True - it's mostly liberals talking about the "Birthers." Truely a left wing conspiracy - pushed by the national media for the purpose of political traction agasint the Republicans.

In answer to Larry King's question, while he's laughing at it as it's a joke:

KING: Then where did it start? Do you think the left started it?

Well, I don't know Larry - but read on!

Was it not this former Hillary Clinton supporter, a self proclaimed life-long Democrat, who is responsible for firing up the birther movement? 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES - Thursday, August 28, 2008 -- Lawsuit questions Obama's eligibility for office

Pennsylvania's former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania accusing presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of lying about his U.S. citizenship, which would make him ineligible to be president.

Mr. Berg is one of a faction of Clinton supporters who haven't heeded the party's call for unity, filing the suit just days before the opening of the Democratic National Convention, which will nominate Mr. Obama as the party's presidential candidate.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia last week, also names the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission and says Mr. Obama´s mother went to Kenya late in her pregnancy and ended up giving birth there. It also claims that later in life, Mr. Obama declared himself a citizen of Indonesia.

 

And then there was Berg's video...?

Obama Citizenship

Best I recall, his suits were thrown out, as were his suits claiming that Bush/Cheney were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. So he's a looney Democrat? In the non-stop attacks on Republicans, by the MSM, for this birther movement, is Berg's name ever mentioned? I'd suspect not.

(;~/ gary

All the Republicans need to do is to table a motion to give the Doctor who delivered Obama a lifetime achievement award for their services to humanity. After all we should be honouring Doctors especially whilst we all consider the value of quality healthcare. Then they can sit back and watch whilst the MSM go apoplectic either trying to find the Doctor or denying that Doctors should be honoured. It’s a no-lose proposition.

Why are they so adamant about pushing the "nutty" birthers idea.  If it is nutty, it could easily be disposed of by simply presenting proof.  (Which, despite Bachmann's comment, has not happened yet)

I believe the Clintons and their minions, like Carville, are the ones who intitated this issue and are perpetuating it.  Of course, they are trying to put the blame on the right - its part of the tactic.

It's a no-lose scenario for them:  They originally wanted the birther thing to derail Obama - but if it didn't work, they could always use the "birther" smear against any conservative they find problematic or wish to target.

This is why those who said "if the birther thing were true, Hillary would have been all over it" were off-base.  Hillary would never have touched this issue unless it would guarantee her the nomination.  Otherwise, she was going to keep clear of it.

Now that it failed to get Hillary the presidency, they are simply using it to bash republicans.  That's how cynical and sick these low-life scumbag lefties are. 

"Bertha"?

The birther cause is a lost one.  Even if evidence were to pop up tomorrow proving Obama was born in Kenya, it is not going to get him removed as President.  The courts in America have a long history of looking the other way on these types of technicalities, especially for liberal politicians.  For example, the Attorney General here in California (Jerry Brown) technically was not eligible to run for AG because he didn't meet all of the qualifications as outlined in the law.  It was a clear cut case but the court smacked down the challenge in court.

I'm a birther.

I'd prefer being called a "truther," but the left has taken yet a nother perfectly good term and turned it into something upside-down ugly.

I'm a birther in that my president told me he was all about transparency (and the last guy wasn't!) and yet he won't release document after document, from a long-form birth certificate to school records.

I am a brither in that I don't like liars. 

And O'Reilly gets four times the ratings that King does.

just like when they play the race card.. nobody says anything about the President being black until the left does in their accusations it is the motive behind conservative criticism.. of the most liberal president of all time!  So who then is the first one THINKING about race??  Who is the racist then??

I could care less about WHERE Obama was born and I don't even care if he has a birth certificate from Hawaii or Kenya.

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Washington Times
National Weekly edition

The President and
CINC of the USA
Must be a ‘Natural Born’ Citizen .

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause
5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President.

 Obama’s Father Was
Not a U.S. Citizen, nor Was
He an Immigrant to the USA,
nor Was He Even a Permanent Resident of the USA

The Law of
Nations,Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, Section 212: ‘natural-born citizens’ are
those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Article II .Natural
Born Citizen. Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth Article II of our
Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. .

‘Natural born Citizen’
status requires not only birth on U.S.
soil but also birth to parents who are
both U.S.
citizens by birth or naturalization.

This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in
the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole
allegiance (obligation of ­fidelity and obedience to government in
consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49
F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other
nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and
loyalty.

Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can
legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that
person.

The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance
of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any
other nation.

Unity of citizenship is based on the teachings of the law of
nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confi­rmed by ancient Greek and
Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law,
and statutes; and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding
Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time
immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment
for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community de­nying that
nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or
who naturalized as though they were born on that soil.

It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to
inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore
also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently
attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution
requires unity of U.S.
citizenship from birth only for the Off­ice of President and Commander in
Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that
empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the
destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against
another nation or group.

It is required of the President because such a status gives
the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would be President
will not have any foreign influences which because of con‑ict of conscience can
most certainly taint his/ her critical decisions made when leading the nation.

 Hence, the special
status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby
to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the
American people.

Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement,
does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for
the United States.

Therefore, the ­final informed and intelligent decision on
whom the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at
the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political
institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information
concerning the candidate’s character and qualifi­cations to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and
sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators,
Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and
Congressional enactments.

In contradiction and which con­firms the Founding Fathers’
meaning of what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is, naturalized citizens, since 1795,
before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other
allegiances to other nations.

 During the Washington
Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which
it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution
and renounce all allegiance to their former political regimes.

This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive
and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government
and Constitutional
Republic.

Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized
must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she
will ‘support and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic’.

Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very
much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization
takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s
birth status.

 In other words,
naturalization, which by legal defi­nition requires sole allegiance to the United States,
re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by
law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a
naturalized person to be a ‘citizen’ of the United
States and not a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States.

This recreation of birth status through naturalization which
also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay
underlined the word ‘born’ when he recommended to General Washington that only
a ‘natural born Citizen’ (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be
allowed to be President.

Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing
with born Citizens (who are so recognized and con­firmed by the 14th Amendment
or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also ‘natural
born’ Citizens.) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for
they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire
that allegiance only after birth.

Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole
allegiance to the United
States, is not Constitutionally eligible to
be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to
declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the
survival of the Constitutional
Republic, the Of­fice of
President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence
and intrigue. It is the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause that gives the American
people the best fi­ghting chance to keep it that way for generations to come.
American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person
be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a
Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that
their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualifi­ed to hold the Offi­ce
of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Obama is not Article II
Constitutionally eligible to be President. Q.E.D. . Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.,
Lead Plaintiff Commander USNR Retired

Now, having pasted all that here....

No, I'm not a "birther", but I am a firm believer in the Constitution of the United States.

No where in the Constitution is it suggested that the redefining of words shall alter the intent of any portion of the Constitution.

 For instance, the section under discussion " U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause
5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President."

Does not end with "Unless some charismatic person fully supported by a corrupt media runs for office, then nothing else matters."

The is no clause behind any of the Amendments that state "Unless the government wants to change the meaning of the words."

http://gjresult.com

Well, I can't believe it, I agree with Carville. she could have answered yes or no. What was she doing? It did not look good. I actually have many questions about Obama's past record including his origin of birth and his educational records. She was evasive.

She is a rock star...Palin/Bachmann 2012 with Ann Coulter as Chief of Staff.

We still know next to nothing about the Ozero's past life and even his epic autobiography was written by Bill Ayers and not him.

So, the idea that he was born elsewhere and of questionable parentage is still not outlandish.

It's just our Constitution and the Nation as a whole at stake.  No worries.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

A Bachmann thread without a comment from balboa? 

That's like a Palin thread without PopTech.

Ok guys, I have not been at NB long enough to recall this but somebodys tagline was borrowed by Ms Bachmann tonight in her interview with O'Reilly. He asked her why the left was after her like they do Palin and she said something about liberals hate to see someone self reliant and not needing the government. Her reply reminded me of a posters tagline but I cant find it. You old timers know each other well enough to catch it. I was wondering if she trolls here sometime and liked the tag enough to "borrow" the thing.