Open Thread: White House Releases Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate
In an effort to put an end to the conspiracy theories over the president's place of birth, the White House on Wednesday released Barack Obama's long form birth certificate. You can see it embedded below the break. "The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country," the White House said in a post on its website.
What do you think: will this finally put the issue over the president's eligibility to rest, or will the conspiracy theorists devise some other line of attack?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Glad to see this put to rest
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:39am.
I never bought into this bugaboo, a mere distraction, I am more concerned with Obama's hidden college transcripts and term papers, etc. I am surprised he let go of this distraction, though. Also, since Obama can hide his college records, why don't the Republicans put out a statement that any of their candidates, from this day forward, will not answer any questions about his/her college records, as Obama has set the 'Historical' standard.
So am I...
Submitted by Fenwick on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:54am.
Just drop the birth certificate discussion, for heaven's sake. As for Obama's college and other educational records, we know those are going to be kept under wraps until he is no longer president (which I hope is in January 2013). There is obviously something in them he wants hidden. I just hope that it all comes out once he is again a private citizen.
For this upcoming election, conservative candidates must stick to the issues and not get sucked into tangential baloney.
FWIW, I was looking at my own original birth certificate the other day and it really didn't include much information - just my parents' names, time and place of birth. It did not list religion, race or even the hospital in which I was born.
This is the issue that I am curious about...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:09pm.
The documentation concerning Obama's education...This is the bigger story, I think. Obama has said himself that he was a poor student in high school. If that is true, how did he get the grades for college? We know he went to Occidental in California and then transfered to Columbia...If his grades were so poor, how did he manage to get accepted to Columbia? Who paid for his education? Columbia is a very expensive and selective school...As a weak student, he wouldn't have had any academic scholarships to pay for it, and his family didn't have much money, so how did he pay for his schooling? Assuming he did well enough at Columbia, I suppose I can see how he was accepted to Harvard Law, maybe, but it would be nice to have access to his academic records so we could see for ourselves. As you rightly said, there must be something in them that he doesn't want the rest of us to see or know about...Why? It is a mystery. Like you, I hope that someday we will finally find out what the big secret is.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
The answer to all of your
Submitted by MikeB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:16pm.
The answer to all of your questions can be summed up in two words: Affirmative Action.
You may well be right...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:42pm.
And even if you are, I don't understand why Obama would not want his records made public just because he may have gotten into the schools he did because of Affirmative Action...Many people in this country have made use of Affirmative Action...Like it or not, AA is a legal policy/program that many in this country have used, and why, if this is the reason that he has kept his academic records under lock and key, Obama would not want it known that he was one of them, is interesting. Maybe he feels that the myth of how brilliant he is would be damaged if it were known that he got into Columbia and Harvard, not because he's so intelligent and accomplished, but because of Affirmative Action...Interesting.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
MikeB
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:51pm.
spoken like a true cracker *ss cracker. well done mikey.
Ah, yes, anuglyliberal, I
Submitted by MikeB on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:20am.
Ah, yes, anuglyliberal, I questioned Teh One's credentials, credibility, and intelligence. OF COURSE that makes me a racist. By his own admission, Barak said he was not a good student. Is Barry a racist for that statement? Now, if he was a poor student, or even not a good student, how the hell did he get into Columbia and Harvard? Affirmative Action. Period. Because neither Columbia nor Harvard would accept someone who did not do well in school if they were White, but would have to accept enough Black students to make up their quota to keep from getting sued. The State of Oklahoma, just a few years ago, lowered their entrance standards for Blacks and (American) Indians so they could have the proper numbers enrolling. That is a fact. And someone pointing out such a fact, anuglyliberal, does not make them a racist. It does, however, make you a fool.
Unfortunately I don't think
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:51am.
Unfortunately I don't think even this is going to put it completely to rest. There are going to be a handful going over this document with more than a fine tooth comb and will raise questions as to its authenticity. Don't know how long it will take. It may already be happening even as I type it.
Frankly, it's an "issue" of which I couldn't care less. I look at it this way...Obama's here...he's POTUS...let's concentrate on voting him out of office in 2012.
Besides, for the sake of argument, if he wasn't legal qualified to run for POTUS, it would literally take years to get it through all of the legal challenges thus making it a moot point anyway.
Precisely...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:51am.
My sentiments exactly...I couldn't have said it better. Our time and energies will be much better spent on getting him out of office in '12, and with the amount of money that Obama looks like he will have at his disposal during this next election, we'd better get busy real quick.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
So in other words, the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:54pm.
So in other words, the Constitution is an inconvenience for you.
No, Satchmo, that's not my
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:48pm.
No, Satchmo, that's not my "in other words" just your usual, inane nonsense of putting words into other peoples' posts that weren't there either explicitly or implicitly. You have an almost pathological habit of doing that. Seek help.
If it is a constitutional issue then the courts will be the ones to decide not you nor I.
Our turn to decide will be in November of 2012. The courts will take a whole lot longer. So let's concentrate on what we, the electorate, can do rather than what the courts, in their own sweet time, may or may not do.
November, 2012. Be there.
No, I think I summed up your
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:02pm.
No, I think I summed up your views adequately.
You said, "Besides, for the sake of argument, if he wasn't legal qualified to run for POTUS, it would literally take years to get it through all of the legal challenges thus making it a moot point anyway."
In other words, the effort and time to adhere to the Constitution would be such a burden and an inconvenience. For if he is NOT eligible, then neither is any bit of legislation he signed. Forget doing what's right if it takes too long.
Satch distorts again
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:02pm.
"No, I think I summed up your views adequately."
Actually you didn't even come close.
"You said, "Besides, for the sake of argument, if he wasn't legal qualified to run for POTUS, it would literally take years to get it through all of the legal challenges thus making it a moot point anyway.""
Apparently the part "for the sake of argument" eluded your grasp.
My point, something of which also eluded you, is that by the time any such challenge made it's way through the courts, the 2012 elections will have long since occurred.
"In other words, the effort and time to adhere to the Constitution would be such a burden and an inconvenience. For if he is NOT eligible, then neither is any bit of legislation he signed. Forget doing what's right if it takes too long."
And once again you put into my post something that was not stated nor implied. This confirms you do have a pathological habit of distorting other people's words.
Seek help.
Satch, put your money where your mouth is: go hire a constitutional attorney, file suit claiming Obama isn't constitutionally eligible and see how far it gets you and how long it takes.
In the meantime I am going to concentrate on the 2012 election.
College and GPA are not a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:01pm.
College and GPA are not a Constitutional requirement whereas naturally-born citizen is. I think your priorities are out of whack. I couldn't care less about his transcripts.
All the Birthers heads just
Submitted by wiwf on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:41am.
All the Birthers heads just exploded.
Not for nothing, but
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:07am.
The Certificate of Birth had been released over a year ago and IT IS NOT THE SAME AS A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. What part of that statement can't your little mind parse?
Yes. it is.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:50am.
Hawaii releases only 2 forms of birth certificates. The certification of live birth, the one posted during the campaign is what Hawaii normally issues. It is computer generated and cost less money that digging in archives to make a copy of the certificate of live birth, the one posted above.
There is only the two. Certification of live birth. Certificate of live birth. It is over.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
That's the Daily Kos
Submitted by Thoreau on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:47am.
That's the Daily Kos "Certificate of Live Birth". Not the Birth Certificate. I know this because it says Birth Certificate in every State. Certificate of Live Birth is documentation that your kid is alive when you move there.
As far as I know, there's no long form Certificate of Live Birth. There is a long form Birth Certificate in the hospital records and the State of where he was born.
But! Now we have a name, right? For the attending. Can anyone find out if he exists and how dead he is? Obama's wearing a dead Connecticut man's social security number. I'm sure the MD was chosen just as carefully.
This is great news though. One more step to validating if he was born in the US. And I'm a birther- but I want him to be born here. You don't understand how dangerous it is to have a leader that is not from your Country. Napoleon was from Corsica. Hitler was from Austria. It does not end well.
I hope he was born here. But hope ain't proof.
Thoreau urges continued silliness.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:49am.
What do you think: will this finally put the silly issue over the president's eligibility to rest, or will the conspiracy theorists devise some other line of attack?
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/04/27/open-thread-white-h...
Yes he is not Natural Born
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:16am.
Trump needs to push the intent of the Natural Born statement. Both parents must be citizens thus "natural born." It is pretty clear that Obama's father is not a citizen of the USA. Jer I think you told me that courts have held that you just need to be just a citizen to be POTUS.
Well this legal condition is BS and needs a case for appealing it. Do it on Obama. Obama was not alive at the time of writing, thus the "citizen" loophole has been closed with the passage of time.
Back then, how could you have parent citizens when the Country was just formed? Think about that!
Therefore they put in Natural Born as the main criteria for the long run & just a citizen for the people of that day when the country was new.
Where the **** is the RNC? Bunch of idiots run the party. They have a clear and right path of challenging Obama and don't take it. If McCain won against say Hillary (No Obama in the equation) and McCain had a non-citizen father, ya think the DNC would not be jumping up and down? That protestors would not be in the street? Weak RINOs!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
No, Maximus...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:30am.
What I have said over and over is that the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause vis a vis presidential eligibility has never been definitively established. There is sufficient ambiguity that any final resolution would require a Constitutional amendment or a dispositive ruling by the Supreme Court.
Jer
Thanks could not remember who
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:49am.
Thanks could not remember who said what exactly, so thanks. Seems like that may be important to clear up.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Uncle Jer is partly right.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:58am.
The Constituton was written in plain English by people who struggled over the meaning of every single word in it.
"Natural born citizen" is exactly what it means. Acquiring citizenship through natural birth. As opposed to acquiring it by some other means such as naturalization, being sworn in to citizenship. There is no hidden meaning. There is no books by foreign guys to consult over the meaning.
That is why it has not been definitively established (by a court or law or amendment) It is fairly clear. And I remind Uncle Jer, there was a court case that discussed it.
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case.
Vet...Uncle Jer is completely right.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:30pm.
Which isn't to say I disagree with your view, or that the weight of authority rejects the argument that birthright citizenship alone is sufficient. I don't, and it doesn't. [John McCain's eligibility was far more suspect than Obama's.]
What I am saying is that there has been too little judicial interpretation of the phrase and just enough implicit reference to the requirement of citizenship of both parents [i.e. neither having allegiance to a foreign state] so as to provide the "natural born citizen" wing of Obama challengers an exceedingly slender reed on which to base their ineligibility claims. I don't envision it gaining any real traction, but it might prevent them from getting completely laughed out of every single court in which a petition is filed.
Jer
MaximusBraveheart, i respect
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:40am.
MaximusBraveheart,
i respect you a lot and i like a lot of what you say, however, iti s not correct that in order to be a natural-born citizen both parents need to also be natural-born citizen. As long as one of the parents is a natural-born citizen, then the son or daughter will also be a natural-born citizen.
If what you are saying is true Michael Dukakis and many other natural-born citziens of the USA could never run for Presidents who had one parents who was not a natural-born.
Hi Liberallies & thanks for
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:54am.
Hi Liberallies & thanks for your comment. I am thinking Natural Born means both parents are legal citizens of just the USA at the time of birth (Parents need NOT be natural born, just citizens). Was Obama Sr. a USA citizen at the time (or ever)? If he was a US Citizen, did he have duel Citizenship w/ say Kenya or UK? If Obama's father was not a US citizen, or had duel citizenship then he would not be natural born. This was setup to avoid split allegiances with the all important POTUS position.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
his own words
Submitted by dmacleo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:27am.
he has said in speeches and books he is a dual citizen.
the BC issue was diversion from the real NBC question.
Maximus, At the time my son
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:52am.
Maximus,
At the time my son was born, I was a Venezuelan Citizen holding a GreenCard. I was living in the USA and my wife gave birth in the USA. My wife is a Mexican Citizen with a Green Card. My son, who was born here, is a natural born Citizen.
Both parents, in fact, neither parent needs to be legal, while the mom gives birth inside the USA. Anyone born inside the USA is a natural born citizen. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I am now an American Citizen, my wife is still a Mexican Citizen. My daughter was born under this conditions inside the USA. My daughter is a natural born American citizen.
I have friends whose parents gave birth to them while in a foreign nation. One was an American citizen and the other parent was a citizen of the country where the birth took place, my friend is considered a natural born citizen of the USA.
I am sorry Maximus, in this one issue, those who doubt Obama's natural born citizenship of the USA are wrong.
Both of my children, despite my wife still being a Mexican citizen, are elligible to run for the American Presidency.
Thanks again for that. Agree
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:58am.
Thanks again for that. Agree that was not my understanding of the original intent, but it seems to be "how it is" as per your comments and the code Ken quoted. Obama seems to have some mighty dry kindling he is hiding. At some point I think it will be set on fire by some leak. Anyhow, like Ken is saying, we have one heck of a record now to run against. No shortage of material. Hope, Change, and Openness have proven a fraudulent "storyline."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
This is not a good thing as
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:33pm.
This is not a good thing as you claim. This anchor baby business is a recent one, and has only become accepted by an activist judge's footnotes to a ruling. Your son is not a natural-born citizen as neither of you were American citizens. I don't think your daughter is a natural-born citizen, either because her mother is still a citizen of anoter country and there is also a time requirement for the naturalized parent. Native-born is not interchangeable with natural-born.
A natural born citizen is
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:51pm.
A natural born citizen is born in the country of his citizenship. He/she never applied for citizenship, they were born a citizen. If a child is born to a service member while stationed overseas, that child is a citizen of the US, naturally born of US citizen parents, and in some cases, on American soil,(embassy's and some military installations).
Satchmo, your way off base with your claims. There is nothing new to your so called anchor baby business. It has long been a fact that a baby born here, is a citizen. The baby gets a US birth certificate and citizenship is bestowed on said infant at birth. Natural born citizen.
You should go to school and take a course on the Constitution. Article 14, I think, covers the natural born citizen requirement.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
One can be a native-born
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:34pm.
One can be a native-born citizen and not be a naturally-born citizen. Location is not the sole requirement for natural born. And I am not way off base. You are describing native-born, not natural-born citizens. And do you mean amendment instead of article? The Fourteenth Amendment does not redefine nor address naturally-born citizens.
Native born? Where at in the
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:38pm.
Native born? Where at in the Constitution do you find that term? If you read my post, I covered those natural born citizens that are born overseas.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I didn't say the term native
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:14pm.
I didn't say the term native born can be found in the Constitution; I said there can be differences between a native-born citizen and natural-born citizen. They are not synonymous.
Nope. Native born is not in
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:54pm.
Nope. Native born is not in the Constitution so it has no place in the discussion. You cannot add to or take out parts you dont like at the moment.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I never claimed it is in the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:05pm.
I never claimed it is in the Constitution, but it does have every place in this discussion since the Founders purposefully signified a specific citizenship requirement. To ignore this is to ignore the history of the formation of the document. Language was proposed and rejected in favor of this specific term.
wrong post
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:09pm.
opps sorry, wrong post. That's what I get for having too many windows open. My bad!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wrong Satchmo. Native born is
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:34pm.
Wrong Satchmo. Native born is not in the Constitution, Amendment 14 nor is it mentioned in title 8, 1404. If it is not a term used in US law, it has no place in the discussion. There is no requirement any where that calls out "native born citizen".
So by what authority or grounds do you require this to be entered into the discussion?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Article II, in part states
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:48pm.
Article II, in part states that :
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
There is no mention of "native born citizen" in the Constitution. That is a term fabricated in your mind, I guess.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No, but there is in the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:16pm.
No, but there is in the dictionary. Look it up if you are unfamiliar with a word or a term.
hay Smo, How about that passport issue.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:43pm.
With passports it's possible to document the time spent as an American citizen.
Subtracting all that time years and years behind the coconut palm, going haji via Pakieestan.
Maybe all that creepy American time won't add up to 14 years.
You Didn't Build That.
There was no travel ban on
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:05pm.
There was no travel ban on Pakistan. The passport is a non-issue.
That would be a Pakistan ban for Americans traveling to Pakistan
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:10pm.
Hay America was fine with its citizens traveling there, so what if they could not get in, at the Pakistani border.
How about the possibility that 0bama had an Indonesian passport?
You Didn't Build That.
The origin of this travel ban
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:38pm.
The origin of this travel ban myth was never on Pakistan's end; it has always been presented as a travel ban by the U.S.
Yea duh, Smo, So how did he gain entry into Pakstan?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 4:17pm.
Answer That would be with an Indonesian passport.
When exactly did he surrender the Indo passport, (if ever)?
He was a citizen of Indo, is he still one?
You Didn't Build That.
He could've entered with an
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:53pm.
He could've entered with an American passport. There was no travel ban to Pakistan, and Pakistan was not denying entry to Americans. You simply don't have the facts.
Smo, Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:02pm.
It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance.
Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.
The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:
To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every “True Believer”.
For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.
You Didn't Build That.
You don't gave your facts
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:46pm.
You don't gave your facts straight. You have done nothing but regurgitate the myth. The New York Times even did a travel feature on Pakistan in 1981. There was no ban. Even if it were difficult for U.S. citizens to travel there without assistance, that dorsn't equal a ban. You aren't being consistent.
Whatever, America has millions of "banned" folk living here.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:43pm.
Link free I see.
A bunch of moslem apologists from the NYT travel to Pakistan, yawn.
You Didn't Build That.
Link.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:55pm.
Link.
Jer
"America has millions of
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:05pm.
"America has millions of 'banned' folk living here."
What in the world is that supposed to mean?
CNN is defrauded by Annenberg/Factcheck.org lies
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:21pm.
How can Factcheck.org lie to the American people? Easy, they are in Barack Obamas’ back pocket.
The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.
Does the LEFT have no conscience at all?
"America has millions of 'banned' folk living here."
PC correction: Undocumented Aliens (Humans Without Lawful Immigration Status)
You Didn't Build That.
Dude, you are mentally ill.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:54pm.
Dude, you are mentally ill.
That's funny coming from you INSESTMO
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 6:07pm.
Modern liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.” The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty. This makes complete sense and explains the Liberal thinking and behavior that defies any other explanation.
You Didn't Build That.
Satchmo, since when have we
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:52pm.
Satchmo, since when have we used the dictionary to add terms to the Constitution? If "native born" is not in the Constitution, it has no place in the discussion. What is it in the phrase, "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" do you not understand? That is your natural born citizen criteria.
Stretching and reaching for every little thing you can dream up. Title 8 applies to citizenship of the United States. Both born into and naturalized.
Stop demonstrating ignorance.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Please, stop this pathetic
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:40pm.
Please, stop this pathetic strawman argument.
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"...so you agree that since Obama's father was not an American citizen, Obama is not a natural-born citizen.
Title 8 is not a Constitutional amendment. The criteria for president has not changed regardless of Title 8.
And what qualifications do
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:02pm.
And what qualifications do you have to be accepted as a legal expert on the U.S. Constitution?
Answer: None.
And what state bar did you pass to legally practice law?
Answer: None.
You really know not of what you write and the more of it you post here, the more ignorant you reveal yourself to be.
Satch, put your money where your mouth is: go hire a constitutional attorney, file suit claiming Obama isn't constitutionally eligible and see how far it gets you and how long it takes.
In the meantime I am going to concentrate on the 2012 election.
Keep it up, Satch. You're funny.
Title 8 defines citizenship.
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:04pm.
Title 8 defines citizenship. Which you keep referring to. There is no requirement for both parents to be citizens of the US for one to be a Natural born citizen. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is not a straw man argument. It is Constitutional. If you read Article II, you will find that phrase used in reference to a natural born citizen. Now how is that a strawman?
The strawman argument is the two parent citizen requirement. There is no such requirement in the Constitution your so fond of badly quoting.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Title 8 does not define
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:09pm.
Title 8 does not define natural born citizen. Your strawman argument is that native-born is not in the Constitution since I never said it was, and that since it is not specifically stated it does not apply. That is the strawman argument.
And more so Satchmo...
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:09pm.
US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
That's fantastic. This
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:15pm.
That's fantastic. This passage speaks of nationals and citizens, but not natural born citizens. We aren't debating what makes a citizen; we are debating what makes a natural-born citizen.
Regardless of US Code, Title 8, etc., there is a Constitutional requirement for president. That requirement can only be changed by amending the Constitution, not legislation that is and has been substituted out of ignorance or convenience.
There you go again satchmo.
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:13pm.
There you go again satchmo. Read the first line a quit, uh? If you read this you will see how it calls out citizenship. Article II spells out the requirement for President. Natural born citizen is a citizen at birth. To be a citizen at birth one must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" meaning US law. Children born in the US who are born to Foreign officers, bureaucrats, UN personal, ect. ect. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and are not bestowed citizenship from the US.
There to for, born in the USA, subject to the laws of the USA, citizen of the USA at birth. Citizen of the USA at birth=natural born citizen.
Read a book. Read a law book. Read the Constitution and the Amendments. Read a history book.
There is no excuse for ignorance.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
You can't be that stupid.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:13pm.
"This passage speaks of nationals and citizens, but not natural born citizens. "
You can't possble be that stupid. What part of "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" dont you understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
What part of this was not a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:43pm.
What part of this was not a Constitutional amendment do you not understand? We aren't arguing what constitutes a citizen or a citizen at birth; the debate is about what constitutes a natural-born citizen. This Code is not a substitute for the Constitution nor for the amendment process to the Constitution. What part of that confuses you?
So Satchmo, define for us
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:55pm.
So Satchmo, define for us Natural born citizen and tell us where the definition is found in the Constitution. Explain to us where it says that a natural born citizen must be born of two citizen parents. Show us.
You've spouted off enough, now show us where it is printed it black and white. Not interested in your spin. Show us where its at.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
You're still arguing your
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:14pm.
You're still arguing your straw man.
Pay close attention to the Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization section.
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
"To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared 'And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.'"
But....But!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:32pm.
Wasn't the Naturalization Act of 1790 repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795?
And wasn't the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1798?
And wasn't the Naturalization Act of 1798 repealed in 1802?
And didn't all these acts restrict citizenship to "Free White Persons"?
Good thing you're not a guest on "The View". Whoopi and Joy would open a can of whoop-ass on you!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The purpose was to show the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:09pm.
The purpose was to show the intent, to show what was understood by the term natural-born citizen and how it differentiated from native-born and naturalized. And none of your links addresses natural-born, only naturalization.
In 1802 the intent.........
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 4:02pm.
In 1802, the intent was to repeal the previous laws, which they did.
Do you intend on reading something else into this stuff?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Well that was quite a dodge.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:56pm.
Well that was quite a dodge. In no way whatsoever do any of your links address or redefine natural-born citizen. We are talking about the meaning of natural-born citizen and how the Founders and everyone else in their day understood it. Why do you insist on trying to talk about something else?
State your position, Satchmo
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:06pm.
How about you actually state your position, for a change. Do you believe Obama is a citizen of the United States? If you give a straight answer, it will be a shocker.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Of course he's a citizen.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:25pm.
Of course he's a citizen. That isn't the debate. The debate is whether he is a natural-born citizen, and he is not.
Thanks for answering my question, Satchmo.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:36pm.
Citizen, because he was born in Hawaii from an American Mother?
Not a natural born citizen, because his Father was not an American Citizen?
If I got that wrong, fill in the blanks for me.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You are correct.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:43am.
You are correct.
I am correct, thank you.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:30am.
I'm correct in summarizing your opinion, which is not mine. In actuality:
If a woman who is a citizen of the United States decided to get artificially inseminated with some of Adolf Hitler's frozen sperm, and gave birth to that child in the United States, then that child could eventually grow up to be President.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Did you just seriously bring
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 10:07am.
Did you just seriously bring Hitler into this?
This is the type of obfuscation
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:15am.
This is the kind of obfuscation that you engage in that demeans your ability to carry on a discussion. Change the word "Hitler" to any historical non-American figure of the past that you choose. Open up your mind a little there, Satchmo. Address the subject at hand instead of obfuscating and changing the subject.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You try to bring Hitler into
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:03pm.
You try to bring Hitler into this as well as some 1960s book about god-knows-what, and you accuse me of obfuscation? Just get to your damn point instead of playing games.
Look. Stupid Satchmo makes demands.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:15pm.
Hey Stupid Satchmo troll. Tell him about your demands to loosen the incest laws so you can commence to all the fun.
Thanks for reminding me
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:48pm.
You never did get back to me about that book. That's just plain lazy on your part.
And my point is that your points are just plain nuts with regards to this discussion. It took me over 100 posts on many a thread, but I finally got you to actually state a position you hold, instead of obfuscating, questioning others, and blathering on about a whole lot of nothing, while linking to numerous websites that are totally unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Mission Accomplished
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
All you had to do was ask
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:52pm.
All you had to do was ask (and I don't think we've ever engaged enough to have even reached over a hundred posts combined). So let me see if I understand you correctly: it is nuts to believe that a person's parents must be American citizens in order to be a natural-born citizen, even if this was the standard belief at the time of the Constitutional Convention and prior. Is that your position?
Moving this to the end of the thread....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:16pm.
.....I can't deal with the verticality of our discussion any longer!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Thankfully, that issue
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:01pm.
Thankfully, that issue doesn't happen on the iPad. I have no idea why NB will not fix this.
Satch: Your link supports Obama's eligibility
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:17pm.
and illustrates how "natural born" was a more expansive concept than "native born". You also completely ignore Yinger's concluding observation in Footnote 48:
48. Morse, op. cit., p. 99. It should be noted that Morse is reluctant to accept one implication of the dictionary definition of "native-born," namely, that it includes people born in the United States even if their parents are not citizens. "It remains to be decided," Morse writes, "whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president" (p. 100). SO FAR AS I KNOW, HOWEVER, THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN UNCLEAR: ANYONE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES HAS FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS. [emphasis added]
Get off the bus. It's going nowhere.
Jer
Again, one can be a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:32pm.
Again, one can be a native-born citizen and not a natural-born citizen. Both have full citizenship rights. That isn't the issue. You've ignored quite a bit in that link.
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."(40)
This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term "natural born" as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens."
"Thus, according to Morse, "the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth."(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country."
That comment was made in the context
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:58pm.
of NON-US births. Aside from some random opining, there has NEVER been a judicial decision or definitive ruling or statement requiring citizenship of the parents in addition to a native birth to satisfy eligibility requirements--which is precisely the point Yinger was making in the footnote I previously cited.
Jer
It is no strawman satchmo. I
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:40pm.
It is no strawman satchmo. I want facts. I want settled US law. I want you to show in the Constitution and settled, current US law. The strawman arguments you keep offering are long dead and gone. Using antiquated and repealed laws to try and bolster your position. That is inane.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The strawman is your "show me
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:05pm.
The strawman is your "show me where in the Constitution it defines"... That's a straw man, whether you like it or not.
Satchmo, Are you serious?
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:17am.
Satchmo,
Are you serious? LOL both of my children are Natural AND Native born American citizens. This anchor baby thing no longer exists since many judges have proven that they have no qualms about sending illegal immigrants back to their native nation regardless of how many children they have had in the USA.
Regardless, I can assure you that both of my chidlren are natural-born American citizens. All you need to be an American natural born citizen is to have ONE of your parents be an American citizen or you need to be born inside the United States, a military base of the USA, an American Embassy or Consulate.
However, I am not a natural-born American citizens since I was born in Venezuela, had a Green Card first and then I obtained, through the correct channels and process, my American citizenship.
Yes, I am serious. You said
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:55pm.
Yes, I am serious. You said your firrst child was born while you and your wife were citizens of another country. Therefore your child is not a natural-born citizen. Just being born in the U.S. does not make one natural-born. You are incorrect as to what constitutes natural born. Not your fault since laws have been continuously written, altered, or changed by activist judges and people have a willingness to not question how things came about. They just think, well this is the way it is. Makes them perfect government subjects.
Liberallies: Incestmo has ruled on the matter, and an appeal is
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:20pm.
out of the question.
Please repatriot your son back to Venezuela ASAP.
/s
SickoLibs, LOL, I tell you
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:21am.
SickoLibs,
LOL, I tell you so many of the Birthers do not know the laws, rules and regulations about American citizenship.
I wouldn't take my son close to Venezuela even if I was told my family would have 1 million dollars a year for the rest of our lives!! LOL
I burned my Venezuelan passport on the day I became an American citizen!!!
this is what kills me, those of us who have immigrated into the USA are in so many instances so much more patriotic than way too many natural-born citizens!!
Amen to that, Liberallies.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:06am.
Disrespect comes easy to some if they were born inside the fort.
Really? What is your response
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:05pm.
Really? What is your response to this article, especially the part regarding Justice Brennan and the author of the citizenship clause?
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=380
More reading:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Satchmo
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:44pm.
I'd be fascinated as to your opinion regarding this book by Robert J. Pranger: Action, Symbolism, and Order: The Existential Dimensions of Politics in Modern Citizenship. Even though it was written in 1968, it's still relevant today. Mind reading it and getting back to me?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Fut
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:25pm.
Ignore Incestmo....he doesn't understand and thinks his own opinions are facts!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B: was it the "I don't think..." part?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:32pm.
LOL.
Blonde, Incestmo is
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:23am.
Blonde,
Incestmo is clueless!
True dat!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:59am.
True dat!
Liberallies...Exactly and...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:16pm.
correctly stated. Well done.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
http://www.law.cornell.edu/us
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:59am.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
To be a citizen at birth is to be natural-born.
End of story.
Get over it. Move on to the real issues, such as Obama's absymal presidency that's competing with Carter's for worst in recent memory.
Ken, Well said!!! This
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:26am.
Ken,
Well said!!!
This Birther issue has given the Obama administration cover to not have to deal in the public forum with the poor economy, super high gas prices. For the last few weeks all we have seen is the media interview Trump all over the place. Two reasons why. 1) Ratings. 2) It allows them to paint Republicans and Conservatives as cooks and not have to address the horrific economy, super high prices affecting the poor and the middle class.
The birther issue is a distraction from the real issues that can defeat Obama in 2012.
IMO the media spins for him
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:12pm.
IMO the media spins for him no matter what, birth issue or not. True though they have played it very well to paint it as those crazy REPs. Trump, the DEM that he is, seems to have helped the 'perez' at this critical point. He pulls out his ace when an ace is needed and he looks vindicated. Thanks Trump, that really helped (lol). I would say he was forced to play his ace too soon however. Would have been better near the election. This leaves too much time for more of his negative historical issues to become "transparent."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
MaximusBraveheart
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:32pm.
"IMO the media spins for him no matter what, birth issue or not."
Shy clicks "Like" under this one.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Thanks Ken. That was written
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:41am.
Thanks Ken. That was written in 1952 (& revised in 1978 and other years). I don't think that is the intent of our founding fathers & I submit it should be revised. Bad policy for sure. Kim Jung Il can have a wife come here at 9 months and drop a kid, & that kid can become POTUS. Something wrong in that picture? It also encourages illegal immigration. Agree and wish the media, people, and RNC would focus like Obama's famous laser on "Obama's abysmal presidency." It is a horrible record of crimes against freedom.
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title8/8usc1401.html
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Maximus, The assumption is
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:49am.
Maximus,
The assumption is that individuals like me, born in Venezuela, moved to the USA, married inside the USA, have children in the USA are incapable of becoming loyal citizens of the USA who feel no loyalty to their home country.
I can guarantee you that if the USA and Venezuela were to go to war, and I was called to duty, I would have zero problem fighting for the USA.
The USA started this way. It is like saying that English born Colonials who fought on the side of the 13 Colonies could not become loyal Americans.
Many legal immigrants like me, my wife, my parents, my siblings, many of my friends and many others are 100% more loyal to the USA than natural-born American citizens!
The only way the Constitution
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:49pm.
The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process. Congress can pass as much legislation as they wish defining and redefining terms, but that in no way is a substitute for the amendment process. That legislation would be rightfully considered unconstitutional. Citing this Code does nothing.
14 years a resdient.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:20pm.
Don't forget that a potential President must also be "14 years a resident". That means that, no, Kim Jung Il's child couldn't be President unless that kid, you know, LIVED here for over 14 years prior to his or her's candidacy. That would tend to negate the suggestion that someone would have a child here, raise that child in a foreign land, and then enter that adult sometime later into a presidential race in an attempt to directly influence foreign policy or whatever.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Right you are...Enough already...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:24pm.
with this bogus non-issue. We all have more than enough real issues with Obama that should keep us all plenty occupied for the rest of his one and only (hopefully) term in office as POTUS. The clock is ticking and election day will be here before we know it, so let's focus on the real problems and issues.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
That doesn't say anything
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:03pm.
That doesn't say anything about being a natural-born citizen. Regardless, the Constitution can only be changed by an amendment, and presidential eligibility has not been amended.
And neither did you.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:13pm.
You have an assertion, SOURCE IT you lying little stupid satchmo troll.
Don't hold your breath
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:51pm.
Don't hold your breath waiting.
He won't source anything,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:20pm.
He won't source anything, Vet, because he can't . He can only express his opinion and pretend he's stating settled Constitutional law.
In other words...Satchmo says: The Constitution requires that the president be a 'natural born citizen'. Therefore Obama cannot be eligible to be president because his daddy was a British subject.
I don't know how many logical fallacies he's guilty of, but his argument is silly and disingenuous.
Jer
Good lord, it's a sign of the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:14am.
Good lord, it's a sign of the apocalypse....I'm actually agreeing with Jer about Satch.
North Alabama Has Been Absolutely Devastated By Tornadoes...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:11am.
I just logged back on, so forgive me if I'm repeating already posted info ...GA is getting pounded also with several dead and extensive damage. A tornado watch is still in effect for the area of Atlanta where I live, and active tornado warnings remain for many areas of the state.
Tuscaloosa [home of Univ. of Ala] took a direct hit from a massive tornado earlier. Parts of north Alabama will likely be without any power for at least a week--58 fatalities so far in Ala. alone.
Lots of folks need our prayers tonight.
Jer
[I didn't know where to post this, but I figured directly under a comment about Beukeboom and I being in agreement and a reference to the apocalypse was as good a spot as any.]
Even worse this morning for
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:07am.
Even worse this morning for Alabama & Georgia. More deaths, injuries and devastation. Prayers definitely needed.
Jer, I hope so, Jer, I truly
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:36am.
Jer,
I hope so, Jer, I truly hope so!!! This issue is so ridiculous!
We still really don't know that
Submitted by texasborngranny on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:19am.
the person in the WH is a Natural Born Citizen, as required by the constitution.
I have an official BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth... NOT the same thing.
I do NOT want Trump as the republican nominee, but I love that he gets under Obama's supremely thin skin.
Now he needs to demand to see documents showing:
that The Big 0 changed his name back to Barack Obama (from Barry Soetoro) or is he 'operating under a false name?
that he changed his citizenship back to American from Indonesian?
what name, and as a citizen of what country, are on his college entrance documents and transcripts?
what name did he use on the passport on which he traveled to Pakistan?
Agree with texasborngranny!!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:42am.
Agree with texasborngranny!! Kudos! Media mum.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
another distraction
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:47am.
When President Clinton was running it was all about the economy and everything else was a distraction. Now that it is President Obama and the economy is doing poorly, unless you want to believe studio "experts", it is about anything but the economy.
Attack anything that moves and make sure the economy is not brought up as a legitimate issue. It will not be long unless economic conditions improve that we will hear the media talk about how no one cares about the economy and people only care about what Obama has done to make their lives easier.
Kindly stop it now.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:03pm.
I showed above. Hawaii only issues a Certificate of live birth or a Certification of live birth. Kindly knock it off. It is over.
Hawaii amended the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:05pm.
Hawaii amended the Constitution all by itself?
I said SOURCE your wild ass assertions.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:18pm.
It was common knowledge during run-up to election day he only had one American parent. No one of consequence made the same claim as you.
SOURCE IT you lying little snit.
Here is another Hawaiian long-form certificate:
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:49am.
Note the similarities?
Jer
Yes, I see it. It's as plain as black and green.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:02am.
.
I believe that would be a DISsimilarity, SoL...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:35am.
Please follow instructions.
BTW...I understand the advance order price for Dr. Corsi's eagerly awaited blockbuster "Where's The Birth Certificate?" has been steeply discounted.
Jer
Yea SoL, Jers looks a tad different than the "new" one.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:23pm.
huge pdf
Very progressive here in Hawaii, they listed the race of the father as "African"
Nice they recycled the same paper as was on the COLB
That's sustainability baby.
You Didn't Build That.
Jer, That is the type of
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:59pm.
Jer,
That is the type of birth certificate I have with the difference being that I was born in Florida. It even is embossed with the State seal I believe.
It's an issue of semantics.
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:04am.
It's an issue of semantics. That state of Hawaii calls their birth certificates certificates of live birth. It's just like if a state issued driver's licenses but called them "license to drive." Same thing, slightly different name.
Just like how I don't have a DMV in my state. I get my driver's license from the Motor Vehicle Administration. It's the same type of agency, different name. But just because I don't have a DMV-granted license doesn't mean I can't drive a car.
Texasgranny, Sorry, wrong.
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:18am.
Texasgranny,
Sorry, wrong. Yes we know President Obama is a natural born citizen. His mother was a natural born citizen, thus so is Obama. This issue will not take Obama out of the White House in 2012.
People really need to drop.
The Constitution was written in clear English.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:07pm.
"natural born citizen". You wuz born into citizenship by way of natural birth. How much more clear do we have to make it for them Mr. Liberallies? They do speak the same language as us and can read it as well, can't they?
Liberallies, you are absolutely right that
Submitted by texasborngranny on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:18am.
Obama's mother was a natural born citizen. But, perhaps not necessarily so for Obama:
In doing further research, I find that when Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. The same act governed the status of the children of Obama Sr:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
It would seem that at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of 'being born in Hawaii') and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. That would bestow Jr with Dual Citizenship which precludes 'Natural Born Citizen' status.
The founders' specified the Natural Born Citizen classification as a requirement for the Presidency.
A person may be a citizen of the United States, yet not be a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore, ineligible for the presidency.
Source?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:20am.
Where does dual citizenship and natural born citizenship preclude one another.
Nowhere Vet...because they are not mutually exclusive
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:29pm.
and texasborngranny's closing remark is yet another example of mere opinion based on supposition arising out of a fundamental misreading and misapplication of flimsy legal authority such as Professor Willis L. Johnson's pet pre-Constitution Vattel's Law of Nations which has been dissected and debunked by subsequent case law (e.g. Lynch).
Jer
You are on a streak.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:38pm.
Ok. I will up the ration of Cisco and here, here is the remote control too. Oh and pack up. Dave won you in a game of chance.
OK. There's the BC.
Submitted by pockets64 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:46am.
Well, it's about time.
Does that make him any less a socialist? Does it make his policies any less dangerous?
NO!
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:09am.
That is a Certificate of Birth. That is NOT a birth certificate. What is the difficulty with understanding the difference. The Certificate of Birth would not allow you to get a drivers license.
Potato, Potahto
Submitted by pockets64 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:30am.
The key point is, as others have said here, that Obama will NEVER be removed from office based on this issue.
This issue is a dangerous distraction.
Let's focus on the damage he is doing to the country and use THAT to get him out of office in 2013.
The COLB/BC issue is not where we should be using our silver bullets.
Yes. It is.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:11pm.
The last leg of your conspiracy theory has been pulled out from under you. It is over. Drop it. Look at the write-up for this blog.
NO EDITOR, CONTRIBUTOR, FOUNDING FATHER, OR PUBLISHER AT NEWSBUSTERS BUYS INTO THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT.
YOU
ARE
AT
ODDS
WITH
THIS
WEBSITE.
No. I would like to see the Birther's redirect their passion
Submitted by Lipton on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:10am.
to pointing out any one of the miserable aspects of his Presidency. Frankly, I am kind of glad this was done so we can talk about what is wrong with him.
So the distraction WAS good for the country for the past 4 yrs?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:45am.
Got it.
Finally
Submitted by CountryClubRepu... on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:57am.
This clearly proves he was born in this country, but there are still unanswered questions. For instance, is there another document in the archives? Obama spent $2 million in legal fees fighting the release of the documents in the Hawaii archives, why? Hawaii's governor made a campaign promise to release the archives, but then reneged his as soon as he saw it, why? There is still a book coming out that claims to prove he was not born in Hawaii. On what evidence is that claim based? This issue isn't going away, folks.
It clearly shows NOTHING NEW.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:10am.
This Certificate of Birth has been out for over a year. It is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE that is still not presented. Why so difficult to grasp the difference?
hbnolikeee,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:33am.
A lot of people (and that includes a bunch of conservatives) still haven't bothered to educate themselves as to the differences between a C.O.L.B. (which is what is shown above) and an actual, for-real Birth Certificate.
I think the White House released this because they know the same questions concerning Obama's eligibility will remain, as this document, which we have seen before, proves nothing other than Obama has family connections to Hawaii.
Hell, so do I, and if my relatives had chosen to do so, they could have easily recorded a C.O.L.B. with my name on it in Hawaii in 1964, even though I was born thousands of miles from there.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
There is no difference
Submitted by CountryClubRepu... on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:56pm.
There is no difference between a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth other than the title. Even if there is a separate Birth Certificate, it makes no substantive difference. This document is contemporaneously signed by a doctor at the time of birth and states that Obama was born in Hawaii. As a lawyer, I can tell you that, absent evidence of fraud or forgery, this document is conclusive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Get over it.
Yea!!! What was the 2 mil
Submitted by Zippy on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:41am.
Yea!!!
What was the 2 mil for?????
Where is the BC?
Not the LB!
I am sorry, that is confusing.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:44pm.
For instance, is there another document in the archives?
Sorry to be a little vulgar, but what do you want for the love of Trolljergeren? You think he was shoved back in and born again?
Kudos to Obama
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:54am.
He has not been a very good President to say the least, but hopefully this will stop the birthers on this site to stop talking about such a silly issue.
Kudos my keister.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:11am.
Nothing new. The Certificate of birth has been out for over a year. It's the Birth Certificate that is not presented. Hellooo, got it?
Whatever dude
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:18am.
Even Fox news is calling it a birth certificate. This is a silly issue. Just a few deep breaths and let it go.
My breathing is fine DUDE
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:27am.
I guess at Hockey Puck University Certificate of Birth and Birth Certificate mean the same thing. But WHATEVER DUDE! Keep stoking that pipe.
The speech is actually pretty
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:56am.
The speech is actually pretty good- "distractions", "making stuff up", "vilifying each other"- phrases that came from his own mouth that will hold he and his party accountable. He cannot escape this; even the liberal Politifact.com will have to be honest about the budget issues and claims on both sides.
As for the BC- I'm glad this is over, and I'm glad his eligibility was proven legitimate. The consequences would have been a huge problem that could've been catastrophic on the world stage.
Trump, thankfully, is toast. He'll sign on for three more years on NBC and he won't run.
Why s he toast?
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:00am.
He got the President to do what no other person could.
Good point
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:02am.
In wrassling, this would be considered a last-second Hail Mary reversal.
I just hope this is over now
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:11am.
I hope that the microscope that this thing will be put under does not reveal "issues" like the CBSNews/Dan Rather document. I hope, for instance, that it does not appear that the dates have been electronically modified or something like that...
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
He of course has already taken full credit, Shawn...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:19am.
Trump's massive ego--which he will likely choose for his running mate--would permit nothing else.
I have a better chance of being elected President than The Donald.
Jer
Yeah sure Jer
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:27am.
What would you do if u were debating Trump? See See See? Mr Trump you break wind too!!! Lol just kidding buddy
I don't see many people I like more than Trump so far.
shawn...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:34am.
I've always liked Trump, even though at times he is an insufferable braggart. But this Presidential ego trip is going to come to a grinding halt at some point.
Jer
I hope the last point you made comes true SOON
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:19pm.
You should like Trump Jer, HE IS really a Democrat after all and has been for years.
At least until he figured a way to get cheap publicity.
The more we learn about him, he is nothing but a carnival barker or a clown.
Again, a Democrat.
He is entertaining though, not in the sad Charlie Sheen way, he actually has talent to make me laugh and sometimes even think.
Of course you don't
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:04pm.
"I don't see many people I like more than Trump so far."
He is a democrat after all, so what's not to like on your end? Kudos to him for taking it to Obama, and forcing him to do what no one else has been able to do though. He's taking credit for it, and he should.
'Obama blinked. Now game begins'
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:14pm.
He's taking credit for it, and he should.
...you sure it wasn't this?
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Flash! Birther-in-Chief Dr. Corsi remains unfazed; forges on...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:51pm.
demands release of President's kindergarten records.
This professional kook seems determined to drive the bus straight over the cliff. He will prove to be the Democrats best weapon for 2012.
Jer
He'll be gone in a few weeks.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:58pm.
And Obama will regain his rightful place as the R's best weapon for 2012.
presidential ego
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:42am.
Because Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB and Obama have all had such small egos. Obama's, Clinton's, Ford's and Nixon's have been at times out of control. GWB and GHWB could talk the humble rhetoric but it only got them lambasted by the media.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for Trump unless forced to do so by voting against someone with a far larger ego.
A large ego is not a judging point for a leader - what they accomplish with/because of their ego is a point. Though I seriously doubt Trumps intentions and abilities I will take the accomplishments of a successful businessman and marketer over a successful campaigner (especially when propped up by a billion dollars during a recession).
Trump was never a viable candidate
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:22am.
although apparently the White House thought he was. Or- Trump has been on the DNC's payroll with the intention of trying to paint the GOP as "crazy birthers", and he'll be replacing Austin Goolsbee in the coming weeks.
Trump had nothing to offer the GOP, or the country for that matter. He's certainly no Conservative. He may actually feel strongly about the current economics of the country, but his emotional prescriptions were more like Hoover's than anything that would really help us in the long run.
Trump was, and is, a caricature. We already have one of those in the White House.
We will see BK
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:41am.
In the long run you are probably right but for now I am a Trump fan and stranger things have happened.
I can only quote Star Wars.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:26pm.
Obi-Wan: I have failed you, Shawnikin. I have failed you.
Shawnikin Skyfarter: In the long run you are probably right
Obi-Wan: Anakin, Donald Trump is evil.
Shawnikin Skyfarter:...I am a Trump fan...
Obi-Wan: Well, then you are lost
That was a gentle rip poking buddy. Don't get mad. Just joshin' you.
Vet Vet Binks
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:35pm.
You don't know the power o the Trump side. We can take down Bozell. Together you and I can rule NB as Smut warrior and Jammie Wearing Fool
Donny
Submitted by paragrouper on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:14pm.
Is only a factor because the media find it so much fun to make him one.
I pray for the day when Americans stop treating presidential elections like an American Idol show.
Did he Shawn?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:19pm.
Or was it an attempt to give Trump credence in the Republican party and create a division in the upcoming race for a outside independent candidate like Trump to suck off just enough votes in the general election to lose the election for the Republican candidate. And yes, Trump very well could go independent should he lose in primaries. He has hbolikee's vote.
I don't know Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:56pm.
......but Obama has ignored folks on this issue for years until Trump forced this into the mainstream
Sorry, not convinced.
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:59am.
All this proves is that an older guy took advantage of some silly (barely legal) girl and got her pregnant. Big whoop. We still don't know anything about this guy on paper. I want to see every document from his schools. Nobody spends that kind of money to hide his past unless he has something to hide. It will all come out eventually. Why won't the MSM do it's job and investigate this? Where are the Bernsteins and Woodwards? Or, do they only investigate conservative shennanigans?
Would have been nice...
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:59am.
We were all pretty sure in the backs of our minds that a certificate would surface at some point or other. After all, the issue of 'you can't be President if you weren't born in the US' would have been too easy a way to get rid of this socialist clown. I mean it would have been nice if we could simply ban him from running for a second term if it had turned out he wasn't born within the US borders.
We'll just have to do what we were planning to do anyway - and mash him flat in the 2012 elections by handing him a landslide defeat because of his disastrous policies.
The winds are changing and the tide has turned against Obama. We've got him on the run people. Keep up the pressure. The sooner this odious man and his cabal of radical communists, hate preachers and enviro-nazis are cast out of office, the sooner we can undo the damage they've done and get the country back on track.
It would have been
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:04am.
interesting to see the legal ramifications, had it been proven that he was not eligible. Every piece of legislation and executive order he has signed would have been nullified. Could he have been prosecuted for fraud? How about FLOTUS? Conspiracy to commit fraud? Could he have been required to pay restitution to the government for all expenditures?
FLOTUS?
Submitted by Franksam on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:15am.
The FLOTUS would no doubt be as surpised to learn the truth as Hillary was when she first heard about Monica.
What will the Donald do now????
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:06am.
Maybe he can talk about something substantial? Maybe he can contrast his idea of foreign policy? Nah. Probably not.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Heh
Submitted by MoYo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:05am.
I guess you could say Obama was Trumped....
Glad all of that silliness is
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:06am.
Glad all of that silliness is over. Now we can discuss the important stuff, like how Obama is killing our country.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Well, okay, but there are still questions
Submitted by falcon on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:06am.
For example, those who say he had his name changed when he was adopted by Soetoro, and that change was reflected on his birth certificate. So, were they just blowing smoke, or what? Second, and I think this is merely an issue of semantics, so what if the document says "Certificate of Live Birth" instead of "Birth Certificate?" Don't they mean the same thing? Third, the document does not list the nationalities of the parents, just their races. Is there still a question, then, as to the nationality of his father? It's been written by many that BHO the First was still a British subject (and the COLB says his daddy was born in Kenya). If that's true, then technically speaking, BHO II was not a "natural-born citizen," even though he was born in Hawai'i. It would, however, make him a "naturalized" citizen. Is that enough to pass Constitutional muster? After all, the MSM attacked John McCain for being born in the Panama Canal Zone (although it was, at the time, a US Military base and his father was in the military, and his mother was an American citizen), and he met all the criteria for "natural-born citizen." And, last but not least, this still doesn't answer the question of whether he fudged on his resume (Harvard Law Review editor, Columbia University "professor," etc.).
Are those questions still germane in light of the release of the COLB? Don't know, but the one thing this does for sure is shut up Donald Trump. It also weakens his campaign, should he choose to run for President, but it strengthens the campaigns of people like Michelle Bachmann who said it was basically not an issue for them.
And frankly, there are so many other issues facing us that need to be addressed, and soon, and BHO is at the bottom of all of them. There are still many things for which he could be impeached (and why aren't the GOPers doing this? But that's another issue), and far worse things he's done, that we should be focusing on.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
BREAKING: Trump communique to PIs intercepted:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:12am.
"Change Hawaii departure tickets from JFK to Wasilla, Alaska. STOP. Upon arrival, stand by for further orders. STOP."
Was that telegram delivered
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:27pm.
Was that telegram delivered by zeppelin, or by train?
Via suppository, I believe, Mr. Shrubber.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:11pm.
"Bend over, I have an urgent encapsulated message to deliver from HQ. There may be some minor discomfort at first, but that should recede quickly."
SoL~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:31pm.
LOL. As always, the witty one.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
That is not a birth certificate
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:16am.
But it doesn't matter anymore, as there is not enough time to get him out of office prior to the next election, anyway.
What I want to know is, what is the White House trying to distract us from?
What is happening that they would prefer we not focus on?
Would it be tomorrow's Bernanke news conference, perhaps?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Love ya big guy, but it is. Sorry.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:30pm.
It is. It so very is.
Wow
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:15am.
It's the shroud of turin.
Oh, so now all of a sudden the African birth certificate
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:20am.
is now void?
Jack Wiley Dithers is on the Phone With ...
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:30am.
... the CTO of the unionized IT firm the administration paid $4.5M in contracts over the past two years to have the document altered.
Exclusive report to come ...
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Don't look nothing like mine
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:31am.
Mine has a stamp on it. It also has the birth place of my parents and who their parents were. It also gives the birth weight and length. Lot more information than that.
DROP THIS ALREADY!!!!!We can
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:43am.
DROP THIS ALREADY!!!!!
We can defeat Obama in a million other ways!!! Tired of the Birthers and their constant silliness. They are underminding the Republican and Conservative movement!
Let's push on the College records, let's push his horrific record as President, but stop and drop the Birther issue!
Obama's mom was a natural-born American citizen, thus regardless of where Obama was born he is a natural-born citizen with the RIGHT to run for the Presidency of the USA.
If that were true
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:15pm.
"They are underminding the Republican and Conservative movement!"
He wouldn't have released it today, a year and a half before the election. He released it because he was afraid it would pick up steam and affect his re-election campaign.
There Really Was Only One Stupid Question
Submitted by Bourbeau on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:40am.
Why did the President and his handlers think that it was brilliant idea to not release this document? Same for his scholastic records. No one really cares how smart or stupid he was,
he's President now, and that's not changing anytime soon.
That may be a stupid
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:19pm.
That may be a stupid question, but how about asking a serious one? Such as does he meet the eligibility requirements per the Constitution?
Why don't your prove it Pervmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:32pm.
Instead of making the same wild ass statement and/or questions you usually do. You have an assertion, make it and source it or SHUT UP YOUR FAT FLAPPING LIPS.
I'm satisfied...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:53am.
… and am extremely happy the WH released the document.
For a while there (the last 2 years plus) I couldn’t see the forest or the trees because of all that “Transparency” spewing from the WH.
- Grump :o)
THE STATE RUN MEDIA AND THE "BIRTH CERTIFICATE."
Submitted by Herbster on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:56am.
I suffered through CNN and MSNBC this morning! I am now fully recovered. I couldn't help notice, that when the "Birth Certificate" was put on the screen it read, across the top, in LARGE letters, 'CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH." Yet, all the "Journalists" kept calling the document a "Birth Certificate." It is NOT a birth certificate - it is a certificate of live birth! It' comparable to the mediamorons referring to obambi as a "Professor," when even Univ. of Chicago stated that he was only a PART-time, fill in lecturer." There is a huge difference.
I am not convinced. Mis-trust and verify, to paraphrase R.R.
What a coincidence
Submitted by Captain Repus on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:00am.
At the same time a 'genuine' document is produced, the Director of the CIA (an agency with billions of dollars worth of super-spy credential generating equipment) is announced to be appointed to Secy of Defense.
I wonder if Penetta is charged with finshing up the job with school documents or will this task be passed on to his successor.
One very troubling aspect of the Obama eligibility debate
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:11am.
One area of this entire debate that has really bothered me is just how many conservatives are claiming it to be so "silly," "inconvenient," "distracting," or "embarassing" to even raise the subject.
Really, some of you apparently think upholdoing this nation's founding document is a pain-in-the-ass.
The problem is, every time we wink at or ignore extra-constitutional actions of any kind, a part of that document dies.
If we continue to allow this part or that part to be ignored, pretty soon that most unique of doncuments - the one that made this the greatest nation in recorded history, isn't going to be worth the paper it is printed on.
Either we are a going to be constitutional republic, or we are not - and doing it half-assed isn't going to cut it.
If we are just going to merely pretend we are a constitutional republic, we may as well go ahead and just set fire to the damn thing and be done with it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Exactly.
Submitted by HeavyChevy on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:17am.
Who would have thought the incoming fire was coming in from both sides.
Heavy,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:36am.
Now you know why I have had to turn off the radio and am having to mostly stay away from news sites and blogs these days.
My rising blood pressure was/is about to blow my eyes right out of their sockets.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Constitutionality
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:36am.
Amen to that, Dave.
I'm an ardent believer in that precious document. I get really angry at how people flout it.
-Jon
Yeah irritating how it is
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:48am.
Yeah irritating how it is getting a pass on talk radio today. It does seem part of Obama's PLAM. Seems to have worked well. I thought they could not locate it & now they have it? Was not HI just saying they can't find it? Would Bush get away with this? Who is this doctor & where are the interviews on TV? And like others have asked what is the history of his SSN use? Is that true? Where is the media on that. One heck of a story if true. How did he travel to a closed country? Tons of great stories. Would be funny if WikiLeaks gets some docs they could release. That would be ironic.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Questions
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:10pm.
This raises more questions than answers, some of which you mentioned. The big one is the name change of Barry Soetoro. But based on the info, it appears he's a dual citizen which has been stated by more than one entity.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he's the worst person EVER to run this country, or rather run this country into the ground. It doesn't change the fact that he has done unConstitutional things, most recently of Libya.
It really doesn't change the fact that he's a rat bastard POSSOB and I want him out of the WH and preferably out of the country.
-Jon
jon,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:13pm.
We are now $113 Trillion in overall debt and about to go TU financially simply because certain areas of the Constitution were ignored for the last 100 years.
Ignorance has consequences, and we are about to get a first hand look at them.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Obama now sets a precedent
Submitted by wolfemanic on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:13am.
Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President.
The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance.
Well played, sir.
Welcome to Reality
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:19pm.
"Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President."
If your born to an American, if just one of your parents is an American, then you are an American yourself, no matter where in the worlds you happen to be born. There's nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. Welcome to reality.
WHEN will we, as a nation, stop judging people based upon the nationality of their parents, which is irrelevant, and start judging them based upon their own character? Judge Obama for what HE is, for how HE acts, and not for what nationality his parents may or may not be.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No one is judging him; they
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:09pm.
No one is judging him; they are asking if he is Constitutionally eligible.
You have problems with English? SOURCE IT.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:20pm.
But yeah, that explains it. The Constitution was in English as well.
SOURCE IT you lying little snit or shut your flapping lips now.
Vet, you are being an
Submitted by MikeB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:38pm.
Vet, you are being an incredible ass today. Satchmo made a statement: "No one is judging him; they are asking if he is Constitutionally eligible." How is that a lie? How would he source that statement? That is the question: is he Constitutionally eligible? Methinks you dost protest too much.
Perhaps, but...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:21pm.
"Vet, you are being an incredible ass today."
Why should today be different from any other, lol?
Frell off.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:51pm.
You have done nothing but be an ass when it comes to me. A cut and run ass that makes assinine unprovable statements and runs like the sissy satchmo. Just like you did the VERY LAST TIME you spoke to me. You got absolutely no credibility when it comes to posts with me. You are a pile on little coward that only joins in on an attack when you see an opening. So frell of coward.
Totally agree Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:01pm.
He is a big time post and runner, him and Willis Leon can't ever defend an argument and have mivonks the size of peanuts
Satchmo talks pretty much nothing but---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:58pm.
garbage, and acting like either a pearl of wisdom or reasonable statement got dropped along with his usual majority pile of crap really isn't anything to get excited over.
Some people see him for the liar, in totality, that he is; and refuse to cut him slack that he has neither earned, nor deserves.
MD
Why don't you source it for him MikeB.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:56pm.
Since you feel it is neccessary to insult me. It was common knowledge President Obama only has one parent during the campaign. And yet this was NEVER an issue during the campaign. NEVER. It is an outrageous assertion and it is not up to me to defend it. It is up to the person making the uncommon assertion.
Since you want to carry his water. Do it. He has had all day and has has produced nothing even though he carried on with several people.
You have issues because I am correct. Whine on and attack me and insult me when I have no issues with you. You say I am wrong. Prove it. Make me look like an ass instead of whining that I am one. Or is that too much of an ass to show you common sense.
He is eligible
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:57pm.
He, obviously, is eligible. The "controversy" was that he wouldn't release the "long form" and "prove" his citizenship status sufficiently to those who had questions about his "actual" his place of birth and, therefor, his "natural born" citizenship status. Now, the requested long form has been released, thus ending the controversy. Or, at least, it should.
Of course, those who vehemently deny Mr. Obama his natural born citizen status will NEVER accept any "proof," any type of documentation, which negates the argument that he isn't a natural born citizen and, therefor, isn't eligible to hold office. That's not because he isn't eligible to hold office, it's because people like yourself DON"T WANT HIM TO BE eligible, no matter the state of his actual eligibility. You want to override the election. You have no real means of doing that, so you INVENT some type of false "ineligibility" issue in order to negate the election altogether.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Eligible and with adequate
Submitted by wolfemanic on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:01pm.
Question eligibility and with adequate justification.
Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding.
The definition of natural born and the two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of...
The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863).
It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution along with former Attorney General Black.
In this situation judicial cases is all one can refer to, nothing else exists or matters.
100 year old case law...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:06pm.
100 year old case law doesn't affect the Constitutional requirements of the eligibility of a President's "natural born" citizenship, especially when those rulings were made prior to, or immediately following, the emancipation of the Blacks in America. Those ruling were made specifiably to prevent emancipated blacks form achieve "natural born" citizenship and, concurrently, obtain political office.
"In this situation judicial cases is all one can refer to, nothing else exists or matters. "
The Constitution is the highest law of the land, "judicial cases " notwithstanding. It is the Constitution which defines who is eligible for office, plain and simple. The Constitution say "natural born citizens," which means being born naturally in the United States. That was it's intent and that is it's only definition.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wolfemanic Article II lays
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:30pm.
Wolfemanic
Article II lays out the requirements to be President. The 14th Amendment was passed shortly after the Civil War and ensured the blacks freed after the war were endowed with citizenship. Prior to that time, blacks were not citizens. Title 8 of US Code covers citizenship also. All of the above mentioned specify that one born in the US mainland, (and that will include Hawaii and Alaska) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens.
In other words, if your born in the US, and you are not the child of some bureaucrat at the UN or an ambassador of another country or a foreign official or officer, you are a natural born citizen.
Honestly. You people. Seems like you could read the Constitution and the US laws that you claim to hold in such high regard, and quit reading all that clap trap on the internet posted by morons that have no idea what they are writing.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
wolfematic: Wong Kim Ark is authority for precisely the
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:59pm.
opposite of what you claim. It explicitly supports the proposition of birthright citizenship regardless of the citizenship or allegiances of the parents. It has never been overruled and has been cited and relied upon in a number of subsequent decisions. Minor isn't authority for your argument. Neither are Shanks or Ward or Scott v. Sandford. I haven't looked at the other cases, but I seriously doubt any are helpful to your position.
But I invite you to link or post any language from any decision that can be reasonably interpreted as an endorsement of your argument. The Ark majority did indeed look to English common law in reaching its decision and the ruling was directly, indisputably and unequivocally against you.
Jer
Satch, put your money where
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:02pm.
Satch, put your money where your mouth is: go hire a constitutional attorney, file suit claiming Obama isn't constitutionally eligible and see how far it gets you and how long it takes.
In the meantime I am going to concentrate on the 2012 election.
Obama leading from behind
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:16am.
...this time, from behind a number, which would be 62, the percentage of Americans who do not believe he was born in this country.
Yet he gets in front of the teleprompter, and yacks about "distractions".....another distraction he himself created! One has to laugh.
In other news, organized lefties disrupted Allen West's Town Hall meeting last night....and what do you know? A former Air America host was escorted out, and ultimately arrested.
Even the left leaning Mullet Wrapper recognized the organized "planted" nature of these "protestors". They're getting desperate.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Here we go...
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:50am.
.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
So...you gullible clowns buy this do you?
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:38am.
Explain why this simpleton took two years to produce something that has had plenty of time to be forged, counterfeited, doctored etc.....why is the doctors signature date 2011...you freaking clowns believe anything this liar says!! 2 years and 2 million dollars to hide this and his records and you thing everything is hunky dory...? You are freaking nuts!!!
What?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:37pm.
Doctor's signature date? Huh? What, the signature date that led to his marriage? What are you on about?
Vet~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:03pm.
I think he's referring to the April 25, 2011 stamp date (of release) at the bottom of the document, with a signature of a rep from the Hawaii State Registrar's office. That person is a PhD., which is noted, along with the signature -- and a section that states that person is certifying it is a true copy/abstract of the record on file. Right above that is a signature from the doctor, listed under "Attendant," with a date of 8-8-'61.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I know.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:36pm.
He is pointing that out in the same breath he is saying it is forged.
Vet~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:45pm.
I wonder if he will notice that nobody has called HIM names.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
My guess is the answer...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:41pm.
is "no".
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Hi, Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:48pm.
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Right back at 'cha, GG!
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:38pm.
Howdy!
This is some news, huh? It does make one wonder why Obama spent so much time and money stalling about releasing this document, when all of a sudden, today, he finally does...Maybe all the noise that Trump's been making about it prompted him to produce it...Who knows. I for one am sick of the subject, and hope that we can now focus on the issues at hand such as rising gas prices, rising inflation,an economy that is still limping along, the mess in Libya, and a completely clueless president.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:56pm.
I'm kind of tired of the subject as well...which begs the question why I'm on this thread! LOL. I have to hand it to Trump for going after this though, because I do think it brought overwhelming pressure that forced Obama's hand. Obama is just looking out for his re-election.
I think when it comes right down to it, 2012 will be one question for all Americans: do you trust this guy to run the country for 4 more years? I pray the answer will be NO!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG...Agreed...Trust is a major problem for Obama in '12...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:30pm.
from two perspectives...One, Obama has broken so many promises and pledges during his time as president, that almost no one, not even many liberals, trust him enough to believe anything that he says anymore...Two, Obama's judgement (on virtually every issue) is so whacked that many if not most Americans don't trust him to make the right decisions for them or the country. So, if as you rightly said, "trust" is the big question for Americans going into '12, Obama has some really, really big problems.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
FYI...The doctor's signature is not dated 2011...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:00pm.
Look more closely at the form...The signature of the doctor who attended Obama's birth is dated August 8, 1961. The signature and the date that you are referring to is the signature of the state registrar who did sign and date this copy of the birth certificate on the day that he received the request for it which was April 25, 2011.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Yes.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:03pm.
The first clue, the box next to the doctor's name. The one that says MD and has an X in it. But whatever, we are only Patriots I and III.
Apparently...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:38pm.
Some are determined to see and believe what they want to see and believe.
As you said, whatever...
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
It doesn't mean he's
Submitted by mattm on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:47am.
It doesn't mean he's elligible. This issue was never about where he was born. That was just a deliberate ruse to confuse the issue. The real question has always been, as per the U.S. Constitution, whether he qualifies as a "natural born citizen."
The qualifications for that are that BOTH parents must be U.S. Citizens.
Since Obama's father was a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.K., he was not a U.S. citizen, therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen, and is not elligible to be president of the U.S. - look it up.
Of course, this little ruse will satisfy the media and the rest of the dopes who voted for this disgrace.
It doesn't mean he's elligible. This issue was never about where he was born. That was just a deliberate ruse to confuse the issue. The real question has always been, as per the U.S. Constitution, whether he qualifies as a "natural born citizen."
The qualifications for that are that BOTH parents must be U.S. Citizens.
Since Obama's father was a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.K., he was not a U.S. citizen, therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen, and is not elligible to be president of the U.S. - look it up.
Of course, this little ruse will satisfy the media and the rest of the dopes who voted for this disgrace.
Sorry. He is a natural born citizen.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:04pm.
Mr. Shephard showed it. It is written in plain English, the same English we speak today. "natural born citizen" is exactly as it sounds. You popping out into this world and a doctor spanking your butt for being born naturally. Born naturally into citizenship. As opposed to being sworn into it or bribing some bribable official. I don't know how many more ways to say it.
Where does it say that?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:02pm.
"The qualifications for that are that BOTH parents must be U.S. Citizens."
Where does it say that in the Constitution? The original, unamended, Constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." I see nothing about requiring both parents to be citizens.
The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside." Once again, I see nothing about requiring both parents to be citizens.
So, please, enlighten us about this supposed Constitutional requirement of both parents being citizens before someone is considered a natural born citizen.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan....
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:10pm.
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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. Minor vs. Happersett (1875)
The argument is slapped together by wrenching inferences out of non-binding judicial utterances such as those contained in Minor excerpted above. It is not controlling. It doesn't even address the issue directly. But some will insist--incorrectly--that it is solid authority for the proposition that both birthright citizenship and parental citizenship is necessary to satisfy presidential eligibility requirements.
Jer
Wrong, mattm...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:52pm.
The qualifications for that are that BOTH parents must be U.S. Citizens.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/46976/1477082#ixzz1KkNDg8QS
That is what some have deduced from veiled, random, non-binding references in ancient Supreme Court cases and a floor speech by John Bingham. Even so, it requires a severely stretched inference just to get near that conclusion. The weight of authority is squarely against you.
Jer
Is Obama's dropping his legal challenges?
Submitted by Ten7s on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:50am.
I still wonder what Obama's hiding behind the ($2million and climbing) legal wall that he's built around virtually all information about his past including school, college, university records, passport records, etc.).
People have been speculating about why he's hiding something as common and innocuous as a birth certificate. If this is the genuine article, his hiding of his past might simply be a pathological preoccupation.
The next time we ask you for a document, you show that S.O.8.
Submitted by KCK on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:00pm.
The worst part is how Americans didn't insist on the document, but were totally okay with a substitute. Who gets away with doing that? The next time we ask for a document, you show that sonofabeech.
As another commenter said, what happened to "it can't be gotten?" BS.
My first response to the issue has always been that it didn't matter after he got the nomination. No one would ever reverse what the DNC already established - that's reality. But, the law is the law, and this has been Obama skating for three years or so. Now, I want his transcripts from college. Now.
Next release: His transcript
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:36pm.
Next release: His transcript with straight A's his entire life and college papers preaching against socialism. lol. Anyway, agree time to move on. Without any press making waves for him, educating the public on good freedom based policy vs. socialism under the name "Progressive" & "Lean Forward," is what is important for 2012 & beyond.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The document he released
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:59pm.
The document he released years ago is the legal, official birth record recognized by the State of Hawaii. Everything since then has been a freakin' fishing expedition hoping to catch some 'gotcha' info to triumphantly wave in the faces of those who were focused on more important matters.
Jer
Once again, it isn't so much
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:16pm.
Once again, it isn't so much the place of birth as it is the natural-born citizen requirement. The Constitutional issue is still not resolved.
What's not resolved?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:27pm.
What's not resolved? He was born in America, that makes him a natural born American.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States." Unless, of course, your name happens to be Barrak Hussain Obama. Then you have to prove, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that you really are an American citizen.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No, it doesn't. It may make
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:14pm.
No, it doesn't. It may make him a citizen, but not a naturally-born citizen. I believe there is an age/residency issue regarding his mother as well as the fact that his father was not an American citizen. One can be a citizen, such as in your quote, and not be a natural-born citizen.
Source it you lying little stupid sissy satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:16pm.
Or keep on with the head up your butt muffled rambling as usual. Whatever. Like we get paid to listen to a lying lopheaded loser loon like you.
Then what would it take?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:21pm.
Then what would it take to make him a "natural born citizen?" Two American citizens as parents is NOT a requirement. It never has been and it never will be. Nor is the "age" or "residence" of his natural born American mother. So, please, enlighten all of us and give us YOUR definition of a natural born citizen.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Actually, you're wrong. It is
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:55pm.
Actually, you're wrong. It is a requirement and it always has been.
Sorry, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:20pm.
But you are in error. It is not now nor has it ever been a clear requirement. It is a legal theory based on conjecture coupled with a few random judicial observations, and it is contrary to the consensus view of Constitutional authorities.
Jer
Whether it is clear or not,
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:41pm.
Whether it is clear or not, it is still a requirement. So no, I am not in error; you added the word "clear," not I. I don't think anyone needs legal theory or a few random judicial observations to see that the Constitution specifically states natural born citizen.
That's what Obama is
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 4:00pm.
"I don't think anyone needs legal theory or a few random judicial observations to see that the Constitution specifically states natural born citizen."
That's just what Obama is, a natural born citizen. He is "naturally" granted his citizenship by birthright. He doesn't have to apply for citizenship, he's already a US citizen because he was born here in America, just as all other natural born Americans who were born here regardless of the citizenship status of their parents or parent, regardless of th age of their parents or parent. Regardless of ANY legality or illegality of their parent or parents.
Obama is an individual, one born here in America. That makes HIM a natural born citizen. The nationality, the lineages, of the parents is immaterial, for we do NOT judge a person based upon their lineages, but based upon their individual situations. He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii was an American state the year he was born. That makes him a natural born American citizen, just as it does for me, or you, or anyone else born here in America. What part of that is so hard to understand? What part of that is controversial?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're the one who's wrong.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:44pm.
You're the one who's wrong. For if what you claim is true, than NONE of the children of ANY of the immigrants who traveled to America would be citizens (natural born or not) if they were born prior to their parents becoming naturalized. That means that each and every child born to immigrants for five years after arrival wouldn't be citizens themselves,. Nor would the children of those children, and so on and so on, to this day, since none of them were naturalized themselves and, by your own argument, actual citizens.
One of my ancestors was born just 18 months after his parents arrived in America, almost 4 years before his parents received their citizenship. That child never applied for citizenship, nor did he become "naturalized" by the process of the day. He was granted his citizenship due to his being born here in America.
By your argument, that child wasn't an actual citizen, correct? Well if HE wasn't a citizen, then none of his children were citizens ether. And, since those children weren't citizens, their children couldn't be citizens as well. This would continue on and on, generation after generation, unless each and every US born descendant of that original "non citizen" became naturalized, something that has never been required in the history of America. That would, by way of direct lineage, make ME ineligible to be considered an "natural born citizen," correct? That would make ME, and tens of millions of people like me, ineligible for the Presidency, correct? Is that really what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they coined the term "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution? The entire premise is asinine.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why don't you prove it little stupid sissy satchmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:43pm.
Prove it. Source it. Or just stick your head up your butt and start your muffled rambling as usual.
Distract. Distract. Distract.
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:17pm.
Distract.
Distract.
Distract.
Nicely typed
Submitted by xyzzypoofs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:21pm.
I am assuming they were careful not to use Dan Rather's typewriter for this?
Confirmation that Rather was an idiot.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:06pm.
Rather should have known better. You don't produce forged documents from the 1970's by using a computer and a word processing program.
I can hardly wait for Letterman and his ilk to joke around that the reason it took two years to release Obama's "birth certificate" was that it took that long to find a pre-1961 typewriter! That will be a killer!..................Oh wait, I will never hear that joke, because Obama isn't a Republican.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying anything from this White House
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:43pm.
And regardless of where Obama was hatched, it still doesn't settle the question of his constitutional eligibility to hold the office he now has, which has been the issue from Day 1.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
His is, obviously, eligible.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:48pm.
He is, obviously, eligible to hold office. Being capable of holding office, on the other hand, is questionable.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
What CobraMan said.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:59pm.
It is over Mr. Dave. He was eligible. And he is a horrible horrible horrible President. To steal from President Lincoln, he managed to fool most of the people some of the time last time around. Let's make sure he can't fool most of the people all of the time by making sure he is a one term President.
Or
Submitted by g55rumpy on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:12pm.
if you want to carry your gun
Your citing the wrong
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:16pm.
You're citing the wrong passage. Look for the one about presidential requirements.
See above post
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:26pm.
See my other post about the applicable passage in the Constitution. Read it, and then I want YOU to post the passage which shows that both parents must be American citizens. Here's a link to the text of the Constitution to help you out.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Your passage is not
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:57pm.
Your passage is not applicable since there is specific criteria in the Constitution, and that criteria has not been amended. Why are you avoiding that fact?
PROVE IT!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:41pm.
You keep claiming that there's a provision in the Constitution. I've read the entire Constitution and I can't find that provision. The only two provisions I could find were the two that I cited in another post, which you claim isn't relevant. So, it's time for YOU prove your assertion. SHOW US THE PROVISION! GIVE GIVE US THE ACTUAL CITATION! PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Article II, Clause 5: "No
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:13pm.
Article II, 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This will never change
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:27pm.
The one thing that doesn't change is that he's the sorriest piece of crap ever to walk the WH halls.
If nothing else, I had heard a while back (don't remember where) that one of the reasons some in Congress didn't want to pursue impeaching the Chairman was this question about the BC. He's got a long list of impeachable offenses, most recently Libya.
But I doubt they got the guts.
-Jon
Natural Born Citizen
Submitted by beauxdog on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:57pm.
The founding fathers included the "Natural Born Citizen" clause because they feared an individual, raised on foreign, anti-american ideas, would be elected. In other words, the clause was included to prevent Obama. It didn't work.
This settles it for once and for all!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:02pm.
"African" is now offically a race.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
"The President believed the
Submitted by MikeB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:25pm.
"The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country." Which means, when translated in to non-obfuscatory English, it wasn't any longer good for Barak. He could easily have produced the birth certificate when his citizenship was first questioned BY HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION, and there would have been no questions raised. Instead, pResident Zero decides to spend beau comp bucks keeping the birth certificate hidden. Why? Keeping the BC hidden caused a lot of us to rightfully question his eligibility for office. And, if he wasn't eligible, then he should have been removed. The question as to whether all the destructive legislation he signed was valid and binding had he not been eligible would have been a whole other can of worms.
Border and Pattern
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:30pm.
Take a look at the green herringbone pattern of this document. The pattern starts at the very top and goes all the way down and covers the entirety of the page from left to right. The date, APR 25 2011, and the name of the state registrar, are signed on-top of the herringbone pattern.
At the top left of the certificate, where it says "State of Hawaii", the copy folds into a dark area. How do you make a copy like this? Was the herringbone pattern on the original from 1961? But that doesn't make any sense either, because the pattern matches up perfectly with the rest of the page. If the copy was made with the herringbone pattern on the whole page, why does it have the fold and the dark spot on the left? Was all of this done on purpose? How does a copy machine even do this?
I sense a shift from the "Birther" controversy to the "forged copy" controversy.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Occam's Razor
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:33pm.
The original document is in a book, placed face down on the copier. The paper in the copier is herringbone.
The Registrar's signature and date stamp are original, from Monday last. The rest of the signatures are original, and the fold is merely the image of the original book.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Line 21 - Name
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:37pm.
Line 21 - Signature of Local Registrar
U K L Lee
Seriously?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Odd, but true: U K L Lee did in fact succeed Ban Jo,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:50pm.
who retired a mere two months earlier due to a broken G-string.
It took me few minutes to figure that one out, SoL...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:20pm.
but once I did...well, you are indeed a very funny guy.
Jer
Print it Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:50pm.
Save SOL's comment for it 's historical value. It is the funniest post ever at NB.
Will do,cajun..upon determining I am not constrained by SoL's
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:13pm.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This post is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This post is only for the personal and confidential use of the individuals to which it is addressed and contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you have received this post in error, and that any reading, distributing, copying or disclosure is unauthorized.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the message.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/04/27/open-thread-white-house...
Get a FOIA going Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:33pm.
SOL makes it 2 in one day. This is too funny to hide in NB archives. rofl
Cajun~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 5:52pm.
I want an IQ test done on SoL. He has many of the signs of being brilliant.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Good catch GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 6:05pm.
Looks like we may have found the star for Newsbusted if Jodi Miller decides to move on.
"Certer" Movement has allready started!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:46pm.
The Smoking Gun
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I think I may have printouts
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:10pm.
I think I may have printouts of my posts from a couple of years ago where I predicted the long-form certificate would be attacked as a fraud and forgery, because nothing...absolutely NOTHING would ever satisfy the birthers.
Jer
Jer, you print out and archive your past posts???
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:22pm.
Sorry, but that just sounds spooky to me. But just in case:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This post is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This post is only for the personal and confidential use of the individuals to which it is addressed and contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you have received this post in error, and that any reading, distributing, copying or disclosure is unauthorized.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the message.
Not as a rule, SoL..
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:33pm.
But I think I may even have a few of your classics. I'll let you know if I run across any.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:35pm.
Please tell me you're kidding!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Kidding about what, GG?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:41pm.
Jer
That you have print-outs of posts...?
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:00pm.
.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:33pm.
Yes, I have some random printouts which were for purposes of reviewing extended thread discussions. Sometimes it was easier just to print the thread segment instead of scrolling up and down to check prior or subsequent posts. And I still have a bunch of those old papers piled in a box somewhere.
Jer
Rut row.
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:42pm.
Silence from Jer. I think denial is the first sign. There's no time to lose...
Jer, repeat after me: "My name is Jer, and I'm a paper-holic."
;)
Okay, I'm outta here. Wow, more than 200 posts on this thread. There's no arguing that there's a lot of interest on this topic.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 3:44pm.
Just saw your response. Okay, maybe not time for an intervention...yet. {{^_^}}
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Jer, That was a huge one...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:40pm.
Yea, Your "printouts" at least had an embossed State of Hawaii stamp on it. LOL
You Didn't Build That.
Bold Prediction, Jer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:43pm.
Certainly a bold prediction on your part, Jer. I'm pretty sure I have a stack of my own predictions in hard copy somewhere saying anything I want them to. Let me dig them up.
But I will make a brand new prediction. The next time the Republicans win a presidential election, a significant portion of Dems will have some sort of conspiracy theory about how the Republicans cheated! You heard it here first!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Make sure you print your post out, Kingfish.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:53pm.
That way in case NB decides to nuke the whole database again, you'll still have it.
Like our NB pal Boris Badenov does.
;)
With all due respect sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:44pm.
You are describing the election in 2000. It is why the left went so hard core nuts about President Bush. They felt he stole the election.
So are you saying?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:56am.
So are you saying that my bold prediction, is predicated on events that took place in the past? Is that cheating?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I just hope it is wrong sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:25am.
2 Presidents in a row is enough. We need to get back to UFO's and contrails and UN markings on the back of signs and shadow people. Here we finally learn the name of the doctor that spanked Obama's but and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Nothing surprising is there. Malcom X was not his dad. It don't say he is Muslim. Nothing. Big snore. Same with wikileaks, millions of documents leaked from the highest halls of government and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wow. Our government does kinda exactly what it says it does. Boring. By Trolljegeren, conspiracists are boring.
My prediction
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:50am.
This prediction stuff is an episode of "just having a little fun", The Vet.
My bold prediction is unlikely to be wrong, because of the way I phrased my prediction. And I'm also having a little fun with Jer's prediction where he "predicted the long-form certificate would be attacked as a fraud and forgery, because nothing...absolutely NOTHING would ever satisfy the birthers." Both of these predictions are neither bold, nor are they much of a prediction.
The only way I can be wrong, is if we have a landslide election where the Dems lose, and even then we will still have a portion, hopefully not significant, of the electorate saying the game is rigged and the Republicans stole it.
So in the end, I am not predicting anything! I'm just having a little fun. Forgive me.
ps And I thought my use of bold font when I said the word bold was also kinda funny.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I know you are joking Mr. Kingfish.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:30am.
But Jer called it right. Willis_Loony_As_An_Outhouse_Rat_Holding_His_Johnson didn't even wait 24 hours and he is right on top of the forgery talk.
It's all about the presentation
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:05am.
Ah, Ha! The hospital name was changed in 1978 so the released certificate is a forgery!
It takes about 30 seconds online to debunk that nonsense.
Ah, Ha! Kenya didn't really exist until after Obama was born!
A one minute search online of some old National Geographic Maps proves that's ridiculous.
Those are just two examples of nonsense that its going to be circulated in mass emails over the next two years, without the debunking. I'll hear the hospital name change charge and the Kenya charge from my friends who fall for this sort of stuff.
Conspiracy theories are fun stuff, though, when the presentation is slick and looks solid. Redford's new movie, The Conspirator, is named after the genre for Heavens sake! Oliver Stone made a career of this sort of crap. Does anybody believe anything in the Da Vinci Code? It's still interesting none-the-less.
Check out this video: Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4 Do I believe any of it? I don't know what to believe anymore because the guy who put this together did a really good job. It can't be debunked with a one minute search on the net. But after viewing this video, I did some follow up and found some just as solid looking information to debunk his claims.
Do I believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Yes I do. Do I believe Obama has things about his past that he would rather not get into the public discourse? Yes I do. Do I believe Obama is capable of almost anything to advance his agenda and power? Yes I do.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama