Maybe Palin Isn’t a Birther, But She Sure as Hell Was Pandering to Them
Quite a reaction in the post asking whether Sarah Palin is a Birther. Ace thinks Birtherism is stupid but has no problem with Palin’s “empty” answer; Allah thinks she should have repudiated Birtherism more clearly.
Here’s my take: Obama was born in the U.S. There is a legally valid birth certificate that is real and has been released to the media for inspection, coupled with a contemporaneous birth announcement.
At the same time, it appears clear that the state of Hawaii has a “long form birth certificate” that could be inspected by the media if Obama requested it. Not only has he failed to request it, but he has also spent a good deal of money fighting court battles instead of releasing it. This is what makes people suspicious.
Why is he fighting it? It seems to me that there are three possible reasons: 1) He really was born outside the U.S.; 2) there is something else about the long-form certificate that is potentially embarrassing; or 3) he finds it politically useful to keep the issue alive to argue that there is a fringe element that opposes him.
I find option #1 vanishingly improbable, based on the evidence cited above.
Whether the real answer is #2 or #3 — or something else entirely — I have no idea. I think it would be fair to point out the possibility that he is hiding something embarrassing — without endorsing, even implicitly, the ridiculous suggestion that he was born outside this country.
But that’s not what Sarah Palin did. She pandered to the crazy conspiracy theorists in the Birther movement.
If Sarah Palin didn’t mean to pander to the Truthers, then she misspoke. Because, despite the incredibly charitable reading many of you gave to her words, she called Trutherism questions “fair game” and an issue that was being “rightfully” raised. There is a difference between saying that someone has the right to raise an issue, and saying that the issue is “rightfully” raised. As Allah says:
The key point isn’t whether voters have the right to ask questions but whether a question is fair after a certain amount of evidence has been provided. That’s where Palin got in trouble last night, I think. Of course Truthers have the right to be skeptical about 9/11, but does anyone think it’s fair that they still are? Where you come down on the Birtherism debate depends on whether you think that level of evidence has been reached yet, and Palin’s initial comments to Humphreys — it’s a “fair question,” it’s “fair game,” potentially something worth raising in a debate — made it sound like she didn’t. Calling it a “stupid conspiracy” later on Facebook clarified that she did.
If I said that the question of whether Bush orchestrated 9/11 is “fair game” and is “rightfully” raised, any rational person would say I’m a moron.
Yes, 9/11 Truthers have the right to make stupid arguments about how fire does not melt steel. But they are idiots. The issue is not “fair game” but rather bullshit. It is not “rightfully” raised because it’s bullshit. And when you go around saying that a bullshit issue is “fair game” that is “rightfully” raised, without saying you think it’s bullshit, then you’re pandering. Pure and simple.
Like Allah, I’m glad Palin clarified her comments, and suggested (through the title of her Facebook entry) that Birtherism is a “stupid conspiracy.” But I also would have respected her more if she had said so more clearly in the radio show.
UPDATE: Naturally, Andrew Sullivan is using her statements to justify his investigations of her birth canal.
why isn’t Ear Leader’s background as big a deal as denigrating anyone who asks about it is? either there is something on the document he doesn’t want, or, much more likely, it would start a cascade of inquiry that would eventually lead to something he *really* doesn’t want to come out. an honest person would have made the document available long ago.
furthermore, its safe to say that, were the person in question even a RINO, let alone a real conservative, the documents would have leaked even before the question came up to begin with.
lastly why are all the cultural ‘elites’ so afraid of Sarah, besides the fact that she resonates with the average person who feels, with various and sundry good reasons, that the same ‘elites’ both hold them in contempt and do NOT have their best interests at heart?
the more my would be betters try to convince me she’s a bad idea, the more likely i am to support her.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:18 amOn her Facebook page she suggests (through her title) that Birtherism is a “stupid conspiracy.” Do you agree?
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:26 amI think Palin was trying to give payback to Obama for all the stupid conspiracy stuff said about her, such as that Trig is not her son. She was very unwise in doing so. I hope she learns from this mistake.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:31 amIf we are doing speculations, how about a fourth option: the Birth Certificate lists “Muslim” for religion.
Pons Asinorum (b0bc5f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:37 amHas anyone ever seen a long-form Hawaii birth certificate? Does it list religion, for example? I have no idea.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:42 amObama was probably born in Hawaii, but that’s not the issue. It is the fact that his father was not an American citizen, therefore Obama is not a “natural born” citizen.
doug forest (55b9b5) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:45 amThis birther thing is sooooooo tiresome, and a waste of energy that could be more productively spent elsewhere.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:46 amIf 30% of the country can believe that President Bush and small cadre of Neocons did 9/11 … why are we calling Palin names for alleging Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen?
In terms of order-of-magnitude stupidity I would not even rate them the same.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:48 amWhen Palin uses the word rightfully, she is answering a question about the BC issue. She does not say anything about President Obama’s legal eligibility to be President.
Perhaps she is stating that the people have a right to ask.
Maybe a better question would have been something along the lines of: “do you think the birther investigations are proper and rightfully taking place?” That would remove the interpretation of the phrase “BC issue”.
Pons Asinorum (b0bc5f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:49 amObama was probably born in Hawaii, but that’s not the issue. It is the fact that his father was not an American citizen, therefore Obama is not a “natural born” citizen.
Huh?
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:51 amFrom what this site shows (comment number 10), I don’t see religion listed on the long form.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:52 amPerhaps she is stating that the people have a right to ask.
She also called it a “fair question” and “fair game.”
Your reading is a stretch.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:56 amA brief reprise.
FWIW, a document like that would not be accepted in PA for my daughter being registered in public school. Whether or not a BC and not COLB or any other document is necessary to show US citizenship is a question I’ll leave to nk and all of you others who are actual lawyers and know what has stood as law in the years since the Constitution.
But that is not a “Birth Certificate”. Whether it makes a difference or not as far as being qualified to be president is a related but separate issue.
The fact that he has not released whatever it is “in the box” could be any one of the three, as you mention.
As pointed out in the previous thread, this is just one of many, many documents that have not been released, correct?- documents that until Obama’s candidacy would have been considered normative and unexceptional to be requested.
Lest we forget, Obama got on the national stage to begin with when his opponent’s campaign sunk like a brick after the records of his divorce were made public.
There were several questions (at least) raised in the previous post:
1) Was Palin being intellectually dishonest in the way she later “clarified” her position? That was a follow-up to the “do words mean something” discussions.
2) Did she say things that were politically stupid?
3) Does she think pursuing the Obama BC issue is meaningful regarding his legitimacy as president?
4) (And, BTW, what is your definition of a “birther” and what, if any, legitimacy do they have.)
Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, Obama has withheld many, many documents in a way no recent presidential candidate has, and in a way we doubt would be tolerated if the candidate had an R after his or her name. (Any doubts, ask Sarah P.)
Perhaps the Dems are winning on this issue as far as political points go, if so, I suggest it indicates the level of efficacy of the Obama propaganda effort. Whether it is because of brilliance, willing accomplices, mass delusions, or what, it is outrageous.
I submit the following analogy:
A house burns down and someone dies.
The cause of the fire is suspicious, one report says that a broken Jack Daniels bottle was found on the first floor with traces of a non-alcohol flammable liquid.
The investigation is concluded saying there is no evidence to suggest fould play.
People keep asking, but what about the Jack Daniels bottle with the flammable liquid?
The chief fire inspector brings out the remnants of a bottle that clearly reads: “Jim Beam”, and says, “Enough already, there was no bottle of Jack Daniels, everybody just give it up”,
The crowd says, “But what about the report that a flammable liquid was found?”
Chief says, “Are you folks nuts, stupid, or both? I just showed you, there was no bottle of Jack Daniels, it was a bottle of Jim Beam!!”
And ever after, whenever somebody asks to see the final investigative report on the fire, which has been sealed, the word goes out, “Another person still worried about that Jack Daniels bottle”.
Incredible judo maneuver on the truth.
Child’s version, “The Last Battle”, by C.S. Lewis.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:57 am“This birther thing is sooooooo tiresome, and a waste of energy that could be more productively spent elsewhere.”
Agreed, Bradley. But the MSM has decided! It’s either this or UNINVITED GUESTS AT STATE DINNER!!!!1! so take your pick.
cassandra in MT (7cc7d7) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:57 amRightfully as in they have the right to ask or, rightfully as in, they are right to do so because there is still a question of his birth?
It’s a bit ambiguous, the terms are not defined, but because of her following with, I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answer., it leads me to believe she initially intended the latter definition of rightfully, because she believes there are enough other people who believe the question of his birth has not yet been satisfactorily answered.
She may be more clever (and smarter pol) than most give her credit for: she left enough wiggle room to not have to retract her statement entirely but enough to signal to birthers that she’s listening to them and enough to make those who want to jump at her as a birther, question whether she *really* implied or said that.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:57 amIt’s either this or UNINVITED GUESTS AT STATE DINNER!!!!1! so take your pick.
Heh. Or if more Tiger honeys pop up out of the woodwork we can have that, too.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:59 amI think Bradley is correct: Sarah Palin is just showcasing the prejudices of the MSM. It was also unwise, as BF suggests.
Eric Blair (110bde) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:00 pmPatrick, I don’t see her position as that big a deal. I keep getting angry comments on my review of her book making a fuss about the Wooden quote in her book and whether she stayed in one five star hotel or more and this is more of the same.
We have a vice president who was punished for plagiarism in law school and caught plagiarizing again in 1988 when he ran for president. We have a president whose college records are unavailable. Biden’s advisor at the time he was advocating splitting Iraq into three parts was a guy who stood to make a hundred million dollars if Kurdistan became independent.
We have a president who tried to bully Honduras into violating its own constitution to reinstate a leftist would-be dictator. That president is spending the country into potential repudiation of the national debt.
I can’t get excited about this.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:02 pmof course its a stupid conspiracy Pat, its just that this is the *only* one the MFM downplays as being stupid, which takes me back to what i said:
the First Incompetent could clean this up in a flash, if he wanted to. the very fact that he doesn’t do so is a strong indicator that there is something he is protecting. not proof mind you, but enough suspicion that a reasonable person would ask, “WTF is he so afraid of?”, which is what i’m doing.
the most embarrassing thing on mine, other than the fact that it proves how old i am, is my cordially detested RL middle name. what is on his that has him so hot & bothered? while we’re at it, where are his school transcripts, papers, etc? they do a better background check to hire volunteer paralegals at your office than we got prior to electing this moron to the White House. i know: a classmate went through it recently.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:04 pmThen there is this.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
I don’t believe it but they seem to.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:05 pmTry this.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:08 pmMike K.
In all fairness, you’re referring to a newspaper story. Haven’t we learned by now not to take anything in the media at face value? 🙂
I think Jefferson’s recipe for newspapers is pretty apt:
Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies.
The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources, as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:17 pm“There is a legally valid birth certificate that is real and has been released to the media for inspection, coupled with a contemporaneous birth announcement.”
Man, the House of Representatives even passed a resolution stating that the guy was born in Hawaii, and not one representative voted against it.
The Birthers need to get a clue. It’s over. Move on.
Dave Surls (bc95b1) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:19 pmI don’t want to discuss the birth cert issue, but after what Palin has been put through by the media, she has the absolute moral authority to say “it’s fair game” because there was nothing that wasn’t fair game when it came to smearing her. Hell, I’d like to see her kick Obama in the balls and say “See how it feels? Just be glad I didn’t let Todd do it.”
sherlock (e1e91e) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:22 pmBrother Bradley
Have you looked at the link? Just because we know better than to believe 100% of a newspaper story doesn’t mean we never look at them, or because you can’t always trust the internet we shouldn’t bother reading and posting here.
As discussed on the previous thread, the link is to the Online version of a Newspaper in Africa. Maybe it’s an elaborate hoax, maybe it is an error. I think I would like to know more about it.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:29 pmPat, isn’t the most disturbing thing about the “birther” movement the conspiracy theories that say that the Supreme Court is “covering up” for Obama by declining to hear this case?
Sarah Palin did not state that this line of attack has merit. She did not state that the Supreme Court should have ruled on the issue. She did not endorse the convoluted logic that states that “Obama is a Kenyan unless he can prove that he was born in America”. All she said was that questions about his birth are “fair game”.
That ain’t exactly “giving aid & comfort” to the Birther movement. More like “failure to kick their asses”.
Russ from Winterset (1d694b) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:29 pm“Pat, isn’t the most disturbing thing about the “birther” movement the conspiracy theories that say that the Supreme Court is “covering up” for Obama by declining to hear this case?”
They should hear it, and it should take them about ten minutes to say that there is no law requiring that Barack Obama produce a long form birth certificate (or anything else) to demonstrate that he is a natural born citizen, and thus put an end to these idiotic lawsuits that waste taxpayer money.
Dave Surls (bc95b1) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:40 pmMD in Philly.
Of course I clicked the link and read the story! That’s how I knew it was from a newspaper. As a reporter myself, I was ribbing Mike K. for relying on the press.
Newspaper in Africa. Maybe it’s an elaborate hoax, maybe it is an error. I think I would like to know more about it.
Speaking seriously, a newspaper article by itself is about the least convincing evidence I can imagine. The quality control in newspapers leaves something to be desired. Just to be sure, I read the article again, and it provides no substantiation for its claim.
Be skeptical of what journalists say, including me!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:40 pmthe House of Representatives even passed a resolution stating that the guy was born in Hawaii
That was HR 593 from July, and it was mostly a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the admission of Hawaii to the Union in 1959. One sentence in it states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But it’s just a resolution–just an opinion, with no force in law. Its passage should have come as no surprise, since the Congress was tasked in January with counting the electoral votes, and accepting the eligibility of the President and Vice-President, and they did.
As Arken Specter once said, “Not proven.”
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:43 pm#12 — Comment by Patterico — 12/5/2009 @ 11:56 am
She also called it a “fair question” and “fair game.”
Your reading is a stretch.
Maybe, but consider:
Is not the phrase “fair question” a direct answer to those who wish to see the BC? In other words, it is a fair question to ask to see the BC.
Is not “fair game” a direct reference to the political environment where all sorts of vital records are routinely requested by the electorate? In other words, it is fair game for the public to seek a Presidential Candidate’s records.
IMHO, this seems to require less interpretation than “it is fair to question the legitimacy of Obama’s Presidency” or “it is fair game to challenge President Obama’s citizenry”.
Perhaps the interviewer was talking about birther issues, where as Palin thought he was talking about BC issues. Often, anti-birthers find any questions of President Obama’s BC as synonymous with birther stuff. Again IMHO, the interviewer should have been clearer if indeed he was talking about birther stuff.
Pons Asinorum (b0bc5f) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:44 pmI’ve got no problem with her messing with the proggies minds – she’s a private citizen. Why not?
And contrary to popular rumor, I don’t see her running for anything this cycle.
mojo (74ba73) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:52 pmI don’t know who are the crazier, birthers demanding to see the president’s original birth certificate or climate change deniers demanding to see the original raw climate data. The government would never hoax us.
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/5/2009 @ 12:58 pmThe little president man doesn’t deserve the benefit of any doubt. Not after he stole trillions of phony stimulus dollars from our little treasury to pretend to fix the economy, and now wants billions and billions more to fix the economy for reals this time. Not after he stole GM and gave it to his fat-assed illiterate UAW thug friends. Not after he prances over to Copenhagen to abet the climate change scam what is dear to the heart of Marxists everywhere. He’s hurting our little country something awful.
Anti-birthers take their eye off the ball as much as birthers do I think. The little president man is a big boy. It’s his job to put rumors about his birth certificate to rest. The dirty socialist little muppet has chosen not to do that. It’s weak however you rationalize it, it’s arrogant, and it’s disrespectful of his office. The little president man has a duty to take this issue off the table, and he has failed to do that and for his own reasons he will continue to fail.
But it’s no reflection on Sarah Palin that the inept douchebag is incapable of making the sort of questions that were ask of her go away, and it’s not her job to defend his feeble inept uselessness I don’t think.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:00 pmLong time lurker here. I think this whole cert issue is stupid from start to finish, but what’s with the friendly fire on SP? Volleys downrange people.
Lurked (d1db1e) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:01 pmwere *asked* of her go away I mean…
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:04 pmBirthers suck. Andrew Sullivan is a pathetic powergulte lovin douchenozzle that has not one iota of class or decency.
JD (ce39ff) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:05 pmSarah Palin is an embarrassment for the GOP.
Anita Busch (fc416d) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:06 pm“… Haven’t we learned by now not to take anything in the media at face value…”
Which is why the newspaper announcement of his birth is so contentious (and Yes, I appreciate the irony of your response).
But, to get back to the subject at hand…
AD - RtR/OS! (14c527) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:07 pmYes, the Birthers have the right to raise the issue, just as the Grassy-Knoll types have the right to dispute the official findings of the events in Dallas. But, as Patrick Moynehan famously said: Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but no one has the right to their own facts.
Until the facts come out (the actual documents of BHO’s birth, and education) we will have Raging Opinions, and the games shall continue.
The FACT that BHO has assiduously concealed key elements of his life generates tremendous speculation and suspicion of what has actually happened.
Maybe Barack Obama isn’t a birther, but he sure as hell’s been pandering to them by not answering their concerns I think.
He just such an awful president man sometimes I just can’t hardly believe it.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:09 pm#33
Yeah, it’s totally obvious that wee lil Barry is trying to hide all kinds of crap about his past, but since we have no legal mechanism to force him to reveal his grades, or produce a certain document regarding his birth, we’re kinda stuck.
Is he acting like a total jerk? Yes. Can we do anything about it? No.
That being the case, it’s time to move on.
Dave Surls (bc95b1) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:12 pmI certainly don’t think she is an embarrassment. Huckabee might be. She has a way to go on policy but the next election may be a character election like 1976. Personally, I don’t see her running, except possibly as VP, in 2012.
People are very tired of people of low character, like most of the administration appointments. On that score, she is genuine and the complaints are about stuff that would never even be brought up on people like Biden or Ted Kennedy.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:21 pmBrother Bradley,
My apology for not thinking about the context of your comments.
That said, the link seems to be a bit elaborate for a hoax web site.
If it is a real article, on a real web site, clearly it is possible it is a mistake. It appears they are essentially trying to say “local boy does good”, which they could do whether he was born in Kenya or “Kenyan” in the sense his father was from Kenya, and hence the mistake.
As a newspaper person, if you were interested in seeing if this was retracted later, or wanted to try to confirm the information in the story, how would you go about it?
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:27 pmPlease. The vaunted Clinton oppo team was on the case even if the McCain campaign was not. The question is legit, but the proper and useful time for this inquiry was back in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Surely the majority of intelligent people on both sides of the issue–those questioning the birth certificate, and those who feel it has been sufficiently covered– must see that this line of attention serves no positive purpose at this time. The president WILL stay in office until the next election in 2012. It will not be the mysterious birther issue that does him in–there are so many other things that will lose him votes. In the meantime, Republican candidates and leadership MUST fight to be seen by their rank and file, and even more so by independents, as serious public servants whose competence, policies and fiscal restraint will be vast improvements over the current Democratic catastrophe.
elissa (90d488) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:40 pmThe posts have been coming fast and furious. I will reemphasize my main point at #13, which others have alluded to (then I will try to be quiet).
It is remarkable that the thing in the news is on the “crazy people” that simply want to see the birth certificate, or whatever is in the box. The thinness of Obama’s CV has to be unprecedented in recent national politics.
And the set-up was his US Senate race. He found a way to overrule reasonable privacy concerns of his opponent and make that “the story”, diverting any attention away from himself.
Incredible genius, foresight, and implimentation of a long-range plan. He may seem incompetent, but I’m afraid at just how competent he may be at bringing the “change” he really wants.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/5/2009 @ 1:52 pmI’m in elissa’s camp @#43. If the Clinton goons couldn’t make this issue stick, no one can. That “good man” with the constantly protruding middle finger was duly elected and will be busily destroying our economy for longer than I want to think about.
Old Coot (166f79) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:07 pmSo, suppose the fact becomes clear that zero is not eligible? Not by a mile. Not in any way, shape, form, or construction. Because of his birth.
Richard Aubrey (1a4ab0) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:08 pmI would expect the anti-birthers, the ones insisting he was born here to start right in with, “It’s no big deal. We’re an interconnected world. Racists.”
Still, I think they’d rather not have to. They fight this as if they are afraid of something. The most logical thing to do would be to publicize the long form and make the birthers out to be fools. Not merely sneer at them, but prove how stupid they’ve been.
Who placed the newspaper ad, the birth registration department or a hospital?
Since Hawaii allowed births to be registered by someone attesting to a birth rather than requiring the filing of a statement of live birth signed by the delivering doctor, if the newspaper ad was placed by the former it means nothing.
There’s no valid reason for the original birth certificate not to be released. And anyone who uses the term birthers (as in truthers) to refer to someone demanding production of the original birth certificate is an idiot. It’s the same tactic as the AGW zealots used in referring to skeptics as deniers (as in Holocaust deniers).
My theory is that the original birth certificate hasn’t been released because it wasn’t signed by the delivering doctor.
If someone has a definitive article proving that the newspaper ad was placed by the hospital I would appreciate it if you would post a link. It seems to me that the issue was investigated as effectively as the theory of AGW.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:14 pmIt’s the same tactic as the AGW zealots used in referring to skeptics as deniers (as in Holocaust deniers).
+10
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:17 pmThe only fool here is the person generating the controversy. His name is Obama. He could end it tomorrow by releasing a long form birth certificate signed by a Hawaiian doctor. If there is one.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:18 pmwhat i find amusing is that, although it would be expected that somebody would be bragging to high heaven that his awesomeness, “The Won” (eleventy!!11!) was “born here”, converting an otherwise unremarkable locale in Hawaii into yet another tourist attraction, no one has….
what’s up with that? we have plaques or better all over the US for all the others, famous or forgotten, near as i can tell from a quick google, but Mr. History is just listed as an amorphous “Honolulu”…. its not like this was in the early 1700’s when Washington was born, this was the 60’s when record keeping was mandatory.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:18 pm#46 Richard Aubrey:
And if it does, what is our remedy?
Since there is none readily apparent, isn’t it more salubrious to prevent the O!ne from doing any more damage than necessary, and replacing him as soon as circumstance allows?
I mean, it’s not like we find out the O!ne is really a Zero and John McCain steps in to take over the Presidency. Oh, and the Democrats of course would be quite willing to see that happen.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:23 pmHow did such a dark horse with such a dark past ever get elected to POTUS in 2008?
TC (0b9ca4) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:25 pmGee, why would Ms. Palin think that raising most any question that had the potential of making obama’s day less fun wouldn’t be fair game?
“Tell me, Ms. Palin – you’ve seen the protesters in the streets with their signs saying “rip Obama’s balls from his body, and combine them with the intestines of the McCain staffers into a tasty stew!” Do you think those signs have a rightful place in the public discourse?”
“Why, yes, Dan, I think that they’re raising pertinent issues and ideas that many people would like to see resolved. I have other issues and ideas that I’m working on and so I’ll not be carrying one of those signs myself, but that’s never been the test of whether it might not be right for others to do, has it?”
bobby b (4baf73) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:31 pmThe public narrative is so effectively controlled by leftists that even a perfectly reasonable demand like asking a presidential candidate to produce his birth certificate is approached with the same hesitation as picking up a ticking time bomb.
One of the results of this phenomenon is that this arrogant president has been able to pursue a radical agenda with barely a peep from the incompetent, in the tank, media.
What’s tiresome is the excuses and cowardice of consevatives when it comes to Obama. Treat him like you would anyone else. Demand production of his birth certificate and don’t allow any fool to call you a birther for making a perfectly reasonable demand.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:33 pmThe purported existence of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii, unless it actually says so. Under the rules at the time, people born outside of Hawaii could obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth [sic] the same as people actually born in Hawaii, through 1972. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen had a Hawaiian birth certificate stating he was born in Hawaii even though he was really born in China. It was bogus. (However, I’m sure Dr. Sun displayed it proudly on the wall of his den.)
But if Obama truly was born in Hawaii, and one of his parents was a foreign national, he is, in my opinion, still not eligible.
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:34 pmNullify him until he is hounded from office or impeached. Proof of ineligibility destroys his ability to pursue his radical agenda.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:37 pmew.
Richard Aubrey (1a4ab0) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:38 pmYou act as if the two cannot be done simultaneosly.
Strikes me that if the zero is, in fact, ineligible, much of his power to do us ill would be gone, even if he stays in office.
Would bills he signed be valid? Let’s put some lawyers on that for the next hundred years.
Faith!
AD - RtR/OS! (14c527) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:40 pm55.The purported existence of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii,
unlesseven if it actually says so./facepalm
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:41 pmI live in Florida, and we’ve recently passed a law that I need to produce a birth certificate in order to get my driver’s license renewed.
I hope for his sake Mr. Obama doesn’t decide to relocate to Florida. But I imagine he’ll be able to afford a driver, so he still won’t be required to produce his BC.
Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:42 pmThe validity of the demand for transparency RE the BC is not solely a birther issue. I have seen tortured logic (here, even) to show it’s birther v non-birther, but that is not the case. This demand, like the demand for his college transcripts are transparancy v opaqueness. There is no precedent, until Obama, for refusing transparency here. And that, in my mind, is the overriding issue. Not birther v non-birther.
Is the question valid? You betcha. Is it rightful? You betcha. Is it tied to birtherism? With some who demand it, yes, but with others who demand it, no.
I’m really not interested in the tortured logic of the anti-birther crowd — on both sides of the aisle — to absolutely tie the demand for BC to birtherism. It is not a sound or even valid argument.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:42 pmOne can admire and be over all very supportive of an individual (a political figure, a sports figure, even a family member) and yet, from time to time, have to accept that they have said or done something problematic or ill-thought out within a specific situation. For me, that’s Sarah THIS week on THIS issue.
elissa (90d488) — 12/5/2009 @ 2:55 pmThat’s unacceptable, elissa. The reason people hate Sarah Palin is because of how great she is, and you’re just feeding into that.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:00 pmFootsie, you’re weird. Anyone ever tell you that? Sometimes I can’t read past your weirdness to catch the point you’re making, such as your 3pm statement.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:04 pmelissa, I sort of agree, on one hand, a bad week for her on this issue and this issue alone. However, stepping back a bit, it is again ironic (calculated?) how much Palin controls what people talk about. And, is any press is good press?
The woman knows how to keep herself in the spotlight. As was noted earlier in the week, she keeps her name in the news, she keeps people talking about her, and subsequently, talking about the issues she feels are important. So, tell me, who’s in control here?
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:07 pmThank you Hitchcock. Happy’s 3:00PM comment left me with major ??????? too. No offense,Happyfeet.
elissa (90d488) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:08 pmI thought it was kind of funny that elissa seemed to feel defensive even when her views are perfectly rational ones, Mr. Hitchcock, so I answered her with a statement what was completely irrational.
Also the whole why do they hate her meme is a favorite. It’s always cause of how Sarah Represents the Real American Woman or some other self-flattering sort of projection.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:12 pm“Would bills he signed be valid? Let’s put some lawyers on that for the next hundred years.”
Of course. When someone is impeached, their past acts aren’t invalid.
imdw (688568) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:21 pmAhh, see, footsie, Sarah represents a huge amount of fly-over country, not just the girlies in fly-over country. I voted for her for veep. It just so happened the left-leaning McCain was on the over-card. Had it not been for her, I would’ve voted third-party.
I’ll vote for her in the ’12 primaries if she runs, and likely SoccerSealUSA (twitter) will, too. But that teen believes it isn’t quite Sarah’s time to win it. She said so in a “Right Angle” interview.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:25 pmI just think if people are chary of criticizing Sarah Palin even when they think she’s said dumb things then something isn’t being well-served.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:29 pmI applaud your lack of fealty to Meghan’s daddy, though. That’s very noble.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:31 pmPatrick: I agree with you 100% and also think you have just admitted to being a “birther”, as much as Sarah Palin or the majority of those who believe it entirely reasonable to expect Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate.
When a politician refuses to address a “fair point” and raises what I think you accept are legitimate “suspicions” by refusing to produce readily available evidence responsive to that “fair point”, and instead says “trust me” in order to avoid, as you seem to accept, either “embarrassment” or because he/she finds it “politically useful”, do you usually think that is okay?
Avisame (9901c6) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:32 pmI’ll start by saying that I think the ‘Birther’ issue and O’s eligiblilty to be Pres are dumb.
tmac (5559f7) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:34 pmHowever, my son, who is in Afghanistan, applied for a Passport while he was home on leave. He presented the (Texas) birth certificate, with seal, issued to us when he was born. He also presented his ‘military’ passport. The person he was dealing with told him the birth certificate was a short form and could not be used for his application. He also told my son that the ‘military’ issued passport was not sufficient proof of citizenship. So why is a short form acceptable for the Pres but not my son? I know, some are more equal than others.
But I’m sorry elissa I didn’t mean to throw you there. I wasn’t very clear, really.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:34 pm#70: it would be more efficacious if you were to criticize her on something valid, instead of trumped up bullshit.
but then again, that wouldn’t leave you with much of anything to criticize her for, would it?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:36 pmwhen a man spends millions to hide a public record he must be a lawyer. For me, if there is nothing to hide, why is he spending millions to hide it? I don’t think that puts me into the categories you describe, birther, truther etc. I’m just curious. What is he hiding at such cost?
Curtis (653a53) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:41 pm“The person he was dealing with told him the birth certificate was a short form and could not be used for his application. He also told my son that the ‘military’ issued passport was not sufficient proof of citizenship. So why is a short form acceptable for the Pres but not my son? I know, some are more equal than others.”
Maybe the postal employee he talked to was wrong.
imdw (d24ce4) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:41 pm“when a man spends millions to hide a public record he must be a lawyer. For me, if there is nothing to hide, why is he spending millions to hide it? I don’t think that puts me into the categories you describe, birther, truther etc. I’m just curious. What is he hiding at such cost?”
You know, glenn beck has hired lawyers and gone to foreign courts to shut down discussion of his alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990. But I don’t imagine he’s hiding anything there.
imdw (d24ce4) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:43 pmThe answer is Patterico’s option #2. Obama was born in Hawaii but he hides his birth certificate because it shows his father was communist writer, Frank Marshall Davis, not Stanley Ann Dunham’s green card husband.
Dunham was pregnant with the child of her father’s black friend, FMD, (he wrote a book about it: “Sexual Rebel, Black” under a pen name) and since Davis was already married, Dunham needed a black husband. So she found Obama Sr who needed a green card to stay in the USA. One hand washed the other, the marriage was one of convenience.
That’s why Obama Sr was able to pick up and leave for an educational opportunity at Harvard and never look back. The kid wasn’t his and everyone involved knew it. It’s also why Barry never tried to help his so-called “relatives” in Kenya. They aren’t related.
It was Bill Ayres who put Obama in the jaws of a trap when he wrote “Dreams from my Father” and made such a big deal out of the African connection. It was such a “compelling narrative” that Obama has since been compelled to keep the con. Hide the records and deny his birthright. It’s the albatross around his neck. He can’t come clean without revealing the lie of his life story.
ropelight (78a778) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:58 pmEveryone panders to their pitbull base at some point in their career.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:59 pmPalin didn’t like all the Obama operatives trying to get all up in her birth canal, so maybe she’d like payback to be a (metaphorical for all you SEK acolytes) medevac.
Assuming what you say about Beck is true, your point is a clueless fail unless Beck have shut down these false allegations by authorizing the government to release a document. Good grief.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 3:59 pm“Assuming what you say about Beck is true”
No need to assume. Here it is:
http://www.cpradr.org/tabid/325/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/541/Default.aspx
imdw (8bd603) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:03 pmNonsense. A married woman would not have agreed to have her child registered as a bastard. Even if, in this case, it would have been prescient to do so.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:03 pmFail. You evaded my point.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:06 pmFollowing up,
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:07 pmPeople try to be collegial and all that which is nice, but we have all been on one end or the other of a consversation about an adversarial situation where we said some graphic or sanitized version of: “*bleep* that *bleep*.. let him *bleeping* defend his own *bleep*… *bleep* him/her and all his/her sleazy *bleeping* pieces of *bleeping* kiss *bleep* *bleeps*. *Bleep* happens to *bleeps* too, so let him/her *bleeping* deal”
So now pit bulls demand the production of documents?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:08 pmOkay. Produce the beeping birth certificate.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:10 pmYou know, its up on snopes….
imdw (c06324) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:15 pmHow does it serve the interests of the nation to act like children and approach the issue of Obama’s birth place as a matter of faith rather than documentary proof? And why do some lawyers accept secondary evidence rather than insisting upon the best evidence.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:16 pmBy it do you mean the COLB, not the original long form birth certificate? If so, try to keep up.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:19 pmYou are completely wrong. One parent who is a US citizen is all it takes. In fact, the “anchor babies” many times don’t have either parent who can claim US citizenship.
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:20 pmPatrick, I would never accuse you of comment milking but it sure brings out the comments when Sarah Palin is the topic, isn’t it ?
MIke K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:23 pmCite the U.S. Supreme Court decision upon which you rely.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:23 pmCite the proof that I am wrong
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:26 pmIt’s really simple, for the last year and a half, people haven’t ‘asking question’ they have been accusing of every conceivable slur against her integrity, her aptitude as a parent, her fidelity,
and even her status as a mother. And most of these people, have begun through connections to the Obama campaigns ‘propaganda arm’ and the DNC. Sshe just wasn’t willing to turn the other cheek,
Now I agree with hf, on the point that he is entitled do no presumption of veracity or competence. If there was really a daily show, it could be three hours long and it wouldn’t completely plumb the mendacity of the man
bishop (4e0dda) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:26 pmAnd pandering demonstrates what positive characteristics about a person who claims she is not a washington politician but “one of us”?
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:31 pmis quisnam fastidium must probo
Are you a liberal?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:32 pm“And pandering demonstrates what positive characteristics about a person who claims she is not a washington politician but “one of us”?”
It means she’s a much of a moron as all the birthers.
imdw (f8211e) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:33 pm#83, TG, your point makes sense if the married woman isn’t fearful she was skirting the law and didn’t want to take chances on possible legal disputes, custody issues, or blackmail demands.
Or a host of other reasons, unimaginable to us many years later, but seriously disturbing to a young mother involved in multiple deceptions.
Additionally, She was proud of Frank Davis and wanted to make sure her child’s birth father was documented. Both she and her father keep in very close contact with Davis and both made sure Barack knew Davis well. Barack acknowledges Davis as his mentor and constant companion for many years.
I don’t think your assumption of how Stanley Ann Dunham would have behaved is persuasive enough to ignore all the evidence which points to Frank Davis as Obama’s birth father.
ropelight (78a778) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:33 pmNo. Are you?
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:34 pmLOL
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:35 pmAfter my posts here, you need to ask? Can’t you read? Or is your reasoning ability not up to your self-description?
You asserted something as a fact, not as your opinion, and when challenged to cite your authority you have none.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:40 pmFact: military personnel married to a foreign national father children who are US citizens.
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:45 pmFact: Babies born in the states are US citizens even if their parents are not – people against the immigration bill a couple of years ago cited this as a major problem for which the laws needed to be changed.
Fact: I don’t come to this site specifically looking for your posts
Terry Gain: IMO you’re trying to mud-wrestle with a pig.
Old Coot (166f79) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:46 pmI am not aware of this “body of evidence”. My 35 years experience as a lawyer tells me that if the father was someone other than her husband Dunham would not likely have put that on her son’s birth certificate.
In any event, this issue should be resolved by production of the original long form birth certificate, rather than speculation.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:47 pmPeople born in the United States are, with few exceptions, citizens of the United States. It’s silly to argue about that. See, e.g., The Fourteenth Amendment; the case of Wong Kim Ark http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
nk (df76d4) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:49 pmThe Birthers argue that “natural-born citizen” is different from “citizen.”
I don’t think they’re right, but at least understand the argument so they don’t jump down your throat for that.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:50 pmSarah Palin is appearing with Barney Frank and others tonight at the Gridiron Club, where it’s common to roast the other speakers. It should be fun. USAToday’s Washington Bureau Chief plans to twitter it live. The most recent entry says Palin will speak first and Frank is second.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:54 pmIs this incoherent thought supposed to be a sentence?
So. Is this your authority for the definitive interpretation of a term of The U.S. Constitution.
So what? Are you always this incoherent? Why don’t you just acknowledge that you don’t know what you are talking about?
On second thought, you just did.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:57 pmNo need for a Supreme Court decision, it’s been part of US law since the 14th Amendment and 8 USC 1401.
Here’s the relevant part of the US Code:
So, anyone born in the US is a natural born US citizen. The citizenship of his parents doesn’t matter.
Some chump (8087d5) — 12/5/2009 @ 4:58 pmAnd you still don’t know it only takes a single American parent for the child to be American? Was the Bar set THAT low back in the70s? Maybe that’s how Cyrus passed it.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:00 pmPoint of clarification: A single American parent when the child is born outside the US.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:02 pmI personally don’t think there is much to the birth certificate business,there is a 1,001 one other verifiable things, that aught to be examined, that are suspicious if downright suitable about him.
it is curious that one of the major player, the firm of Perkins and Coie, is also a major factor in the ethic brouhaha, that entangled her for the better part of the year, where the new white house counsel, who happens to be the husband of Mao loving Lily Tomlin impersonator Anita Dunn,
bishop (4e0dda) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:02 pmWhy does it matter if Palin is pandering to people who question Obama’s citizenship? I don’t think there is any validity to the conspiracy theories about 9/11 or Trig Palin’s birth but what makes those conspiracies ludicrous isn’t that people believed them — it’s that people believe them even after they’ve been debunked. The answer to a conspiracy is to debunk it, and Obama refuses to do that.
I personally believe Obama is an American citizen but there’s something on the long form birth certificate Obama (the candidate) did not want people to see. My guess is it shows his religion was Muslim. I also think he’s unwilling to release the form now because it could trigger demands for other documents (college transcripts, etc.) that would be more damaging. But there is no way any modern President could get away with this kind of subterfuge without a complicit media, and that’s the thing that really galls people like me. If that makes me and Sarah Palin Birthers — so be it.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:03 pmNo problem. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Just trying to get the youngsters to think.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:04 pmI just want to note that me and DRJ are on the same side of a Sarah Palin question. That’s kind of neat.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:12 pmIf Palin had explained it the way you did she would probably have scored a lot of points with her skeptics for the thoughtful reply.
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:14 pmBut she chose to address it entirely differently which gives her skeptics more reason to doubt how much depth she really has.
People who demand the production of Obama’s birth certificate are not birthers. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone runing for the highest office to prove he is eligible. Do not let other people, whose position on this issue is objectively ridiculous, dismiss a perfectly reasonable request by the use of this loaded, dishonest and demagogic term.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:15 pmWhat’s sadly funny about this is how the MSM thought it was just fine to hammer Sarah Palin with frivolous lawsuits to “seek the truth” but that kind of approach is considered to be crazy when it is directed to BHO.
I think that we should pick: open files on all politicians, or respect privacy issues completely (pending FBI checks). Shifting from one stance to the other serves an agenda of a partisan nature.
By the way, DRJ, I think you are correct about “controversial information” on certain documents. Look at how the MSM was all over GWB about that…but it was crazy to look into JK’s background. Sigh.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:16 pmMy position on “natural born citizen” vs. “only citizen” is “Was naturalization required by law to obtain citizenship?” If naturalization is not required, you are a natural born citizen.
nk (df76d4) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:17 pmVOR2,
It’s a soundbite world for all politicians except Obama, who has a media hall pass.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:18 pmDRJ,
voiceofreason2 (325a22) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:24 pmCan’t disagree with that but I do think the public at large is seeing through it. I also think that if he is to be seriously challenged in 2012 someone with depth such as Gingrich will need to be the nominee. Palin could have said what you did in a sound bite and made headway.
Correct. I think what DRJ and I both think is a possibility, could have been said by Palin.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:29 pmComing from someone who claims to have had a J.D. for 35 years and still thinks it takes a US citizen FATHER to have a US citizen child, that is utterly hilarious.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:30 pmDRJ, my comment at #11 has a link that shows a long form (not of Obama). I don’t see religion on that long form.
I am not certain Obama was born in the US because I do know Hawai’i made a habit of providing short-form BC to people born outside Hawai’i. Doesn’t change who the mommy is, though. And I don’t know if it would change the long form birth status, either.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:33 pmHitchcock
I never said he had to have a US citizen father. If he wasn’t born in the United States he is not a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment did not amend section 1.
The 14th Amendment did not change the definition of Natual born citizen in d
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:49 pmYou folks are missing this was not the point of the interview, the issues that she really cares about, the military, energy extraction,taxes, government control, immigration, you know the things we say we care aboutthis was practically an oversight, as her entire comment indicates.
bishop (4e0dda) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:49 pmYou do know that Obama did produce documentary proof, right? He produced a document certified by the state of Hawaii showing his birthplace as Honolulu. Patterico pointed that out in one of the links in the original post.
So, it’s like like anyone is acting like children or approaching this issue as a matter of faith.
Some chump (8087d5) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:50 pmGoodness, this is amazing. Have you read 8 USC 1401? It lists a bunch of circumstances where someone born outside of the US is still a natural born citizen.
Some chump (8087d5) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:54 pm#56 Terry Gain:
#57 Richard Aubrey:
Baloney. It was his agenda that elevated him to office. If he can’t be nullified on his agenda alone~every America hating jot and tittle of it already, what difference would the revelation that he “accidentally” ran for an office he wasn’t eligible for make?
As President, the O!ne is a fait accompli, that nothing will undo. The problem now is to prevent and even undo the damage caused by electing a Marxist revolutionary trained since birth to hate America and everything about it. And whining about his birth certificate versus a certificate of live birth ain’t the solution to that.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 5:56 pmI vote for option #2 … and I think what Obama is hiding is his name. The newspaper birth announcement did not name him, it merely identified him as a baby boy born to his parents of record. (I won’t get into the Frank Marshall Davis stuff.) The name on a Certificate of Live Birth can be changed, and often is, to reflect adoptions and voluntary name changes, so that document proves nothing.
There does not seem to be any record of Our President going by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II” until college, when that name would have been very useful for getting him into Harvard as a “legacy’ (his father, Barack Hussein Obama, went to Harvard). His Indonesian school records list him as “Barry Soetoro.” His Hawai’ian school records list him as “Barry Obama.”
Rather than “Barack Hussein Obama II,” I’d bet money that the name on his long-form original birth certificate contains “Barry,” “Stanley,” or “Dunham” … Would candidate Barack Obama have been elected president if it had been revealed that Dreams from My Father was really about a man named Stanley B. Obama?
There’s a way we can find out what’s going on. Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango is fighting to stay in thhis country rather than be deported as an illegal immigrant. Under the laws of the State of Hawai’i, a close relative can request a copy of the birth certificate. If the Birthers — or even the Republican National Committee — were smart, they’d offer their services to help her stay in this country, in exchange for her signature on a simple document request. Even if there’s nothing funny about his birth certificate, this would be worth doing to shut down the Birthers, who are being used by the Left to tar all of Obama’s opponents as conspiracy freaks.
Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:00 pmIn fact, to follow up my last comment~something that might help make the average American (who is woefully ignorant of the genesis of the press manipulation we see constantly by the Left) is the wider dissemination of the history of the tentacular grip the Soviet Union had over the Labour Party in Great Britain. To believe that the Soviets had penetrated Labour in Britain without achieving a similar penetration of the Democrats here in the States would be naive, at best. That the O!ne is the product of such outside manipulation of the American political landscape if far more relevant, and frightening than the idea of a furriner being elected to the highest office in the land.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:05 pm#132 EW1: … landscape
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:08 pmifis far more …Goodness, read it again chump. It defines citizen, not natural born citizen.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:09 pmWhere is natural born citizen defined, Terry?
nk (df76d4) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:14 pmBirthers are teh suck. DRJ and happyfeet and I agree. This is a good thing.
JD (10aa18) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:15 pmAnd if you would, could you please show me any law from any time which conclusively defined any of the Presidents as a natural born citizen?
nk (df76d4) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:16 pmI can think of one reason that the Hillary! campaign didn’t jump all over the Messiah’s eligibility. Like it or not, blacks are a huge part of the Democratic coalition, and most blacks were over the moon about “one of theirs” (even one with a different background than 99% of them) finally running for president on a main-party ticket.
If there is something hinky, Hillary! might have gained the nomination, but blown the Democratic coalition out of the water—blacks would have never, never forgiven the one who destroyed “their” candidate’s eligiblity. Sort of like how a lot of Catholics would’ve reacted if one of JFK’s rivals had successfully torpedoed his run for the Dem nomination in 1960 by exposing his health problems and zipper issues…it wouldn’t matter how right the other guy was, he still destroyed “their” candidate, and they’d either stay home on the Big Day, or (o horrors!) vote for the other guy.
As far as transperancy goes—there has always been a dichotomy between what’s demanded of candidates offered by the Evol GOP and those being run by the Good, Good Democrats. Clinton didn’t allow his college transcripts to be released, IIRC, and Kerry got away with some fast dealings about his military record, so why should the media lapdogs (or running dogs of the Democratic lie-mongers) treat the Messiah any differently, even beyond the common left-wing delight in finally having a black major-party candidate?
technomad (677f63) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:27 pmIt’s not. I think it’s clear however that if he wasn’t born in the United States, he’s not a natural born citizen just because he has an American mother.
The issue ought to have been decided by the Supreme Court before the election. His agenda is so radical that undermining his authority is fair and necessary game in my opinion, especially as he could clear the air by releasing his long form birth certificate.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:27 pmI think it’s clear however that if he wasn’t born in the United States, he’s not a natural born citizen just because he has an American mother.
Well, that’s what I asked, I suppose. What makes that clear?
nk (df76d4) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:29 pm#139 Terry Gain:
You do? Because that certainly isn’t clear to me.
In fact, I would argue strenuously that attempting to deny American citizenship to the natural born child of an American citizen is an infringement of that citizen’s rights as an American.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:39 pmTerry Gain, if you are an attorney, remind me never to contract your services. I prefer a qualified attorney.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:50 pmThe chump conveniently (for him) overlooks the clause “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” and all of the exceptions in law to that clause.
AD - RtR/OS! (381370) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:50 pm139
The thing is that citizenship devolves from the father.
If one were to expect that women’s suffrage changes everything in the constitution to make women equal, then it raises the citizenship bar higher, not lower. Both parents need to be citizens, not just the father, before the offspring is a constitutional citizen. Either way, Obama doesn’t qualify.
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:51 pmj curtis, looking for a hot chick? I think I know one just your speed. Ever met blu?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:57 pmWhy would I need to remind you? Do you have short term memory loss?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 7:01 pmMy, you’re learned, Hitchcock.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 7:03 pmEW1(SG),
They’re not trying to deny American citizenship, just “natural born” status. Terry, OIDO, and others make up their own rules based on some idiotic legal theory they develop or heard somewhere. While most reasonable people would say that a person is either “natural born” or “naturalized”, they have several other categories pulled from thin air. Some of these idiotic theories include (but are certainly not limited to):
1. Nobody born outside the United States is a “natural born” citizen, they are a “citizen-at-birth”.
2. Nobody born to a parent who is not a citizen is “natural born”, no matter what the other parent is. They are also a “citizen-at-birth”.
3. “Statutory” citizens are not “natural born”. The definition of statutory varies among followers of this theory. In OIDO’s case, he doesn’t believe that John McCain was eligible to become President either and has brought up “Statutory” citizens, although he may also subscribe to #1 and/or #2, I neither recall nor care.
4. A parent can renounce their child’s citizenship, forever revoking “natural born” status even if they end up being a citizen as an adult.
5. Dual-citizens cannot be “natural born”, as if another country’s laws can affect ours. This one was especially funny since I could see Iran proclaiming that anyone born in America since 1900 would now be considered a non-voting Iranian citizen, thereby making everybody in the world ineligible for the Presidency of the United States. A subset of this group says that being a dual-citizen is okay, but only if they never travel under the passport of another country.
If President Obama had been delivered by C-section, many would claim that it wasn’t a “natural” birth, so he’s not “natural born” in a Constitutional sense. Soon, IVF will have been around long enough that cranks will claim that these babies are not “natural” in a Constitutional sense and therefore ineligible for the Presidency. Most of us believe that anyone who is a citizen at birth is “natural born”. Anyone parsing beyond this is really not worth discussion anymore. You will not convince them, no matter what evidence you bring. Even if the long form was produced and nothing untoward found, they would claim it was a forgery or fall back on some other crackpot theory that “proves” them correct. Requesting historical information about the President is fair game. Claiming he is ineligible, based solely on conjecture and without proof, is irresponsible and nuts.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/5/2009 @ 7:19 pm“Correct. I think what DRJ and I both think is a possibility, could have been said by Palin.”
I don’t. Her observation that “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Citizens have a right to ask questions, and isn’t it interesting that questions about Trig are fair game, but hands off Saint Barry.”
Then she went back to the meat of the interview. For that she’s taking friendly fire (again).
Had she started speculating about the reason the doc hasn’t been released, she’d lose the high ground and post facto validate the media sanctioned witchburning (and that’s exactly what it was) that she suffered.
Today the left and right blogs would be talking about how stupid, unprepared and paranoid she is to lead, as exhibited by her insinuating Obama’s a secret Muslim or had renounced his citizenship on a college app, or dog-whistled her racist base with the Kenyan smear, or….
She gave an impromptu answer that arguably could have been more polished (read focus tested), pointed out the double standard and pivoted onto better ground. That’s not pandering.
fat tony (969700) — 12/5/2009 @ 7:25 pmI don’t. Her observation that “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Citizens have a right to ask questions, and isn’t it interesting that questions about Trig are fair game, but hands off Saint Barry.”
Nope.
She said it’s a fair question and fair game.
THEN the INTERVIEWER suggested to HER that maybe this is fair if the questions about Trig’s birth are fair. And she said hey, you know, that’s a good point. As in: I hadn’t thought about that before (you know, when I was saying it was a fair question etc.) but you’re right.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 7:33 pm#148 Stashiu3:
Oy.
/And happy holidays to you and your’n!
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:05 pmI take your point. Palinlike, I wasn’t as articulate as I should have been. My intention was unclear, and your interpretation of my remark was reasonable. 🙂
I meant only to address your agreement with DRJ’s comment (at 114?). I think Palin would have been far worse off had she said anything like that. I say that even though I adopt DRJ’s comment in toto.
I still don’t think Palin was pandering. That could be because I do think it is a fair question and fair game, irrespective of the wilder “birther” arguments.
fat tony (a65763) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:16 pmIf this was the dumbest thing Palin said this week, then she is still running circles backwards around foot in mouth Biden and tells more truth in one interview than the one has in the last 6 months.
I think someone said before that if asked, “Do you think there is reason to think Obama is not qualified to be president because of his birth history?” and she said yes, that would be a problem.
If she was asked, “A lot of people have questions about Obama’s past, everything from questioning over his birth certificate to his college and law school records, do you agree with them?”. She says, “Of course it is reasonable to expect a presidential candidate, let alone the president, to be forthcoming over his academic records and such things. Pres. Obama alone has demanded so much of his background to remain hidden. Since you specifically mentioned it, I don’t think his birth certificate and whether he is eligible for the presidency is something I’m interested in, but I understand the frustrations of those who wonder what all of the sealed records are about.” Then I don’t think there would be a problem.
As it is, the question was somewhere in between and the answer was in between.
I am sure it is difficult when every word is scrutinized by the L and some on the R, especially when you are trying to say things of some substance, instead of the lieing-through-both-sides-of-your-mouth-while-you-say-nothing politicalspeak.
Palin has a “Mrs. Smith goes to Washington” appeal. She was smart enough to become an incredibly popular governor, and honest enough to take on not only the opposing party but also the party bosses in her own party.
What the “Tea Party People” and those like minded are tired of is being told what to think, being lied to in the process, feeling that no one is listening, and even the people who say good things don’t follow through most of the time.
A reasonably intelligent, gifted executive, who is trustworthy and a servant of the people, not a political operative in a machine. I know it’s too much to ask for, but don’t act as if we’re stupid for asking for it.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:22 pmWhy does it matter if Palin is pandering to people who question Obama’s citizenship?
I’m with DRJ, happs, and JD.
I just don’t get why there is some big litmus test for saying exactly the right thing about this issue.
I can’t think of another issue where that’s the case.
I also don’t seee the comparison to Trutherism. Trutherism has a pretty heinous accusation at the core of it. Birtherism doesn’t.
The better comparisons to the birth certificate question are either:
1)Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004, because many people are just certain that Bush did something funny and isn’t legitimately President or
2)TANG, because many people are certain Bush is hiding damaging documentation about himself
Both of those things are pretty commonly accepted points of view on the left, and garner at most an eyeroll from people on the right.
So why is the birth certificate issue so different?
So what?
MayBee (3c4f33) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:23 pmI still think that Palin’s comment was not a problem. There are questions about Clinton and Kerry that have never been answered.
One issue about the name on the birth certificate. I have wondered if the grandparents brought him back to Hawaii because of concerns about his losing citizenship due to prolonged residency in Indonesia. If there was any question about it, residency might be a concern, even if they had the law wrong.
MIke K (2cf494) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:41 pmBirtherism and Trutherism are fundamentally dissimilar. However, the former still attracts its fair share of cranks.
The Popular Mechanics takedown of the Truther claims was devastating because the writers played straight and addressed the arguments on the merits. We need a Popular Mechanics style article, or series, that looks at the various iterations of “Birtherism” and takes them seriously.
I’m willing to start the ball rolling on the Jury side if Patterico’s cool with that. If you are concerned about this issue metastasizing on the blog (either side), I understand.
fat tony (a65763) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:03 pmGo for it. If the post is good enough I’ll promote it to the front page. I have wanted to revitalize the Jury site anyway.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:06 pmComment by fat tony — 12/5/2009 @ 9:03 pm
On what basis do you believe the Kenyan born citizen Obama is a natural born US citizen? Yeah, go run away and hide now. You have a fetish for Obama like everyone else who believes he’s a natural born citizen.
Those who believe Obama is a natural born citizen are the most worthless humans in the US. They came to that conclusion out of stupidity or fear.
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:10 pmThose who believe Obama is a natural born citizen are the most worthless humans in the US. They came to that conclusion out of stupidity or fear.
Except for murderers?
Nah, you’re right. Murderers aren’t as bad.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:13 pmComment by j curtis — 12/5/2009 @ 9:10 pm
Would you ask Jesus for his birth certificate?
fat tony (e8744d) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:34 pmYou may find this article interesting
http://www.examiner.com/x-9404-SF-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Birthers-Obama-is-the-seventh-president-with-a-foreignborn-parent
Obama is the seventh president with at least one foreign parent
voiceofreason2 (97d6f4) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:35 pmOh, and thanks, Patterico. I’ll try to not disappoint.
fat tony (e8744d) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:38 pmThe words natural born citizen in section 1 of the Constitution are yet to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. The words natural born could mean:
1. A child of two United States citizens born in the United States.
2. A child of two United States citizens born outside of the United States.
3. A child of a United States citizen and a foreign national born in the United States.
4. A child of a United States citizen and a foreign national born outside of the United States
Given that the purpose of Section 1 was to prevent the election of anyone with possibly divided loyalties to the position of CIC, I would suggest that the citizenship of the parents is more important than the child’s place of birth. Notwithstanding this, it seems to me that someone in category 4 is less likely to qualify than someone in category 3.
In my opinion the Wong Kim Ark case, which has been cited above, deals with the issue of citizenship rather than what is meant by natural born citizen in section 1. As for the Civil Rights Act, a mere act of Congress cannot amend the constitution.
My opinion could be wrong. To suggest that it is idiotic is itself idiotic, Stashiu3.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 9:57 pmI guess Reagans a birther as well – challenged Romneys status in 63 and 67
EricPWJohnson (9b7688) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:11 pmNah, you’re right. Murderers aren’t as bad.
Comment by Patterico — 12/5/2009 @ 9:13 pm
obama is a Kenyan born citizen because his citizenship devolves from his Kenyan father. murderers…whatever. How many murderers could destroy the country quicker than the Kenyan national president who is ruling us?
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:21 pmI would contend that all of those are natural born citizens, but you forgot a child of two foreign nationals born inside the United States. They are a citizen at birth (fact) and should be considered natural born citizens as well(opinion). As to the rest, an opinion can be both wrong and idiotic. Cranks are frequently both and I have no further interest in discussing this with you, OIDO, j curtis, or anyone else who would be impossible to convince. Enjoy your weekend.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:23 pmWould you ask Jesus for his birth certificate?
Comment by fat tony — 12/5/2009 @ 9:34 pm
The Constitution trumps these saviors and dieties. Yeah, I’d demand he satisfies the eligibility clause before I’d accept him as my president.
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:29 pmI guess Reagans a birther as well …
At this point, I’d call Ronald Reagan a deather …
To all you folks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I have two general questions. AFAIK, American law generally distinguishes between four categories of people:
A. People who were U.S. citizens at birth. This citizenship status can arise for any of several reasons.
B. People who have been granted U.S. citizenship at some time after birth; these people are called naturalized citizens.
C. People who at one time were U.S. citizens but are not now because they have renounced their citizenship; these people are called non-citizens. (There are various types of these, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.)
D. People who are not now and never were U.S. citizens; these people also are called non-citizens. (Again, there are various types of these, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.)
Q1: Can anyone inform me of a class of U.S. citizens who do not fall into category A or category B?
Q2: Is there any reason to believe that the Founders had any other definition in mind for the term “natural-born citizen” than category A, to distinguish citizens of this type from category B?
Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:37 pmMEMO TO SARAH
SUBJECT: BIRTHERS, BOOKS & BOOKED FOR JOKES
A ship of state sometimes keeps a dinghy in tow. Make like a governor and quit while you’re ahead.
Banks open Monday for all your deposits. Call Fox. Huckabee’s time slot may open earlier than you think. You go, girl!
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:37 pmA quick edit to category A above:
A. People who were U.S. citizens at birth, or who became citizens after the American Revolution due to the circumstances of their birth. This citizenship status can arise for any of several reasons.
*sigh* I thought I had included that …
Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e) — 12/5/2009 @ 10:44 pmMEMO TO DCSCA
SUBJECT: DRINKING AND POSTING
Not a good idea. It makes you think you are funnier than you are.
At least you aren’t telling tall tales of derring-do.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:11 pmFirst, if I were a lefty, I would be doing happy dances about this whole, tired issue, as they are.
Second:
Birthers are teh suck. DRJ and happyfeet and I agree. This is a good thing.
But, it takes all kinds to weave the fabric of the Earth.
Ikparvnath of Epsilon Base 3 told me so and if you don’t believe me, you are a planetist.
Good night, sir!
Ag80 (3d1543) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:12 pmVoiceofreason2:
That is an interesting article, but I don’t think it helps Obama’s claim much. I need to do some research, but as a preliminary take:
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were eligible via the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
“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”
Jefferson and Jackson were citizens at the time of adoption.
Buchanan was born too late for the grandfather clause (1791), but dad was naturalized prior to birth of James.
Chester Arthur is a special case who took extraordinary measures to conceal his history. More to come when I post.
Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers became American citizens upon marriage, and were such before Woodrow and Herbert were born.
fat tony (6aa3da) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:15 pmHmm, I wonder if the author meant Andrew JOHNSON?
Doesn’t help the case–naturalized parent, I think.
fat tony (c6b598) — 12/5/2009 @ 11:28 pmI don’t even get the premise that some old runner might have slipped through…so everyone can exploit that forevermore. Usurpers must be purged as we find them.
j curtis (5126e4) — 12/6/2009 @ 12:08 am#171- Ahhhhhhhhhh, the aledged Professor Kelp. Condescending sobering thoughts from experience no doubt. Next time, bring enough Alaskan Polar Bear Heaters for the whole class, Julius.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/6/2009 @ 12:25 am#114 — Comment by DRJ — 12/5/2009 @ 5:03 pm
I personally believe Obama is an American citizen but there’s something on the long form birth certificate Obama (the candidate) did not want people to see. My guess is it shows his religion was Muslim.
Me too! (your entire comment at #114 !)
If that makes me and Sarah Palin Birthers — so be it.
Naw, I think it makes you a rational-thinker who is not intimidated by those who try to demean people with labels like birther, regardless of whether such labels are applicable or not.
Well stated DRJ.
Pons Asinorum (b0bc5f) — 12/6/2009 @ 12:46 am#114- DRJ, It’s probably just a smart move on Palin’s part to stoke interest with the birthers before they drift off to some other constituency. To have them under her tent for fundraising or to seed a base for king-and-queen making makes dollars – and sense. She’d welcome any disillusioned Huckabee people over for a brunch… maybe with coffee and toast to make them feel at home.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/6/2009 @ 1:00 amI agree with DRJ at #114 too.
Also, Obama’s mother and father split up the year he was born, even though they formally divorced years later. In 1961, she went to Seattle to study at UW while her husband remained in Hawaii. That’s undisputed fact. So let’s suppose that woman X is splitting up with husband Y while giving birth to child Z at some odd location. Would woman X not be stupid to pass up an opportunity to get the birth of child Z registered at a location that would minimize chances of a custody dispute with husband Y? The odds are miniscule that such a thing happened in this case, but releasing the long-form would substantially reduce the number of doubters.
Andrew (526259) — 12/6/2009 @ 1:54 amI am agnostic about where he was born, but the longer this goes on the more I think that if he was born in the United States we would have seen some hard evidence of it by now. Perhaps he was born where his Muslim father wanted him born or perhaps he was born in the United States.
In any event it seems that for some of those who like to use the term birthers it doesn’t matter where he was born. It’s his birth to an American mother that counts. Maybe they should apply this name to themselves and refer to the Constitutionalists by their proper name.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 4:30 am#3, I think, and it’s pretty clear. It’s definitely in Obama’s interest that as much of his opposition as possible spend as much time as possible on the Birther bizarreness. It marginalizes all of his opposition, by association. Whether or not it would be “fair game” as a payback for the nonsense on the Trig birth conspiracy is irrelevant; it’s counterproductive.
Turn it around, just a little: would those folks who support Palin prefer that her critics focus on some criticism of her book or her decision to resign the governorship — or go all andrewsullivan over her uterus?
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:21 am#163 & 180 Terry Gain:
No, they can’t. Natural born pretty obviously means “not adopted.” Since the Founding Fathers were a rather practical lot, in addition to being rather farsighted, I am sure that they considered the possibility of a child being born to an American parent on the moon.
According to you, such a child wouldn’t even be a citizen of the planet Earth, let alone an American.
In a more down to Earth example, as far as I know, I was born in a hospital in El Paso…but there is a possibility that I was born in a cab on the way back to the hospital from Juarez where my mother was visiting for the day. After half a century of being considered an American, am I suddenly to be reclassified as a Mexican?
Most of time, when people read the Constitution and monkeys fly out their butt giving rise to Constitutional emanations, we call them liberals.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:29 amA more important question is his actual citizenship. Let’s assume Obama was born in Hawaii.
As a boy, Obama attended an Indonesian having been adopted by his stepfather. As young man Obama accepted a Fulbright grant as an Indonesian exchange student. There are also serious questions about Obama’s forged draft registration released by his campaign. His trip to Pakistan came at a time when American passport holders were prohibited. Did he have an Indonesian passport or was he perhaps traveling as a British subject?
If he had taken Indonesian citizenship by adoption and retained it through his undergraduate years, did he apply for naturalization? Is it possible that he is an illegal alien? I believe Obama should release the records and explain his status. Regardless of the place of birth, an American President must be a U.S. citizen.
BTW, President Chester Arthur was a British subject, born in Ireland.
arch (24f4f2) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:04 amWhy would a person fight the release of their birth certificate? Who can sue to obtain this information pertaining to the highest elected position in this country? Thus far all of the courts have decided that no one has standing. What about the American public? We want every candidate to prove their citizenship, not just Obama. So Sarah Palin saying that it is a citizens right to ask for documentation that is readily available is not a fringe position or an endorsement of some radical movement. As a psuedo intellectual who believes that their opinion matters since you do blog on all things political. Where is the proof you have seen that would assure me that Obama is a citizen of the United States, and not British by election and birth, Kenyan by the same, or Indonisian by adopotion and residence as a youth?
Greyneck (7c018b) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:26 amBTW, President Chester Arthur was a British subject, born in Ireland.
I’ve never heard that before. I’m too lazy to do any web surfing to verify that statement, but if the ambiguity around Obama’s official birth information is meaningful, then the current occupant of the Oval Office has a ready-made excuse that he isn’t setting precedence.
And I’d say there are more plausible doubts about Obama’s birth certificate than, say, all the religious-type fervor or skepticism among a good percentage of Americans regarding JFK’s assasination, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Warren Commission.
Mark (411533) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:41 amWhy would a person fight the release of their birth certificate?
Because, in this case, it’s a cheap and easy way to keep a faux controversy that, to some extent, discredits all of his opposition going. At some point, he probably will release the long form of the birth certificate (and it won’t happen on a Friday; it’ll be timed to distract from some real scandal, during the height of the weekly news cycle), and his spokespeople — both formal and informal — will use the ordinariness of it to further discredit not just the Birthers, but those who pandered to them.
Win-win, for Obama.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:57 amObama attended an Indonesian school having been adopted by his stepfather.
Note to self: Proof your comments, you idiot!
arch (24f4f2) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:00 amFar sighted indeed, since the first adoption statute was passed in 1851.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for research.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:14 amLet me try that link again.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:30 amEW1(SG)
Is Larry Walker a liberal? I don’t see anything flying out of his butt, but I do see learning you obviously don’t possess.
http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/02/natural-born-citizens-citizens-and.html
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:50 amActually, Terry, Walker’s piece is full of handwaving more than actual “learning”.
Like all of the Birther screeds.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:54 amI think that trying to divide citizens into anything else than natural born and naturalized is petifoggery and poor legal thinking. For crying out loud — your mother won’t do, your father has to be a citizen? How about your aunt’s college-roomate’s boyfriend if you want to take it that far?
nk (df76d4) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:03 amI know that in Illinois and Wisconsin, when there is a judicial name change, an amended birth certificate is filed. My best guess is that the embarassing part is one birth certificate with Barack Obama, an amended one with Barry Soetoro, and then another amended one with Barack Obama.
nk (df76d4) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:22 amIs your thinking influenced by what the founders thought or do you, like SPQR, unseriously describe that as handwaving birther screed.
Your best guess is silly. How is any of that embarrassing? And it has no legal significance. No one is asking for an amended certificate. We want to see the original. The one signed by the delivering doctor. Or not.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:46 am#188 Terry Gain:
You ought to try it sometime: its often good for the soul.
OTOH, are you really attempting to tell the crowd here that adoption did not occur before it was written into statute?
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:48 amFallacy. False option.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:49 am(As you yourself have implied, Terry, when you said natural born citizen has not yet been decided) the state of the law now is citizen by birth and citizen by naturalization. Nothing else.
nk (df76d4) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:51 amWas that an argument or a grunt, whiskers?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:55 amDid it? Are you really attempting to tell the crowd here that when the founding fathers used the words natural born they were distinguishing between born and adopted children. Why don’t you humor me with a citation?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:01 am#199 Terry Gain:
First and second generations of the Leavitt family descended from John, landed in Massachusetts aboard the Mayflower in 1628 (third voyage), as recorded by family historian Emily Herbert-Noyes, Leavitt Family Genealogy, c. 1942, hardbound, privately published, although copies are publicly available in the New England Historic Genealogical Society library, 99 Newbury St., Boston.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:31 amHow is giving payback unwise?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:43 amthe state of the law now is citizen by birth and citizen by naturalization. Nothing else.
Wrong. There’s another category called “natural born Citizen,” in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, which is an important part of the “state of the law.” That’s because it is law.
The Constitution uses the term “citizen” and the term “natural born Citizen” in different places when specifying the eligibility requirements for a Senator, House member and President. It is not sufficient for a President to be just a citizen, like the Congressmen. He has to be a natural born Citizen.
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:45 amI don’t see the word adoption in your citation. (Is that an attempt at humor.)
In any event I meant a citation that the founders used the term natural born citizen to distinguish between born an adopted children.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:45 amOIDO, actually you misrepresent what the Constitution states. As the requirements for congressmen specify being a citizen for a number of years – ie., naturalized. So you attempt to “correct” fails.
Terry, Walker’s repetition of the claim that dual nationals are not “natural born citizens” has always been silly. That someone might have the legal right to citizenship of another nation cannot rationally remove one’s eligibility to be President. If Switzerland had a law stating that anyone born on Earth was a Swiss citizen, then no one would be qualified to be US President. Allowing other nations’ to determine the qualification of US citizens to be President is the kind of irrationality inherent in Birther screeds.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 11:50 am#203 Terry Gain: In the cited material, individuals are described as “natural born of” or as “adopted of” to distinguish children born of the marriages of the progenitor and his first and second wives in the first and second generations of the Leavitt family in Massachusetts in the first half of the 17th century. (The family patriarch in those generations remarried following the death of their first wives.) The accounts are contemporaneous, showing that the term “natural born” was in common use (and well before the Constitution was written) so it would have been a term the Founding Fathers were familiar with.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/6/2009 @ 12:30 pmActually, SPQR, you keep coming around to misrepresent what I say, like some miserable scold. Your attempt at correcting me fails. Apparently, you cannot express yourself clearly, either.
What I said is true. I referred to the difference in the terms used. I did not repeat the number of years the Constitution requires for the two types of Congressmen, and the relevant sections (quoted below) have nothing to do with “naturalization,” as you insist. A minimum number of years residency for Senators and Congressmen was required, but not because it somehow naturalized them into being citizens. Seven years for House members and nine years for Senators is stated as a job requirement. The President must be a “natural born Citizen.” It’s a job requirement.
Article I, section 2:
“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”
Article I, section 3:
“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
Article II, Section 1:
“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.”
[emphasis mine]
The Constitution of the United States can be found here.
This difference in the terms, which is all that I was noting, was duly noted in the opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a US Supreme Court case:
“The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “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.”
This 1898 opinion also quoted from the opinion of the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874), in an attempt to define a natural born Citizen:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
[emphasis mine]
Official Internet Data Office (c4e07b) — 12/6/2009 @ 12:32 pmOIDA
Good for you. The statement from Minor that natural born citizen means children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens is clear and authoritative, but, to be fair, it is obiter.
The other side, however, has offered nothing but their own bare opinions which, in their minds, are apparently more persuasive when accompanied by sarcasm and name calling.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 2:02 pmTerry writes: “The statement from Minor that natural born citizen means children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens is clear and authoritative, but, to be fair, it is obiter. “
You really did not even bother to read the paragraph, did you? Because it does not say what you claim it says, which is odd since its right there above your comment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 2:20 pm“but the longer this goes on the more I think that if he was born in the United States we would have seen some hard evidence of it by now”
There we have it.
“His trip to Pakistan came at a time when American passport holders were prohibited. ”
Which birther site told you this one?
“Terry, Walker’s repetition of the claim that dual nationals are not “natural born citizens” has always been silly.”
It would have indeed been silly for the founders to have made it so that someone whose father was not a US citizen could not become president and yet anyone who was a citizen at the time of the enacting of the constitution could be.
imdw (21cb79) — 12/6/2009 @ 2:21 pm“Good for you. The statement from Minor that natural born citizen means children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens is clear and authoritative, but, to be fair, it is obiter. ”
Have you read this one:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
imdw (21cb79) — 12/6/2009 @ 2:24 pmYou see, if people who want to Sarah Palin could do so without admitting the basic validity of the other side’s argument, I might take them seriously.
But the fact is we’re not speculating about the existence of Big Foot or the Abominable Snowman. We’re talking about a government document that everyone admits exists.
So I can’t condemn anyone who wants to see it as a “crazy.”
The “birthers” are unlike “truthers” in this regard.
“Truthers” don’t understand how steel is made, and stubbornly insist on remaining ignorant.
“Birthers” are being no more picky about Barack Obama’s documentation then the federal government was about mine when I applied for a security clearance.
Have you ever applied for a security clearance, Pat? Nothing other than a certified copy of the original will do.
It may well be that there is an irrational component to all this, and that even if they get what they want a large segment of the “birthers” will remain unconvinced.
But the fact it’s the cover-up that matters to me. If I’m being lied to by a liar who lies about things he didn’t need to lie about, my conclusion is that I’m dealing with a liar. If I’m being stonewalled about things that could be easily settled, my conclusion is that I’m dealing with an unscrupulous individual who can’t be trusted.
It doesn’t matter to me if it later turns out the individual didn’t actually have anything to hide. It’s too late.
I just can’t read Sarah Palin’s comments about this as a simple statement that a President should not stonewall the people he wishes to preside over about an issue they find important.
I don’t care about his Birth Certificate. How he has handled this issue tells me all I need to know about him.
Steve (2b21a2) — 12/6/2009 @ 2:58 pmThat would have been “if people who want to trash Sarah Palin” if everything was functioning correctly.
Steve (2b21a2) — 12/6/2009 @ 3:01 pmHave you ever applied for a security clearance, Pat?
Moreover, when the following comment, which is reasonable and accurate, can be expressed…
…I feel like the cynics and skeptics towards the “birthers” should then ask: “And other that THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?!” Even more so when the background of America’s current president in general is full of pockmarks, potholes and peculiar detours.
Mark (411533) — 12/6/2009 @ 3:07 pmimdw@210
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 4:01 pmThank you. I was not familiar with that case. My observations:
1. Under the common law of England the term natural born subject certainly includes children of aliens born within the realm. It is not clear that the term natural born citizen in section 1 has the same meaning, but a strong argument can be made that it does.
2. The Court relied upon statements in dissenting opinions in Ark and Minor in coming to the conclusion that a child born in the United States is ipso facto a natural born citizen within the meaning of section 1.
3. The Court did not have Obama’s long form birth certificate before it but rather assumed he was born in Hawaii.
4. The Court used the prejudicial, derogatory and inflammatory term birthers to refer to the Plaintiffs (hopefully they don’t refer to plaintiffs in civil rights cases as darkies or negroids).
5. This case does not say that a child of an American citizen and a foreign national born outside of the United States is a natural born citizen.
6. The issue of Obama’s eligibility is not free enough from doubt that there ought to be room for respectful dialog.
7. People who use the term birthers know it’s unfair but are concerned about the pandora’s box that will be opened if he’s ruled ineligible. I understand that concern and have some sympathy for it.
8. I think having an arrogant incompetent who isn’t answerable to anyone in the White House is more dangerous.
Terry, you are still not correctly describing the language of Minor quoted in Hong Kim Ark.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 4:09 pmSPQR
Do you mean this?
I don’t see how I am misinterpreting it.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 4:30 pmAmen, sister! However, I do need to mention one very important thing about the Hawaii long form birth certificate circa 1961: There is nothing about religion on it.
We know what Obama’s 1961 document (not the 2007 printout) currently on file in Hawaii looks like, because we have seen the 1966 photocopies of the 1961 long forms for his Punahou High schoolmates Susan and Gretchen Nordyke. Those twin sisters are the daughters of Eleanor Nordyke, whose 20 hours of labor at Kapi’olani Hospital’s maternity ward almost certainly overlapped with those of Stanley Ann Dunham’s labor there with Baby Barack.
I believe he was probably born in Honolulu. However, there HAS to be a reason why he won’t authorize the release of the vault copy of the original long-form 1961 birth certificate.
The most likely realities are, IMHO:
1. What is purported to be the official 2007 printout from the state of Hawaii is a forgery (explaining his lawyers’ dedication to preventing inspection of it in court), or…
2. The 2007 printout IS authentic, but the data has been altered so that it differs from the 1961 copy of the original in a way that punches at least one huge hole in his well-worn, constantly-repeated life story.
My best guess as to the big honking difference between what’s on the ’07 printout and the ’61 original? Section 9: “Race of Father.”
On the Nordyke twins’ long form, both parents’ races are listed as “Caucasian.” On the ’07 Obama printout, his Stanley Ann Dunham’s race is listed as “Caucasian.” His father, Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.)’s race is listed as “African.”
Is “African” a “race”? Are we to believe that in 1961, Barack Obama Sr. was viewed in the eyes of the law as “African” and not “Negro?”
Take a moment and ponder that.
Is it possible that Obama Sr. was absent for his namesake’s birth, and that the young mother and her parents may have been deceptive about the light-skinned newborn’s race? If they chose to be, who is it that had the authority to stop them from doing so?
My questions are highly speculative, I admit. But there is no reason whatsoever for the secrecy surrounding basic, Constitutionally-required information unless the document’s revelation could prove to be explosively damaging to Obama.
L.N. Smithee (04e4c6) — 12/6/2009 @ 5:19 pm“3. The Court did not have Obama’s long form birth certificate before it but rather assumed he was born in Hawaii.”
He was. Have you read the snopes page on this?
imdw (842182) — 12/6/2009 @ 6:02 pmI think, terry, what this exercise shows is that the birther’s don’t want to be satisfied. They won’t be. You print out some other form from hawaii and lo and behold it will be a “fake” and some birther will be whining about it.
imdw (c08beb) — 12/6/2009 @ 6:04 pmPage link?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 6:32 pmGiven that Hawaii allowed a child’s birth to be registered based on someone attesting to the birth, you don’t seriously whine that we should accept a COLB rather than the long form vault birth certificate that has the signature of the attending doctor.
Eligibility for the highest office in the land isn’t important enough to require production of the best evidence?
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:26 pmStill misrepresenting the quote, I see, Terry.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:36 pmHow? Elucidate.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:49 pmNo. In fact I’ve said several times that if someone could prove that the newspaper ad was placed by a hospital, rather than the birth registry office, that I would find that very convincing. So take up the challenge. Don’t confuse persistence with unreasonableness.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:55 pmTerry, after OIDO quoted the paragraph, you stated that: “The statement from Minor that natural born citizen means children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens is clear and authoritative, but, to be fair, it is obiter. ”
That is however false. The paragraph quoted states that some authorities so define the term, but that other authorities define it more broadly, and that the Minor court does not resolve which is correct. You keep omitting that fact.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 7:58 pmSPQR
You’re wrong. It says clearly there are no doubts as to the first class, that is:
children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,
But doubts as to the second class, which are unnecessary to resolve:
Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:16 pm#217 — Thank you for the links, L.N. Smithee.
For the record, I speculated in #4 that perhaps the reason President Obama will not release his Long Form birth certificate is because it may record his religion as Muslim. Both John Hitchcock and L.N. Smithee have pointed out that the Long Form does not record religion. Based on the evidence they presented, both are correct and my speculation is false.
Thanks to L.N.Smithee’s link, I was able to compare parameters of the Short Form birth certificate with the Long Form birth certificate.
SF = Short Form with 12 parameters
LF = Long Form with 31 parameters (by my reckoning)
The SF appears to have one unmatched parameter called “COUNTY OF BIRTH”, but does have City and Island of birth so this is probably irrelevant.
The LF has 26 unmatched parameters when compared to the SF.
Below are my results:
SF: CHILD’S NAME
LF: 1a, 1b, 1c
SF: DATE OF BIRTH
LF: 5a
SF: HOUR OF BIRTH
LF: 5b
SF: SEX
LF: 2
SF: CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH
LF: 6a
SF: ISLAND OF BIRTH
LF: 6b
SF: COUNTY OF BIRTH
SF: MOTHER’S MAIDEN NAME
LF: 13
SF: MOTHER’S RACE
LF: 14
SF: FATHER’S NAME
LF: 8
SF: FATHER’S RACE
LF: 9
SF: DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR
LF: 22
LF: 3 — Single, Twin, or Triplet checkboxes
Pons Asinorum (be690a) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:36 pmLF: 4 — Birth order if child was Twin or Triplet
LF: 6c — “Name of Hospital or Instituion” (or street address)
LF: 6d — “Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town Limits?”
LF: 7a — “Usual Residence of Mother…”
LF: 7b — Mother’s island
LF: 7c — “County and State or Foreighn Residence”
LF: 7d — “Street Address” for mother
LF: 7e — “Is Residence Inside City or Town Limits?”
LF: 7f — “Mother’s mailing Address”
LF: 7g — “Is Residence on a Farm or Plantaion?”
LF: 10 — “Age of Father”
LF: 11 — “Birthplace” for father
LF: 12a — “Usual Occupation”
LF: 12b — “Kind of Business or Industry”
LF: 15 — “Age of Mother”
LF: 16 — “Birthplace” for mother
LF: 17a — “Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnancy?”
LF: 17b — “Date last Worked”
LF: 18a — “Signature of Parent…”
LF: 18b — “Date of Signature”
LF: 19a — “Signature of Attendant”
LF: 19b — “Date of Signature”
LF: 20 — “Date Accepted By Local Reg.”
LF: 21 — “Signature of Local [something]…”
LF: 23 — “Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration”
“Given that Hawaii allowed a child’s birth to be registered based on someone attesting to the birth, you don’t seriously whine that we should accept a COLB rather than the long form vault birth certificate that has the signature of the attending doctor.”
So? Then the new whine is that the doctor was in on it. Or that the document is fake, just like the birth certificate on snopes.
imdw (688568) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:26 amWrong also. I would rather that the birth certificate just be released so we don’t have to put up with you whining about my theory. And I’d rather not theorize about something which ought to be known.
But my theory is that the long form has not been released because it does not have a doctor’s, or birth attendant’s, signature on it, thus undermining the claim that it proves he was born in Hawaii rather than just proving that his birth was registered.
We know that his birth could have been registered by someone attesting to his birth in Hawaii.
I do whine that a free press would have cleared this up by now.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:46 am“But my theory is that the long form has not been released because it does not have a doctor’s, or birth attendant’s, signature on it, thus undermining the claim that it proves he was born in Hawaii rather than just proving that his birth was registered.”
So its release wouldn’t really solve anything. There we go.
imdw (6eb217) — 12/7/2009 @ 4:56 amThere are other reasons why I am not qualified for the Presidency, but I never had a birth certificate. Neither did my brothers or my father. We only had the Township Registrar’s Certification of Registry of Birth. My mother did not even have that — she only had the priest’s Baptismal Record. There’s a reason why the law has always accepted secondary evidence of birth and parentage, including hearsay and community gossip.
Maybe we should call you guys not Birthers but Birthcertificaters.
nk (df76d4) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:00 amWhen primary evidence is supposed to be available. You jest.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:03 amRight, but it would start the process of vetting. The media might actually have to spend as much time investigating this as they did Palin.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:06 amI’ll settle for something fair and honest or even rational rather than ridiculously equating people asking for a document with people who belive in an insane and disproved conspiracy theory.
Documenters. Consitutionalists. Due diligencers.
Take you pick.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:16 am#232:
Oh, I don’t think so.
Since at the bottom of it all, all we ever have is someone attesting to the birth of a child.
And it is rather undeniable that the O!ne was born.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:17 amI did a post-conviction on a schoolyard gang killing. The parents thought that their little darling had a good case because the prosecution called only three eyewitnesses and not all two hundred that were there.
nk (df76d4) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:25 am#236 nk: And we are seeing the same thing here, aren’t we.
Well, Stash warned me.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:30 amMissed again. We also have Obama’s claim that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii.
Since when are you guys interested in getting to the bottom of it all? That’s why you engage in name calling. It forecloses discussion.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:33 amMissed by a mile. Let’s start with one eyewitness.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 5:35 amThree comments on this post.
First, of course she was at least trying not alienate anyone.
Second, if you read her statement, yeah, its fair game, as well as the trig trutherism. She obviously considers even fairly ridiculous questions to be “fair game.”
Third, there is a little too much parsing going on here. what i see is a politician trying to avoid taking a stand, period.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/7/2009 @ 6:30 amCan I see your long form birth certificate? Don’t be ridiculous.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 6:38 ambtw, this has to be the quote of the day from IMAO:
“America needs to find a better way to determine whether someone is an inexperienced idiot than letting him be president for a year.”
Heh.
And you know, that is what birtherism is really about. hoping for that silver bullet, that pocket full of kryptonite, that will take out the incompetant in cheif. i get it, i totally get it. but facts are stubborn things. the americans are allowed to pick people woefully unsuited for the office. period.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/7/2009 @ 6:47 amTerry, #226, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. The quote does not match your description of it. Minor does not define “natural born citizen” as you claim.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:34 amTerry has his “truth” and cannot be bothered with facts. Terry is so far gone on this, he sees pink elephants and polka-dot donkeys roaming the streets.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:41 am231.There are other reasons why I am not qualified for the Presidency,- nk
Maybe, but none as good as the reasons why the current one shouldn’t be, birth certificate not even among them.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:44 am“Since when are you guys interested in getting to the bottom of it all?”
When It comes to birthers, I think we’ve reached the bottom.
imdw (2f4178) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:49 amTerry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:50 am
Yes, Terry, we know you can read the first part of the quote. The fact remains that Minor does not say that that is the definition but rather one definition. Minor says that the broader definition is also found in the authorities described and that the opinion does not resolve which is correct.
Why is it that you cannot understand this? It is simple english sentences that should be within your comprehension.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:58 am#238:
Which is someone attesting to his birth, albeit his own.
You’re the one that started with the name calling, and you certainly haven’t proven interested in discussion.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/7/2009 @ 10:27 amThe quote
The quote as read by the obfuskers
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 10:56 amThe obfuscation is yours, Terry. You never deal with the entire paragraph. Taking quotes out of context like this is very characteristic of Birthers and reminds me almost word for word of the shenanigans I see among the tax protestor claims.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2009 @ 11:07 amTerry
twist and turn all you want, but the 14th A says that if you are born in the US you are a citizen. The only limitation is to say that you have to be subject to its jurisdiciton, language that was designed to ommitt people who were subject to diplomatic immunity and native Americans who were members of tribes. those people were exempt from the operation of american law, as anyone who has seen a car with diplomatic plates triple parked can attest. Thus they were outside the american jurisdiction, as were their children, thus those children were not citizens of the US.
Now you want to say that if one of his parents are not citizens then somehow being born here doesn’t count. That is not and never has been the law. Indeed Wong Kim Ark was born to two non-citizens and he was found to be a citizen regardless. And as that case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649) demonstrated, the settled law against which the 14th A was written contained solely those two exceptions. The only exception to that settled law was Dredd Scott and indeed one of the purposes of the 14th A was to overturn that noxious decision and restore the concept of citizenship to how it was originally understood.
And you still want to say that Obama was not subject to its jurisdiction. Suppose in 2000 Obama shot and killed a man in cold blood. Could we try him for murder? You bet your ass we can. Now any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that before he can be tried in an American court, we have to establish in personnem jurisdiction—that is jurisdiction over the person. Sheesh. To adopt the other rule is to say Obama can kill with impunity and no one is allowed to stop him.
The fact is we are stuck with this idiot in the white house. i wish it wasn’t so, but it is. and unless you come up with evidence rather than failed legal arguments–arguments rebutted by literally over a century of precedent–then you are just in kook territory.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/7/2009 @ 11:19 amNo, Terry, it does not define merely “citizen”. 8 USC 1401 clearly states:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Your argument seems to be that someone could be a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen. That is purely idiotic, and ignore basic English.
Some chump (8087d5) — 12/7/2009 @ 11:22 amChump
As you know, but apparently forgot, The Constitution cannot be amended by an an Act of Congress. So the answer as to whether Obama is a natural born citizen is not found in 8 USC 1401. Granted, Obama is a U.S. citizen if born in the United States , by virtue of 8 USC 1401 but that does not answer the question as to whether he is a natural born citizen within Section 1 of The Constitution.
A.W.
Your argument is just plain silly.
Of course we can try him as we can try anyone who commits a crime within the United States. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:14 pmYou remind me of someone who hurls insults when he can’t prove a point.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:29 pmThat’s utterly sophomoric, Terry. But not unexpected.
The fact is, the US Constitution never defined what “natural born citizen” means. Because of that, its definition is left to legislation.
The fact is, 8 USC 1401 has never been overturned by the courts, and so is the law of the land.
It’s absolutely absurd of you to posit that someone who is a US national and citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen.
Some chump (8087d5) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:35 pmSorry, chump. Your name calling is not persuasive. You have to determine what the founders meant by natural born citizen. The founders did not have 8 USC 1401 in mind when they wrote Section 1.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 12/7/2009 @ 3:49 pm” Of course we can try him as we can try anyone who commits a crime within the United States. ”
Diplomats are outside of the jurisdiction….
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (8019e8) — 12/7/2009 @ 7:50 pmThe real tragedy here is that every stat has a person charged with validating that the people who appear on the ballot in their state is, in fact, eligible to serve in that office and not one of them bothered to verify Obama’s eligibility. Even though though many of them were asked to do so. Even though they did remove other candidates from the same ballots because they were not eligible.
Even though they were bring sued by people protesting that they were not exercising their legally required duties.
Not one state asked for validation that he was eligible. Not one person saw proof. Not one judge has looked at any document that indicates he meets the requirement. The Senate did not ask for any proof of eligibility even though more than a dozen lawsuits had been filed contesting his eligibility.
Who, exactly, is responsible for making sure that candidates are eligible? According to the judges who have thrown out all these cases, the people are, yet no one has “standing” to request proof of eligibility.
And, no, “natural born citizen” has never been defined in case law. There has been more than a year of research from both sides trying to turn the argument their way. In the end, a court is going to have to define this adequately. It should have been the USSC, but they are not willing to take that step.
In the end, someone will leak those documents that we all really want to see. And either he will have been proven eligible or he wont. If it turns out that he was not eligible, I can imagine the expressions on all those faces who defended him as they are still trying to recover from the damage he has caused to our society, economy and nation.
Patrick, I would have thought that a prosecutor would have actually wanted proof, rather than pointing to an image that has only been seen in person by the people who posted it. Would you accept an image on a web site as evidence in a case you were trying? Didn’t think so.
For the time being, this is all academic. The only people who really know are spending millions to be sure that we never know. Not a very comforting thought when it comes to the people who will be ruling us for the next three years.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/9/2009 @ 9:54 pmThe Art Of War…
…A post I read a while ago over at…
The Art Of War (e57ed5) — 12/11/2010 @ 5:58 pm