Birthergasm: Hawaii Governor Admits There is No Record of Obama’s American Birth? (Update: Reporter Takes It Back)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: The reporter takes it back. So clearly they got to him, right? Right? (Note, for those who have trouble getting jokes or whom are just in the smear business, that was a joke.)
The original post follows in its original form.
——————-
I still don’t buy birtherism, but you can bet they are going to be hooping it up over this:
Now, bluntly, I don’t know who this radio host is. But this is what the youtuber says on it:
Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii. Neil Abercombie, new Govenor of Hawaii, has admitted to his close friend Mike Evans, a reporter, that there are no records of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Clip is from the morning show on KQRS-FM from 1/20/2011.
I will note something else. Yes, you have to be a natural born citizen. And yes, I think as a matter of correct process Presidential candidates should have to prove it. Like a lot of lawyers, I follow the maxim of “trust but verify.” But then again, we haven’t required it of any president before, so it strikes me as sounding dangerously political to apply this rule for the first time in decades (if ever), now. So I would like to see a rule that whoever is the next president has to prove his (or her) status as a natural born citizen.
But proof doesn’t have to be a birth certificate. It can be any credible evidence that satisfies the burden of proof (which I would tend to assume is preponderance of the evidence). The idea that you have to have a birth certificate strikes me as similar to the myth that you have to have the dead body to prove murder (and worse, the myth that this is what habeas corpus is all about).* Obviously having that kind of evidence helps, but it is not the case that if there is a fire and your birth certificate is destroyed, that you are suddenly ineligible to be President.
And that is assuming the governor even said such a thing. And of course it might be hard for Governor Abercrombie to even dispute this claim, given that Hawaii law doesn’t allow a person to reveal a person’s birth certificate without their consent.
Anyway, I suggest it is time to clear this up. So let me make a suggestion. If you would like I will take time away from my lovely city and make the ultimate sacrifice and weather the conditions in Obama’s (alleged) home state and investigate the matter.
I am willing to do this for you if you help pay for the trip. And room and board. And plenty of suntan lotion, for me and my wife. I know, I know, it is a Christ-like sacrifice. So okay, I am passing the plate around for your donations…
Wait, um, a nickel and pocket lint? That is all you are giving me? Do you want to know the truth or not?
——————
* I say that about habeas corpus recognizing that much in our media positively misinforms people about the law. For instance, a few years back in the movie The Player, there was a running joke about a movie called Habeas Corpus, involving this false premise that the law requires the state to produce the body before they can charge you with murder. The actual meaning of the term is that it is a form of judicial review of confinement, broadly written. That means if the state or federal government holds you prisoner, the court can use this process to review whether you are being lawfully held or not. Its means literally “you have the body”—meaning the (living) body of the prisoner.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Don’t even get me started with the drooling stupidity of Double Jeopardy.
—————
Exit question: I haven’t watched the new Hawaii 5-0 but on that show, is Grace Park, a Korean, supposed to be a native Hawaiian or something? Not that I really get hung up on ethnicity matching in acting roles (like personally I didn’t care when Sean Connery was cast as a Russian Sub Captain), but you get the creepy feeling that they assumed we would think she actually was Native Hawaiian.
Hat tip: Eric Johnson.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Pocket and navel lint are another renewable fuel source, mixed with wax and a egg cartoon – they make great girl scout fire starters
I mean the girl scouts make these fire starters, not for actually burning girl scouts
Yes I was a do dad
EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:04 amDo you have to be born in the US or just born to a US citizen? I know that sounds dumb, but I’m not clear on that.
Aren’t there records of where his mother was living at the time?
Patricia (3aa1fd) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:11 ampatricia
its actually a disputed issue.
the constitution says that you have to be a natural born citizen.
congress has purported to expand that definition to include being born abroad to american citizens. that’s admittedly an untested question.
i do believe, bluntly, that if you are born in the US or its territories, that you are a naturally born citizen. i am firm in that legal conclusion.
And the other thing is that the courts have allowed variations from that. for instance, my in laws were born in the phillipines in the 1940’s. in my book they should have been naturally born citizen because that was US territory. but supposedly a treaty took away this constitutionally guaranteed right and purportedly the S.C. was okay with that. which i consider to be wrong. but if it happened, that muddies the waters some.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:17 amPatricia
Who knows? Great question though
McCain and George Romney (Mitts father) were challenged on their citizenship
EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:17 amAaron,
Where they stripped the Fillipino’s of citizenship was not our finest hour.
This is why these 14th amendment crusaders who want to start redefining who is and isnt a citizen – however noble these things start out, nothing good will come of this.
[ftfw. –Aaron]
EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:20 amI am predicting much socky pucketry on this tomorrow
EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:21 amMy father’s original birth certificate was lost in a court house fire; mine was destroyed in a hospital fire. Both of us have to use other state documents to prove citizenship. It’s a PITA, sometimes almost like you’re an unperson.
htom (412a17) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:21 amI’d be happy to personally investigate this issue with Grace Park.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:28 americ
first, fixed your typo. you’re welcome.
second, um, why would we have sockpuppet friday, tomorrow?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:28 amNever heard that about habeus corpus being used as a term for evidence in court. Always knew that it referred to producing the person that was being held to the court to justify their being confined.
However, Corpus Delecti is the term for body of the crime that must be produced for a murder charge to be successful, and it doesn’t mean the entire body of the victim, it can be as little as a few bone chips, blood, whatever that shows that a person that did exist did in fact meet with an unfortunate end. Otherwise, you could be convicted of murdering a totally ficticious character such as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.
peedoffamerican (6f8861) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:29 amDaniel Dae Kim (who plays a relative of Park’s character) is also Korean.
Darin H (572156) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:29 amSPQR
a penetrating investigation?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:29 amhtom
that sounds like it profoundly sucks.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:30 amCurrently, the local electioneering laws state that it’s the PARTY that is supposed to seriously verify the birth certificate and so forth. And the Democratic National Commission took a glance and said, “Good enough for me.”
But obviously the federal constitution is a higher law than all of that. It’s just that no one has tested it in this way before and so the Supremes have never had to make a judgement about it.
What is a ‘natural-born’ citizen as opposed to a ‘citizen’ as opposed to a ‘naturalized’ citizen? Who knows? We got jack.
Who has standing to bring up the issue? No one!
luagha (5cbe06) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:31 amI’m confused really what day is it? Oh gawd its Weds,
yep, I would say I’m jet lagged but actually…
My oldest emailed me from the academy asking am I there yet?
I said thats funy I asked the Pilot the same thing twice and he replied to me in Arabic,
How did you get in here – again?
never take 3 tylenol PM and blog after 36 hours of flying
EricPWJohnson (13b18d) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:32 amAaron, tsk tsk, such a .. vulgar way to describe what would be a more subtle and smooth campaign on my part. Slow, careful investigation.
Uh, the heck with it, its not like I’m smooth or subtle. Yep, you are right.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:32 amMike Evans interpretation of this story is similar in logic to his interpretation of scripture. Perusing his website, he sounds like one of those end-timer Christians. Since he apparently pimps that story for money, why not this story too? Seems to be profitable, since he writes apocolyptic fiction too.
http://jerusalemprayerteam.org
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:34 amWhy doesn’t he just produce a fake birth certificate, with some deceased doctor’s signature? Go ahead and name it Barry Soetoro, and use that as some kind of embarrassment to explain the hesitance to release the doc?
It’s like the Bush conspiracy theories. Why wouldn’t he just plant WMDs if he was so corrupt?
Let’s not be suckers. This is an feint.
Just imagine if the GOP gets extremely invested in this notion there is no birth certificate. Americans see it has a huge issue. Late October, we suddenly learn there is a birth certificate, and perhaps throw in some kind of victimization (it appears this GOP operative hid it).
Then Obama makes his opponent look like a kook, and gains the Palin sympathy type effect.
Who is the source for this notion Obama has no record? Obama’s dear friend?
Just doesn’t smell right. We should stick to the issues. By all means, let states require proof before putting him back on the ballot, but as far as political arguments, we need to treat this one as a potential trick.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:34 amAgreed. I thought this many years before I ever heard of Obama.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:36 amAbout Five-O . . . I haven’t lived in Hawaii since the mid-Seventies, but as I recall, you’ve got a wide variety of people of Asian descent (mostly Chinese, but Koreans are there, too) whose families have been in the islands for generations. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are all that many people who are pure Polynesian Hawaiian any more. Anyway, it’s no stretch to have someone like Grace Park as a character who is personally native to Hawaii, even if she’s obviously of Korean descent.
Farragut Jones (4065b4) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:37 amAnd everyone who likes hot chicks (or buff dudes, or both), car chases, explosions, fights, shootouts paired with not much put into story/plot should check out Hawaii Five-0. I’m hooked!
Darin H (572156) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:37 amNever understood that. Wouldn’t it be problematic to even prove it was murder if there is no body? How, in fact, would you even know there’s been a murder? Could you be charged with murder simply because someone dropped out of sight. Scary thought.
Mike Giles (e660fb) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:40 amMike Giles, its been done many times.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:43 amJones
well, first i mean “native hawaiian” as in the people here before the white people came, which means i was not clear enough in my use of the language. sorry.
Still to your point, fair enough. that is possible. i mean my wife says that when she came from the phillipines, and they stopped over in hawaii before going on to the mainland, she felt like she hadn’t left, there were so many filipinos there.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:43 amSPQR
the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:44 amThe story of the birth certificates not existing any more isn’t new.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/07/cnn-president-jon-klein-declares-birther-story-dead.html
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:47 amI like the new show, too.
What I don’t understand is the emphasis on ‘native hawaiians’ – sadly, it seems like a different side of the racist coin. The Pacific islands were only populated ~1500 years ago or so. So they came from somewhere else anyway. It seems … nativist? … how they stress which plants, food and people were ‘native’ and which came from what’s now French Polynesia. What’s the difference – they all ultimately migrated from New Guinea or Indonesia in the first place. Ironically, they all ultimately descended from Africa a million or so years ago.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:50 amYup. The way people have spread things around the world is just another part of nature.
And it’s amazing to contemplate when you get that far back into the roots. Perspective.
Anyway, let’s just imagine that Barack Obama’s staff wanted to make as much hay as possible out of the fact they had found or fabricated an original birth certificate.
Would they be acting like this, with a close friend unprovably leaking something that would set a chain of events in motion? If it turns out that there actually is proof, Obama might just hang onto it until the time he needs a quick 5 point poll boost in October 2012.
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya! We have better grounds for criticizing him.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:54 amYeah, there is a lot of Japanese/Korean stock in Hawaii, and has been for decades.
But wtf do I care? In at least one episode, she spent time on-screen in a bikini.
Also, James Caan’s boy is really good in his role an Danny (Dan-o by nickname).
And Hiro is the M.E. What more could we ask for?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:55 amSort of a non-story? So they destroyed all the long form birth cirtificates in 2001 when they went to electronic records, thusly making the short form birth cirtificate already released the official record. At least you are only writing posts about it, pushing the issue further, rather than actually believing it, or anything. *Snicker*.
Chris Hooten (6b52e6) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:55 amAbercrombie never said that Obama’s original birth certificate could not be found. ONLY birther sites have said that he said it. And in fact the original birth certificate is in Obama’s file in Hawaii where it is supposed to be. Two REPUBLICAN officials in Hawaii stated that they had seen it in the file in writing in a press release in 2008, and that was just the first of two confirmations that Obama was born in Hawaii from these officials, and there was one confirmation from the former Republican governor of Hawaii.
ALL US-born US citizens are Natural Born US citizens. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US citizens.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
granite1 (7f906c) — 1/26/2011 @ 12:40 pmI had no trouble at all obtaining certified copies of my birth certificate even though I didn’t have to prove myself. Just paid for them. Obviously Hawaii doesn’t have the same rules as Georgia. My dumb hillbilly state, I suppose.
BTW, I got my passport recently using a certified copy.
PatAZ (29affb) — 1/26/2011 @ 12:48 pmThink ultimately it’s a sideshow.
But at some point Soetero/Davis/Obama has to explain what doucments he used to register for college and law school. And how did he apply to get into Occidental, Harvard and Columbia.By all accounts he was not the most wonderful high school student, so it was not grades. He won’t release any of those records because they probably show he was admitted as a foreign student-a quick an easy way for an indifferent stoner to get into a great school(Think Nigel Joseph from Cameroon-MERRY NEW YEAR!). How did he get a passport as an adult to get into Pakistan? And whay did Grandma say he
was born in Africa? Every Amercian produces a birth certificate when applying for a driver’s license, a passport, a Social Security card and in his case admission to a state bar to be an attorney. What did he produce? Obama is a little older than me, but until the 1980s SSI didn’t issue a card at birth, you had to apply with a birth certificate. How did he get it? Did he use a foreign passport to enter Pakistan?Did he in such an application to a foreign country revoke or deny any American citizenship he had?
We have no idea who this guy is. Can someone simply ask him these questions?
Bugg (9e308e) — 1/26/2011 @ 12:48 pmIs that true? If so, it’s important that major media inform us of this major detail. It’s strange the Governor didn’t mention it.
Chris, if you’re making thus up, or taking it from a leftist kook site like bradblog, then you’re helping lie to your country about an issue of consequence. It’s lies like that that have undermined faith in Obama. For example, someone at Kos photoshopped a fake certification of live birth, so many don’t believe the next one that came out.
Don’t tell lies, hoping to trick your way out of a tough issue. If you can link a credible source proving your claim, I will be surprised. You consistently assume the very worst of the right, and are willing to parrot the weakest arguments, or even myths, because you don’t think we deserve a reasonable discussion.
I will add: Obama is the main person you’re harming. When some claim turns out to vanish (such as the Hawaii bureaucrat who insisted she had seen this document), we suspect many other things are lies.
Truther kook.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 12:58 pmThe Hawaii records people also stated in 2008 that they had the long form in their possession.
If that wasn’t true, why did they say it?
Don’t misunderstand me, I think there is no evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii and there is no evidence that he is not qualified to the office per the Constitutional requirements.
I’m just eating popcorn over the fact that Obama and his allies keep the issue simmering.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:00 pmAW,
When I worked for a Japanese company and traveled to Hawaii I thought all the people of obvious Asian heritage were Japanese. I have since worked for several Korean companies and on a recent trip to Maui was amazed at all the names Park and Kim (kind of the Smith and Jones of Korea). Also, remember the original series had Chan Ho (No “Kelly” listed in IMDb). However you are correct that calling here “Kono Kalakaua” is a bit of a stretch… I also agree with SJ that Caan is good, but he’s no James MacArthur!
Dave in OC (d1d92b) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:01 pm‘
Sadly, so are they. I have a really hard time believing this governor would just blurt out about this issue without some degree of coordination from the White House. It’s just too obvious.
It reminds me of Clinton insisting he wanted to get back to the serious business of his job, when the Lewinsky scandal first emerged. That kind of argument resonates.
I firmly believe that if they really had no evidence, Obama’s close allies wouldn’t touch this issue. And yet they are stoking the flames.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:04 pm.
Fixed that for you. 😉
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:04 pmWell.. there’s the other option. Maybe Evans made this up, in order to boost his profile. It’s not hard to buy that explanation. If so, I expect a loud denial from the Governor.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:05 pmDustin, I don’t buy the idea that the Obama people are keeping the issue simmering to stoke flames purportedly to “discredit” the “right wing”.
Its a moronic strategy. It would only appeal to a rabid partisan who has no real political savvy. Because you don’t want an issue to simmer and create a widespread low level theme of illegitimacy no matter how much you think it discredits the extremists.
I think that the issue continues because Obama really does not want to show something embarrassing (not disqualifying) on the longer cert itself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:08 pmhow about filing an FOIA request for the I-9 and supporting documents he had to produce when he started his new j*b as “President”….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:09 pmWrong. Racists and conspiracy theorists, some TEA party people. Not Obama people. Obama put his damn birth certificate on a website in 2008. He’s not keeping anything simmering for any reason, and your baseless musings about motive are just that.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:19 pmTrue. LOL.
Either way, this isn’t a good issue for the right. If it’s a trick, then it’s not a good issue. If it’s the result of bad faith or kookery, it’s not a good issue. And one reason for that is the one I offer: it’s too easy to unravel the entire thing at the last minute.
Of course, the older argument works even better. Obama’s poor decisions are a better basis to oppose him.
But it is disturbing that the governor claimed to be able to locate something, something that the Hawaii government said it had seen, that has now not materialized.
I do think my musing that Obama has staff who want this issue out there is not so baseless. It’s a very easy way to discredit people who want to talk about something more concrete about Obama’s lack of American upbringing, or common experience. If they can channel that into the birther idea, one that many have a strong distaste for, that’s good for Obama.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:26 pmYeah, I admit this is a great point.
Perhaps they simply didn’t make a wise decision, insofar as they may have goaded the on, because the equation does them more harm than they should accept. But I’m not sure a strategy didn’t happen merely because it turns out to be a poor strategy.
After all, Obama could just issue a blanket authorization for any documents about his birth to be released. He didn’t have to fight this.
I’m starting to get the impression I haven’t followed the issue closely enough to accurately discuss it. Birther arguments get extremely frustrating because no matter what you grant, someone says it’s not enough. Even if Obama’s born here, some think he shouldn’t be eligible. So I usually check out of these discussions.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:30 pmYour disturbed that a life-long politician with degrees in sociology and American studies couldn’t deliver on a promise? LOL.
I hope that one of the birthers confronts him. He’s 72 years old, but he can bench press like 300 pounds; it could be like when Buzz Aldrin punched the Apollo Hoax believer.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:33 pm“You’re” and I was referring to Gov. Abercrombie.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:34 pmOh hell no. My nearly 5 yr old grand daughter had to show a BC in order to have her pre-school shots, so why doesn’t one aspiring to be the leader of the free world have to do the same? Call me what you want, but don’t call me out! It’s a reasonable request, no?
Teebo (216cf1) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:38 pmNo.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:41 pmI suppose it’s tempting to invest in the notion that Obama isn’t a legit President. It was tempting for the Left to invest in the same notion about Bush, and they DID invest in it, and it’s my belief that it cost them dearly. We don’t want to go down this path.
We DO want to invest in the idea that Obama is an incompetent nitwit who should be thrown out of office in 2012. Don’t get sidetracked.
C. S. P. Schofield (e4bd33) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:45 pmNote that I include in my logic that the state did say they saw this very document. Someone is lying. I think you’re probably assuming the initial claim that they saw the document was a lie. Perhaps I’m wrong to make this assumption. That’s disturbing, though.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:47 pmIt’s ironic that the states rights people don’t respect Hawaii’s right to certify that Obama was born there.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:53 pmcarlitos, why do you misrepresent the basic facts? Even Hawaii’s Democratic governor does not agree with you about those facts, so its false to say that only the TEA Party etc. are keeping this issue simmering.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:57 pmTeebo, the President presented a certificate. It would have been enough to get a child registered in school. So your claim is false.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:57 pmWhen I went to school back in the 60’s, we were taught a natural born citizen was one born of citizens, a natural citizen was born here and a naturalized citizen went through the process to become a citizen. The issue has never come up before in U.S politics because all previous Presidents excepting those who qualified under the Constitutional exception, were citizens by being born of citizens. The requirement to be a “natural BORN citizen” would not have been specified if not distinct from a natural citizen. After all, the founders also decided what it took to be a citizen.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (cd972c) — 1/26/2011 @ 1:59 pm#36, SPQR, no, the Hawaiian officials did not say that they had seen the “long form” of Obama’s birth certificate. What they DID say was that they had viewed Obama’s birth records on record, as were in accordance with Hawaiian law. So please, stop the spin.
#43, carlitos, you too, are also wrong. Obama’s computer generated BC first appeared on DailyKos and it was not until the next day that the same computer generated image appeared on the Organizing for Obama website. But then, I guess you find no problem with the first image showing up on a far leftwing blog.
Now, here is a question for all of you regarding Obama’s long form: is it a Certificate of Live Birth, a Certification of Live Birth, a FS-240 birth certificate or a DS-1350 birth certificate, all documents issued by the State of Hawaii? If one was requesting a computer generated copy of any of those “long” forms, the State of Hawaii would still issue the “Certification of Live Birth” as was provided by DailyKos and the Obama campaign. The State of Hawaii would NOT issue copies of the original long form.
Had anyone of you bothered to want to know, all that information is on the State of Hawaii website.
retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:00 pmZelsdorf, except that is likely not the correct definition. At a minimum, the Fourteenth Amendment modified the common law definition we inherited from British law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:02 pmretire05, if you want to link to a copy of the statement the Hawaiian officials put out in ’08 please do so. Accuse me of “spin” again, however, and I’ll not treat it politely.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:03 pmIt is the state’s responsibility, Carlitos. That’s a great point, and that’s the point Boehner brought up.
However, I’m noticing that you are perhaps a little too dismissive of legitimate complaints. I understand where you’re coming from, but you’re treating people making mild points as though they are unhinged hypocrites and kooks.
For example, your link to .jpg. I already noted why a lot of people reject that kind of evidence. The first such certificate was proven to be doctored, poisoning the well.
This is why the Governor’s entire promise to look into this was really unwise. At this point, there’s nothing he can possibly do to convince a certain segment. He comes up with a document, and they just say it’s fake.
This doesn’t mean we can just dismiss those who can’t be convinced. This is just an issue with no perfect resolution IMO.
Hawaii’s ability to certify Obama was born there is pretty damn easy to question, given that the state governor is clumsily flailing on the topic. And while you blame racists, I think it’s pretty clear that this Governor is an Obama ally, and at least partially responsible for doubt on this issue. Supposing (which I do) that it is Hawaii’s right to certify Obama, does that make it OK, if it’s clear Hawaii can’t prove he born in Hawaii? ‘Because they have the authority’ is not a compelling argument about the actual truth behind a certification.
Sure, many birthers are completely unfair and unreasonable, but that doesn’t prove much.
I think at this point, we have to admit there is enough reason to at least say this whole subject is fishy. You can point out the extreme birthers who would reject Obama’s eligibility even if he were born here, but I prefer to just note that this issue was not handled properly.
If you read Obama’s book, Dreams, then you know he mentioned the original document. I think people just want to see that one. In all honesty, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, and that this means he is eligible, and that it’s sad that people have this doubt, and some have run with this doubt to unjustifiable ends. However, I’m simply noting that some people who aren’t convinced are probably not so crazy or racist. There’s simply too much bad faith in the air.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:06 pmLet’s presume for the sake of presuming that Obama really was born elsewhere and therefore is not eligible.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:08 pmWhat happens?
What do his supporters say? After insisting he’s a natural born citizen, do they seamlessly begin insisting that in the twenty-first century it makes no difference and only a racist would claim it does?
I think this is correct. Whether it’s a total fake or not (and I don’t think it’s a fake), that computer generated form is enough for anything I’ve ever needed a birth certificate for.
I don’t think there’s anything Obama can do to resolve this, and I do think he’s eligible. I also think the way this has gone down has led reasonable people to have different levels of doubt.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:08 pmWhich facts am I mis-representing? You claim that Obama supporters have kept this issue simmering, for whatever reason. Please demonstrate where they are doing this.
Orly Taitz has been filing frivolous lawsuits about this for 3 years. Just last week she was denied cert by the SCOTUS. She’s a racist nutball. Did Obama keep her simmering? No.
Ed Hale – racist and bigfoot believer, promotes this stuff for years. Not an Obama shill.
Joseph Farah of WND put up billboards saying “where’s the birth certificate.” Did Obama secretly put him up to that, to keep this issue in the public eye? No.
Farah’s idiot collaborator wrote at WND that Abercrombie said he “couldn’t find the birth certificate” and it went onto drudge. Did Obama people do that? ?
The Hawaii Governor was responding to a reporter about the politically-motivated claims made by the birther people. Perhaps the reporter was an Obama supporter, I suppose.
Maybe you can find Gov. Abercrombie disagreeing with me in here somewhere, but I can’t.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:10 pmcarlitos, read the freakin’ original post if you doubt that people other than Birthers and TEA Party people have kept this issue simmering with their comments and actions. Sheesh, pay attention.
Secondly, it is not controversial that the original certificate has not been published, only a certification from Hawaii that his birth was registered there has been published. If you don’t understand the difference, don’t pretend to.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:14 pmBTW, carlitos, it’s clear to me you are arguing in good faith, but I do think you’re lumping all the people who are unconvinced in with some kooks. Perhaps I’m off base.
“(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)”
What do you think of Hillbuzz’s analysis of this? That he was born in Hawaii, and then had a name change that led to all the official docs having the name Barry instead of Barack? That seems reasonable to me (and obviously if true means Obama is eligible).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:16 pmAs the term “natural born citizen” was used in the Constitution, it was to contrast with someone who was not born a citizen. Look up the requirements for Representative or Senator: must be a citzen for X years (I don’t remember of the top of my head what the numbers were, and don’t care to look it up right now). But for a President, the Constitution said he must be a natural-born citizen. Clearly, this means that he must be a citizen from the time of his birth.
There’s no difference in citizenship between someone who is born in the USA of parents who are citizens and someone who is born in the USA with one or more parents who are not citizens. In both cases, they would be natural born citizens.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:17 pmSPQR, I really don’t see it.
The fact that you want to see his “original” birth certificate, for whatever reason, doesn’t mean that he has to show it to you. The reason this issue started was with racists, and it was continued by some on the right. This post talks about the Hawaiian governors response to a question. A question that wouldn’t have been asked without some of the people I listed above.
I don’t know why you don’t get this. Do you think that Andrew Sullivan should get to see Sarah Palin’s uterus?
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:17 pmcarlitos, again you misrepresent – this time my position. It is really annoying that you do so.
I’ve never claimed that Obama has to show his original birth certificate to me. The reason that I’ve never claimed that? Because he has presented a perfectly legal document, just not his original birth certificate, that has legal effect. Additionally, a candidate can establish that he meets the constitutional qualifications in any number of perfectly legal ways. The Constitution does not specify the form of evidence in the matter. Further, I’ve never stated that I believe he was not born in Hawaii. I’m confident he was.
However, that does not change what I actually did say. Which is that I find it an interesting question as to exactly why Obama refuses – as he is entitled to do – to produce the document in question.
And my puzzlement has nothing to do with racism and I’m rapidly reaching the point where I will take offense at your continued implications of racism addressed to me.
Have I made myself clear or do I need to break it down in smaller syllables?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:24 pmSome chump, while I believe you state the current law on the matter, historically what you describe was not in fact the way that citizenship law actually worked in common law and some early forms of naturalization statutes.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:26 pmOK, so what?
It doesn’t really matter who asked, does it?
People have a right to know everything they can about the leader of the free world. Not a legal right, but still… it’s there. I have a right to know what’s on Bush’s DD-214.
Journalists should be asking questions about things of this nature, especially because Obama is interesting and in a position of responsibility. Just dismissing this because Obama doesn’t have to show you an interesting document doesn’t really settle the issue for a lot of curious people.
I do think, insofar as people are interested in this topic, it’s worth coverage. this is a poor counter example because it’s not very consequential, far more proven away, and few are curious. Palin having Trig is not related to whether she’s defrauded the election process.
You seem to associate curiosity about Obama’s birth with some much kookier stuff. That coarsens the debate and invites the loudest, instead of the most reasonable.
You really don’t see anything unusual about this situation? It’s quite a stretch to say Obama’s not eligible, based on what we know, but it’s not a stretch to hope journalists continue to dig up anything they can about it, or for a state to require proof (something that cannot be obtained unless Obama was born in Hawaii) for the 2012 ballot.
I mostly just want some more protections so we minimize these concerns that lead to distrust.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:28 pmOK, SPQR. But o you see why someone like me would be frustrated at you for being a useful idiot* being used by the racists and conspiracists? You are inadvertently helping their cause by speculating about reasons that Obama has something to hide. That’s what they want people to think: Obama’s a scary Muslim black guy, therefore we can’t trust him. This is the reason for the controversy.
*term used for clarity, and I’m not implying you are an idiot.
Again, I don’t think you have showed me how Obama has kept the issue going. No one would be thinking of this without the birthers.
Same kind of speculation as there is here, I guess. No reaction.
My non-response for the next few hours is work-related. Not ducking questions.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:32 pmDustin, you’re näive if you believe that some document would end this controversy. Some kook would find “evidence” that it’s a forgery. Then honest doubters like you and SPQR could continue to speculate about it, while the issue stayed in the news for another 4 years.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:34 pmcarlitos, your frustration comes from your own misrepresentations of my comments and from your own failure to actually address them. As you fail to address the fact that Obama has himself chosen not to release the long form.
I don’t find your little half-hearted “useful idiot” jab cute and I shall not treat you politely in the future.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:37 pmI said exactly this in comment 59.
Granted, i’m really guilty of being too verbose in this thread, so I don’t blame you for skipping over it, but I said exactly that anything he produced will be called fake. he’s totally screwed to that extent.
I think speculation is pretty legit. I’m not an ‘honest doubter’ though, as I do think Obama was born in Hawaii, and also think some have tried to lie about this issue to protect him, and partly because of that, the issue has become a mess.
I also think this exposes a problem in how we certify candidates, that ought to be fixed. Ignoring Obama altogether, we should handle this entire issue better.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:40 pmWe started the birther movement. Do not blame the racists for what we did.
Hillary Supporters (d4bbf1) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:41 pmHere’s the statement by the Health Director of Hawaii stating that he had visually seen the original form:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
And again:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
The birth certificate that Obama has released is the ONLY valid proof of birth that the State of Hawaii issues. Challenging that is challenging the sovereignty of the State of Hawaii itself.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:45 pmSo they can’t find it now, but there must be a record of when it was last examined, the copy part
orson (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 2:58 pmof it, this subject is rather tedious.
sputnik moment huh?
ColonelHaiku (f8a47b) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:05 pmwhy not go fully obscure
Teapot Dome Scandal
Orson: there’s no direct evidence that it can’t be found: just hearsay.
On the other hand there are official documents of people stating that they have seen it.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:05 pmClaim retracked.
jeff (31e059) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:07 pmyikes, retracted, sorry
jeff (31e059) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:07 pmAnyways, Mike Evans. I recognize that voice. My local radio station morning show has him on for the morning gab. It’s called “Dirty Mike’s Hollywood Report”. Said local radio station tries to slut up the report a bit…
Anyways, he’s a former sports journalist who now does celebrity gossip reports.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:07 pmColonel saw real pics
ColonelHaiku (f8a47b) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:08 pmof O’s mom naked she look
like Eddie Munster
let’s try again.
Claim retracted.
jeff (31e059) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:09 pmColonel not see no hula skirt or coconuts!
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2008/10/22/barack-obamas-mother-poses-in-sexually-explicit-photographs/
ColonelHaiku (f8a47b) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:12 pm54.Teebo, the President presented a certificate. It would have been enough to get a child registered in school. So your claim is false.
Comment by SPQR
I thought the issue was that a copy of a “certificate of live birth” was produced, which is different from a “birth certificate”, at least in the state of PA. When I enrolled my daughter in a charter school, they wanted a copy of a “birth certificate” and explicitly said a “certificate of live birth was not sufficient”. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. What it has to do with Obama, Hawaii, and the origins of human DNA there I do not know.
Now, it seems to me if Obama wanted to clarify this he could, along with his college records which other Presidential candidates have routinely provided, yes?
I have no idea what is being hidden, I can only imagine it is something because of the apparent expense he has gone to keep things out of the public eye. (He knows what personal records released to the public can do, as in divorce proceedings of his US Senate opponent back in ’06, or whenever.)
I don’t think one has to be odd, a conspiracy theorist, or a racist to simply wonder what the deal is. I wouldn’t go out on a limb about it and make it an issue. Heck, I bet the country would be too apathetic to do anything about it if he was born in Kenya anyway. I’m more bothered by the fact he is pals with domestic terrorists and had help buying his house from a convicted felon, but a minority of people care about those things, too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:20 pmMD in Philly, Hawaii law states that the COLB is the equivalent legally and under the Full Faith and Credit clause, any other state would have to recognize that. Even PA.
I agree with you entirely.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:23 pmEddie Munster does
TimesDislaiku (caf8eb) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:33 pmlook like O’s mom but
widow’s peak on cooch
Haiku tries to help
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/26/2011 @ 3:42 pmBut Too Much Information
Makes me want to gag.
haiku now sorry
ColonelHaiku (f8a47b) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:06 pmbut most thankful that she not
look like Al Lewis
@SPQR
You claimed that Obama people were keeping this in the news for some reason. That is false. I gave many examples of the real people that are keeping this in the news, keeping the issue “simmering” or whatever you want to call it.
Which doesn’t mean a damn thing, except that he’s annoying a bunch of racists. Good for him.
Will you be demanding the “long form” birth certificate of the next Republican nominee? No.
Will the next Republican nominee release it anyway, to please the racists and conspiracy theorists in his base? Sure he will. With a wink and a smile. And everyone will know what he means, because a lot of honest conservatives are “just asking questions” about Obama.
I used that word because it has a specific historical meaning and I explicitly clarified that I wasn’t calling you an idiot. Grow up.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:06 pmmmm, wondering which is worse…
That a site posted what it claimed to be naked pictures of obama’s mother.
or that they were fakes? that is someone tried to pass of as the real thing these fakes and thus slandered his dead mother’s name.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:08 pmHey Aaron, you never know. Why not demand that Obama release the real nude photos of his mother for the next 6 years?
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:13 pmcarlitos, you continue to misrepresent my comments and demonstrate your utter lack of good faith and utter lack of basic reading skills.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:40 pmAnyone who wishes to see what Obama is about politically can peruse his rotten books he has written and check out who Obama (Barry Sotero) associated with (Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.). This is PROOF POSITIVE that Obama is a socialist, if not an unrepentant communist.
From time to time recently we have heard that so-and-so BELIEVE??? that Obama was born in Hawaii. WE DO NOT NEED OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO KNOW THAT OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Obama’s father WAS NOT a citizen of the United States; therefore, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The propaganda from Hawaii’s governor and recently from others is an attempt to end the debate. But like the Tea Party, the “Birthers” will not cease and desist from insisting that Obama be removed for failure to qualify according to our Constitution.
What is incredible is that ALL of those who have uttered that Obama is qualified have been sworn to uphold the Constitution. Like the vial and corrupt Nixon, Obama should be removed immediately.
As to what a “natural born citizen” is, it is most definitely a distraction between any citizen and a natural born citizen. The originators of the Constitution (exempting themselves first)wanted a president without dual or multiple loyalties. A person born of both mother and father who were citizens of the United States at the time of birth. This is patently obvious by the written intent of the founders. BARRY SOTOERO, AKA Barrack Hussein Obama and Usurper, DOES NOT QUALIFY. And, the fight to oust Obama continues.
AdrianS (accc54) — 1/26/2011 @ 4:58 pmAaron in #3 –
Does that include the children of foreign diplomats or any foreign national employed by embassies, who are born here? I don’t believe they are automatic citizens but I could be incorrect.
Arizona just had a bill introduced requiring that proof of eligibility be presented before a candidate will be allowed to be placed on the ballot starting in 2012. Other states have similar bills pending. The one in AZ will likely pass and be signed by the Governor.
Horatio (55069c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:03 pmi still want to know how he satisfies the documentation requirements for filling out an I-9 form.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:04 pmHoratio
well, i would go by the 14th amendment’s language of “subject to the jurisdiction of” etc. if diplomatic immunity applies to their children too, then i think we can exclude them. but if not… then i say they are citizens by birth.
you can say that is unwise, but the founders really weren’t worried very much about people sneaking in, etc. i have alot of problems with how the rule actually operates, but that doesn’t influence how i interpret it.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:11 pmHoratio: children of foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity don’t meet the requirements of the 14th amendment. They’re not automatically citizens by virtue of being born here. Everyone else is.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:13 pmThanks, SPQR for the clarification on Hawaii
Is “carlitos” the carlitos that usually posts here? I don’t recall him being obnoxious like he is on this thread. …he’s annoying a bunch of racists – so you’re one of the people that says to not bow down to Obama is to be a racist?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:19 pmThanks for the reply. What does that clause mean? I’m guessing that many believe it means everyone who is in the US except diplomats. I also imagine that many believe it only refers to those who are citizens, so a citizen of France who is in the States isn’t “subject to the jurisdiction of”… Are there any notable cases which address this particular issue?
I do think the passage of the AZ bill will be a game changer. Texas and Pennsylvania are two other states with bills pending and their electoral vote count is significant.
Horatio (55069c) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:24 pmI’ve tried to be patient with carlitos, but he keeps telling me that I’m thinking X, when I said the opposite of that a few minutes prior.
I think it’s the same guy, but he doesn’t approach this issue with enough patience.
We traditionally do not treat these as citizens, and going by the constitution, it’s a matter of ‘within jurisdiction’. I suppose the argument is that embassies are not our jurisdiction, but I think this could be an interesting issue if someone born in a hospital outside the embassy decided to press the issue in court.
As to those saying it is tantamount to questioning the sovereignty of Hawaii to question whether they handled this issue correctly, I disagree. It’s clear they have completely mangled the issue, just looking over the various statements that have been made.
And obviously the person who has really added fuel to the fire is Gov Abercrombie, very much an Obama guy. Whether because he’s an idiot, or because he’s playing a stupid game, his comments are the reason we are discussing this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:32 pmAdrianS, your nonsense was obsoleted by the Fourteenth Amendment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:33 pmDustin: please clarify as to how they’ve mangled the issue.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 5:37 pmI’m still me.
I just don’t understand it.
There are questions about Obama’s citizenship. Hawaii attests that it’s cool. Knucklehead racists say “not good enough, we need to see the long form.” They won’t ever be happy.
What upsets me is how mainstream it is. My favorite blog is running posts on it. News stories are running. It’s a conspiracy theory; I don’t see how discussing details about a wild conspiracy theory is helpful in mainstream conservative circles.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:40 pmTo all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. The way our US Courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present to our US Courts. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three.
Montana (d10380) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:46 pm1) If you want the common law background of who is a citizen, as it would have been understood in 1788, read the chapter in Blackstone’s Commentaries regarding native subjects, denizens and aliens. (It’s in Volume I.) The bottom line is that “natural born citizen” is really meaningless, and no different from “natural citizen”.
And then, for a little game, go read his discussion of the English poor laws in Chapter 9 of the same volume, which near the end includes a remark very apropos to the current situation our country is in. I’ll leave it to the curious to find it for themselves.
I might add that I had to produce certified copies of my birth certificate on two occasions–when I first applied for a DL and when I applied for my first passport. (I have no idea of what my parents needed to show when I first enrolled in schoool, or when they got me a social security card. I was about 8 years old at the time I got a SSN.) IIRC, it was actually provided by the City of Boston, not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Contrary to what one of the previous comments implied, I did not have to provide a copy when I applied for admission to the bar (Florida). Of course, the application form included a signed declaration (don’t remember if it was notarized) that all the information (which of course included the date and place of birth) I provided on the application was true and as accurate as I could provide.
2)Have His Carcase is a great detective story; the title is based on a corruption of “habeas corpus”, and features for a murder victim whose corpse gets washed out to sea (the body is eventually located). For those who don’t like reading, the BBC film shown on PBS Mystery! is available on DVD.
kishnevi (7e2721) — 1/26/2011 @ 6:57 pmI should have added that, if the Founders had kept to the English model strictly, naturalized citizens would not have been eligible for the House of Representatives or the Senate, or in fact for any other public office (at least at the Federal level)
kishnevi (7e2721) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:04 pmcarlitos and SPQR:
You are both good guys and I understand both of your points of view. Maybe you could try my trick of stating each others’ positions to the satisfaction of the other.
Patterico (d519ff) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:04 pmcarlitos, remember rule #0. I admit, I am a fan of violating rule #10.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:18 pmHawaii has the right to certify his birth in the way they have. SPQR and MD have explained that, and I’m not challenging it.
I think Hawaii’s government did not act professionally or intelligently insofar as one person would say they saw an original document, that couldn’t be released. Obviously people would want to see that document, as soon as it was mentioned. that’s perfectly understandable. Later, we learn that it doesn’t even exist. That leads people to assume there’s something dishonest going on, because… there is something dishonest going on (probably the initial claim that someone had seen a document as simply a misguided effort to stop the conspiracy theories).
The governor’s entire broadcasted effort was also extremely misguided. That’s the only reason we’re even talking about this. The governor could have done his investigation in private, and then tailored his comments more carefully. Instead of promising some specific result, before the investigation, he could have instead made the announcement that he had checked the records and confirmed a birth record for Obama.
Now, I certainly grant that there are some who wouldn’t be moved no matter what Hawaii’s leaders did. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasonable people who would have a better feeling about this affair had things played out differently.
Gov Abercrombie set expectations to match the initial claim that there was a document in storage somewhere that he would wave to the world. It turns out he probably couldn’t release this even if it were there, without permission (though I don’t see why this would be a problem).
There are many different ways to view this issue. My view is that it’s a tremendous failure of journalism. These are interesting issues, and I think people should be digging into Obama’s life. Another issue is legal, where some say it’s on the birthers to prove Obama isn’t a citizen, and others say it’s on Obama to prove he is (beyond the document he’s already provided? I guess that’s another division).
I don’t mean to be slippery about this. I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I find Hillbuzz’s explanation compelling (if underwhelming).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:33 pmThanks guys. I am extra-ornery about this subject and probably need to chill.
SPQR, I apologize if I misstated your position and will attempt to clarify before directing anything else your way.
On the bright side, I made a delicious beef wellington in between posts.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:37 pmPatterico, I don’t have a problem with carlitos position. I have a problem with his repetition of three themes. See his 1/26/2011 @ 4:06 pm. 1) that I’m “demanding” a long form certificate from Obama. 2) that I’m doing so because I’m racist and wouldn’t do it to a white Republican. And 3) that I’ve falsely claimed that Obama is solely responsible for keeping the issue simmering.
Numbers 1 and 2 have greatly offended me in a personal way. I do not “demand” a long form certificate having explicitly and repeatedly stated that Obama has no obligation to provide it. See my 1/26/2011 @ 1:00 pm; and especially 1/26/2011 @ 2:24 pm. And then to have my nonexistent demand held up as proof that I’m a racist because I would not also demand this of a white Republican?
As for 3, in his post ref’d earlier he writes:
(Italics added to mark where he was quoting me). Right after asserting that my opinion that Obama was keeping the issue simmering by withholding the long form cert was “false”, he then applauds what? That Obama was annoying “racists”, again implying that I am one, by withholding it.
Obviously I am not saying that Obama is solely responsible for the issue continuing. carlitos’ own comment acknowledges Obama’s actions and lauds them right after claiming I was “false”. I fail to see how he can misrepresent my opinions, and continually imply that I’m racist, with any pretense of good faith and my patience has ended.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:38 pmFor me, while I would like to see some kind of proof that he was born in Hawaii, the issue was settled in the Supreme Court before the election.
They said he was eligible, and that settles it for me.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/26/2011 @ 7:38 pmSPQR, at no point did I intend to even suggest that you are a racist. Suggesting that’s what I’m saying is as much a misstatement of my position as you probably perceive I’m doing with yours.
If your patience has ended, you won’t hear more from me on this. If you want to accurately understand my position, and me yours, let’s try again another time.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:01 pmOn the bright side, I made a delicious beef wellington in between posts.
Comment by carlitos
Umm, could you attach a container of it to one of those “jaypigs” and send me some???
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:02 pm🙂
No hard feelings, Carlitos, but I see where SPQR is coming from. I don’t think he’s out of line.
We have to give eachother more benefit of the doubt about discussing this issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:11 pm#58, SPQR, the statement from Hawaiian DOH Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino was:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Nowhere did Fukino state that he had seen the “long form” as you claim, or even that Obama was born in Hawaii. So yes, you were spinning and I don’t really give a damn if you want to be polite or not.
So tell me, which form did Fukino see? The Certificate of Live Birth, the Certification of Live Birth, the FS-240 birth certificate or the DS-1350 birth certificate?
Now, think a parent cannot obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate for a child not born on Hawaiian soil? Think again. Try Hawaiian statute S338-17.8.
retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:12 pmcarlitos,
FWIW, it seemed to me that in #90 you were saying that those who had questions about the birth certificate issue were racists, which was the “real reason” they had a concern. Maybe you did not intend that and were just getting carried away in the moment.
I think Dustin in #110 makes the good point that we wouldn’t even be talking about this now had not the Gov. of Hawaii gone out of his way to bring attention to it.
As I’ve said before, it seemed after 2004 and the to-do back and forth about college grades for Bush and Kerry it would be a given such records were open to scrutiny. We the American people were evaluating him for a job, what’s the problem with not seeing his college record? By the effort that has gone into protecting it I assume there is something embarrassing there, and not just an elaborate and expensive decoy. Something on the order of his name not being legally changed back to Barach Obama on oversight or some such sounds as reasonable as anything. Something embarrassing, but not on the order of saying he shouldn’t be president.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:17 pmDustin:
Thanks for the reply. As far as I can tell, no one in the Hawaiian government has said the document doesn’t exist. There’s been some hearsay (such as that with the Dirty Mike radio spiel above), and some unsubstantiated claims (as with the former CNN CEO). On the other hand, there have been several officials statements that the original documents still exist, but due to the law from 2001 they can’t be released to the public. I don’t think this is can be rightly blamed on Hawaii.
Obama may also be preventing that release. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was. There are very personal and perhaps embarrassing things on that document. Or maybe there’s none at all and he’s intentionally keeping the document hidden for a more nefarious purpose. Nothing excites/distracts the left more than a group of morons yelling that he’s really a Kenyan, not an American, etc. That can useful for when he needs to deflect from a scandal that puts him in a bad light. Keeping the document hidden gives him ammunition to use in fights, if you’ll pardon the “war/violence” metaphor. Of course there’s no evidence for this either.
Newtons.Bit (d4b383) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:25 pmComment by carlitos — 1/26/2011 @ 8:01 pm
Your 4:06pm comment stands on its own, and refutes this claim of yours.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:27 pmretire05, having little turds on one end claim that I’m a racist regarding Obama, and little turds on another end claim I’m “spinning” only reinforces the end of my patience with loons.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:30 pmActually nothing surprises me anymore, either about this president, or his lapdog media, they were willing to credit a sociopathic criminal like Hatfield in order to go after Bush, (essentially Kimberlin with a lesser skill set), they propped Dan Rather on his fraud, what they did in 2008, to both ends of the oppostion, well I’ll leave that for another time, and the courts have been manipulated in instances in Anchorage and Minneapolis, doesn’t make me look to kindly on them
narciso (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:33 pmeither.
MD in Philly, I looked at #90 and I don’t see it. I specifically said “honest conservates” were asking questions, not racists. I don’t think that all the people “just asking questions” about what Obama might be hiding are racists. The evidence is clear that this entire issue was created by racists, and at this point I think that non-racists are carrying their water by continuing to keep it in the news (hence the ‘useful idiots’ comment).
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:36 pmWe started this. Not the racists. We did.
Hillary Supporters (d4bbf1) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:38 pmTo elaborate, in #90 / 4:06, I said that Obama was annoying racists, and good for him. I certainly didn’t mean to lump SPQR in with racists, though he clearly perceived it that way. I guess I can see why, but I use the words I use for a reason. . While I wrote that post, I referred to the racists that started this mess, and honest conservatives as “just asking questions” keeping it in the news. Maybe there is some overlap, but I’m not claiming that and don’t care to research it.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:42 pmNor do I care to speculate as to the number of racist Hillary! supporters, but I do know a few personally and wouldn’t put it past them.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:44 pmcarlitos, since you use the words you use for a reason …
(bold added by me)
… please explain to me the definition of the word “you”.
I’m looking forward to this explanation – involving as it will an explication of your precision of language.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:51 pmSPQR, I apologize for including the answer “No” in my question. That was presumptuous of me. Honestly, I had my hands full of pastry dough and one eye on the screen, but that’s no excuse.
So, to reiterate the question – Will you be demanding the “long form” birth certificate of the next Republican presidential nominee?
Bonus question – what will you do if the nominee is from one of the many states that don’t do long-form certificates?
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:57 pm13 Aaron — it was a minor problem until sometime after 9/11; then many more places wanted them. Minnesota has a procedure for dealing with the losses, those who are inconvenienced are known (there were off-site lists of the names dates places etc, but not photostats of all of the documents), and a substitute document is available for the same cost as the legal copy of the original. (Or was the last time I needed one.) It adds a day or two, or a weekend and a day, to some processing. I should be more offended, I suppose, but these kinds of things do happen, and there’s a reasonable process available to correct the problem, so it’s hard to stay upset about it. If it was yesterday I’d had to do it, I’d be a lot angrier today. It does make me extremely leery of any “official ID” scheme; loss by individual or state never seems to be an item considered in such schemes.
htom (412a17) — 1/26/2011 @ 8:59 pmPhil Berg, one of the leading birthers, is a 9/11 denialist, no, Taitz, I don’t know her personal politics, but I doubt race has much to with her goals,
narciso (6075d0) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:03 pm#121, SPQR, are you giving us an exhibition of your vast intellect by referring to other posters here as “turds”? Why would that be? Because you got spinning the truth and when called down on it, you resorted to the tactic of insults and perjoratives?
You were spinning about the Hawaiian officials saying they had seen the “long” form of the BC and I called you down on it. Perhaps if you don’t like being outed, you should stop spinning the truth.
Or do you have to resort to perjorative name calling because you have no valid rebuttal? Like commenting on S338-17.8 of the Hawaiian statutes. Do you care to admit that you were wrong about the “long form” claim?
Or do you intend to stand your ground as it drops beneath you?
retire05 (173aa6) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:06 pmI think people are more interested in a document that was created on the day of the birth, signed by the doctor who was there (if it was at a hospital).
i’m pretty sure it would be nice if all future presidential candidates did produce this document. I do expect the GOP nominee to do that, and it’s not because of a dog whistle that Obama’s black (I think such a thought is very silly).
It’s just a sign of respect for the eligibility requirements in the constitution, and perhaps also a sign of respect for states, should they require this to certify candidates.
I certainly don’t see the harm. If someone can’t provide the original birth certificate, then there should be some kind of proceeding to certify. Other documents, witnesses, other evidence, etc could be evaluated.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:12 pmcarlitos, you really are not paying any attention are you? I’ve never “demanded” the long form certificate. See Comment by SPQR — 1/26/2011 @ 7:38 pm.
retire05, fuck you. Strong letter follows.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:14 pmAssuming his real birth certificate has his name listed as “Barry Soetoro”, The document released by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Although I doubt Obama made it himself, Is the cover up worse than the crime.
Interestingly a satire website, http://www.igormarxo.org, has had a joke bc for years which lists Obama’s name as “Barack Milhous Hussein Obama”. Where are Woodward and Berstein when we need them?
Igor Marxomarxovich (103d22) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:16 pmDid my last get eaten?
I’ll repeat with edit:
carlitos, you really are not paying any attention are you? I’ve never “demanded” the long form certificate. See Comment by SPQR — 1/26/2011 @ 7:38 pm.
retire05, f**k you. Strong letter follows.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:16 pm#132, SPQueer, quite the gentleman, aren’t you?
Oh well, I guess a “f**k you” from you is the most your teeny brain can muster.
retire05 (63d9af) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:27 pmNo, retire05, I’m not a gentleman.
And f**k you is not all my teeny brain can muster. It is all that I choose to muster having exhausted my patience after commenting in great detail about the topic, and yet having little turds claim I’m “spinning”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:30 pmSPQR, you are speculating as to the reasons for not publishing the long-form birth certificate, a document that the State of Hawaii can no longer produce. You said that Obama’s people were keeping this issue simmering, in so many words.
If you aren’t asking to see it, what’s your point?
More productively, what’s your position? I don’t want to mis-characterize it; so what is it?
Here’s mine – Racists wanted to undermine Obama’s candidacy, so they started rumors that he was a secret muslim, secret kenyan, etc. Conservatives entertaining silly ideas like this are not helpful, because they are (perhaps unwittingly) embracing paranoid conspiracy theory, thus confirming the suspicious of joe six-pack CNN viewer who thinks that conservatives are nuts anyway – see creationism, etc.
Dustin, you seem completely unfamiliar with HIPAA. Presidential candidates don’t have to provide their medical history for you. Whether you think it would be nice or not seems irrelevant to me.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:33 pmCan you guys try to state each others’ position? Do you know what I mean by that?
I think feelings have been hurt and it’s best to wipe the slate clean and try to understand and articulate the other guy’s position.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:37 pmretire05:
Completely uncalled for.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:40 pm“see creationism, etc.”
carlitos – Do you have a problem with religion or merely the way the theory of creation is portrayed by the liberal media to make people seem like nuts?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:41 pmcarlitos, I think that Obama has some reason to refuse to release a copy of his original birth certificate. I am curious what that reason is. He does have the ability to produce a copy of it. I do not believe you are correct that Hawaii can no longer produce it but that is irrelevant as Hawaiian officials have certainly incompetently given that impression. I am not “demanding” that he produce it.
I think that your continual harping on “racists” got very old a long time ago. Hillary partisans first began the rumors for what are obvious reasons – your assertion that they are racists is frankly at best a stupid overuse of the term. No doubt some fraction of those who continue to claim without any actual evidence that Obama is not qualified to be President are racist, but you can’t support the blanket name-calling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:42 pmcarlitos:
Why don’t you try to state SPQR’s position in a way that you think he would agree with?
SPQR:
Same for you. See if you can state carlitos’s position in your own words, in a way you think he would agree with.
Neither of you play gotcha with past phrasings. Just try to get the other guy’s position right, to their satisfaction.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:43 pmFor the record, I find Birthers to be not as outrageously offensive as Truthers like blubonnet but certainly as self-deceptive if not overtly dishonest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:45 pmPatterico, the reality is that with regard to the factual substance of the “controversy” of Obama’s birth, I do not disagree with carlitos other than having some disagreement on minor fact issues.
However, I lost patience with how he treated my commentary.
I appreciate your effort but frankly I do not retain enough respect for carlitos to attempt the experiment. With great respect to you, I decline.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:49 pmHere’s my estimate of SPQR’s position. The indented quotes are his. (sadly, I don’t know if SPQR is a ‘he’ but I figure he/she would correct me at some point!) The bolding is mine.
SPQR is not a ‘birther’ – he is just curious about what Obama and his allies are hiding, by not publishing his __________________.***
Here’s more of my characterizing of SPQR’s position: He seems to think that “Obama and his allies” are keeping this issue “simmering” by not releasing his documents to the world.
***At this point, I don’t know what the underline is. If it’s “long form” birth certificate, Hawaii doesn’t do those. If it’s something else, please enlighten me.
Kudos to SPQR to disavowing the 9/11 truthers. So we agree on several points.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 9:57 pmcarlitos,
Could you give me a link for your assertion that Hawaii does not do a long form birth certificate?
Also I think the best argument I have heard for blaming Obama is that he litigates this rather than produce it.
Isn’t the governor saying he can’t release it without Obama’s consent? Why isn’t he just saying: Obama already gave his consent and we have released everything there is?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:03 pmdaleyrocks, I have a small problem with religion, and a big problem with the logical leaps needed to base your worldview on a religion.
Museums showing Jesus riding a dinosaur aren’t ridiculous because the liberal media portrays them as so. They are ridiculous because they misrepresent reality
SPQR, sorry, I cross-posted with your last comment. No worries – you don’t have to discuss this with me if you don’t want to.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:04 pmPatterico,
It’s late but I’ll try.
Here is Jerome Corsi from 2008. I think that this is important, remembering the motivation of those smearing Obama with this crap.
That is how the whole mess started. Smears and lies.
Here is a jpeg of the physical item held by factcheck.org’s Joe Miller – http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
Does Hawaii produce “long form” birth certificates in 2011? No. Was there probably a record with the doctor’s name and such in 1961? Yes. Who knows whether anyone has that document today.
Here is where you would request a COLB from the state of Hawaii. I don’t see a box for “please send me the long form, I have to defend myself from Joseph Farah.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
…
In terms of case law, is Berg v. Obama, Martin v. Lingle, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Keyes v. Bowen, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, Kerchner v. Obama, Barnett v. Obama, Hollister v. Soetoro, Cook v. Good, Rhodes v. Macdonald not enough?
I am in contact with someone in Hawaii who assures me that she can’t get anything other than a COLB from the state. They evidently digitized the records in 2000 and now that’s all you can get, especially given the HIPAA laws.
Here’s the bonus round – According to my source, Hawaii only produces the COLB since 2000 or so. What will happen in 2040 when a Hawaiian runs for president? All they can possibly have is a COLB, since the HIPAA rules and the state will have never, ever recorded things like doctor’s name, father’s religion, etc.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:31 pmShit. I lost a really long post.
Patterico, I will look for evidence regarding whether Hawaii don’t do long-forms. Give me a day or two.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:33 pmJust a hyperactive spam filter. I rescued it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:35 pmCarl, Patterico
I think its a mutually building thing. you have die hards who can’t believe this idiot is actually our president who latch onto the hope that yeah, maybe he really isn’t.
And then you have obama continually refusing to really do what is necessary to put an end to it. And i think the calculation was to get conservatives to focus on that rather than substantive issues (like him declaring that our money really belongs to the feds, and thus a tax break is really spending).
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:36 pmHIPAA would be irrelevant if Obama consented. Anyone can consent to release their records and presidential candidates generally do.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:37 pmcarlitos:
I repeat:
Official statements are not: Obama consented and we released everything there is to release pursuant to that consent.
Rather they say: we can’t release it without consent.
Why is that? It seems like a fair question.
And that is Obama himself keeping the issue simmering.
No?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:42 pmPatterico,
wait, wait, i thought they were citing a state law.
But instead they are citing hipaa?
Oh, for the love of God, hipaa is my breakfast, lunch and dinner. yes, it might be a technical violation. but here is the thing. there is no civil cause of action for violating it. the only danger is if either 1) the director of HHS or 2) the state AG, decides to pursue the civil penalty. so crap, if abercrombie wanted he could just break the rule and pay the fine (assuming anyone wanted to pursue it).
Plus, there would be a real question of whether any health information was being revealed at all. I mean what are they revealing? that he was born? um, yes, we know that. The question we are asking is where. i don’t believe the typical birth cert says anything more than date, weight, parentage, and a few other innocuous details. i suppose birth weight is health information, but then you just redact that from the document.
if hipaa is the only problem, then they have no reason to hold that back.
but that being said, the real problem with hipaa is it freaks everyone out. people think it applies when it doesn’t. so frankly when i am a patient, i deal with “hipaa panic” all the frickin’ time.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:48 pm“Museums showing Jesus riding a dinosaur aren’t ridiculous because the liberal media portrays them as so.”
carlitos – I was not aware that was what some people understood to be the story of creation. Apparently the media myths and smears are working.
I tried to be precise with my language as you claimed to be as well. I am not aware of any accepted evolutionary theory versions of creation – Dawkins has aliens visiting and crap like that.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:55 pmI disagree. Birthers said “release the birth certificate” and he did. Then, the birthers called it a photoshop forgery. Secret muslim, secret kenyan, mom on a slow/fast boat to Mombasa. Then they said “hey it’s not a long form, like we have in my state.” It’s pure conspiracy nonsense. Nothing will satisfy the birthers. If he released the “long form” or whatever there was in 1961, nothing would change. Sure, reasonable posters on patterico would be satisfied about his birth. But they already are now, so what’s the point?
Plus, if you want to think about Team Obama’s motivations, think about this – Think about how old documents look to people. Those TANG bush documents are from the 70’s and they almost look like they are from the bronze age, with today’s perspective. Add typewritten “muslim” or “arab” or more likely “african” and it looks all sinister. Then the scumbags who pushed this meme in the first place will have what they asked for, a story to tell about this mysterious black man with ‘proof’ being mysterious documents asserting his racial/religious origins.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 10:58 pmdaley – over a beer sometime, maybe. With complete respect, I can’t debate evolution at 1am.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:03 pmOver two days ago, I made a video featuring part of the actual 1/09 interview, and at that time I discounted the video in this post.
Watch my video at my name’s link and compare it to the original version of this post. Hint: those like Aaron Worthing are the reason why I don’t call myself a blogger.
Abercrombie post (c77a55) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:04 pmcarlitos:
Let us all stipulate that many birthers are crazy; that nothing will satisfy them; that Obama has provided what seems like adequate proof of being born in Hawaii; etc.
You now need not repeat these things because they are agreed to. Now please concentrate on my questions without repeating any of the above.
1) Is there not a long form certificate? This story suggests there is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us/25hawaii.html?_r=1
It also suggests Obama buddy the Hawaii governor rekindled the issue on his own.
2) Does it not appear that it is not being released because Obama will not consent?
3) Isn’t it valid to ask why? Especially if he is spending money to litigate the issue.
Please don’t repeat the points you have repeatedly made that I already said we agree on.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:08 pmCan’t read 147 comments (just spent over two hours driving in zero visiblity due to snow on a trip that should have taken 40 minutes).
However I will say this. Last fall I had to renew my CT state pistol permit. I showed up at the Public Safety HQ to pay my 35 dollars when I was informed I would have to provide “proof” that I was a US citizen to renew a permit I have maintained since 1988. As I have no idea where my passport (not used since 2005) currently resides and the town where I was born is several hours away making getting the “notarized” “official” copy of my “long form” birth certificate, which is what they stated they would require, problematic, I thought I was in a pickle. They did accept my notarized Voter ID card (which I had to show the “long form birth certificate to get) which was in my wallet, but I was struck at the time that for a permit that only permits me the right “which shall not be infringed” and does not affect negatively any other citizen, I was required to show far more proof of eligibility than Obumbles ever has.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:12 pmThere is no single national presidential election but 50 individual elections and the sum total of the combined electoral votes decided the election. That said if a state were to legislate the requirements to be on the ballot in that given state and just happens to require that certain documents have to be provided to qualify to be on the ballot well you can see where this going. Now suppose that TX, AZ FL,VA and a few others were to pass such legislation in order to be on the ballot in 2012 then Obama will either have to produce or find an excuse not to run again. The real question in this type of scenario is what would Obama’s standing be to file suit in such a case since the requirement would apply equally to any candidate applying to run in that state. And what would be the federal issue? A question for Aaron and Patterico to discourse on for us.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:21 pm“daley – over a beer sometime, maybe. With complete respect, I can’t debate evolution at 1am.”
carlitos – With complete respect, I have no interest in debating evolution. I am not the one using broad brushes in this thread to smear people without defining my terms.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:24 pmI meant throughout the thread. I merely used the latest as an example.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:25 pmActually, you seem completely unfamiliar with my comment. I granted that he’s not under this obligation legally, but still think he has a different sort of obligation, as a man leading a large, divided country, to do whatever he can to shed light on this issue.
It’s not cool that you have ‘corrected’ me by repeating something I already said. You’ve done so 3 times in this thread alone. I grant that you don’t have to read all my points, but I feel I’m being far too generous with you. Don’t act like you understand my POV if you aren’t going to read it. As I said, Obama isn’t under a legal obligation, but if he’s fighting exposure of any aspect of his birth documents, then he’s an ass.
BTW, thanking SPQR for disavowing truthers is condescending in the extreme. Bringing your problem with religion into this thread is simply bizarre.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:39 pmhave blue
where do you live?
it took me 2 hours and forty minutes to get home.
without traffic (which never happens) it is a 25 minute trip. normally with traffic an hour is average. that being in the greater D.C. area.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:49 pmWhen the Presidential candidates were asked for their medical records Obama offered a single page written by a Doctor no one had ever heard of saying, “Trust me, every thing’s fine.” McCain offered the press access to every medical report and test ever performed on him, including the examinations the Navy performed when he returned to this country twisted and broken after torture at the hands of vicious socialists in Viet Nam.
Of course the press criticized McCain for for his forthcomingness.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:50 pmAaron Worthing at 164 – Central Connecticut. It is snowing so hard here that much of the trip (especially on the local roads) I was steering by looking out the side windows and maintaining a consistent interval with the snow banks on either side of the road.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:53 pmAaron – Watched Special Report on FOX while at work. Apparantly they lost one of their panelists in traffic due to the weather. She never showed up and Brit Hume had to fill in for her. A treat to see Brit back on his show and I hope she (and you) are safe.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/26/2011 @ 11:56 pmThe results of a personal investigation might well prove interesting. It’s too bad, then, that the restraining orders states that Aaron “cannot be present on the same island as Ms. Park.”
Icy Texan (c48727) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:53 amIf that is the case, then I selflessly volunteer to do the research in Aaron’s place.
As a bonus, I don’t need to take a wife, so the costs will be way lower.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:55 amHabeas corpus means “You may have the body”. “Habeas” is the second person, singular, Present Subjunctive. “You have the body” is “Habes corpus” in Latin.
Reminds me of a joke of Malcolm Muggeridge that in the USSR while they may not have “habeas corpus” they certainly had “habeas cadaver”.
liamascorcaigh (f81c78) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:05 amWent to bed while thread was active, up early to shovel snow.
I appreciate your direct response:
122.MD in Philly, I looked at #90 [now#89] and I don’t see it. I specifically said “honest conservates” were asking questions, not racists. I don’t think that all the people “just asking questions” about what Obama might be hiding are racists. The evidence is clear that this entire issue was created by racists, and at this point I think that non-racists are carrying their water by continuing to keep it in the news (hence the ‘useful idiots’ comment). – Comment by carlitos — 1/26/2011 @ 8:36 pm [Bold Mine]
And here is the original comment:
Which doesn’t mean a damn thing, except that he’s annoying a bunch of racists. Good for him.
Will you be demanding the “long form” birth certificate of the next Republican nominee? No.
Will the next Republican nominee release it anyway, to please the racists and conspiracy theorists in his base? Sure he will. With a wink and a smile. And everyone will know what he means, because a lot of honest conservatives are “just asking questions” about Obama. [Bold Mine]
In that context it was not evident to me that you meant that there were honest conservatives asking (legitimate) questions. I thought the phrase “wink and a smile” and putting “just asking questions” in quotation marks were evidence of sarcasm.
You do state elsewhere that you believe this issue was brought up by racists, and no one of good will should be pursuing it. I guess I’m not sure where it started. But even if a birth certificate was produced that was legitimate, I’m still wondering what is on his college records that he feels needs to be kept private, especially since he rose to national prominence through the forced release of his opponent’s divorce proceedings. I guess Obama found better lawyers than Ryan did.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/27/2011 @ 3:41 amI guess Obama found better lawyers than Ryan did.
Nah, he just found more pliant judges.
Another Chris (67858a) — 1/27/2011 @ 4:01 amWhat SPQR and Patrick (among a few others) have said is sensible, common sensical and reasonable. It is also irrefutable, which is why such a view can be attacked only by snideness, smears and relentless adhominemizing, not to mention confusion and incoherence so plentiful that much of it must surely be willful. The president is manifestly hiding something, to wit his birth certificate. This is axiomatic for otherwise this very post and comments would not exist.
What we’re really arguing about is why. Every politician likes to please voters, especially when it costs him nothing. If the folks wanted him to display his toenails clippings, you’d have to pry the scissors from his cold dead hands. So we all know that Mr. Obama has a significant reason for his determined refusal to comply with such a simple, indeed banal request. The inescapable deduction is that the birth certificate contains some data that are to his disadvantage. This is clear to all rational people of any and no political persuasion whether they admit it or not. Those who deny this are fooling themselves or attempting to dupe others, or both.
The nature of the data in question is unknown and cannot be known absent further factual information. Anything else is speculation. Such speculation, while perhaps fruitless, frustrating and more or less aggravating, is inevitable. We are an intelligent and, therefore, curious species, especially so when we are tantalized by a puzzling refusal to satisfy our natural inclinations in so mundane a matter, particularly when there is no apparent reason to be so disobliging.
The so-called ‘birthers’ espouse one view which may or may not be correct. We simply don’t know, none of us not already privy to the facts, at any rate. Any speculation predicated on what is feasible is valid. And the ‘birther’ position is quite feasible, as ‘truther’ claims manifestly are not. It is not without precedent, after all, not to be born in America. The vast majority of human beings are born outside the US, the outrageously misnamed World Series notwithstanding. Obama maybe one of those lost souls. We don’t know, and berating people with whom we disagree when we share their ignorance of the truth of the matter is both ill-mannered and unreasonable.
It is unlikely, perhaps, that Obama was born elsewhere. It would be bizarre, but so were Nixon’s burglars and Monica’s cigar and Tom Eagleton’s electro-shock therapy when they first made a sensation. Jack Kennedy concealed his Addison’s Disease and would undoubtedly have resisted any attempts to disclose his full medical records with the same determination as the current president. It almost certainly would have cost him a very close election.
Sobre scholars now dispute genteelly whether Chester Arthur was ineligible for the office to which he was elected and the office which he inherited from the unfortunate Garfield. Nobody regards such a thing as the outlandish concoction of demented extremists. Arthur lied and obfuscated freely and frequently concerning his origins and parentage throughout his life. Interestingly, during the campaign this issue was sidelined by the red-herring claim that he was Canadian born when the real question was whether his Irish father was naturalized in 1843, fourteen years after his son’s birth.
The notion advocated by the ‘respectable’ right is that Obama is orchestrating this controversy to distract conservatives and set them up as ‘birthers’. This is a jejune argument. He released his COLB did he not? Why not the birth certificate itself which the minimalist COLB merely memorializes? Indeed why not simply do that in the first place? That would have buried the issue once and for all. When the election was still in the balance it is absurd to imagine that he strategized about reducing the large number of doubters to a ‘birther’ rump which he could then hope to use to paint his opponents as extremists, a highly speculative and even more highly marginal benefit. Any potential serious campaign problem is best dealt with swiftly – ask John Kerry – and with finality. If possible. Obama stopped short because he could hardly cut his throat to save his neck.
Republicans espouse such silliness simply because they are so terrified of leftist smears that they allow the Dems to frame the terms of the debate and join with them in demonizing other conservatives as extremist loons. We should vigorously debate others on the right but we should never become an echo chamber for liberal spite, contempt and arrogance. It is never a good tactic to waft the chlorine gas into your own trenches. Your own gas-mask may one day spring a leak.
Of course it would be infinitely preferable if everyone simply exerted themselves to bring about the publication of the birth certificate in, of and for itself as the significant document that it is, and leave the speculation to the futures market; but of course that’s exactly the kind of market politics is.
liamascorcaigh (f81c78) — 1/27/2011 @ 4:48 ambirth certificate
TimesDislaiku (e0445b) — 1/27/2011 @ 5:29 amhidden for shameful reason
my guess is: six toes
Well we know Obama was a citizen of Indonesia as a child, and we also know he was a British citizen until 21 years of age.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:22 amBoth of those disqualify him for potus in my reading and interpretation of the Constitution – but then I think most of our politicians break the laws and have legalized law breaking passes as often as they can, which is quite often.
Some states listed the communisty party usa guy, and he admittedly was born in south america as I recall.
So people in power are doing whatever they feel like, and there is no controlling authority as Al Gore famously quipped.
The endless number of lawsuits and cases on this matter have been dismissed often with “no standing”, and one “verdict” or judge’s judgement I read said only the democrat party has standing in the matter. I guess that means if the democrat party declares a homosexual cat it’s next usa citizen candidate, so be it.
Who can buy there isn’t a cover up – well anyone who doesn’t want to be called a birther.
Obama and his sister declared the two different hospitals his birthplace, a million bucks was spent with Obama fighting this and all his lifetime paperwork from ever becoming public, his granny in africa claims she saw him birthed there, his Mother it has been proven was there during a period that coincidez, another fellow fled the african nation with the supposed Imam’s birth paperwork… it goes on and on and on – a definite x-file.
I guess our modern answer is supposed to be “if he says so”.
Oblunder’s website supporters put the fake birth computer reprint out, 99% of the media was fooled by that or played along lying through their teeth – there were some indications that was even fraudulent – it just never ends in this case.
I think anyone who believe’s the guy on this is sold out, and ridiculous – I suppose the best evidence we have for Obama telling the truth is the newspaper articles the screamers cite as perfect evidence, media people, who apparently don’t realize a call to the paper is all it takes – especially when granny is VP of the big local bank…back in the day.
No I don’t believe Obama, no I don’t believe the countless verifiable lies of the democrats and many supportive republicans and neocons in the matter, and no I don’t think anything will ver be done about it.
I consider it exact par the course our nation is headed. A foreigner of two other nations potus in his lifetime, unverifiable birth, we aren’t certain of the daddy( a democrat must it seems at this point), and in this case a massive extended half brother half sister family in africa – some here illegally, one or two on welfare illegally – LOL
HAHAHHAHA IT NEVER ENDS.
Of course everything is on the up and up who cares if he was a foreign citizen of two nations our stupid founding fathers hadn’t a clue and he has never lifted a finger not in favor of the great USA….. right ?
Heck my childhood loyalties are all but disintegrated, nothing I was taught about who I am before being 21 years of age has stuck at all – just like the libs have told everyone all our lives, not a single thing in childhood matters – not even till 21 years of age, when one can drink… that of course is “citizenship personhood” and glad Oblunder finally caved into to being one of us then…LOL
Whatever.
Anyone who says shut up the guy is clean really needs some help.
Patterico, checked in this a.m. and saw that you said my comment was “completely uncalled for” (#139).
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly; SPQR calls me a “little turd” and tells me “f**k you” and my response to him was uncalled for?
Don’t you have it backwards?
retire05 (63d9af) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:09 amI saw something about SPQueer or something. I think it would be best for everyone to calm down, as I have said many times.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:29 amPatterico, SPQR lobbs perjoratives and tells someone “f**k you” and when the person insulted retaliates you now want the person insulted first to “calm down?”
Are you trying to install a new civility policy ala Democrat style? How about telling the guy who started the flame war by lobbing perjoratives to “calm down?”
Tell SPQR to stop with the name calling simply over his being insensed because someone called his statements “spin”. Perhaps you didn’t notice he never bothered to answer my questions, just chose to lob more perjoratives.
Perhaps you can list those who are allowed to name call and those who are not allowed to retaliate?
retire05 (63d9af) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:44 amDone.
It does. Here’s the reference:
And here is what the Hawaii Dept of Home Lands website had to say about it to Politifact. According to them, the Hawaii DOH no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. Rather, they issue Certifications. They say since the 80’s, and I asked someone in Hawaii who told me since 2000 or so. So I’m not sure, but sometime since 1961, they stopped issuing them. Does Obama’s exist somewhere? Don’t know.
There is no doubt that these things were digitized at some point, so perhaps the governor could dig through the vaults and see either microfiche or paper something. We all agree that it would be Obama’s call to release it. What we don’t know is whether it exists at all.
It does, but my opinion is that, were there not (for example) freaking billboards asking “Where’s the Birth Certificate” up across the USA, this story would not be top of mind with the governor or anyone else.
It does.
Fine. Ask away. I’ll refrain from further comment.
My humble opinion is that mainstream conservatives harping on this issue is harmful to the cause, because they a engaging in conspiracy mongering and enabling racists. Every time a new story breaks, MediaMatters, Jon Stewart and Katie Couric can give John Q Liberal a knowing wink and point / laugh at the paranoid racist conservatives who think that Obama was born in Kenya.
These two things matter in particular because of the somewhat mainstream charicitures of conservatives as paranoid racists. Do I think those stereotypes are fair? No. Do they exist? Yes.
I suppose you could put a disclaimer like your “stipulation” to me on the top of every post, but you’d be one of the few and it wouldn’t do much good with people’s perceptions.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:00 amWell, to me it doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:06 amI followed this fairly closely, and it is 100% clear to me Obama was a citizen of Indonesia as a child, and also a British citizen (though his non USA father) until he was 21.
In the case of the British citizenship, his own supportive and endorsed website fully admitted that and declared Obama renounced his British citzenship when he turned 21 years old, per the law at the time.
That alone disqualifies him in my Constitutional understanding, period. No question whatsoever. Sorry, the Constitution has the provision for a reason – and we all should know it’s about loyalty to the USA.
Furthermore I see a LOT of mistakes in many of the posts above. For instance, we can’t go by the watered down US citizen laws of today, we have to use the laws that were in effect when Obama was born – so far as they have not been superseded.
In the case of Obama’s parents at the time of his birth, the laws were different than they are today, and if anyone looks into it (it’s all over the web) it goes something like one of the parents has to be a US citizen and must have resided in the USA for x years before the birth, for the baby to be a citizen.
Well, daddy didn’t qualify, and mommie didn’t make the cut either according to Philip J Berg (there’s the guy pushing it) Democrat.
Like I said before, I don’t care where the guy was born since it beyond doubt he was citizen of Indonesia and Britain (whatever they called it then).
Nothing will come of it, he’s already delcared potus – the powers that be cannot let this go anywhere now or the whole deal will show just how fraudulent the government has become.
Heck that’s true for Obama’s senatorship as well.
Nothing will ever happen, people will argue forever, and none of us will know for certain either way.
I guess everyone who was there when Oblunder came into the world is dead. LOL
@daleyrocks – you are right. I should have said “Triceratops on Noah’s ark” not “Jesus riding a dinosaur.” Hyperbole.
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:13 amOk, one of the parents has to be a citizen, and has to have lived in the USA for 10 straight years, and five of those years have to be after the age of 14 years old.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:16 amObama’s mother was 18 not 19, so even she didn’t qualify to confer citizenship to Obama at the time.
So, apparently, even as we have the elite known bloggers here claiming born in the usa “I believe firmly is a usa citizen” over and over again… that WAS NOT THE LAW when Obama was born.
So, there’s another clear reason he is disqualified – but I suppose people can just “apply current law” to “anyone alive” and claim it applies for them “when they were born” and “for now” as “presidential qualifications” – because that’s what people do.
It’s FUNNY Obama doesn’t even qualify under his “birth in Hawaii” because his dad was a foreigner and his mommie wasn’t old enough to make him qualify.
But, that doesn’t matter, either!
LOL
It’s so bad we don’t want to face reality on this matter. He’s president already, all the stops were pulled, all this certificate stuff, all the covered up records, and everyone screaming for political advantage or outmaneuvering the trickery of the opposition.
AMERICA, the USA, can’t even face the PLAIN FACTS:
Born in hawaii – ok daddy foreigner, mommie not 5 years in country over 14 years old (18 when she gave birth) – Obama doesn’t qualify as natural born citizen… SORRY !
I know it really sucks for those who scream and fight for the law to be followed,….
LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHA
If you agree be aware you are an insane birther and have lost all credibility forever – and need your meds – because the truth is not be revlead, touched, addressed, nor acknowledged, anymore.
SiliconDoc, you are just making up these convoluted “legal” principles.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:21 amNo it was the law at the time SPQR.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:25 amI’m sorry I guess none of you even know that much. I quite understand how it’s a fight for saving face and not being called a nutter – but that doesn’t change the law nor anyone’s ignorance of it.
Maybe one fo your long time fellow bloggers will check it out.
I’ve read the statute – I suppose anything can be forged nowadays, but this just shows how emotinal shrieking and screaming and belittling eachother is much more important today than just basic facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmY73FmgW8c
There’s one utube vid of Berg – I suppose if you demand I’ll get you the text itself.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:28 amThe Constitution does not bar people with dual citizenship from holding the office of President, provided they are US citizens from birth.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:28 amWell, that’s your opinion somechump, mine is different.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:43 amScalia publicly said they are avoiding the issue, and it seems to me for good reason at this point.
As for SPQR, the 5 years over 14 for 1 parent law I referred to makes perfect sense, especially for a time when morals still meant something to most people, so to speak.
A pregnancy occurring before the one US citizen parent was at least 18 years of age, would wind up with a non citizen baby, a method of discouraging underage pregnancy, or complying with decent notions of the time it seems to me.
I think nowadays people would scream aloud against such a law. They would go ape. The nation has changed, and the “anything goes” attitude is more and more prevalent.
Like I said in another post, this all is just perfect in my opinion, it shows exactly what the USA has become and where it is heading.
I find it just as disturbing what a lot of the regulars here HAVE to say.
If anyone with any position gives an inch on this, they are labeled, and it’s like being called a racist by the democrat machine, and they will make crazy stick.
So I understand – that’s why I’m here perhaps – I don’t have a big public reputation to protect – and when anyone helps me out to correct my mistakes I am very grateful – I’m also very stubborn when it comes to what I believe are the facts or the truth – and it’s fairly clear to me Obama just slipped by – he’s very close on Hawaiian law at the time, people like to give it break because the new laws are more lax, and the global economy and all the world trade and people from all over make it okay for many if some was a foreigner is potus.. you know same old thing we’ve been seeing for some time.
SiliconDoc, you are confusing the law for the citizenship of children born outside the US, with the law for children born in the US.
The Fourteenth Amendment resolves the issue almost a century before Obama’s birth. Born in the US == citizen. Citizen at birth, natural born citizen.
You’ve got yourself confused by reading incoherent ravings of Birthers.
Unlike Truthers, Birthers are not creating a vile calumny of a government conspiring to murder 3,000 people. Like Truthers, Birthers have no coherent narrative to create their scenario that does not fabricate a factual basis out of whole cloth.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:51 amSPQR – Ok well maybe I am confused on that part – fine, not like I haven’t been lied to before, or duped by fancy wording.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:59 amLike I said that is not what bothers me in this case anyway.
That leaves me with Indonesian citizen and British citizen, which I already said is a no-no in my Constitutional book.
I suppose I’m the minority opinion there, too, which I find sadly hilarious.
It appears as well the 14th you cite is reason for our current anchor baby situation.
I have problems with that interpretation of the 14th. It’s like the USA is so arrogant, that any citizen couples from all over the world, here on business a lot, drop a baby here, and the arrogant USA claims it’s one of ours.
I find that to be another black and white mess of the intent and spirit of the law.
Anyway, anyone want to tell me why Indonesian Barry and British Barry should be allowed to be potus ?
Anyone want to say anything about that other than it doesn’t matter ?
SiliconDoc, it does not matter what Indonesia or Britain think the citizenship of Obama is. What matters is what US Constitution states is his citizenship.
The US cannot and should not allow the creation of citizenship by another nation to defeat a man’s US rights and priviledges.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:02 amPS- thank you for your kindness SPQR
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:04 am191 SPQR – okay sounds good at first glance, except we have a bunch of treaties and laws that recognize such things for other nations in the world, my next question would be what was our law concerning Obama’s citizenships at the time ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:14 amIf we’re going flat out just the barest meaning of Constitutional words, most our laws are invalid then.
Can’t do that. We have to include the intent and meaning and reasons for the Constitutional provision.
If we don’t do that, we don’t need much more than the written Constitution for all law.
I take your point, and it sounds good on first read, but it doesn’t meet the intent nor spirit nor reason for the Constitution’s words in this matter, IMO.
If we go with what you have said, soon we may have a potus that hasn’t even lived here most of his life. Could be not even 1 full year it seems to me…
So anyway thank you, I do appreciate your helpful comments
#33. But at some point Soetero/…/Obama has to explain what doucuments he used to register for college and law school. And how did he apply to get into Occidental, Harvard and Columbia.By all accounts he was not the most wonderful high school student, so it was not grades. He won’t release any of those records because they probably show he was admitted as a foreign student-… How did he get a passport as an adult to get into Pakistan? And why did Grandma say he
was born in Africa? …in his case admission to a state bar to be an attorney. What did he produce? Obama is a little older than me, but until the 1980s SSI didn’t issue a card at birth, you had to apply with a birth certificate. How did he get it?… Did he use a foreign passport to enter Pakistan?…Did he in such an application to a foreign country revoke or deny any American citizenship he had?
Can someone simply ask him these questions?
Comment by Bugg
——————
I haven’t seen those questions answered anywhere. In I think almost everyone of those cases, we are to remain without any evidence at all, save perhaps his bar record is available… I only say that because I vaguely remember hearing something …
No one answered any of those questions my friend, it really is hilarious at this point.
We all just have to shut up, and pretend all is well. It’s just too out there to assume all of those admissions and legal requirements and school funding and all the rest, the trip to Indonesia etc, had any sort of anything wrong with them.
Let’s just say with all the evidence locked up tight by the potus’s lawyes, we agree all of those things occurred under valid USA citizen “Barak Hussein Obama” in name, if that is his name legally… not Barry…LOL
No one here can answer your questions, so we need to just shut up. LOL
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:44 amI just how the x-file is so huge, and the secrecy so absolute, your questions will remain unanswered forever.
Maybe Obama can be outmaneuvered, and voices calling for answers can have a government birther commission (like 911 commission) before 2012, and they can issue a book on the subject… that declares all is well and avoids any of the questions, 100%.
Just remember, have faith. None of yuor speculations can be true, you are to “have faith” in Barry and “the system” and “the secrets that will never be revealed to you”. Have faith. Nothing of any note is hidden for that reason.
However, if you ever have to be bared for any reason, all your past will be extracted, and of course if you have nothing to hide, why not ?
LOL
Sorry folks, I just can’t get past it.
SiliconDoc, what you need to get past is that no one has constructed a coherent narrative, that does not fabricate facts out of whole cloth, where Obama is not a natural born citizen.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:47 amShow me in the Constitution where dual citizenship disqualifies someone from the office of President.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:02 amNo actually that is fine, like I said, I’ve got a problem with his other two citizenships.
I also cannot flat out agree with your statement – I don’t see Obama’s preponderance of evidence. I see a ridiculous cover up- and it may be that it’s just because he can.
That doesn’t excuse him in my book either. Sorry, he’s dirty. Like has been said a thousand times by those on the right during the Bush years, if you’ve got nothing to hide what is the problem ?
If he has nothing to hide, or has something to hide, he ought to man up anyway. The fact that he does not, makes me suspicious no matter what the real truth is. I don’t quite understand, does he not get it, is it arrogance, or is it his way of telling the citizenry to screw off ?
Whatever, makes him a skumbag in my book just from that. I can’t fathom it actually.
Not only that, we both saw McCain give up the goods, and to this day Barry is hiding his.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:12 amI’m certain the massive biased media drives some of my distrust and anger on this issue.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from the right if you’ve got nothing to hide what is the problem. That evaporates when it comes to Obama, of course. in this case.
I see the arguments above, Dustin posting the idea that any questions in this area are party defeating and play into the trap set – perhaps.
Whatever, that even sounds like conspiracy to me.
In any case, our fearless leader has covered up what Bugg pointed out.
The media told me so many lies, and I even got pissed off at O’Reilly who literally yelled at his guest how could the newspapers birth announcements be planned 40 years in advance for the presidency, as if that was required for them to be faked – a stealth decades long plan for presidency.
That’s the level I see on this issue and agree generally with the people who want the plain truth given to the public.
We don’t get that, we certainly get instead Obama locking up all his records.
I didn’t see McCain doing that.
Yes, I’m pissed off about it. I’m angry, no doubt. That’s not going to change, though you’ve been somewhat helpful.
196. I assume you read my opinion, and the reasons for it in my prior posts, if not, it’s there for you. That should be good enough to have shown you already.
I guess other than that, I won’t be showing you anything, as you showed me NOTHING, even less than I already gave you. You merely made a statement, and don’t even have an opinion – in comparison SPQR made some helpful statements and arguments that at least rose the level of a discourse, not something like your last post, which really doesn’t even deserve a response anymore than the first one did.
That’s why I left it at you have your opinion, and I have mine. In fact, I’m not sure you even have an opinion, you merely tossed a line now demand proof for my line but never gave proof for yours.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:20 amI’ve been doing enough typing, if you want to show proof of your opinion I’ll likely read it.
Let’s go with that, YOU first.
196. Sorry you second, or at least, at all. Since so far you’ve said nothing and I’ve said plenty. I don’t think you have an argument for your statement somechump – did you post it above somewhere I missed in the earlier posts?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:22 amHeh.
No offense intended by that, and I thought SPQR’s rebuttal made sense (I said I wondered if Obama would drop some kind of evidence in late October for a boost in the polls, and SPQR thought the price he’s paying now is high enough that this isn’t a good strategy).
Also, I do agree with you, SiliconDoc, that at least it appears Obama has some kind of motivation. Patterico made this point so much more clearly when he simply asked why we keep running into this ‘We can’t release without consent’ line.
However, I don’t think that is a justification to believe he isn’t eligible to be president. I just think that means he has some kind of of other motivation, be it the game of being a victim to birthers, or hiding that his name isn’t Barack, or something else.
You mention this in terms of ‘party defeating’, and indeed, that is how I’m looking at it. How do we win with this issue? What judge is going to force it? How would it win us moderate voters?
This is offensive to say to someone who thinks the constitution is being violated, and just wants justice, but bear in mind that I don’t think Obama is ineligible.
Unfortunately, this interesting issue gets mired in discussions of things like his Passport, or his dad’s citizenship, where even if Obama was born in Hawaii and popularly election, some want him thrown out of office. I see Carlitos reaching to conflate one person’s theories with the theories he rejects, and we just get pissed off. And this is the most sympathetic audience you could hope for. Consider how this plays with swing voters.
So yes, this is party defeating. Perhaps it’s a trap. I think it’s not so defeating to simply hope journalists seek out all information on Obama, without saying this is an effort to prove he wasn’t born here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:26 amYour opinion is incorrect. Dual citizenship does not mean someone is not a natural born citizen.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:26 amSiliconDoc, so if say Iceland decided that they did not want Sarah Palin as President, all they have to do is grant her citizenship and she would be disqualified in your mind.
Brilliant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:36 amSiliconDoc, here are some Supreme Court rulings on natural born citizenship:
Emphasis added. The Supreme Court held that even if the parents of a child born on US soil were foreign nationals, that child is still a natural-born citizen.
There are no rulings anywhere that state someone born with US and any other citizenship is ineligible to become President.
So, I have backed up my assertion with Supreme Court rulings. What do you have to back up your opinion?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:03 amI don’t quite understand, does he not get it, is it arrogance, or is it his way of telling the citizenry to screw off ?
The latter two (that is, if there is a difference between arrogance and telling the citizenry to screw off, and I’m not sure there is).
Probably also playing into his response is the belief (which in fact, I tend to believe) that people who claim he was not born in Hawaii are, given the evidence already public, either idiots or pursuing the claim for partisan purposes even though they know it’s a false claim. (As evidence that is true, simply look through this post to see who supports the claim and who doesn’t–none of the regulars, who are usually rational folks, support it.)
And also playing into his response is the apparently universal belief on the part of the Left that the birth certificate controversy is an outgrowth of either racism on the part of people who can’t stand the idea of a black man in the White House, or provincialism on the part of people who don’t like the fact that he is (IIRC) only the second POTUS who spent a major portion of his childhood and adolescence outside the US. (The first was John Quincy Adams, most of whose teenage years were spent in Europe.)
(Just so there’s no mistake–I don’t accept the racism/provincialism charge outlined above.)
I think therefore there is a good probability that Obama has nothing to hide, embarrassing or otherwise–he’s simply decided that it’s None of Our Business.
kishnevi (2bc4e4) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:28 amSome Chump–there are, I believe, some circumstances under which a US citizen is deemed to have given up his citizenship by accepting citizenship of another company. But I don’t remember the details, and I’m not even sure if the rule still applies–although it would have applied during the years Obama was in Indonesia. (I think joining the armed forces of the other country was the main trigger, which obviously wouldn’t apply to someone like Obama who never served in anyone’s armed forces.)
But note–if this applied to Obama, his birth certificate would be irrelevant. The applicable documents would probably be in some archive in Jakarta, and I would say the burdern of evidence would lie with someone claiming Obama gave us his citizenship at some point during his residence in Indonesia.
kishnevi (2bc4e4) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:36 amWell we can leave it at that’s your opinion, as banal as it is , and as contained as possible.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:43 amI already stated in response to SPQR that if that is our stance as a whole, we need nearly no other laws than the Constitution to carry on our nation, and obviously that is not the case.
You go with your mentally numbing word for word far right beyond strict non interpretation, and I’ll go with the idea the founders had in mind was loyalty to the USA.
Let’s speculate – has Obama’s two foreign citizenships resulted in anyone noticing any disloyalty to the USA ?
I think the answer to that is an obvious yes. Obama’s attitude at times and a few statements we have on record seem to indicate that.
I don’t see how what you claim can be the new way to interpret the Constitution, but then again, open borders and the march to citizens of the world seems quite relentless at this point.
I understand we don’t even have an official SCOTUS interpetation on this matter, and as I already stated, Scalia publicly noted the SCOTUS is avoiding the issue- as I said for what appears to be good reason at this point.
If you get your way on the matter, like I pointed out, we can have a potus that hasn’t even lived in the USA for even a year of his or her entire life( some other citizenship law prevent that, and at what level ?)
Oh, natural born, good then !
I don’t endorse your contracted, ill conceived, compartmentalized non point.
202 and the others who responded quite kindly, thank you…
I guess Iceland or any other nation would be able to do that because Sarah was born by a father who was Iceland’s citizen… right SPQR ? I think the USA, likewise has the responsibility, to honor and respect other nations people who give birth to their citizens…
So your scenario is ridiculous. Obama was moved to Indonesia and became a citizen there as a child, Obama was a citizen of Britain until 21 – the USA recognized that 100% as far as I have seen, but that’s OK with everyone here… yet your argument is Iceland can declare SArah their citizen NOW, in her adult hood and ruin everything…
LOL
Ya know, there we are… like I say a person might wind up not living in the USA for even a year of their entire prior lives and yet “qualify” under somechumps constitutional anything goes interpretation.
My opinion is the same – it’s wrong and unconstitutional for anyone with any foreign citizenship in their lifetime to become potus – that’s my understanding and would be my ruling, period, and that I believe was the FF’s point in the provision – of course the exception being the foreigners had to start it off.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:55 amSo, I don’t see anything but that rule being broken. I see people want it broken, and love it broken. Why not they say in wide measure.
Why not is loyalty and our nation and USA first, and all the rest.
Call it Homeland Security because that’s exactly what it is – amongst other things like fairness, sensibility, correct application, common sense, DUH kind of stuff…
You haven’t shown a single passage in the Constitution or any court ruling or any law to support your opinion. I have shown you a Supreme Court ruling which disagrees.
Now you are just being obstinate. I will say it again: there is no Constitutional bar to becoming President for anyone with dual citizenship.
Until you can cite a passage in the Constitution, or an US law, or any court ruling, your opinion is worthless.
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:58 am203. “SiliconDoc, here are some Supreme Court rulings on natural born citizenship:”
That appears to not even be a single ruling, let alone SOME, and I’m not clear it says anything about our law but about Egnland’s contuniance of IT’S POLICY, after the small constitution was established.
Well, is England’s policy our policy ?
If your interpetation of the text you copied is such as you state, does the 14th mean to make citizens of slaves ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:04 pmIf so, weren’t slaves an absolute exception ?
208 – My opinion is not worthless to me, and I’m more than certain a majority of Americans would agree with me, and not your declarations.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:11 pmDoesn’t mean the courts agree as a whole, nor does it mean welfare and social security are constitutionally sound, nor the extensions of the commerce clause aren’t quite abusive of the Constitution.
I’m not convinced courts haven’t ruled as I stated, it’s just convenient to say they never have.
What it means to me is the Constitution is ignored, and turned into a living breathing document that for whatever reason at any time, fits the agenda for those in power, or pushing for their desires.
I think we can both agree it happens a lot, and I believe it has happened in Obama’s case – in the sense that he is given a pass, and as Scalia said, we are avoiding the issue.
My opinion is very valuable, as I think we all see with Obama in power.
” * Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167–68):
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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. “
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:16 pmThat quote was from the majority opinion in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. It is, therefore, a court ruling.
If you could read with any comprehension, you would note that the court held this rule “continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Therefore, the court ruled that anyone born in the US was a natural born citizen.
Now, for the final time: show me one court ruling, one law, or one passage of the Constitution to support your claim. If you cannot do that, then your opinion is incorrect.
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:17 pm203. right below your wiki pulled quote somechump…
” The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations”:[12] “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[13] The dissenters also noted, arguing that birth on the soil was not sufficient to grant citizenship at birth, that:
it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.[11]
”
So it quite appears my dissent is written out in Supreme Court Documents. How about that. LOL
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:19 pmHow is it going to help get Obama out of power? Frankly, Some Chump’s analysis is way more likely to line up with the outcome of any court that even grants the case is ripe.
I gotta ask: why do you think it’s wrong for someone born here, but with a foreign parent, to be president? I see a problem with someone whose childhood was elsewhere, but that’s a political issue the voters decided not to agree with me on.
I think we should respect that the voters wanted Obama to be their president, if Obama was born in Hawaii (as I think he was). That doesn’t end this issue. It’s newsworthy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:20 pmI think it’s wrong for Obama to be president since he was born a British citizen, and then became an Indonesian citizen.
” I gotta ask: why do you think it’s wrong for someone born here, but with a foreign parent, to be president?”
Well, that isn’t what I ever said at all now, is it.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:31 pmRe: “it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances..’
Answer. That is wrong. Every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
The above was from the Wong Kim Ark ruling (six justices to two, one not voting). As you can see, Natural Birth is caused by the place of birth, the country.
That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general had this in his book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Also: ““What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).’
Also (and note that this was written considerably before the 14th Amendment:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Granite1 (7f906c) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:36 pm214. I mentioned my opinion is very valuable, because if it were applied, we wouldn’t have Obama in power.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:37 pmI already stated multiple times I am certain nothing will ever come of this issue, and that for instance, Scalia pointed out publicly the SCOTUS is purposefully avoiding it, which I’ve said at least twice seems wise to me at this point.
My opinion is valuable because if it had ever won the day, we wouldn’t have not for the USA potus doing his dirty deeds – and YES, I do believe one of the main reasons is his mental attitude “being a citizen of the world” – in his case, British until 21, and Indonesian in his childhood…
I don’t see how that cannot affect a person all the way to death, although I was quite sarcastic claiming the liberals have always told us childhood expereince doesn’t matter at all and “citizenship personhood” occurs at 21 when one can drink and glad Barry decided to become one of us THEN, when he renounced his British citizenship.
I guess you didn’t read all of my long messages, but I appreciate everyone’s comments as it is a challenge to maintain my position.
214. ” I think we should respect that the voters wanted Obama to be their president”
Look, that was only some of the voters, and to respect it is not to end my opinion nor what I believe should be the proper interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact as nicely and as far as the arguments are being posted now, I find myself more convinced of my opinion, not less, especially given our massively traveling human populations today.
From what I glean, 2 foreigners can swing through the USA, drop a baby in between the vacation plane flights, scoot off our soil within a few days, so long as paperwork was done, which is an instant Social Security number nowadays, that baby is a USA citizen eligible for potus, 45 years later when returning for the 1st time. (bar I suppose any other “citizenship cancelled” restrictions that may or may not apply in each case, depending on the nation the family winds up in).
I find the black and white “rulings” idea rather ridiculous, and go with the courts Dissenters.
I guess that’s not so bad, not like it’s been 9-0 rulings – I pasted one dissent…
I also find it rather amusing that royals and other important people are given the “exception” to the instant citizenship with the baby drop… but the “common citizens” of the foreign nations are not….
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:49 pmWhy we can’t claim foreign government people… just the commoners….
That’s quite telling.
No, SiliconDoc, my example was not ridiculous. You brought up Indonesia, and Obama’s father was not from Indonesia. His stepfather was. If Obama had Indonesian citizenship, and there is no evidence that he did or does, then it occurred as a result of Indonesian law. No differently than if Iceland by act of its parliament conferred naturalization upon Sarah Palin to make her ineligible in your mind.
You’ve simply confused yourself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:58 pmBy the way, SiliconDoc, the reason we have no Supreme Court rulings on this matter is twofold. The first is that there has never been a real controversy on the matter in our history. The second is that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to decide who is President. That is the job of the Electoral College and Congress.
It is in the Constitution.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 12:59 pm219 SPQR I respectfully completely disagree, since Obama was a resident and lived in Indonesia as a citizen, for some years.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:02 pmDid Sarah Palin move to Iceland and become a citizen there ?
Of course not.
Silicondoc said:
To which I replied
To which silicondoc replied:
Comment by SiliconDoc
I guess the distinction is that Silicondoc claims Obama’s foriegn citizenship issue came up when he was a young child, rather than when he was born?
There’s no reason to say this is illegal, or something we can’t let the voters decide. Natural Born Citizen obviously doesn’t mean ‘Not a citizen of any other country, ever’. Some countries grant citizenship to Americans just on the basis of lineage. Children have no control over what their parents do.
If someone is going to say someone born in Hawaii, who won an election, shouldn’t be president, I think they are no friend of the Republic. Elections matter too much.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:08 pm220. Well I disagree with that as well. The courts have already claimed it is their job to decide who is eligible for potus, according to all those on your side claiming this or that case law established the resulting legalities.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:09 pmYour whole 220 is ridiculous and argues absolutely nothing. There are 3 branches of government not one, and the laws that establish who is president are purportedly followed on up to the Electors – or Congressional overrides, which certainly include established rules of law and court interpretations and cases.. all the way up and down the line.
So.. I mean, another doesn’t matter thing there.
We may get some court ruling in this area – it’s still possible – I just read Stevens had rejected something recently with no comment ( one of the many cases on this).
I believe Scalia – they are avoiding it on purpose – because it’s too controversial right now.
Yet, we have lots of talk of new laws that will force “proof” of “natural born” in the next election. I can’t imagine courts won’t be involved.
SiliconDoc, you keep inventing more and more complex definitions for your dual citizenship exclusion. Odd that none of these terms show up in the Constitution.
And no, the courts have not claimed it is their job to decide who is eligible to be POTUS.
You obviously have not actually bothered to read the Constitution, least of all Article I section 1. It is not difficult to find. That’s why I’m not taking your comments seriously, because you are just making up stuff.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:19 pm222. ” If someone is going to say someone born in Hawaii, who won an election, shouldn’t be president”
I guess you knew a lot of democrats who weren’t friends of the republic when Bush was president ? How many tens of millions was that ?
On your other query, concerning a foreign parent…
Yes, come to think of it, it is rather ridiculous, that our current standard appears to be “baby dropped on soil or equivalent”, EXCEPT for foreign “dignitaries and leaders children and political diplomats and who knows how many exceptions in our law amounting to likely a hundred thousand and more people” worldwide…
Yes, actually, it seems quite ridiculous. I think the citizenship should follow the parents citizenship, not the drop spot.
Barry’s real daddy was Kenyan, or rather at the time a British colony citizen – which after seeing all the British common law cited, shows the reason why no one dared say we didn’t respect that when Barry was born.
So Barry was BORN a citizen of Britain. One parent American, one British/Kenyan. 50/50 looks like to me.
Barry renounced his Brit cit at 21 years of age, according to Barry and his potus campaign…
I don’t know how that went under the radar for so many here- call it media bias I guess.
Should I then, in YOUR SPIRIT SIR, claim Barry was not a British citizen ? No, I’d be doing what you claim is terrible… or perhaps you’d argue it’s okay he was dropped in Hawaii…
I guess I see that as ridiculous… I really do.
I believe the Dissent in the case I copeid from wiki at everyone’s fingertips here is correct, and it’s too bad the twisted sister law is reigning instead.
Gives us Barry and our “no SCOTUS case yet (wiki) but already assumed” illegal alien’s anchor babies/ USA citizens…
No, I suppose you are at least partially correct, I disagree with the majority opinion and believe parents citizenship should be the major role for all, not just for the elites and other important people from foreign nations.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:22 pmA hell of a lot. Surely in the tens of millions.
I think you understand my point, then. And by all means, disagree with me on this. But to me the most important thing about this issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii more than 35 years ago, and won his election.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:24 pmSiliconDoc, your comments are becoming more and more incoherent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:28 pmWell, that was the decision, Barry won the election, hardly means I have to agree with how it came to be, or the lack of truth widespread as it occurred.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:38 pmOr the current massive cover up.
Or the caucus cheating against Hillary.( that I thought after going through what happened to be an outright theft by the democrat elites in the party. )
So, there’s more than just where was he born, and of course I believe there should be.
I think just because decisions are made, and the legal outcomes declared, doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with it 100%, and shut up or you’re a traitor.
I seriously doubt that standard is applied with…..: THE OJ TRIAL here….
HAHAHA – Oh point made…
Sorry fellas – RESPECT THE OUTCOME of the election and the oj trial – don’t you DARE become anti-american….
LOL
Yes.
227 yes thanks SPQR, I disagreed entirely with you and said why, now you may call me insane. Do your duty. Come on, say it friend.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:39 pmSince when has a dissent ever prevailed in a Supreme Court case?
You are not arguing in good faith. You have been presented with facts, and have chosen to ignore them. I’ll waste no further time with you.
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/27/2011 @ 1:58 pmOH SNAP
Sh*t just got real… ly silly.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:00 pm#55 said: “PQR, no, the Hawaiian officials did not say that they had seen the “long form” of Obama’s birth certificate. What they DID say was that they had viewed Obama’s birth records on record, as were in accordance with Hawaiian law. So please, stop the spin.”
There were TWO confirmation statements. The first said that they had seen the ORIGINAL birth certificate in the file. The second said that the documents in the file VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii. Then the former governor of Hawaii, the Republican Linda Lingle, also confirmed, and there is also a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley having given birth that day.)
Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Granite1 (7f906c) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:14 pmYeah, well, I promise not to twit you about DJ if you don’t twit me about the mad skilz of just about everyone who sits down in front of a computer in a movie, eh?
Computer security often sucks, but rarely is it half as easy — or as graphically impressive — to break into one as is shown in just about every movie ever made.
😛
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:29 pmNot yet, SiliconDoc, instead I’m merely pointing out that your comment 1/27/2011 @ 1:22 pm is incoherent – I simply can’t figure out what you are attempting to say.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:33 pmYes, actually, it seems quite ridiculous. I think the citizenship should follow the parents citizenship, not the drop spot.
Unfortunately for you, the law says it’s the “drop spot” that counts, and it said that even before there was a United States, because of British law.
If your view was true, I would be an illegal alien. My grandparents were immigrants who became naturalized citizens in the 1940s, after all their children were born. Therefore, if your view was correct, my parents (and all their siblings, too) would not be US citizens because they were the children of non-citizens. And since they would not be citizens, neither would I. Where do you want to deport me to, SiliconD?
The non citizen status of children of diplomats, visiting royals, etc. is a direct link to the diplomatic status of the parent, and goes back to the historical role of ambassadors as direct representatives of the kings whom they were serving. When, for example, Queen Elizabeth I was dealing with the ambassadors of the King of France, she was, technically, dealing with the King of France and not the ambassador. So the children of diplomats are not citizens because they are members of the elites; they are not citizens because, legally, their parent embodies the full sovereignty of his native country while he is in diplomatic service. It’s the same reason why UN staff members get away with not paying parking tickets in NYC.
and I’ll go with the idea the founders had in mind was loyalty to the USA.
In that case, why not mention it, along with age and status as a natural born citizen?
Besides, deciding who is loyal is a very subjective thing. You see Obama as a man who is disloyal; I see him as a man who shows the standart patriotism of most Democratic party members. Or did you mean that most Democrats should not be allowed to be President? I would agree with that, but for other reasons.
A hell of a lot. Surely in the tens of millions.
kishnevi (3f36bf) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:37 pmDustin, that’s not a true analogy. The claim on the Democratic side was that he did not really win the election–as opposed to the idea that (as SiliconDoc seems to think) he should not have been running for the office in the first place.
I simply can’t figure out what you are attempting to say.
I can tell you what he meant: he thinks the settled law on this point is wrong, and that if he shouts enough and stamps his feet on the ground enough, people will start agreeing with him.
Nor has he apparently understood the fact that a dissent is a dissent because it’s the side that lost the argument.
kishnevi (3f36bf) — 1/27/2011 @ 2:43 pm“235. Unfortunately for you, the law says it’s the “drop spot” that counts, and it said that even before there was a United States, because of British law.”
I think it said that because back then you pretty much dropped where you conceived. Also, pointing out it said that before there was a United States only weakens the point, not strengthens it.
I still find it quite telling that it doesn’t apply to certain foreign government officials. I also find it disturbing that if we are calling it on the drop spot, then a couple who has a baby overseas on foreign land by chance/accident has a baby disqualified from the presidency, right ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:24 pmThe policy is obviously flawed.
No, you blithering idiot. A child born overseas of American parents is a natural born American. This is black-letter law.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:29 pm“236 he thinks the settled law on this point is wrong”
You figured out just a little bit it seems. However, I didn’t stomp my feet nor did I shout, nor do I expect conversions.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:32 pmI expressed what I think, and why.
I had hoped people could be decent about it, that’s really it, and that didn’t always occur, you helped with that.
You taught me what dissent means, and I hadn’t realized my side of the argument lost, even though you so helpfully pointed out it did. Wow, thanks don’t know what I’d do without bright fellas like you.( How sad )
238 Ah, another angry one who cannot stand someone who disagrees.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:33 pmWell, That’s nice you fellas can have a temper, or be smart alecks. Congratulations.
No, you didn’t convert me. Big deal, live with it, too.
So, a child born here of two foreign parents is a USA citizen, yet our citizens, foreigners in a foreign land, have USA citizen babies too.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 6:37 pmLOL
Wow.
Does it get even screwier angry people ? How many more twists do we apply ?
So theirs having a baby here is ours, and ours having a baby there is OURS, too !
LOL
Celebrity Journalist Mike Evans: “I Never Spoke to Hawaii Gov. About Obama Birth Certificate” http://fxn.ws/fjZsBK OOPS!!
Guess ol Mike just made it up from what he read on WorldNetDaily… and wanted some free publicity.
Furthermore, since the COLB that HAS been submitted, verified and widely available… is legally acceptable… this also will not be an issue in the 2012 election. Except among the lunatics.
Cody_K (a82c5e) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:03 pmIndeed, the USA is exceptional.
The 14th Amendment was our most expensive amendment, but you seem to be getting the jist of that part of it. You’re born here, you’re a citizen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:03 pmActually, I’m setting things a level away from that (legit) distinction.
Bush won his election. The way we’ve set up our elections, and a fair counting of Florida, made that so. Yet some people wanted a special way of counting Florida because they couldn’t abide the reality. Similarly, Obama won his election, and some are hellbent on finding novel concepts to prove him ineligible because they can’t simply accept the weight of the election.
The burden to overcome an election should be significant. I hate to sound like Carlitos here. I know some people are simply having an interesting discussion about a complex issue, in good faith.
It’s a coup. Those who insisted Bush didn’t win his election, long after it was clear, and those who say Obama’s eligibility isn’t demonstrated by a Hawaiian birth… they are no friend of the Republic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:10 pmBut, just what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually mean?
AD-RtR/OS! (432a69) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:12 pmWhat an asshole.
I still would like to see states require all candidates to submit proof of eligibility. I’m not saying Hawaii’s way of doing this (that document) isn’t what should be used to verify it. I just want the states to be able to say they verified this type of matter.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:13 pm245. It doesn’t mean anything. That’s how it works. Now if you’re an important enough foreigner, or enemy, it means you’re not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:31 pmLike I said, otherwise it means jack doodle zippo, and that’s ok, because born here is born here.
I’ve got it !
LOL
Get Your Own Copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate for Just $100 http://gaw.kr/ggDBWY
Cody_K (a82c5e) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:49 pmIf Obama was born in Hawaii, then he was subject to US Jurisdiction at the time, no matter what you say about his father.
BTW, you specifically disclaimed you were talking about his father’s citizenship, at least as far as I could tell (comment 222).
You can’t dismiss the US Constitution with a LOL. It means what it says.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:50 pmSiliconDoc, you are just getting less coherent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/27/2011 @ 7:52 pmI’m not a birther, but the more these fools in Hawaii keep wallowing in their bureaucratic ineptitude, the more I’m curious.
It sounds like there is some fun to be had in the story… because of the cover up.
Maybe Obama isn’t 1/2 Kenyan after all?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:23 pmHey, why didn’t Barry show us his personal copy of his original birth certificate ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:25 pmI can show mine, but Barry “lost his” ?
Tsk, tsk, irresponsible again.
Oops! ” the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
….
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Golly, that’s a surprise.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:37 pmYikes, guess the person who angrily quipped the “courts” should not be deciding who can be potus, the electors and congress should!
Might want to read this:
” Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6] ”
So, guess “the courts” did decide, and decided against Congress…
Wow.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/27/2011 @ 8:52 pmAD–“not subject to the jurisdiction” is simply the old fashioned way of saying “has diplomatic immunity”. Refer to what I said in comment 235 about the status of diplomats in early international law.
Here’s Blackstone [this transcription uses the ‘long s’ found in 18th century printing and writing.]
kishnevi (4824fe) — 1/27/2011 @ 9:51 pmWHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions: fo that a particular act of parliament became neceffary after the reftorationy, for the naturalization of children of his majefty’s Englifh fubjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two fuch allegiances, or ferve two mafters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embaffadors born abroad were always held to be natural fubjectsz: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is fent; fo, with regard to the fon alfo, he was held (by a kind of plftliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, reprefented by his father, the embaffador. To encourage alfo foreign commerce, it was enacted by ftatute 25 Edw. III. ft. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had paffed the feas by her hufband’s confent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been fo adjudged in behalf of merchantsa. But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain
______________________________________
I read one blogger’s theory that the reason Obama has done back flips and contortionist routines to avoid releasing his personal files is due to his legal name actually not being “Barack Hussein Obama” but Barry Soetero. That assumption sounds about as plausible as any out there. So when people call the guy “Barry” instead of Barack, they’re not necessarily being sarcastic or flippant.
Such things, and the guy in general, seem quite appropriate and fitting for the US at this time in its history, assuming it truly is in a state of decline.
Mark (411533) — 1/27/2011 @ 10:44 pmComment by kishnevi — 1/27/2011 @ 9:51 pm
But, are “illegal aliens”, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
AD-RtR/OS! (432a69) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:37 pmThat seems to be the question.
Comment by Mark — 1/27/2011 @ 10:44 pm
Since it seems to be common knowledge that he was adopted by his step-father, a lack of a formal, legal, change of his name back to that on his birth certificate might be an embarrassment, along with the allegations that he received student assistance due to his status as a foreign national since he most likely held an Indonesian Passport as Barry Soetero.
AD-RtR/OS! (432a69) — 1/27/2011 @ 11:42 pmComment by kishnevi — 1/27/2011 @ 9:51 pm
And yet this paragraph you posted only pertains to British citizens abroad. It doesn’t say anything about foreigners born in Britain.
Maybe you should also have read the paragraphs below. They indicate the two types of allegiance and how they are determined.
ALLEGIANCE, both exprefs and implied, is however fiftinguifhed by the law into forts or fpecies, the one natural, the other local; the former being alfo perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is fuch as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birthm. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themfelves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumftance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legiflaturen. An Englifhman who removes to France, or to China, owes the fame allegiance to the king to England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of univerfal law, that the natural-born fubject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by fwearing allegiance to another, put off or difcharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinfic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devefted without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was firft due. Indeed the natural-born fubject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by fubjecting himfelf abfolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into thefe ftraits and difficulties, of owing fervice to two mafters; and it is unreafonable that, by fuch voluntary act of his own, he fhould be able at pleafure to unloofe thofe bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.
LOCAL allegiance is fuch as is due from an alien, or ftranger born, for fo long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protectionp: and it ceafes, the inftant fuch ftranger transfers himfelf from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reafon, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the fubject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that fo long as the one affords protection, fo long the other will demean himfelf faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a conftant tie to protect his natural-born fubjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reafon their allegiance due to him is equally univerfal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his refidence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of fuch his refidence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the Britifh empire. From which confiderations fir Matthew Haleq deduces this confequence, that, though there be an ufurper of the crown, yet it is treafon for any fubject, while the ufurper is in full poffeffion of the fovereignty, to practice any thing againft his crown and dignity:
This portion of the law seems to indicate that anyone whose father was a British citizen would be a British citizen by extension, whether or not the father was a diplomat. The corollary would seem to indicate that the same rules would apply to foreigners born in Britain. If the father was a Frenchman, then the kids would be French citizens rather than British, even though born in Britain.
“To encourage alfo foreign commerce, it was enacted by ftatute 25 Edw. III. ft. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had paffed the feas by her hufband’s confent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been fo adjudged in behalf of merchantsa. But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception”
So by any sane reading of these paragraphs, an alien who is in our country still owes allegiance to his homeland and therefore is not “under the jurisdiction thereof”.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:19 amSo by any sane reading of these paragraphs…
And that’s the sticking point, isn’t it?
AD-RtR/OS! (55b615) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:35 amThe “living constitutionalists” don’t quite meet the sanity test, for that would interfere with their agenda.
It’s ok, the staunch defenders of anything goes, don’t understand, and of course “I was getting more and more incoherent!”
LOL
Way to go all you hard right conservatives who know “the law” and all it’s non Blackstone mandates, “where they drop!” because “every court ever has said so” and the really super one of “of course because we are exceptional!”.
LOL
Gosh, it’s great when I’m right – all that heady weight in opposition, then the truth slips through.
Thanks 258,259,260, it was getting rather lonely.
249, Dustin, it seems you are the people that have dismissed the Congress and the intent of the law, along with your judicial activists, it’s plain as day – dismissed the Constitution, and the entire phrase in it, ” under the jurisdiction thereof”.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 4:20 amI laugh at the immense stupidity and ignorance and twisted misapplication. I laugh with the Constitution, and those who wrote the 14th Amendment, you, of course, with your “know it all” attitude crushed by the facts. I guess no friend of the republic certainly applies to you. Congratulations.
SPQR, incoherence is your lack of understanding, not my delivery.
Now, how about all those angry attackers saying sorry ?
LOL – HAHAHHA
A cold in … no doubt.
Yes, the powrs that be love their powers, don’t they, and the Courts – love their JURISDICTION extended to the widest depth and breadth they can possibly muster – why they decided they wouldn’t live with just ruling over US citizens, they were going to take the babies of foreigners – and rule over them by extension as well…
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 4:27 amYep, another power grab. Power, power, power we own all your babies…you’re all under our thumb of jurisdiction- and we shall not have the congress limit our power with their check and balance…we care not what they have stated…
“Nighty night, under the jurisdiction thereof” – have a nice, empty, useless, ZERO meaning (oh we’ll play twaddle and claim it’s diplomats – HAHA).
Way to go – support that insanity till you hit the grave fellas.
God I just love the endless corruption, it’s so great.
I think this is interesting:
” I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.
In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed at the National Convention the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii, since the HDP refused to certify eligibility, sent his certification and transmittal letter to the HDP who relayed it to the Elections Office.
So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.”
LOL – What a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.
Yes, that’s very interesting.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 6:38 amNo, SiliconDoc, to the contrary, you seem to be writing sentences that even you do not understand the meaning of. Cutting and pasting stuff you don’t understand results in that kind of incoherence. Especially when you don’t link to what you are quoting.
Still haven’t read Article II Section 1, have you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 6:46 amNow for more that SPQR can’t stand.
43 President’s have served in the USA, of those 43, 10 were born before 1787, all those born after, except for Chester Arthur (who lied until death when his records were burned), were born in the USA with BOTH PARENTS being US citizens at the time of their birth.
47 Vice Presidents have served in the USA, of those 47, 10 were born before 1787, all those born after, except for Chester Arthur (who lied until death when his records were burned), were born in the USA with BOTH PARENTS being US citizens at the time of their birth.
——————
So what we have, is our (2nd only) national president unqualified crime, and the 1st one that pulled it off, LIED TILL HE DIED, then his records were burned to a crisp.
None of this, of course matters to our raging, mentally bound, it can’t happen here, nothing is wrong, nothing ever was, “law and order” robots of little knowledge, unwilling to face the facts.
I guess it’s okay after all, Chester Arthur pulled it off with lies and cover ups, and no one else has – until Obama – at point which our “astute” and “learned” right wingers, claim “it’s ok that’s how it’s always been” – despite the facts in direct opposition.
I am quite amazed by it all.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:18 amSiliconDoc, that this has not been an issue before is not proof of anything. And there is no proof that Arthur was in fact ineligible.
Are you sure you are reading the right constitution?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:23 am” that this has not been an issue before is not proof of anything” LOL
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:38 amHAHAHAHA
Thank you so much SPQR – we’ll let the people decide exactly what that means.
However, we do have the history of the issue with Chester Arthur, whose father’s citixenship at the time of his birth is in question – and Chester Arthur lied and lied and lied to make certain that issue “died a muddled death”.
So, the only potus past the Constitutional grandfather clause other than Obama that did not have sufficient proof that BOTH PARENTS were US Citizens at the time of their birth ON US SOIL, lied about it, then died, then “personal records were burned” ( no not everything, not the family Bible !).
Nothing to see here, right folks ?
EVERY SINGLE POTUS has complied save one, then we have the democrats and Obama…
It’s past time – the rewriting of history and court cases meanings, is even in this thread…
Excellent…
A terrible thing to bring up, it will “hurt the republican party”.
This is great, thanks for the article start.
I forget who made the assertion above that one of the court cases had been “decided by the Supreme Court” and that they said Obama was eligible. But to my knowledge, no case has been decided on the merits of Obama’s eligibility. They have either been denied on “standing” (which apparently NOBODY has, Or they have been thrown out as “frivolous” before even one piece of evidence has been presented to the courts. Even another Presidential candidate has no standing to question the eligibility according to the courts.
So the question that comes to mind is “why should we even pretend to obey laws when the people in power simply ignore them and the courts refuse to allow you to ask for a redress of grievances as our system of government is supposed to allow?”
A lawsuit was submitted prior to the certification of the election by congress asking them to delay until Obama’s eligibility had been proven. This case was thrown out because the Senate had not yet certified the election so there was no cause for action. Another case was filed immediately after the certification of the election but it was thown out as having been filed too late. Both Federal judges were from the same Circuit.
No state acted to verify Obama’s eligibility even though many Sec. of States were sued requesting they do so. California even went so far as to say the Sec. of State had no duty to verify and no requirement to act on questions of eligibility.
Apparently, we just have to take the word of the candidate that they are telling the truth. How stupid is that? What makes a politician or a wannabe politician above question? Considering the number of crooks in office, I find it hard to believe that we have come to this point.
And when a case comes to the Supreme Court asking for them to clarify exactly what the Article 2, Section 1 wording means, they deny it no less than 3 times. Does anyone not see the irony of this? Isn’t the SC touted as being the final word on all things Constitutional? If they won’t take the case, then how is justice being served?
I see this case as being a defining moment for the United States. Either we are a country of laws or we are not. This case has such far reaching consequences that I find it reprehensible that our government has failed, at every level, to address and resolve this issue.
The result is that a very significant portion of the population now has questions about whether or not we have an usurper on the throne. This leads to uncertainty as to the validity of any action taken by either the politicians or the Courts.
And it all could have been avoided if any ONE of the 50 states had responded to the requests PRIOR to the election to verify the eligibility of the candidates.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:38 amSiliconDoc, that Arthur’s father’s citizenship was “in question” does not prove that Arthur was not eligible.
Do you know the difference between the words “fact” and “question” ? You show no sign of it.
How can “EVERY SINGLE POTUS” have “complied” when birth certificates themselves are a modern invention? You really have no clue what you are talking about and have the practice of just making stuff up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:40 am264. you may be having trouble comprehending, but I’m not.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:43 amThe Hawaiian demo party wouldn’t certify prior to the dem convention, the democrats, Pelosi, their lawyer, knew it was an issue – special language was removed the day before the convention when Pelosi and dem lawyer recieved the bad news from HDP ( a heads up) – and they responded with legalistic unconventional CYA actions.
Oh, I get it just fine. Read it, you might as well.
269 It’s not about “birth certificates”, and Obama hasn’t even shown a birth certificate, LOL
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:46 amWow, losing so terribly you’re starting to argue like a blind man.
Now you want explanations about how we’ve verified births of our former presidents ?
I’ll do so if you’re so ignorant you don’t know.
I need to, don’t I…
SiliconDoc, you’ve not successfully explained anything to date. Instead, you’ve shown your own confusions and inability to write english sentences.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:48 amWell, we know Obama’s biological father was not a US citizen ever, let alone at the time of Obama’s birth.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:55 amThat settles it for every president we’ve ever had, save the question on Chester Arthur’s father – and it’s very close there – it appears Arthur lied to cover the region of his father’s naturalization as a US Citzien in order to keep himself qualified for VP and P.
Other than that, we have the usurper in office now.
No, not me gentleman.
Not okay with me.
Time to face the facts, I would hope, but that are too damning for the USA to face, to damning for this room to face.
Like I said, I consider the whole mess a great indicator of exactly where the USA is headed.
On the other hand, I’m more than certain democrats celebrate it as another glass ceiling broken, both your parents don’t have to be US CITIZENS when you were born here in the USA to be president ! We don’t need to do that anymore !
Anything goes!
Wow. LOL
It’s amazing, it really is.
SiliconDoc, you’ve never established that both of a person’s parents must be US citizens to be qualified to be President. That’s not the law. Obsolete British common law is not US law.
You’ve no evidence that Obama was not a citizen at birth. You just make up “facts” and you just make up law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 7:59 amWell SPQR, we have our entire history as a nation as the EVIDENCE you claim is nowhere.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:06 amI guess that is as established as it ever gets. Every single president the USA has ever had.
We can let the people reading decide who has the vast evidence of our nations entire history on their side.
Wake up fella, it isn’t you.
SiliconDoc, every President we’ve had is male, therefore by your logic, it is a requirement of the office that President’s be male.
You really don’t understand this “logic” thing, do you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:09 am268. Thank you Jay H Curtis.
I certainly wonder what would have happened, had our national press and media done it’s duty, and told the American people that ” WE HAVE NEVER HAD A PRESIDENT WHOSE PARENTS WEREN’T BOTH US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH”.
LOL – the lies are so very, very deep. We don’t even need to care if Obama was born in Hawaii – the very fact that daddy was never a US citizen disqualifies him – uhh- except of course in our modern “anything goes!” sick, sick, decayed, no rule of law, no common sense, nation of lies.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:19 amSPQR, you need to treat SiliconDoc the way we treat blubonnet: as an object for amusement and ridicule, but not as someone who can be reasoned with.
To illustrate….SiliconDoc, I’d like you to answer just one question:
If it can be proven that you are wrong, will you change your mind?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:27 amSome chump, indeed. I find the incoherence amusing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:40 am278 I’m laughing at both of you, and your pathetically weak and sorry, and feckless non rebuttals.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:42 amSmarting off and name calling, then pretending stupidity, while you pretend your winning opponent can’t understand won’t cut it chump.
I’m glad we’ve had this thread, very glad. I see exactly what and where you two are, and a few others.
You just keep bowing down, it’s good for you, right?
How pathetic, really, very pathetic.
You boys want to tell how you back the OJ decision 100% yet ?
LOL
HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
(Gee, we have PROOF of dissent there…)
Really, your usual smart off comments won’t work, save for you two having a public hug with each other.
I do consider your stances absolutely pathetic. I mean they are. Bow down and kiss it, or rather continue, that’s what you fellas are doing.
That’s ok, you have chosen to do so.
So you two done hugging each other publicly ?
Obama is potus, somechumps “proof” no doubt.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:43 amYou guys bow down the same way Obama bows to foreign royals.
I think it’s pathetic.
Please answer my question, SiliconDoc: if you can be proven incorrect, will you change your mind?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:46 am281. You’ve already answered your question, haven’t you ? When you’re no longer a jerk full of insults and nothing else, I’ll pay attention, perhaps.
Here’s your answer…
” PQR, you need to treat SiliconDoc the way we treat blubonnet: as an object for amusement and ridicule, but not as someone who can be reasoned with ”
You’ve already figured it out, so you’re done.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 8:50 amThe similarity (in tone, capitalization, general craziness, etc.) between Birther rants and Truther rants is extremely bizarre.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:01 amRe: ““standing” (which apparently NOBODY has..”
Not true. McCain would have had standing. The fact that birthers have not convinced McCain that Obama was born out of the USA or that his father has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status, when McCain would have something to gain if this is true, is significant.
Another person who would certainly have standing to sue is Vice President Biden. If the Supreme Court were to hold that Obama was not eligible, then he would probably succeed to the job–at the very least he would think that he would get the job.
Not only has the Supreme Court not called a birther case, but in most if not all of the cases they did not even ask the US government (meaning Obama) to reply to the arguments of the plaintiffs. And it only takes ONE justice to call for one side in a case to present its arguments. It seems likely that nine out of nine justices have no suspicion that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii or accept the two-fer theory that to be eligible a president must have two US citizen parents.
Certainly Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, does not subscribe to the two-parent theory:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Granite1 (7f906c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:02 amI’ll be happy to show you black-letter law, including citations. But if you continue to dodge a reasonable question, then you are showing to everyone reading this thread that you are not arguing in good faith.
So, you’re not going to change your mind if proven wrong? Interesting.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:05 amLeviticus, not at all bizarre. Very similar pathology.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:05 am235. ” And since they would not be citizens, neither would I. Where do you want to deport me to, SiliconD?”
Kishnevi, then you apply for naturalized citizenship. DUH.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:14 amI guess that’s too hard to understand for people nowadays.
If you’re a foreigner, and you drop a baby, because of your own self respect, the baby is your and your country’s since your citizenship swears ALLEGIANCE to your nation – a foreign nation, and you are the parents, of your baby.
It’s called honor, pride, status, common sense, being HUMAN.
So instead, we’re supposed denounce the foreign nation, denounce the parents – where they came from, and declare what they made, ours.
NO, your parents make application for naturalization. See ?
——————
Not today, people blindly insult their parents heritage, their heritage, then the left tells us effectively “that is wrong” as they insult America, and claim those foreign nations where those parents came from should be listened to –
What a mixed up mess.
Look, your parents are foreigners, you the baby are as well. Apply for naturalization.
Not that hard people.
As a naturalized citizen you are NOT eligible for potus. Of course that only makes sense. Parents raise children with THEIR ALLEGIANCES given to their children – that’s why our whole string of Presidents have TWO PARENTS THAT WERE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH !
Those allegiances are transmitted to the baby, who grows up into the good, loyal, USA first potus….
The founders had a CLUE – unlike most of this room !
Well, there’s whose right and correct, and it’s me and the FOUNDERS, and the entire history of the USA, save the falling from grace episodes of late.
I’m not sure if this would bear out, but it would be a hilarious disconnect to find that the same people raging about Obama’s disqualification as a citizen by virtue of his father’s non-citizenship were simultaneously raging about the citizenship conferred on Mexican anchor-babies by virtue of their being born on the El Paso side of the Rio Grande – and in so doing implicitly acknowledging that anyone born on US soil is a citizen, even if their parents are two poor (non-American) Mexicans.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:14 amWhoops. Looks like kish already made that point.
Anyway… SiliconDoc’s argument has been Ultimate Punched.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:17 amMull this over
By virtue of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1405, anyone born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a US citizen from birth. Therefore, anyone born in Hawaii on or after the above date is a natural-born US citizen. Therefore, anyone born in Hawaii on or after the above date would be eligible to be President (assuming the other requirements are met).
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:19 amOops. Forgot to close the link tag…sorry about that.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:19 am“As a naturalized citizen you are NOT eligible for potus. Of course that only makes sense. Parents raise children with THEIR ALLEGIANCES given to their children – that’s why our whole string of Presidents have TWO PARENTS THAT WERE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH !
Those allegiances are transmitted to the baby, who grows up into the good, loyal, USA first potus….
The founders had a CLUE – unlike most of this room !
Well, there’s whose right and correct, and it’s me and the FOUNDERS, and the entire history of the USA, save the falling from grace episodes of late.”
– SiliconDoc
Do you not see the inconsistency in that argument? If citizenship should depend on ALLEGIANCE, in your mind, and the important thing for a president to have is ALLEGIANCE to his country, then why should a naturalized citizen (who must have been deemed to have the proper ALLEGIANCE in order to gain said citizenship) be disqualified from the presidency?
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:20 am288,289 – let me correct that for you.
” Whoops. Looks like SiliconDoc already countered that point, and doesn’t fit my fantasy hypocrisy scenario.”
It’s the LIBS who want everything dropped here, an instant citizen Leviticus, as well as all the foreigners, as a rule of thumb. DUH. They support OBAMA, and the anchor babies. DUH.
It appears you are extremely confused. It’s the republicans and libertarians and “racists” that disagree with anchor babies, and also that side, that wants the Constitution followed, not the new wave anything goes living and breathing drop it here you’re clear dead Teddy rules…
Got it ?
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:23 amNo, SiliconDoc, I found your latest completely incoherent too.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:25 am292. Because we know that is not the case, the liberals themselves tell us childhood is all important in formation of such things.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:30 amHowever, we have to make provision, so if they swear allegiance ( and have met the other not very difficult requirements ), they get naturalization.
Then their sworn duty amounts in this case to teaching their baby USA allegiance…
It’s not hard to understand, you of course NEVER get a perfect allegiance, but one taught from birth is ultimately “the one that a nation needs” in their top leader.
We also know that “naturalized” citizens swear allegiance all the time and don’t mean a word of it. There’s a big movement of watering all that down, as people are now claiming they shouldn’t have to at all. That’s been going on for years and it’s been watered down I read a long time ago.
So, obviously, what we have to have is from birth – by two parents that at the very least are citizens. DUH.
It’s called common sense. Founders used that, a lot.
Nowadays, it’s common to lie and pretend about your lies as if they make sense. They don’t. The Founders did. See ?
Simple. True. Solid. Irrefutable, even as we use the modern liberal psychoanalysis, it holds up 100%.
294. We’ll just assume that’s forever for you SPQR, so you may continue to notify yourself and your hug buddy, not like it mattered the first time or the 5th time you said it.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:32 amIt still means nothing. It remains so, except for pointing out your lack of comprehension, over and over and over…
Keep it up, it’s a great contribution.
Actually, libertarians agree with the anchor baby concept. In fact, the libertarians support open borders.
But I digress…
SiliconDoc, if you are proven wrong, will you change your mind?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:32 amI wish there was some way to speak slowly via a keyboard – but I guess I’ll just have to depend on you being a slow reader:
The same people complaining that a baby born to Mexican parents on American soil shouldn’t be a citizen, and that laws should be changed to ensure his non-citizenship are arguing that Obama isn’t a citizen, because he was born to one non-citizen parent, even though he was born on American soil – the very thing they acknowledge makes a citizen in the case of the so-called “anchor baby”, though they’d like to see that changed. They don’t see that what makes a citizen in the one case makes a citizen in the other.
Think of Obama as an anchor baby.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:32 am“So, obviously, what we have to have is from birth – by two parents that at the very least are citizens. DUH.
It’s called common sense. Founders used that, a lot.
Nowadays, it’s common to lie and pretend about your lies as if they make sense. They don’t. The Founders did. See ?
Simple. True. Solid. Irrefutable, even as we use the modern liberal psychoanalysis, it holds up 100%.”
– SiliconDoc
Yeah, good solid argument: People that lie about their allegiance are going to (somehow) teach their kids allegiance to the country to which they have no allegiance, because they’re liars – so why did you naturalize them in the first place? Also, no one cares what you think – we’re a nation ruled by laws, not the malformed opinions of private citizens. You obviously don’t like the fact that being born in America makes you a citizen. That’s fine – try and change it. But we don’t have to agree with you, or pretend that you’ve formed a coherent argument.
Not convinced? Try this bad boy on for size: The Founders. Truth. Arm&Hammer. Bunnies. Good sense. Constitutional Founder Framer Something. Irrefutable common sense, a lot. QED, beeyotch.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:38 am298, You’re living in a self created ignorant fantasy of missing major points, and really have a twisted confused tale going there.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:42 amWould you like to show me someone who has done what you are imagining ?
Perhaps you’re forgetting naturalized citizen and natural born citizen, or that many have said Obama was not born here at all – even as 1 parent was never a US citizen, just a foreign exchange student on a visa…that’s it ever.
So, where are these imaginary people ?
Perhaps you mean the people who’ve said since Obama took Indonesian citzenship as a child, under a different name, and we NEVER FOUND OUT HOW he came back to the USA “as a citizen” or “changed his name” or “renaturalized” – they claim he is an ILLEGAL ALIEN…
Furthermore, isn’t it true that although those imaginary people you dreamed up out of your misunderstandings don’t agree with drop baby citizenship, that actually coincides with not agreeing Obama is a citizen – which they WANT CHANGED TOO HUH !
DUH.
Now SPQR will give you a pass on your gigantic incoherence.
299 ” Yeah, good solid argument: People that lie about their allegiance are going to (somehow) teach their kids allegiance to the country to which they have no allegiance, because they’re liars – so why did you naturalize them in the first place? ”
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:46 amBecause we have to by LAW YOU DEMAND, right? you’re another one who CAME IN, so your all sour pussed,…
Not my fault.
In any case, yes, it is the BETTER policy, because beyond that we go one step further – to KNOWN FOREIGNERS and their drop babies – and that is guess who?
That’s right.
It’s our usurper Obama…with his foreign daddy… with no allegiance EVER to the USA.
LOL
Good lord! HAHAHAHAHA
Oh man…
“Furthermore, isn’t it true that although those imaginary people you dreamed up out of your misunderstandings don’t agree with drop baby citizenship, that actually coincides with not agreeing Obama is a citizen – which they WANT CHANGED TOO HUH !”
– SiliconDoc
You say Obama isn’t a citizen. You say that “drop babies” are citizens, even though they shouldn’t be and the fact that they are makes you mad. “Which they WANT CHANGED TOO HUH!” implies there’s a law to change, which implies that there’s a law validating citizenship in one case – and if the law applies in the one case, it applies in the other. Where’s the disconnect?
I don’t think it’s my incoherence that SPQR has to worry about.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:47 amI repeat, in language you might understand: The Founders. Truth. Arm&Hammer. Bunnies. Good sense. Constitutional Founder Framer Something. Irrefutable common sense, a lot. QED, beeyotch.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:48 amYou should just surrender, while you still have a chance.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:48 amSiliconDoc, according to the section of US Code that I linked, any person born in Hawaii after April 30, 1900, is a natural born citizen of the United States. The law does not say that either or both of the person’s parents must be US citizens, it just says “any person”.
So, if Barack Obama is a person who was born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, then Barack Obama is a natural-born US citizen.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:49 amLooks like “you’re another one who CAME IN”, Some chump… prepare to have the awesome logical wrath of SiliconDoc descend upon you yet again.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:51 amExcellant parody, Leviticus. And that he went over his head with about a yard of clearance was icing on the cake.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:53 am302 “You say Obama isn’t a citizen.”
You’re living in your own fantasy world.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:57 amLeviticus, I enjoy twisting the tiger’s tail here. If SiliconDoc wants to rain down his wrath upon me, I can take it.
What’s obvious to anyone reading this thread is that SiliconDoc will not change his mind, no matter what. God Himself could descend from Heaven and say, “Barack Obama is a natural-born US citizen,” and SiliconDoc would still not be budged.
The funny thing is, I can’t stand Obama. I think he’s a horrible President, and his policies are disastrous. But there’s no question in my mind about his eligibility for his office.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:59 amThat’s fine, all the little losers are now playing their games while they kiss each other, and ignore all the information, and attack me and talk crap.
I guess it’s time to ignore all of you.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:59 amI guess we’ll leave it with I’m US Citizen with both parents US Citizens their entire lives as well as their parents, etc- so all you foreign nationals who made it in under your anything goes rules, congratulations.
Have a nice day of hatred and lies, and supporting your usurping liar.
Yes, I’m white and heterosexual as well, and brilliant, top area of the top 1% IQ in the entire nation and world. Also good looking and athletic and in perfect health.
I qualify for President.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:04 amSo, you’re going to ignore the US Code which states that Obama is a natural born citizen? How open-minded of you.
I was born in the US, of parents who were also born in the US. In fact, my paternal line has been in this country since mid-1700s. So, I guess you’re trying to insult someone else.
You might be white and heterosexual, but you are not brilliant, nor are you in the top 1% IQ. You can’t write a coherent sentence or make a logical argument. That’s not the stuff of brilliance in anyone’s world.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:12 amand brilliant, top area of the top 1% IQ in the entire nation and world.
IQ is measured in “area” ?
Uh, no. There is no evidence of your brilliance in this thread.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:12 amAnd yep, we loooooove Obama …
sheesh.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:13 am297. ” In fact, the libertarians support open borders.”
In your dreams. from LP’s website
” First, secure the borders with a combination of virtual technology and greatly enhanced border security. ”
It’s not true just because you say it is Some chump
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:37 amSiliconDoc, you are full of crap. Here is a quote from the Libertarian Party’s platform:
The only exception to open borders that the Libertarian Party supports is for credible threats to the country’s security.
Therefore, what I said about libertarians agreeing with the anchor baby concept still holds true.
Emphasis added.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:46 am317. Another crazed fantasy.
LP website ” Do you support an “open borders” policy for immigration? ”
NO 73%
http://www.lp.org/poll/do-you-support-an-open-borders-policy-for-immigration
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:54 amIt’s amazing how deceived you are Some chump.
Political and human capital(what your copied crap says LOL ) is about economy and free trade and working.
It’s about free trade and workers working, which is what the LP supports, not your anchor baby fantasy.
In fact a big idea for LP was $250,000 per “immigrant” to “let them in” “to be citizens”.
So you’re very confused. Your quote tells you about free trade and human capital workers – which the LP support as LEGALIZED WORKERS, not US citizens – the movement should be IN and OUT when the work is over… that’s LP – HUMAN CAPITAL – workers- not CITIZENS.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:04 am” For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid “amnesty” and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they’ve committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.
The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally”
LP.org
Any more crazed lies from the illiterate who can’t make an argument that makes sense, nor one without lies?
Probably, as they whine it’s their winning opponent. LOL
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:14 amHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA
God I love it.
“I guess we’ll leave it with I’m US Citizen with both parents US Citizens their entire lives as well as their parents, etc- so all you foreign nationals who made it in under your anything goes rules, congratulations.
Have a nice day of hatred and lies, and supporting your usurping liar.
Yes, I’m white and heterosexual as well, and brilliant, top area of the top 1% IQ in the entire nation and world. Also good looking and athletic and in perfect health.
I qualify for President.”
– SiliconDoc
SPQR: SiliconDoc parodies himself better than I could ever hope to do… he has obviously found the hidden, invisibly inked and highly coded “White Heterosexual Brilliant Athletic Good-Looking Perfect Health Male Clause” of Section II Article 1.
Maybe he can star in National Treasure 3 (or maybe 4, if 3’s already in the works).
Leviticus (b6f9db) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:15 amSo you’ve devolved from arguing about what the Constitution says about citizenship and presidential qualification to arguing about what the Libertarian party website says about immigration policy?
The Libertarian Party don’t run the bingo in these parts.
Leviticus (b6f9db) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:17 amAnd exactly how is movement in and out of the country NOT open borders?
I’m not the one who’s confused.
But back to an earlier question: is it your assertion that Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is not a natural-born citizen of the United States?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:21 amIt has not been proven yet that he was born in Hawaii.
😎
But if he was, then he would be an American Citizen. Natural Born has never been defined legally so it would be up to the Supreme court to take a test case and make that determination. Which they have so far refused to do.
“We’re ducking that one”.
😎
Jay H Curtis (881bec) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:52 amJay H Curtis, it has not been proven that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Since there is actual evidence that he was, including a certificate from Hawaii and a newspaper birth announcement, as well as accounts from others, the burden is on the Birthers to produce actual evidence.
Which they haven’t.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:54 am322. No we’ve done exactly what you smart aleck playas decided is proper, and it certainly appears it’s more all your style – talk trash and insult.
The “devolving nature” your smart aleck quip notes for you, merely verifies your fellow Obama lovers desire to comport with what he thinks is “decided law” so babbling more want it works for him.
Explain that to SPQR as soon as someone else tells you what it means.
Yes, so we’re where I left it still, and the the 3 magoos, still having fun snuggling up to each other ?
LOL
Oh man. Hey I’ll screw around like the last 30+ posts, no problem, it’s the level you guys need.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:55 amSmart alecks with nothing.
Now you’re all engaged.
Not amazing, but it figures.
I’d like to see someone who can “explain” SiliconDoc’s incoherent rants.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:58 amI’ve decided on a new slogan to help my neocon thug friends along next election.
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
Wow, has a real ring to it, and yes, it is to be shouted, since my neocon thug friends scream it’s settled law.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:59 amAnd the idea that I’m an “Obama lover” will amuse all here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 11:59 amNeocon thug friends? What kind of moronic insult is that supposed to be?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:07 pmPerhaps in order to comport with the sane and logical legal beagle Constitutional scholar and court decision master regulars here, I’ll adopt my new sig with every post I make. By golly I’ve been shown and I’m converted. I’ve changed my mind. Certainly Some chump approves in full measure.
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:09 pmComment by SPQR — 1/28/2011 @ 11:54 am
Please enlighten us as to just exactly who has seen the this certificate? What judge? What Secretary of State? What authority figure has seen this document and signed an affidavit swearing to it’s legitimacy?
And if someone tried to use the evidence provided as proof against you in a court case, would you just accept it at that point or would you demand verification?
Just curious. Personally, I would want someone I trusted to examine the evidence and determine its veracity before I would blindly accept the word of someone who has proven to be a pathological liar in so many areas.
Jay H Curtis (881bec) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:09 pmJay H Curtis, when the state of Hawaii issues a certificate, it is a legal document and has legal meaning.
All this horse manure of yours regarding judges, affidavits and crap is meaningless. The document itself is self-proving in a legal sense. I’ve actually admitted into evidence that kind of document scores of times in real court cases.
You can argue the credibility of the evidence all you want. But there is evidence. Birthers got none.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:15 pmThe point I was trying to make is that no person that any of us would trust has examined that document, Hawaii refused to verify that that particular image was of a legitimate document. Would you admit a jpeg of a document that was posted online without requiring the real document or at least verification that the jpeg was of a real document?
If so, I have a jpeg that has title to the Washington Monument in my name. Lets go to court. 😎
Jay H Curtis (881bec) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:23 pm332. nydailynews,com, on the 19th, has the rabid dem guv claiming this:
” Officials in Hawaii have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in their state, according to its new governor.
Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who took office in December, told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser on Tuesday that “our investigation” indicates there is a recording of his birth.
“It actually exists in the archives, written down,” he said. ”
So, we have another cryptic maybe there is something. Just as strangely, other MSM news reports have characterized what was found as “a notation written down by someone”.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:38 pmRush Limbaugh I believe has made comment on it.
LOL
So now we have another mystery, a “notation” that “indicates”….
LOL
Now that’s just amazing.
Jay H Curtis, you really are not making a point.
And the fact remains that there is evidence of his birth in Hawaii. There is not any evidence to the contrary.
This inability to deal with real facts, as opposed to invented ones, is what discredits so many.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:38 pmCan’t we have an honest conversation about Birthergasm?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:41 pm332. Then on the 22nd the new dem guv gave up his sworn to his voters duty to settle the matter.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/22/2011-01-22_neil_abercrombie_hawaii_governor_drops_mission_to_dispel_birthers_prove_obama_wa.html
IMO he worsened the matter since the leaked info was the result found was ” a notation of sorts made by someone.”
So it appears his investigation yielded some scrawlings from the past… not any real full birth certificiate.
From what has been reported it sounded like some state official took a call from Vice President ObamaGranny and scrawled some notes down on a piece or two of paper and jammed it in the cabinet.
Demo Ambercrombie – epic fail !
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:45 pmSo basically a photoshopped picture is enough for you. Got it.
I must say, I would expect a lawyer to want a little more in the way of evidence than that, but to each their own.
I will hold out for an acknowledgment from some authoritative source that the document is real.
Your say so just isn’t enough. Same for Factcheck.org or MediaMatters.
I’m out.
Jay H Curtis (881bec) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:45 pmJay H Curtis, the certificate is not all of the evidence.
Here’s a chart:
Obama ———–> weak evidence
Birthers ——–> no evidence
Obama wins.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:54 pmSiliconDoc, were are more than 330 messages deep in this thread, and you just now noticed the topic of the original post.
Sheesh, you are thick.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 12:56 pmI’ve been on topic and you’ve been gnawing ankles illiterate one.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:08 pmJay, there are pictures of someone holding the actual document.
It’s hard to argue that there a real paper document wasn’t the source of the electronic images.
SiliconDoc, thank you for not answering any direct questions. You’ve proved to everyone here that you know absolutely nothing.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:08 pm343. I’m converted, remember you did that ! Aren’t you proud ! Now I know as much as you, absolutely NOTHING. Now your new, you know the law, campaign slogan !
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
Gosh, feels good when really teach good like the rest of merica, huh Some chump.
Thanks, I’ll never forget your wonderful proof.
LMHO
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:17 pmHillbuzz makes an interesting case on this topic.
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/23/hawaii-ground-report-could-hawaiian-governor-neil-abercrombie-not-be-as-incompetent-and-foolish-as-he-appears-but-orchestrating-a-deliberate-birth-certificate-recovery-dead-end-to-cover-his-own-pap/
(sorry, ‘Link’ button wouldn’t work)
Take your time, read the whole thing -then speak these words out loud: “Oath of Office”
– MD
MuscleDaddy (ed8c24) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:30 pmPerkins v. Elg
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native-born citizen” of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen: Ms. Elg was found to be a “citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)
native-born citizen: was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child…/Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native-born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen: Ms. Elg was found to be a “natural born citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:31 pm——————-
Oh, a court case, that lays down the rules.”All settled law” is strange huh Some chump, or at least your interpretation is.
So now we have another mystery, a “notation” that “indicates”….
Apparently, Nostradamus vacationed in Hawaii at some point, the following quatrain was found in the state’s archives:
Born in the Eagle’s Island nest,
Hailing from the City of the Winds,
Will the fourth and fortieth
Ascend to the Egg-shaped Hall.
If this doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what will.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:44 pmSiliconDoc, nonsense, that was not the holding of Perkins v. Elg.
The actual case is found here. No where does the case have such a holding. Nor could it have such a holding given that that was not the facts before it. In fact the case itself never uses the phrase “natural born citizen” at any time except when quoting a lower court decision in the case.
The case certainly never provides a definition of “natural born citizen”.
The case is solely about what happened under a treaty between the US and Sweden regarding citizenship.
You are a fraud and an incompetent SiliconDoc.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:48 pmThis is what happens when you pretend to know stuff you don’t have a clue about.
Actually, it doesn’t quite say what you say it does.
One of the rulings is that if a child born in the US is taken as a minor to another country, he does not lose his US citizenship, provided that once he reaches the age of majority he elects to retain his US citizenship. Sounds a lot like Obama in Indonesia, doesn’t it?
The court also held that a child born in the US of alien parents is a citizen of the US from birth.
You can read about it here
Now, SiliconDoc, how about you comment on 8 USC 1401 and 1405?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:54 pmStop the incoherent rambling SPQR, no one can make sense of what you type.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:54 pm” Sounds a lot like Obama in Indonesia, doesn’t it?”
Sounds a lot like naturalized, clueless one.
LMHO !
Oh, and the ode you, lest I forget.
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 1:58 pmNo, it doesn’t sound like a naturalized citizen, and the court case you cited was referring to a natural-born US citizen taken out of the country as a minor. That child retains his citizenship throughout his childhood, and thus never needs to be naturalized.
Now, please address the specific law in 8 USC 1405, regarding the citizenship of persons born in Hawaii.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:00 pm345 comment by Muslcedaddy
Nice, only the O lovers here are trying desperately to ignore this from your link:
” Well, after he was elected, Abercrombie strangely acknowledged no original birth certificate could be found for Obama in Hawaii, but that there were “handwritten notes” that he was born on the island of Oahu in 1961. Abercrombie did not claim he saw the actual birth certificate.”
I guess they succeed since they can’t comprehend.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:02 pm” Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.”
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.
”
Oh, but lawbreaking is so popular nowadays…
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:04 pmSiliconDoc, the case you referenced, which I actually linked to the actual opinion, does not say what you claim. Period.
In fact, here is what the case you chose to cite says about the woman:
No mention of her parents’ citizenship. And they cite to a case, US v. Wong Kim Ark, that is about a person born in the US to non-citizen parents.
You are simply incompetent, SiliconDoc, when you are not utterly incoherent. And you need to quit reading lying Birther websites that intentionally lie about what the case law states.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:34 pmBirthers remind me of the tax protestor crowds. The same tendency to outright lie about case holdings. The same tendency to try to use irrelevant cases’ dicta.
The same fanatical refusal to actually confront their own false statements and self-deception.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:39 pmFor someone self-confessedly brilliant, SiliconDoc doesn’t seem to be fooling anyone here.
He wouldn’t have the top 1% IQ in a room full of house plants.
SiliconDope (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:43 pmStop mumbling incoherently SPQR.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:44 pmSiliconDoc, I’ll write it at a more simplified reading level to match your ability:
I showed that you pulled your claims from your ass.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:45 pmWell. at least we know what the obama lovers here consider a long form birth certificate proof.
LMHO !
” Abercrombie strangely acknowledged no original birth certificate could be found for Obama in Hawaii, but that there were “handwritten notes””
Nice investigation by their fellow Obama loving democrat Governor.
You fellas are in good company.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:46 pmSo now “scribbled notes” is good !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Glad you fellas have the lies so down pat, because the pie on your faces can’t even be dug through to hear your incoherent ramblings !
Well, we cna surely shoot for what the Obama lovers here deserve…
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:51 pm@356
The same fanatical refusal to actually confront their own false statements and self-deception.
You’re saying Birthers and Tea Partiers remind you of liberals?
malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:51 pmStill in that “top area”, eh?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:52 pm359 Mumbling again already SPQR. Try to be coherent once in a while.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:53 pmmalclave, well that understates the level of hatred I have for Truthers specifically, given that they lie about the circumstances of the deaths of three thousand people. Not much lower than that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:54 pmYou’re still not making any sense SPQR, at least you have scribbled notes backing you, that no one can read.
LMHO !
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:54 pmSiliconDoc, why are you making up stuff that anyone can show to be false by simply looking at the Supreme Court opinion that you misrepresented?
Seems to not be “top area” work there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:54 pmI can’t understand what you just said SPQR, try typing in english sentences.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 2:56 pmSo, some scribbled notes no one is allowed to see, and next:
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
Plus the endless denials of already established law and history of the USA, the new JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS with no case law on their side.
Great, I love it.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 3:01 pmWhy would you pretend those who feel this way must be ‘Obama lovers’?
That shows an amazing lack of perspective. You aren’t king. We are a republic, and we can accept the obvious meaning of the constitution that we have. It’s a shame you’re so convinced of something that people have painstakingly explained isn’t correct.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/28/2011 @ 3:08 pmWell Dustin, you already screeched you would do anything to silence the entire issue because you, the paranoid, have figured it’s a plot from the opposition.
So the facts don’t matter one whit to you, as you already stated. You want everyone “on your side” to just SHUT UP.
Yes, that’s your position, so… ask yourself your questions there, conspiracy theorist.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 3:15 pmHey, SiliconDoc:
Fish! Horrible, nasty disgusting stuff that will make you sick. It’s JUDGE CRATER!!!!!
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/28/2011 @ 3:37 pmAnd yet this paragraph you posted only pertains to British citizens abroad. It doesn’t say anything about foreigners born in Britain.
Of course it doesn’t. If you had actually read the entire chapter I linked to, you would have read Blackstone’s explanation: that anyone born in Britain, other than those born to a parent eligible for what we moderns call diplomatic immunity, is a subject of the British crown: a citizen. In other words, it’s impossible for a foreigner to be born in Britain. If you are born there you aren’t a foreigner.
In short, you would have read Blackstone and known that he supported (to use the term apparently favored in this thread) the “anchor baby” doctrine; and he specifically contrasted British law with, and rejected, 18th century French law, because the latter adopted your approach: to be a citizen of France you had to be have two French parents. (I have no idea of what modern French law is on this point.) SPQR referred to SiliconDoc basing his idea on obsolete common law. Actually, it couldn’t be obsolete, because it wasn’t ever the law to begin with, either in the UK or here in the US.
I cited the passage to illustrate what the phrase “not subject to the jurisdiction” meant: it was the 18th century way of saying “diplomatic immunity”. And it (this is for AD’s benefit, who brought the matter up)still pertains today: the ambassador from Mexico can not be prosecuted for a crime or sued for a debt or a tort in US courts (absent a treaty or special arrangement) because he has diplomatic immunity and therefore is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US court system; Pablo the illegal alien day laborer can be, because he has no immunity and is subject to the jurisdiction of US courts, regardless of his immigration status.
And that’s how the Founding Fathers would have understood the phrase. The only difference was that the UK talked about “subjects” and we talked about “citizens” with all the differences that implies.
Of course, the Foudning Fathers would have been unable to understand, without a lengthy explanation, the whole idea of immigration laws and illegal immigrants. And they would probably have been horrified by the idea once they understood it. It did not exist in their day. 18th century common law (and therefore the early United States) categorized aliens into two groups–those whose native country was at war with the UK (and by extension the US) and those whose native country was not.
kishnevi (79d43f) — 1/28/2011 @ 5:21 pmThe former had no rights at all, even if they had been living in their adopted country for fifty years. The latter did (although, not all the rights of a citizen), even if they had just stepped ashore. Government permission and documentation to be here was a non-issue; no one needed government consent to enter the country.
And passports were more used for domestic travel than international travel in that era, btw: they were a good way for European governments to control the movement of their own subjects (who were of course not thought of as citizens).
Screeched? LOL.
I suggested it was foolish to invest in anything based on the notion he wasn’t born in Hawaii. I think that’s a justified point of view, whether this is a feint or not.
However, note that when SPQR made a point that weakened my specific prediction, I thought about it and granted that he had a point.
You see, this is something we call ‘discussion’, rather than a shouting match, and I’m not here to be right 100% of the time. I’m really just here to discuss things that interest me with others who have good faith.
Obviously, you’re not like me. Absolutely nothing anyone says could possibly have any impact on you, and your comments have degenerated. You’re a baby.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/28/2011 @ 5:34 pmWhining that you don’t have anything convincing, like the rest of the crybaby crabs, then wailing the comments have defgenerated, makes you part of the problem again. When you have jack diddle, don’t expect someone to agree with your stpudities!
Oh, you’ll never change your mind, no matter what!!! blah blah blah – AS YOU PRESENT NO EVIDENCE THAT CHANGES ANYTHING AT ALL !
It’s PATHETIC.
You lost on every point, the whole lot of you, now you have a scrawled on scrap of paper we can’t even view and your new campaign slogan, for all you “evidence bringers!
LMHO !
Here it comes, have you changed your mind ? You NEVER WILL NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE YOU GET.
(glad to play as stupidly as you fools have)
” ANCHOR BABY FOR PRESIDENT ! ”
Love it, enjoy it !
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 9:54 pmAnd people without the aid of Prozac or meth say good night.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:23 pmSo, what we’ve got is an obvious computer generated piece of crap in June 2007, that some lying sacks threw out for the public under who knows what threat, and our nearly brain dead neocon thug Obama love crew, spews their inglorious and dumb as a rock kissing sounds toward the power rumps exposed, bowing in adoration of the generated paper from 2007 ruse.
That’s what we have, a bunch of idiots for fellow citizens, so bound in their stupidity, and so easily taken for a ride by their own poorly crafted no proof at all adoration of legalities, our nation is, as a result, a piece of pummeled crap, smashed more by the wrecking ball, while the retards demand someone else change their mind, to the disgusting shame they’ve accepted.
Wow, what a sorry freaking fairy failure tale.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:27 pmIt’s no wonder oblunder took to the roost, with the idiot crew that accepted the ruse, and still do.
376, Yeah, you too, you sorry piece of trash.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/28/2011 @ 10:28 pmOk, so at a link provided above, I commented, and I’d hate to deprive the room of my further brillaince.
I agree with Granite that the video of obama saying he was born in kenya is forged, I could hear the garbled dubbings and noted his back was to the camera every time they edited, or face, flappy ears and lips out of sight, to make it “harder” to detect the fraudulent audio hacking.
On the other note, I do not accept Obama’s nor the state of Hawaii’s crap policy.
I presume the liar in chief has the personal authority to request an ORIGINAL COPY from Hawaii’s archive, and he has not – has not shown the public that.
Worse yet, if Hawaii reserves the STATE’S RIGHT to the original, and does not allow personal copy access to the citizens, THAT SHOULD BE A CRIME AND THE LAW OVERTURNED IMMEDIATELY.
People though, are so stupid, and so ignorant nowadays, it would take weeks to explain to them WHY they HAVE A RIGHT TO A COPY OF THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE THE FULL LONG FORM, NOT TO MENTION THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SEE THE DOCUMENT THE STATE HAS ARCHIVED, IN PERSON, OVER THE COUNTER – AS A PEACEFUL AND LAW ABIDING DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC THAT RESPECTS THE RIGHTS OF WE THE PEOPLE FIRST MUST DO.
So, we have a terrible situation in any case. A potus that is a skumbag piece of crap, and excuses from the highest quarters of the nation and Hawaii the state.
Indeed, they have created their own nightmare, and they deserve the continuing nightmare, till they do the right thing, which it is clear, they never will.
So, the crimelords and fools at the top, conjoined with the idiot masses, have got exactly what they colletively deserve.
I fully support 100% Obama getting his full length original birth certificate and displaying it for the public, as any decent human being would – and he is obviously not a decent human being.
– After reading the rest of granite’s comment there, just above mine: ” “no you can’t obtain a certificate of live birth (the original birth certificate) anymore” ” I have something else to say.
Obama could be a HERO, and use the power of the bully pulpit, if what granite said above is true, to DEMAND Hawaii follow the basic human principles this nation was founded on, and allow copies of the original long forms to be had by we the people. If that IS, and I do mean IF, Obama should be a man and a hero, and force the legislative or bureaucratic change with the power of the pulpit, for WE THE PEOPLE, then, as a wonderful follow up, have the guts and decency to display what he got – his original, in an act of decency for the American public.
I certainly would declare him heroic then. It would be very NICE to see some REAL ACTION from a potus that PROVES they have some common sense and decency and respect for US Citizens.
I’d love to see that.
Instead we have angry ragers yelling “what part of you can no longer get the long for don’t you understand”!
When in fact, a decent US Citizen would instantly proclaim that problem a crime against the people, as usurped and excessive power of the state.
Of course, our public is far too foolish far too often nowadays, IMO.
I do know that for instance as of last recent check, the state of Maryland, charges a $25 fee for the certificate copy, that citizens can receive even through the mail.
So yes, a fee, likely a stiff one, would no doubt apply, and that is also objectionable to a degree depending upon the exorbitant rate…. but acceptable if the original long form is included as an option (MORE EXPENSIVE in that case, as far as I have seen).
Nonetheless, people are ignorant fools to accept anything less from the states.
It would be nice to have seen Obama be a decent man and step up to the plate for We The People.
It’s definitely sad that he has not.
–
One more point for the thoughtless that “accept” whatever the powers that be tell them.
An original long form birth certificate originates at the Hospital, the place of birth – let’s talk about it with modern science standards – it contains: The doctors hand written signature and likely DNA traces and stray fingerprints, DNA from the baby (in the footprint) – a “biological record of identification equivalent to fingerprints ” – the parent(s) personal verification of true and correct – etc
So the original long form is a very valuable and ABSOLUTE PROOF as far as we can have one…archived in a file… something the common sense and rule of law and fair play America adopted because it just makes sense !
Now, with just a state generated decades, years/later computer printout – you have NONE of that original proof.
Not even a footprint that any joe or jane could indeed verify, just kindly ask your potus to remove his shoe and sock – and bingo, you can see the absolute proof with your own eyes…
Not so with the computer printout – as the Rathergate forged national guard papers also denote – even as it was claimed the top experts “okayed them” ( that unravelled obviously too).
So, there is a reason for long form, it is the best and easiest full blown proof – that’s why it has been used for decades – and it is the right thing for Obama to show the public – and anyone who has read this knows that.
—
Now it would be nice if the potus EARNED RESPECT on this matter, but he has not, and he obviously will not.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 3:12 am340. SPQR declares his obamalove fealty:
” Here’s a chart:
Obama ———–> weak evidence
Birthers ——–> no evidence
Obama wins.”
—
Great, you’ve obviously failed to comprehend a single word from anyone, and still love to lie, a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DzzKsNLZ8qrE
Well, at least we see a birth certificate, the real thing, so they say as well.
Let’s redo your loony lying chart:
Here’s a chart:
Obamalovers ———–> you can’t see any evidence
Birthers ——–> watch the video, evidence is there
No one knows who wins, yet.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 3:43 amYeah, and another link for the clueless illiterates:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/exclusive-lucas-daniel-smith-speaks-with-the-post-email/
A video produced by “On Second Thought” TV following one of the preliminary court hearings last summer depicts Mr. Smith discussing some of the details of the document is here. A video which Mr. Smith produced himself showing close-ups of the document details is here.
In an interview with the Christian News Review on July 13, 2010, Mr. Smith described his background as a sociologist studying in Africa, how he obtained the document from Coast Province General Hospital, the cost, and the military and police presence there. A second interview with Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster from August 18, 2010 can be found here.
——————
Now, that’s quite a bit more than nothing. Is it authentic ?
As valid as the fightthesmears Barak release, or should we say the DailyKos Moulitas forgery, or – the scrawlings Ambercrombie “uncovered”.
Yeah. Nothing like being a blind, lying, illiterate.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 3:51 amMore no evidence up close
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/BO-Birth-Cert1.jpeg
So anyway…not like anyone I’ve heard has the answer.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 3:53 amSnopes says those are fakes.
kaf (982cf2) — 1/29/2011 @ 4:06 am383. That’s to be expected, but it appears the fellow that presented has defended his side admirably – and for every point WND had against him, he offered a proof refutal – and presented it – you can see it at the links.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 4:31 amI though his statement about gettig period signatures for comparison, something the debunkers have not done, was a good point.
Can’t say I know the answer nor am I convinced pro or con on this nor the Hawaii claim.
As I said above Obama could be a stand up man, but he has not done that.
In contrast we know rino McCain was a stand up man, and provided everything.
More interesting information for the debunkers who’ve been proven wrong on one of their complaning “points”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynNL4q-GgzA
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 4:37 amSiliconDoc
SPQR Is not, nor ever ever was an Obama supporter, period end of story
EricPWJohnson (601e3b) — 1/29/2011 @ 5:59 amSiliconDoc: what is your take on the moon landings?
kaf (982cf2) — 1/29/2011 @ 6:09 amkaf you’re a nutball
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 6:31 am386 Eric you’re an idiot.
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 6:32 amhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/christiannewsreview/2010/07/13/christian-news-review
Have fun Obamaloving sheeple
SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 1/29/2011 @ 6:41 amAre Patterico and AW in a coma somewhere? Comments on this thread and several others seem to be defying every rule of acceptable commenter etiquette that has been set forth here for years. What gives?
elissa (cd88ee) — 1/29/2011 @ 7:34 amSiliconDoc
See, you an SPQR already agree on something…
EricPWJohnson (601e3b) — 1/29/2011 @ 7:36 amElissa
Pat’s preoccupied with putiing some more gangs behind bars, Aaron was last seen with his tongue frozen to a sign post somewhere around 12th and Washington
EricPWJohnson (601e3b) — 1/29/2011 @ 7:41 amWow, SiliconDoc linked to a fake Kenyan birth certificate for Obama.
Who’d have believed he’d resort to using falsified information to back up his claim?
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/29/2011 @ 8:07 amAm I the only person who thinks SiliconDoc sounds a LOT like BluBonnet?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/29/2011 @ 9:48 amSPQR, I think you correctly identified the “similar pathology” above.
William Jefferson Blythe III (a3d259) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:01 amOops. Now that’s an unintentionally ironic sockpuppet friday faux pas!
carlitos (a3d259) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:02 amScott, see my comment at #278 🙂
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:22 amI just want him to shut the f**k up…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:38 amI am preparing for trial and don’t have time to monitor every comment. However, SiliconDoc is about one more unacceptable comment from moderation. Coming on here and saying “You’re a _______” (fill in your pejorative here) is not acceptable.
I’ll ask for Aaron’s help in enforcing this.
Patterico (e4a907) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:48 amMe too. It’s one thing to bring up any zany idea he has. It’s another to just flood us with derangement. He’s not trying to discuss anything.
Blubonnet certainly shared that particular trait.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2011 @ 10:52 ampatterico
sure, np.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/29/2011 @ 11:48 amRe: “rino McCain was a stand up man, and provided everything.’
Answer: Are you under the impression that McCain showed his birth certificate to the Senate or that he put it online. He DIDN’T. The alleged birth certficate of McCain that is online is not his. In fact, it was forged by an enemy of McCain’s. McCain said that he was born at the family hospital on the naval base. The “McCain birth certificate” that is online says that he was born at Colon Hospital, which is not on the naval base or even in the Canal Zone. And McCain did not show his birth certificate to the Senate either. It simply accepted his word that he was born in the Canal Zone.”
In contrast, Obama showed the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, the only one that Hawaii has sent to anyone–even people born before 2001–since it became the official birth certificate in 2001. AND, the facts on Obama’s birth certificate were confirmed by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii.
SeeItNow (d3ae57) — 1/29/2011 @ 12:15 pmThe basic human principles this nation was founded on include states issuing copies of long form birth certificates?
Who knew?
Some chump (e84e27) — 1/29/2011 @ 1:32 pmSome chump, it matches SiliconDoc’s misrepresentation of the Supreme Court case he cited.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2011 @ 1:36 pmExcept that people using this kind of argument would not grant that Obama were a hero if he did anything like that. They would say he was using a forgery, and ask why he took so long. They’d still say he wasn’t eligible, no matter what the facts were. their legal theories would change ad hoc, to fit any situation presented.
Not everyone talking about this is that dishonest, but the people loudest on this issue are unlikely to give Obama an inch.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2011 @ 1:54 pmI for one want to know SiliconDoc’s opinion of the death of Vince Foster.
kaf (982cf2) — 1/29/2011 @ 2:17 pmThat makes one, kaf.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2011 @ 2:32 pmEh, I dunno… I could use the laugh…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/29/2011 @ 2:59 pmI’ve had enough laughs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2011 @ 3:29 pm