda may attack .”
Further lies. Your claims were that the PDB warned of “imminent” attack and “planes used as weapons”. Neither of which was found in the PDB. So, having been caught in a a lie, you lie about the terms of the dispute. That’s your reputation from now on, Intelliology. You’ll not escape it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:46 amHijacking = using a plane in an offensive manner (one may consider that a weapon)
example-if you use a gun in order to carry out a robbery in the eyes of the law it is a weapon, even if the gun is not fired.
imminent-“bin Laden determined to strike in US”
I would spell it out for you, but… I already have.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:49 am“Obama’s birth certificate was produced and examined. . .”
Its existence has been verified by at least one Hawaiian official, but not what it said exactly.
“. . .and the results have been posted online for all to see.”
The electronic version does not necessarily contain all the data from the old paper one, or the same data. We simply don’t know.
“. . .the citizenship of Obama’s father is a legal disqualification of natural born status regardless of his birth place”
If Obama has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, he’s a US citizen. But the US Constitution specifies that, while House members and Senators must be citizens, the President must be a natural born citizen. In other words, the founders added a higher hurdle in the job requirements for someone who would be the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:50 am“Who says he’s a fraud?”
imdw – I do, along with a ginormous bunch of other people. I thought that should have been obvious even to you.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:53 am”bin Laden determined to strike in US”
intelliology – Clinton got the same warnings. What did he do?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:54 amComment by daleyrocks — 2/13/2010 @ 11:54 am
Who was sittin’ in the chair when this happened?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:56 am“imdw – I do, along with a ginormous bunch of other people. I thought that should have been obvious even to you.”
What part of his exams show he’s a “fraud”? and how come other law profs don’t seem to agree with you?
imdw (de7003) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:56 amIt matters, IMDB, since you’re the one who is defending the fact that B.Hussein Obama doesn’t answer for himself. You lefties are are a joke when it comes to a debate on facts or the positions you take.
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:58 am“No. You provided a link that proved you were lying.”
Intelliology – Hah! Pure BS. This is the same defense you used when you were pantsed on your global warming claims and you were lying as brazenly then. You are as much of a bald faced liar as Eric Biehlert of MMFA, not a status to which to aspire.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:02 pm“Who was sittin’ in the chair when this happened?”
Clinton, moron.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:04 pmSorry to be so tiresome, and it’s reassuring that someone knows the real truth. So can anyone show me the proof? I know it’s tiresome. But I have been to number of sites that were showing me that the documents produced on the internet were not valid. So, I’m from Missouri…Show Me>
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:08 pmYou should buy a condensed history book, daleyrocks, if you think that Clinton was in charge on 9/11. I don’t want to spoil it for you, but I will give you a hint: it wasn’t Clinton, moron.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:08 pmOh, and doesn’t it make you guys feel dirty to have to defend Obama from a birther-crazy from your own party? bwaaahahahaha 🙂
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:10 pm“You should buy a condensed history book, daleyrocks, if you think that Clinton was in charge on 9/11.”
Intelliology – I don’t believe I said he was.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:11 pmThen you should work in your inference and reading comprehension skills.
Incidently, who was the person in charge of our country on 9/11?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:13 pmShe is the Tea Party candidate in Texas, right, and pretty popular down there? She is very representative of the Tea Party movement.
Skeptic (2f0ed2) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:14 pm“What part of his exams show he’s a “fraud”? and how come other law profs don’t seem to agree with you?”
imdw – Why do you believe it should bother me that some people seemingly disagree with me according to a NY Times blog?
Do you have any proof that Obama came up with his own course outlines, reading lists and exam questions, rather than lifting them or plagiarizing them from elsewhere? Since we have no evidence of his scholarship, it seems a reasonable question.
Can you link student reviews of his courses?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:17 pm“imdw – Why do you believe it should bother me that some people seemingly disagree with me according to a NY Times blog?”
I’m trying to get a handle on what you think is wrong with his exam.
“Do you have any proof that Obama came up with his own course outlines, reading lists and exam questions, rather than lifting them or plagiarizing them from elsewhere?”
Or is this the only problem you have? ie, they’re fine you just don’t know if he actually wrote htem.
“Can you link student reviews of his courses?”
I once read one article that reached some of his students. I’d be interested in reading some.
imdw (842182) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:21 pm“Then you should work in your inference and reading comprehension skills.”
Intelliology – Wrong, I think you must share a thirst with Eric Boehlert for Andrew Sullivan’s favorite beverage, phallus breath.
My #76 at 11:54 addressed to you said “Clinton got the same warnings. What did he do?
imdw’s #77, specifically referencing my #76 asked me “Who was sittin’ in the chair when this happened?”
In my #81, I of course replied to imdw, “Clinton, moron.” since he was the one who received the warning referred to in comment #76. If you have problems following logic and the English language, as you keep displaying, perhaps you should find another blog more suited to your limited intellect.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:25 pmWho was in charge of our country when there was a near nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
Who was in charge of our country when the Berlin Wall was built?
Who was in charge of our country when there were over 500,000 men in Vietnam, and was sending more?
Who was in charge of our country when hostages were taken in Iran.
Who was in charge of our country when the Berlin Wall came down?
Who was in charge of your country when we won Desert Storm?
Who was in charge of our country when we killed Saddam Hussein?
Who was in charge when 27 million Iraqis voted?
Who was in charge when the surge in Iraq secured the victory?
Who is in charge when Iran becomes a Nuclear power?
Who is in charge when we give up?
Just asking. Oh and By the Way How’s that Hoax and Chains working out for y’all
fgmorley (324ca0) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:28 pmThis is hogwash. Someone who is a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen. The phrase “natural born citizen” used in the Constitution was to distinguish between someone who acquired citizenship after birth (as in the case of a Representative or Senator) from someone who had been born a citizen (as in the case of the President). Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that someone who was born a US citizen was not a natural born citizen, and nowhere in United States code will you find such a construct.
Some chump (d97978) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:29 pmYou should check the factual accuracy of what you just typed out, Mr. Rocks.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:29 pmOne things is for certain, if there is a Republican candidate using the birth certificate as an issue and Obama doesn’t make his birth certificate public by election day, then you can forget the popular anti-birther notion that he’s waiting for an opportune time to release the birth certificate and make the birthers look foolish. He would have to release it before this November or he would be helping the Republican candidate get elected this year.
j curtis (5126e4) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:29 pmShe is the Tea Party candidate in Texas, right?
Medina used to support Ron Paul for President. She is representative of Ron Paul’s supporters, not the Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin addressed the Tea Party convention, but she endorsed one of Medina’s opponents, Governor Rick Perry, in Texas, and endorsed John McCain in Arizona. McCain is certainly not a favorite of the Tea POarty movement.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:29 pm“I’m trying to get a handle on what you think is wrong with his exam.”
imdw – No, you’re not, because you don’t understand enough about the law or the Constitution to have any comments make any sense to you. You’re just operating in reflexive oppositional mode, as usual. I have no interest engaging an intellectual turnip in a discussion.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:34 pm“You should check the factual accuracy of what you just typed out, Mr. Rocks.”
Please point out what is wrong Mr. Ogy.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:37 pmThe record is quite plain, Intelliology has no integrity. Anyone can read Intelliology’s comments for themselves.
When Intelliology stated that the PDB warned of a plane being used as a weapon, he knew that everyone who read his statement would think of the offensive use of the two airliners to attack occupied buildings. Hijacking is not “using a plane as a weapon”, it is holding people as hostages. No one would ever describe ordinary hijacking as “using a plane as a weapon” given what actually happened on 9/11. It would be offensively dishonest. But the bottom line is that no where in the PDB is any implication of use of a plane as “a weapon”.
Further, the PDB showed that the intelligence sources of Bin Laden’s intention were many years old – making the “imminent” threat Intelliology claimed another lie not least because the word appeared no where in the PDB.
The PDB itself showed that Intelliology’s specific claims were simply Intelliology’s lies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:42 pmThis is hogwash.
See Article II, Section 1, clause 5. It’s right there.
The Constitution was adopted in 1787. The ability to become a citizen by birth wasn’t clarified until the Fourteenth Amendment, about 80 years later. But theFourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural born citizen.
You can read the comments of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States about the difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen from birth (as in the Fourteenth Amendment) in the Supreme Court cases Minor v. Happersett (1874), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898). I’m not going to link them again. The Supreme Court did not rule on this matter then, and they still haven’t.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:42 pmIdiotology is a 9/11 LIHOP twoofer and a lying fool. Point and laugh, people. Mock and scorn.
JD (7fb1a7) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:44 pmIntelliology, do not mistake my intentions here, you will have your own lack of integrity follow you here from now on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:44 pmSomeone who is a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen.
Comment by Some chump — 2/13/2010 @ 12:29 pm
Nope. They even had to pass a special resolution in 2008 making people born to US citizen parents in Panama during the time we controlled the canal “natural born citizens”. But congress, with it’s naturalization powers, made those people citizens at birth a long time ago.
j curtis (5126e4) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:47 pmOh I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t think it matters that much..
Which is another way of not answering a direct question – come on, try and at least speculate for us, rather than attempt to deflect and obfuscate the issue. Why on earth would the current POTUS have any reason to keep these records sealed from the public view? I thought this was the most transparent administration ever in the history of the US – yet they won’t allow a relatively simple batch of documentation to see the light of day. Why would that be, do you suppose?
I once read one article that reached some of his students.
I see – so some guy says he once read a paper from Obama’s that was read by a few of his students. No sources provided for that awesome refutation, as usual.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:48 pm“They even had to pass a special resolution in 2008. . .”
But this was a resolution, with no force in law. It was just an opinion. McCain wasn’t eligible, either. But this resolution vouching for McCain’s citizenship was likely designed to discourage doubts about Obama’s status, too. There was no legal authority to this resolution. It was just for appearances.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:54 pmOIDO, the last time you linked to them, I pointed out that the cases did not state what you think they state. The cases point out different definitions and explicitly refuse to hold one more correct than the other.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:54 pmSPQR, you pointed out that the Court did not rule on the matter, and I obviously still agree.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:56 pmSo Medina and Idiotology are twoofers.
JD (7fb1a7) — 2/13/2010 @ 12:57 pm104
I realize that. I was pointing out that even liberals in congress aren’t on board with what the poster expressed as fact. You can’t let any detail go unchallenged with these lefty kooks.
j curtis (5126e4) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:02 pm“imdw – No, you’re not, because you don’t understand enough about the law or the Constitution to have any comments make any sense to you.”
Try me. tell me what you noticed that, say, randy barnett missed.
imdw (603c39) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:07 pmI don’t believe you’re correct here. A resolution doesn’t change law, and this one merely affirmed what most of us already contend, that John McCain was an eligible candidate, and that’s all it really did. I’m not interested in rehashing President Obama’s eligibility or natural born status. It’s a waste of time. Birthers will never be convinced, and what’s the remedy anyway? Removal? Not going to happen. You can only impeach the President for Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Ineligibility is not any of these.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:09 pmimdw’s #77, specifically referencing my #76 asked me “Who was sittin’ in the chair when this happened?”
Comment by Daleyrocks
Why don’t you check the author of #77, nitwit. Considering my conservative friends on here want to start a ‘nucular’ war over being incorrectly addressed on here, you are awfully clueless regarding who the heck you’re talking to.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:28 pmBest laugh I’ve had all week!
But, on the other hand, we know exactly who we are talking to, clueless.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:42 pmYou shouldn’t laugh at your colleague’s error.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:42 pm“Why don’t you check the author of #77, nitwit.”
Intelliology versus imdw. Doesn’t change the logic sequence now, does it Peppermint Patty?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:48 pmwhat’s the remedy anyway? Removal?
Yes, of course. Do you think the people would abide by any laws signed by an ineligible president? Do you think the people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution would serve an ineligible usurper? The Democrats would force him to step down, and he certainly wouldn’t be reelected, not without causing civil war and dissolution of the union of states.
j curtis (5126e4) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:48 pmIdiotology lies about the lies it previously told. It is pathological.
JD (7a6b3b) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:50 pmComment by daleyrocks — 2/13/2010 @ 1:48 pm
Actually, it does. We are not the same person, and you’re an idiot.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:53 pmyou are awfully clueless
Love the superior grammatical skills on display here. The dense, it is strong with this one.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 1:56 pmWhat’s the mechanism for removal? The time to challenge this was prior to the election and nobody in the GOP took it to court. Once elected, you would have to impeach him, and that’s not going to happen. If perjury doesn’t meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors standard, this certainly won’t. You’re not talking about removing him for Bribery or Treason. It’s a waste of time because the GOP didn’t act before the election, and that’s only if the Birthers are right.
Nobody is going to make President Obama step down. He’ll refuse. So what’s the remedy? You have a sitting President who has been certified, so whether he should have been or not is now moot. I’m with the folks who believe he is a natural born citizen. I think the reason he doesn’t want the long form released is because it may list his race as Caucasian, per his mother. In other words, it’s a smoking gun, just not the gun used in the crime being investigated.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:01 pmYes, of course. Do you think the people would abide by any laws signed by an ineligible president? Do you think the people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution would serve an ineligible usurper? The Democrats would force him to step down, and he certainly wouldn’t be reelected, not without causing civil war and dissolution of the union of states.
This is an excellent question. I have to wonder what should or would happen if it were proven that Obama was really not a natural born citizen.
I see a lot of commentary about the “if” but seldom see commentary about the consequences.
Huey (efe02b) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:04 pmLove the superior grammatical skills on display here.
That sentence is a fragment. Ironic.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:06 pm“I have to wonder what should or would happen if it were proven that Obama was really not a natural born citizen.”
Here is a good explanation of the consequences. (The author has four degrees from Harvard.)
Consequence #7:
“Seventh, 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. . .”
[emphasis mine]
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:12 pm““Seventh, 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. . .””
Man every new thing the birther’s write is dumber than the old one.
imdw (c70387) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:16 pmI believe Obama is a natural born citizen. It would be much too hard to cover up if he wasn’t.
That being said, I still want to see a photocopy of the birth certificate that was made in 1961….just because he has been so damn evasive about it. Does that make me a birther?
JHE (9284aa) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:19 pmArrest the President? For what crime? Nobody is going to arrest the Chief Executive for a non-crime and it’s ridiculous to even consider it.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:45 pmI am thinking the reason he keeps the debate alive by not showing his birth certificate is because it makes many people look like conspiracy nuts.
Huey (efe02b) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:48 pmI was quoting there from Dr. Vieira. Anyway, his speculative suggestion was not to arrest a president, but a usurper posing as one. For presidents, they have impeachment.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 2:53 pmI know OIDO and you have my sincere apologies if you thought I attributed that to you. It was not my intent at all. We’ve said pretty much all we have to say on this to each other and seemed to have agreed to disagree in reference to each other when it comes to this topic. My point is directed at the author and thanks for letting me clarify.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:02 pmActually, if he is unconstitutionally able to serve as president re; the natural born citizen clause, that duty would devolve to SCOTUS to remove said unconstituional offender from office.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:16 pm“Actually, if he is unconstitutionally able to serve as president re; the natural born citizen clause, that duty would devolve to SCOTUS to remove said unconstituional offender from office.”
They’d likely find it a non-justiciable political question left up to voters.
imdw (017d51) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:30 pmNo, peedoffamerican, the Supreme Court has no such power or duty.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:32 pmObama’s black, right. Last time I checked, there weren’t no black folks born in Hawaii. His name would be a lot longer, like Hokoluwuahilu or something. So this whole thing must be a fraud.
Yeah (2f0ed2) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:34 pmBarcky is half black, Yeah. Not that it matters one iota in this context, or any other, for that matter.
JD (26414e) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:39 pmI saw this movie called “Dave” once, with Kevin Kline. President had this double, and they used the double President while hiding the real one. I think this guy they are saying is Obama is a double of the actual President. The real Obama has a mole on his left buttock. Why won’t this fake Obama ever show his left buttock — because then we would know he’s not the real one.
me, too (2f0ed2) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:41 pmTroll quality dropping faster than the Dow Jones.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:48 pmThe parade of sock puppets has arrived. Great.
JD (26414e) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:48 pmThe job of judging eligibility was that of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2009, when they counted and accepted the electoral votes, but nobody complained.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:52 pmSkeptic, Yeah, and me, too are posting from the same IP address. The same address was also used to post multiple comments under different names (Go Palin!, Mikey) in the past. As a result, I’ve added the IP address to the moderation list.
DRJ (6a8003) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:53 pmThat is quite a shock, DRJ.
JD (26414e) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:55 pmThat should have read:
The job of judging eligibility was that of the House of Representatives and Senate in joint session on January 8, 2009, when they counted and accepted the electoral votes, but nobody complained.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:59 pmYeah, complete shock.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 3:59 pmYep, OIDO. That’s it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:00 pmNo, peedoffamerican, the Supreme Court has no such power or duty.
Comment by SPQR — 2/13/2010 @ 3:32 pm
Actually, it is yes SPQR. If it comes down to whether he is CONSTITUIONALLY eligible to serve as POTUS, it is SCOTUS that would determine it, since it is a CONSTITUTIONAL question.
Trying to limit it to the House, as OIDO suggests, would then mean that no law could ever be challenged on Constitutional grounds either, since said challenge according to him, would have to have been made on the date that the law was passed.
All Constitutional questions are ultimately decided by the SCOTUS.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:06 pm@119 Stashiu3 — I believe President Obama is legally qualified to be President. I also believe that the short form Birth Certificate is valid. However, the fact that he refuses to show his long-form Birth Certificate is so peculiar that it is well within reason to speculate on what he may be concealing.
Way back, in another thread, L.N. Smithee produced a citation to a long form BC for another Hawaii resident who was born on the same day, at the same hospital.
In an effort to determine what parameters are not present in the short from BC, I compared the parameters of that list to the parameters of the long form BC (see this link for the citations and the original comments). The following are the modified results on that thread (modifications in italic):
Since none of the unmatched parameters appear devastating to President Obama, perhaps concealing information is just a natural impulse for him. The fact that this President is held to such a low standard in terms of transparency, integrity and honor illustrates the reason why he is such a poor leader in every measure in which he has been tested so far.
Anyway, my $0.02.
It’s Chinese New Year and we’re celebrating, so I gotta go — it’s the Year of the Tiger.
Gong Xi Fa Cai!
Pons asinorum (f6829b) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:10 pmNo, peedoffamerican, the Supreme Court has no power or duty to adjudicate the matter. Congress already certified the election of Obama as President. He is President and there is no mechanism for the Supreme Court to revisit it.
The idea that the review of law is similar is simply false. Cases and controversies within the judiciary are different matters entirely.
All that is left is the cabinet disability process and the impeachment process. Neither of which involve the Supreme Court.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:10 pmPons – I have a house full of relatives and their friends celebrating the Chinese New Year too.
JD (26414e) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:19 pmNeither of which involve the Supreme Court
Well, the Chief Justice of the United States does preside over the impeachment trial of a President, in the Senate. (Article I, Section 3).
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:20 pmBut, to continue, it is likely that it will not become a SCOTUS case before the next POTUS elcetion. Several states (13 at last count I read IIRC) are in the process of passing legislation that will require candidates for POTUS to produce the long form birth certificate in order to register as a candidate for election. Texas being one of them.
If he doesn’t produce the birth certificate, he will not be on the ballot, and he will automatically lose in those states. Now, I don’t think it would be likely that any candidate could cede 13 states, and still reallistically hope to win POTUS.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:23 pmDeep fried whole fish, fresh spring rolls and egg rolls, pho, and banh mi. Also, cognac, karaoke, and cards for the family. Could be a long night for the sober whitey 😉
JD (26414e) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:24 pmpeedoffamerican, such laws are unlikely to be held constitutional. States cannot create new requirements to be President.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:26 pmWhat, no Tiger Prawns?
Dmac (799abd) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:29 pmThis discussion gets kind of crazy at times. Personally, I think there might be a notation on the long form that his parents were not married. Michelle has already referred to his mother as “a single parent.”
The birthers are getting old.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:30 pmNo, peedoffamerican, the Supreme Court has no power or duty to adjudicate the matter. Congress already certified the election of Obama as President. He is President and there is no mechanism for the Supreme Court to revisit it.
Comment by SPQR — 2/13/2010 @ 4:10 pm
Yes SPQR there is. If he is found to have been ineligible to have been elected, under Article II 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
then he is NOT the president, but is actually a pretender. Therefore no need to be impeached since if he is not Constitutionally qualified, then he could not legally hold the office of the Presidency.
They would not be removing a President, they would be removing someone who could not legally hold the office. Now, I don’t know for sure if or if not he is or is not, qualified under the constitution. But, HE could clear it up if he would just release the damn birth certificate.
It is really simple as that.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:36 pmpeedoffamerican, such laws are unlikely to be held constitutional. States cannot create new requirements to be President.
Comment by SPQR — 2/13/2010 @ 4:26 pm
SPQR, why are you being so obtuse? They are not creating new requirements to be president, they are establishing rules to be a CANDIDATE. That is a total different kettle of fish.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:39 pmNope, peedoffamerican, I doubt that argument would fly. And I’m not being “obtuse”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:44 pmTherefore no need to be impeached
If he is found to have been ineligible, he could not be impeached, since in that case he is not and never was president. But it’s worse than that. All the bills he signed would not be law, since they must be signed by a president. The debt ceiling would suddenly be too low. . . the military would have no commander in chief. . .dogs and cats living together. . .
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:48 pmExactly OIDO, since he could not and never was president under the scenario, it would be a Constitutional crisis. Who would be president then would be the question? Would Sloe Joe, or would it be the Speaker of the House?
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 4:59 pmthe 63rd Quatrain of century IX from Nostradamus clearly shows that a false president would be elected. Color me convinced the birthers have it right now… /sarc
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:01 pmNope, peedoffamerican, I doubt that argument would fly. And I’m not being “obtuse”.
Comment by SPQR — 2/13/2010 @ 4:44 pm
Yes SPQR. It is left to the states as to what they will accept as proof of a candidate’s eligiblity for the office that said candidate is seeking. They could not change the Constituonal qualification for the office. ie. Age requirement by allowing someone under 35 to run, or by requiring the candidate to have reached the age of 40 yoa.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:08 pm“If he is found to have been ineligible, he could not be impeached, since in that case he is not and never was president. ”
How about yes. He could be impeached. Did you think of that? What’s so fascinating about birtherism is that you don’t just get one thing wrong. You keep going and going.
“All the bills he signed would not be law, since they must be signed by a president. ”
etc.. etc…
imdw (5f60be) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:16 pmActually dimwit, impeachment does not remove the president from office. Clinton and Johnson were both impeached.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:20 pmWhat’s so fascinating about imadimwit is that he get’s everything wrong, all the time.
peedoffamerican (6242da) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:22 pmErick at RedState as of yesterday unilaterally banned all truthers and birfers and says he will delete any posts that relate to either of those subjects going forward. Any possibility that Patterico might see the logic in doing the same thing here?
elissa (c7cd60) — 2/13/2010 @ 5:52 pmHe could be impeached.
Huh? On the grounds of Treason, Bribery, or which other High Crimes or Misdemeanors? (Article II, Section 4). No, that can’t be right.
Try to think a little harder. If he’s ineligible, he’s not the president and never was. He just played one on TV, so to speak. Or, maybe it’s more like a situation where someone gets fired one month after lying on his resume that he’s, say, an aerospace engineer. If he lied, he never was an aerospace engineer. It was all imaginary.
imdw, I suggest you read the article I linked in comment #122. Slowly. Here it is again. The author is a Harvard-trained lawyer and a Harvard Ph.D.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:02 pmYou know what I wish would happen elissa? I wish that he would just go on national tv, and hold up his birth certificate. Then, all of this nonsense about whether he is or is not eligible would be put behind us for good.
My only concern in all of this is that it could result in a constituional crisis for the country that I dearly love.
peedoffamerican (c15fe4) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:07 pmBirtherism is such a sideshow that’s it’s really not worth commenting on, his associations in college like those identified by Dr. John Drew, his crazy piece in the Columbia Sundial, which seems like something out of a fever dream, the influence
ian cormac (b07ff6) — 2/13/2010 @ 6:21 pmof FM Davis, Wright, Ayers are more notable elements
“Huh? On the grounds of Treason, Bribery, or which other High Crimes or Misdemeanors? (Article II, Section 4). No, that can’t be right. ”
Sure it can.
“If he’s ineligible, he’s not the president and never was. ”
Or he is the president, just he’s not supposed to be. Dear god how stupid are you people?
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/13/2010 @ 7:32 pmimdw, more projection on your part. We remain smart enough not to fall for your act.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:32 pmWhen has Obama reached across the aisle and made common bonds with the house GOP?
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:32 pmWhen instead of starting with single payer he started off with a proposal similar to romneycare.
imdw (688568) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:37 pmHe didn’t start off with anything.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/13/2010 @ 8:50 pmNow imdw ignores the fact that there was not enough votes in the Democratic caucus for single-payer.
Sheesh, nothing but horse manure from imdw.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:01 pmNow imdw ignores the fact that there was not enough votes in the Democratic caucus for single-payer.
That too.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/13/2010 @ 9:05 pm@146 & 149 JD — Too cool! We went to my sister-in-law’s place. Hot-Pot with fish, shrimp, beef, pho, tons of veggies, plus some beer and wine (diet coke for me).
Haha, me too — well short night for me, but we do this all over again tomorrow 😉
Happy New Year, JD.
Pons Asinorum (f6829b) — 2/13/2010 @ 11:30 pmIt wouldn’t solve anything. The birthers would then demand he turn it over for expert inspection and verification. He could do that and the birthers would question the verifier. There would always be something because the tendency of conspiracy buffs is to never give up on their theory.
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/14/2010 @ 3:58 am170.When instead of starting with single payer he started off with a proposal similar to romneycare.
Romneycare? More tanning beds?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/14/2010 @ 4:47 am“It wouldn’t solve anything. The birthers would then demand he turn it over for expert inspection and verification. ”
This is what people don’t understand. They won’t see a physical piece of paper. They’ll see a digital image, with compression artifacts, etc… Like the image we’ve already seen.
It’s just more evidence of how this movement is one dumb thing after another.
“When has Obama reached across the aisle and made common bonds with the house GOP?”
Why are they invited to Blair house?
imdw (017d51) — 2/14/2010 @ 5:22 amTanning beds? Dems are going to tax them to help “pay” for healthcare reform.
The stage play @ Blair House has nothing to do with bipartisanship. Not a f*cking thing to do with it.
JD (295979) — 2/14/2010 @ 6:49 amWhen has Obama reached across the aisle and made common bonds with the house GOP?
Comment by Gerald A — 2/13/2010 @ 8:32 pm
When he tries to pick their pockets.
peedoffamerican (c15fe4) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:10 amThis is what people don’t understand. They won’t see a physical piece of paper. They’ll see a digital image, with compression artifacts, etc… Like the image we’ve already seen.
Comment by imdw — 2/14/2010 @ 5:22 am
Once again the resident dimwit spews his asspull.
Hey dimwit, they didn’t have computer generated birth certificates in 1961 when Obama was born. And don’t try to come up and say now that he has lost it either. I have both the COLB and the much larger Certificate of Birth from just as long ago. Get that moron, I STILL HAVE BOTH OF MINE.
Now, if he was so irresponsible to just casually lose his, why would anyone want such an irresponsible person as POTUS in the first place.
peedoffamerican (c15fe4) — 2/14/2010 @ 7:31 am“When instead of starting with single payer he started off with a proposal similar to romneycare.”
imdw – Since you’re so fond of bringing it up, how is romneycare working out for the people of Massachusetts?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/14/2010 @ 8:30 am“The stage play @ Blair House has nothing to do with bipartisanship. Not a f*cking thing to do with it.”
Sure it does. It’s going to be very bi-partisan. GOP is gonna act the way they do, there will be cameras, and the president will tell them what he thinks of them. How could that not be bi-partisan?
“Hey dimwit, they didn’t have computer generated birth certificates in 1961 when Obama was born.”
Right but you’re never going to see piece of paper. At most what most of these nutcases would see is a digital image of that piece of paper on their Internets. That’s not going to satisfy these nutbags. They’ll piss and moan that it was photoshopped. Even if they had a piece of paper in front of them. That wouldn’t be satisfactory. They’ll piss and moan about that too.
So you have a paper birth certificate. If you wanted to show it to a lot of people, you’d scan it in and post it online. Very few people would see the actual piece of paper. Most would see just a scanned image, that went through processing in photoshop or other program like that, and then got turned into a relatively low res compressed image for the internet.
“imdw – Since you’re so fond of bringing it up, how is romneycare working out for the people of Massachusetts?”
They seem to like it, they just elected a guy that ran in part on defending it.
How’s Hawaii’s system?
imdw (22078e) — 2/14/2010 @ 10:05 amBunnies !!!
JD (ae93de) — 2/14/2010 @ 10:24 amSo the main qualifier we need to amend the constitution with is that one cannot be president unless they have maintained original copy of their birth certificate?
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/14/2010 @ 12:40 pmThe conspiracy never dies in your mind.
Asspull alert. No VOR2, it was because that would have been the exact next statement by imadimwit. That poor Obummer had lost his, and now sob, all he had left is this crappy digital copy.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:05 pmAnd by the way, I do not believe in any conspiracy. Just show the damn birth certificate on television with all the major networks present so this damn foolish nonsense can be put behind us. By him not showing it, he is only adding fuel to the fire.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:09 pmComment by peedoffamerican — 2/14/2010 @ 1:09 pm
For someone who claims to not be a birther you have a funny way of showing it. Has any president been asked to show their birth certificate on television?
The foolish nonsense that needs to be put behind us is the appeals for him to “prove” he is a real citizen. As I mentioned before he could show it on tv, let you fondle it, and then you would decide just to be sure a DNA check needed to be done – call in Maury Povich and to be the final arbiter…. “PeedoffAmerican Obama (drum roll) ___ your president!”
voiceofreason2 (d68de9) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:17 pmNo, you still just don’t get it do you? I used to think you argued in good faith, I am now doubting this. The reason (I am typing slowly now so you can understand), I repeat, the reason I wish he would show it is to quiet all the controversy. If anyone then questions the issue then they will be nuttier than even introlliology.
You do have to admit that by his spending millions in attorney fees to not show it, he is only stoking the fire. Just show the damn thing and be done with it.
Hell, they made McCain show his and even passed a resolution that McCain was eligible.
But I guess in your warped little mind that anyone thyat wants him to show the birth certificate to shut up the crazies is a birther too. Well then, I guess that would make me a birther in your peanut brain.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:31 pmHell here is McCains.
McCain birth certificate
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:38 pmHow about some real conspiracy nuts from your favorite lib news source?
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
or even just try this search to show the true source of nuttiness from your sacred lefties.
search
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:44 pmOr how about this one from snopes (where the supposed COLB which has shown to be fake is posted) that is so behind Obama but questions McCain’s natural born status. Note of disclosure, I did not vote for either McCain or Obama. I left that spot blank.
The Natural
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 1:51 pmIn fact, I pray to GOD that Obama is a natural born citizen. I do not want to see my beloved country thrown into a Constitutional crisis that would result if he were not.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 2:09 pmI do not want to see my beloved country thrown into a Constitutional crisis
It would not be a Consitutional crisis. It would simply be recognizing the Constitution as law. That’s what it’s there for.
Official Internet Data Office (99772e) — 2/14/2010 @ 2:30 pmYes it would OIDO. Who would be president? McCain, since he got the most legitimate votes? Speaker Pelosi? GOD forbid. Or Joe Biden, even though he would have been part of an unconstituional ticket?
Plus all the the laws etc. that were signed by Obama would be unconstitutional too. The stimulus package and others would be illegal too.
That would be the Constitutional crises. It would be utter chaos that could even possibly lead to another civil war.
That is my concern.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 2:36 pmHell, I would be the first in line to put the rope around the neck of anybody that would put my country thru such turmoil for the sake of power. Be it democrat, repuclican, libertarian, independent, whoever.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 2:55 pmsheesh, republican.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/14/2010 @ 2:56 pm[…] The Continuing Adventures, I think, of Debra Kadabra. Earlier this week, Texas GOP Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina made news in a Glenn Beck interview when she refused to condemn 9/11 conspiracies. […]
The Adventures of Debra "Kadabra" Medina (510931) — 10/7/2010 @ 12:19 pm