January 27, 2010
— Ace Reader Lee tipped me about this yesterday, saying it showed Hayworth was a "Birther."
I don't think it goes that far. One doesn't need to believe any particular thing to stand for the proposition that given the Constitution only lays out two (?) prerequisites for assuming the most powerful office on earth -- age of 35 or older and "natural born" citizenship -- any candidate contending for that office should have the burden, without a lot of arguing about it, of proving his qualifications.
This isn't a dramatic statement.
I have some worries about Hayworth overplaying this issue and winning the primary only to have made himself toxic in the general, but this clip doesn't indicate, to me at least, that sort of overplaying. I consider this a pretty reasonable statement: If a man wants to be president, he should have no problem releasing the run-of-the-mill public records that prove he satisfies the age and birth requirement.
Sure, I could take it on faith, but why the hell should I?
(Also, I never really thought "Birtherism" was as toxic an issue as some believe -- after all, to most people, the effort needed to disprove such theories is absolutely trivial -- and also 2010 is such a favorable climate for the GOP (knock wood) that it's hard to imagine Hayworth, if he won the primary, would lose the general over a bit of soft-form pseudo-Birtherism.
Maybe it's pandering. If so, color me shocked to see a politician pandering for votes.)
Posted by: Ace at
09:49 AM
| Comments (330)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
That's roughly my position. I don't have reason to believe there are any shenanigans about where Obama was born so much as there's something embarrassing (such as someone else listed as the father). But I also don't think it's asking too freaking much that candidates for office prove their eligibility. Hell, the signatures on petitions get checked, this should be too even if it is a formality.
I am deeply troubled by the court rulings that appear to hold that no one has the standing to enforce the Constitutional requirements for office. Yeah, I see no way that can go wrong.
There's a tiny bit of me that thinks the American public would be ecstatic if Obama turned out not to be a natural born citizen because hey do over!
Posted by: alexthechick at January 27, 2010 09:54 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 09:54 AM (IhQuA)
Based on the numbers, where a third of Democrats believe the US government and/or the Jews were really behind 9/11, there are one hundred troofers in Congress right now.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 27, 2010 09:55 AM (7BU4a)
meh, I'd rather he run on the issues the way Scott Brown did.
Actually, I'd rather see J.D. run for his old seat because he's not gonna win the primary.
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 09:55 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Neo at January 27, 2010 09:57 AM (tE8FB)
That comment is raaaaacist. HATER!!!!
Posted by: physics geek at January 27, 2010 09:57 AM (MT22W)
Also, I never really thought "Birtherism" was as toxic an issue as some believe...
Really, brah? That's not the impression I got when you wrote that people should just shut the fuck up about it because it makes us look like Truthers.
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 09:57 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 01:54 PM (IhQuA)
Hmm...how many Democrats have publicly rebuked Rosie O'Donell?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 27, 2010 09:57 AM (7BU4a)
Right about now if I had a choice between seeing his birth certificate or his college transcripts,I'd choose the transcripts if not just for the laugh factor when lefties discover that George Bush had a higher GPA
Posted by: bulwark at January 27, 2010 09:58 AM (MdzCh)
Posted by: iowahawk at January 27, 2010 09:58 AM (veL4N)
Ken Royall nails it: You can't get into little league without showing your BC, but this douche can be president without doing so?
Similarly, I have to show a transcript of my grades to get any decent lawyering job, but this douche can be president without anyone knowing he was really a C- student?
Posted by: Sharkman at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (Zj8fM)
Posted by: Truman North at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (e8YaH)
They wouldn't even have to do it publicly, though they should. Simply submitting the appropriate paperwork to the Supreme Court for the presidency and to an appropriate committee for members of congress would be enough.
Posted by: Fuloydo at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (S7Z5Z)
Posted by: CUS at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (wOGfT)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (u3fm3)
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 01:54 PM (IhQuA)
No it isn't, that's overplaying it. It's more along the lines of rules are supposed to apply to everybody. The media doesn't get to be the surrogate on this.
This will not hurt him overall and I think it will help in the primary.
I don't really think his main purpose in saying this is the BC anyway.
I think it's more to call to mind what a lame candidate McCain was for President.
Not attacking or fighting enough. Hayworth wants to show he's a fighter, not just an over the hill maverick.
Posted by: Rocks at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (Q1lie)
They don't have to. You don't go exclaiming "Fire can't melt steel." and then claim "I'm not a truther."
It just doesn't work.
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 09:59 AM (IhQuA)
But, in modern America, we don't get to use common sense on these kinds of things anymore. You can't say "He looks 21" and give him alcohol. Everyone must be carded.
You have to prove your existence in the most absurd situations. Ask the TSA where common sense comes in.
At the same time, it's water under the bridge. America didn't need to see his ID (and I think it's symptomatic of the whole Obama enterprise, all of his biographies were autobiographies and the 52% was fine with believing what he told them. I think pursuing this is a dead end. You don't get to wave your wand and make this all go away. Elections have consequences.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 27, 2010 10:00 AM (T0NGe)
Really, brah? That's not the impression I got when you wrote that people should just shut the fuck up about it because it makes us look like Truthers.
Yes, I remember this, too. You have tut-tutted the Birthers here all along, haven't you?
Posted by: Truman North at January 27, 2010 10:00 AM (e8YaH)
Posted by: Dan at January 27, 2010 10:00 AM (KZraB)
Oh for fuck sake. Thanks, JD, for confirming every leftist's cherished stereotype of conservatives as retarded helmet-haired used car salesmen in polyester spouting John Birch conspiracies.
Posted by: iowahawk
r u cereal, brah?
Do you really believe this, or are one of those hand-wringers who worries about giving the Democrats 'ammunition' to use against us?
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:01 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: C. Harles John & Son, Esq. at January 27, 2010 10:02 AM (pGBhi)
(1) His father's religion is down as Muslim (required in Hawaii certs at the time).
(2) m'Bonga got scholarships set aside only for foreign students. His parents had him down as an Indonesian citizen when they lived there. Children are not expected to be responsible for this...BUT
In cases where dual citizenship (one of them American) is available, for whatever reason, the child is required to choose one or the other between his 18 and 21st year.
I'll bet Barry didn't do this.
Posted by: trainer at January 27, 2010 10:03 AM (K5X44)
Dammit! Its an issue of "TRANSPARENCY"!
Every time some idiot: left, RINO or right, says "birther", scream back at them (and I mean Scream!) what about the promise of "TRANSPARENCY" ??? Birth certificate, school records, legislative records, health records....all of them!
Letting the other side define the debate by calling those who want to know this phony's background, "birthers", lets the bad guys win by default!
Stop these Basta*ds in their tracks by insisting the issue is"TRANSPARENCY" every time they shoot off their mouths on this and stop being afraid of the issue.!
Posted by: Earl T at January 27, 2010 10:03 AM (tUjCS)
I'm sure that Teh iWon - First Precedent and Magic Negro, Jugears Asshole Hussein, Keeper of Teh Skittle Shitting Unicorns of Hopenchangeyness has got a $100K+/yr. flunkie on staff that can do the phone/leg work on this, doesn't he??
Posted by: FORGER - Racist Czar at January 27, 2010 10:04 AM (o4Xi+)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:04 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at January 27, 2010 10:04 AM (NYsdu)
I'm ten clicks to the right of Attila the Hun, and the Birther clown show makes me nauseous.
Posted by: iowahawk at January 27, 2010 10:05 AM (veL4N)
Ok, my jaw hit my desk when I read that. Not how I remember you reacting to it but maybe it was another co-blogger(s) that had that reaction.
Posted by: Tami at January 27, 2010 10:05 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: turkeylurkey at January 27, 2010 10:06 AM (XqA0k)
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 10:06 AM (9UmL5)
Posted by: Dan at January 27, 2010 02:00 PM (KZraB)
Dead On Dan.Posted by: A Bouts at January 27, 2010 10:06 AM (oRbus)
Posted by: blackrockmarauder at January 27, 2010 10:07 AM (S51GN)
If you are a guy running for office and you believe in "lowering taxes" and "a global lizard alien conspiracy".
Which one should you focus on, if you wish to be elected? And which should you probably not mention?
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 10:07 AM (IhQuA)
Posted by: ChicagoJedi at January 27, 2010 10:07 AM (WZFkG)
I too am of the opinion that there is something embarrasing on his birth certificate, whether that is a different father, no father listed, religion listed I don't know.
But, I also would rather see his college transcripts because what I really want is proof that this guy is the "all that" we were told about over and over again by our "intellectual betters."
And, for the record, I believe his college transcripts will show that he isn't "all that" after all.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at January 27, 2010 10:08 AM (RZ8pf)
I think there's a difference between saying rules apply to everyone and saying oh noes Obama won't release it because he's an allllliiiieeeennn (of course I'm purposefully overstating). I don't see an inconsistency between supporting the one and critiquing the other. ymmv.
It also seems to me that there are two discussions going on here - one is the rules apply to everyone and the other is the practical effect of having such an issue raised. Not that one is more important than the other, they're both interesting and important. I think, perhaps, that people are talking past each other.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 27, 2010 10:08 AM (8WZWv)
Why is it so crazy to think Barack Obama was born in Indonesia?
His father was from where, and lived where? Obama has brothers all over the world, no?
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:10 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:10 AM (AZGON)
I'm ten clicks to the right of Attila the Hun, and the Birther clown show makes me nauseous.
But, but, the world is round so if you are ten clicks to the right, that makes you a leftist!! 1!eleventy1!!!
/sarc of course.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at January 27, 2010 10:10 AM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 10:11 AM (Yav4x)
Which one should you focus on, if you wish to be elected? And which should you probably not mention?
Depends, are you Kodos or Kang?
Posted by: alexthechick at January 27, 2010 10:11 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: Fox News at January 27, 2010 10:11 AM (a9UO0)
If you are a guy running for office and you believe in "lowering taxes" and "a global lizard alien conspiracy".
Which one should you focus on, if you wish to be elected? And which should you probably not mention?
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 02:07 PM (IhQuA)
Are you hypothetically running in MN?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 27, 2010 10:12 AM (7BU4a)
First and foremost. He has a, you know, COLB from Hawaii. The SOTU already said they aren't taking up a case on the BC issue. It's dead. It's pointless.
Secondly, it's a distraction from issues that people would agree with you on and further your agenda. That would help get people elected.
Posted by: lorien1973 at January 27, 2010 10:12 AM (IhQuA)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:13 AM (u3fm3)
To whom should he be proving this to?
There's no constitutional mandate that the Supreme Court or Congress or anyone accept such proof.
Should he just mail it to various people?
Surely it can't be 'the people'. I don't see how a press release would satisfy some supposed Constitutional mandate. Besides, 'the people' voted for him. Presumably that means they were satisfied he was eligible.
In the absence of someone identified by the Constitution or statute, I'm not sure who is doing this certifying.*
FTR- I think state Secretaries of State or whomever is responsible for putting candidates on ballots can demand this. The burden is on them to ask/demand it, not for him or any candidate to offer it up unbidden.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:13 AM (UAnTc)
wow, bet they aren't the only state with that problem. Wonder if 10% is the real true number?
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:13 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Rava at January 27, 2010 10:14 AM (ENK7J)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:14 AM (AZGON)
THIS.
Of course, we realize the Left will react to this by revoking that whole "proof of work eligibility" thing as part of amnesty...
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:15 AM (mR7mk)
I don't see an inconsistency between supporting the one and critiquing the other.
Of course. That reminds me of something. A long time ago when I was a kid working for a contractor in the summer I knew this guy from Idaho. His name was Bob Paxton. He was the foreman. One day he said to me, "Boner," he said, "there's nothing I hate more than an ass-kisser."
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:15 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: Rava at January 27, 2010 02:14 PM (ENK7J)
LMAO!
Posted by: Tami at January 27, 2010 10:15 AM (VuLos)
My 5 year old asked me why you had to pull over when the police came up behind you. Why don't you just run away? I told him that if you run away the police think you are a really bad guy and they will chase you and get other police to chase you to see who you really are and what you did.
We asked to see his birth certificate and he ran away. Now we want to know why he ran away. Why is that so weird? It makes him look guilty.
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 10:16 AM (9UmL5)
Iowahawk. Why do you let the LEFT write the rules of the game. The MSM is going to butt fuck any Conservative no matter what. I guess you're saying that Hayworth shouldn't ask a reasonable question because LIBTARDS might make fun of it? Who the FUCK are the LIBTARDS convincing?? Maybe Hayworth shouldn't criticize ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION because Olberman might get stiff??
FIGHT THESE MOTHERFUCKERS EVERY STEP, EVERY DAY.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:16 AM (Vqruj)
I have a feeling that if a birth certificate were duly produced, people would start saying that it was faked.
It's not like, should some certificate be produced and show he was born in Kenya, we could "undo" Obama's term.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 27, 2010 10:17 AM (eNxMU)
No change in interest rates for those who care.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:17 AM (p302b)
That being said, I would like to know what kind of documentation Obama provided to whichever regulatory body is entrusted with ensuring the legitimacy of presidential candidates. I'm not an expert on federal agencies, but I'd imagine that there is some sort of federal elections board that oversees such matters.
What standards does this agency adhere to, and did Obama meet those standards? Did this agency comply with its own standards in this case, or were there irregularities? These are all legitimate questions that, once answered, should lay this issue to rest for all reasonable people.
In short, what is the burden of proof as required by law, and did Obama meet that burden as determined by the duly appointed federal officials entrusted with answering that question?
Everything else is partisan conspiracy theory bullshit.
Posted by: Lee at January 27, 2010 10:17 AM (8cnnJ)
That's what concerns me about the various rulings on standing. Someone needs to verify this but who? Practically, it could be the same office that verifies eligibility for election for other offices on the state level. On this level, I like the idea of copy to Chief Justice of Supreme Court and a copy to the Chairman of say the Judiciary Committee.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 27, 2010 10:17 AM (8WZWv)
We all know by now that the original birth certificate contains at worst something embarrassing, like a blank name for father, or some other dude's name.
It's a needle to use when there's nothing else around, but it's not an issue that should be argued about at election time.
Game faces, people.
Posted by: s'moron at January 27, 2010 10:18 AM (p1s9n)
My 2 cents:
The right would be wise to drop the silly "show me the birth certificate" thing. It's not a winning proposition. It's beating a dead horse.
Drop it, already. We have bigger fish to fry.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 10:18 AM (0fzsA)
I still wonder how an innocent request for documentation that the rest of us proles are required to show got transmogrified into some knuckle-dragging, spittle-flecked, John Bircher, wild-eyed demand.
I don't recall asking the question in that way.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 27, 2010 10:18 AM (i3AsK)
The people that voted for this fool were satisfied that he wasn't George Bush, and that is all they gave a shit about.
Posted by: FORGER - Racist Czar at January 27, 2010 10:18 AM (o4Xi+)
I'm sure McCain would defend vigorously Obama if Obama was caught flying coach to Manhattan with a boxcutter in his shoe.
It's just solid Republicans that McCain hates.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 10:19 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:19 AM (AZGON)
Alien-human hybrid, maybe, but I'm not sure which planet's inhabitants have the jumbo ears.
He has a, you know, COLB from Hawaii.
So does his half-sister, who was born in Indonesia.
(My money has always been on "born in Hawaii, father's name is not Obama" Eligible liar.)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:19 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:20 AM (u3fm3)
Posted by: pajama momma at January 27, 2010 10:21 AM (275r1)
I think you'll discover that there is no such thing.
Posted by: tachyonshuggy at January 27, 2010 10:21 AM (yUybe)
If this nation is going to entrust the GOP, and if we want a real chance at getting rid of this horrible administration in 3 years -
It's time to FOCUS on real issues that matter. The birth certificate nonsense is a waste of precious time and energy.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 10:21 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Cubachi at January 27, 2010 10:22 AM (SXzw8)
All his lazy-ass hopey-changey gullible-as-shit bandwagon pop-culture-brainwashed supporters who elected him get a flash of insight, and the whole miserable worthless cult-of-personality POTUS experience is not repeated in my lifetime.
OK, yeah, that first part will never happen.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:22 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:22 AM (AZGON)
So does his half-sister, who was born in Indonesia.
I did NOT know that.
My money is still on embarrassing information to the bastard-god-child
Posted by: s'moron at January 27, 2010 10:23 AM (p1s9n)
Heather,
I've heard that but has anyone ever produced it?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:23 AM (UAnTc)
Next door to me lives an extremely agreeable wonderful bi-racial family. They have 7 sweet wonderful children. I have had the pleasure of seeing three of them come into the world. All three appeared white at birth and were significantly lighter than my part italian children. I think Obama's birth certificate said he was born caucasian. That tidbit would throw a wrench in the gears of "The first Black President."
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 10:23 AM (9UmL5)
tell me... what does the ipad do that's so damn special?
I was in Staples yesterday looking at those cute little netbooks. You can buy them cheap for under $200 on shmeebay. The problem with them is they come with some lame-ass Windows 7 Starter with no Microsoft Word!
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:24 AM (jVldi)
Professor Obama's solution for Economic problems - Let's Break up and do some Groupwork!
What a fucking tool. Proposing a bi-partisan comission to study anything is akin to putting on a puppet-show for us kiddies. I'd call it Kabuki, but Obama has only seen the tops of his shoes when he's visiting foreign nations...I don't think he knows what Kabuki is.
Posted by: garrett at January 27, 2010 10:24 AM (ENK7J)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 02:20 PM (u3fm3)
Please show me who is empowered by the Constitution to accept and or verify it.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:25 AM (UAnTc)
That is not an argument for a Constitutional Republic. People voted for Roger Calero, too, and he isn't an American. He does not even have US citizenship!
Further, every poll I've seen on this points to the idea that most Americans have grave doubts about The Precedent's veracity about his birth/nationality issues. The fact is, though, that The Precedent has admitted, himself, to holding other citizenship and that obviates any natural born status he might have had. Dual citizens are not in the class of natural born citizens. Anyone who disagrees should understand that they are arguing for the proposition that someone holding 132 other citizenships is eligible to be President, so long as s/he was born here or to American parents, which is so insane (especially seeing that the Founders didn't even allow American dual citizens) that I don't know what to call it.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:25 AM (A46hP)
This is also part of a larger issue, which is that there are vast periods of time in this man's past that have been deliberately concealed. Why is that? It is not unreasonable to ask. It isn't like he hasn't been caught lying about his past already. If he was an above board kind of guy the birth certificate issue wouldn't be a big deal but such is not the case.
His entire history has been carefully manufactured by his handlers. I have always believed there are people in Chicago and elsewhere that know things that would DEMOLISH Obama if they were inclined to share them. Maybe as his approval tanks it makes it more likely those facts will come out.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 27, 2010 10:25 AM (9zzk+)
Let me make it simple for you dimwits. Obama is required to provide a authentic birth certificate proving he was born in the U.S.
What's the problem with that. Why the secrecy, why the faccimile?
He told us he'd be transparent. He isn't. He lies about everything.
Why all the secrecy surrouding any record pertaining to Obama?
I'll wait.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:25 AM (Vqruj)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:25 AM (u3fm3)
Well, since he was never vetted in the least and we certainly see the results of that, what is the problem with ex post facto vetting?
Start with the academic records and work our way down....
He's just one quarter of the way in and he's already deep in late Carterite territory. By 2012, the Dims will be glad to get rid of him.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 10:26 AM (dcKUM)
No shit. Last i checked, a person was required to be born in America in order to qualify to be it's President. Is it really unreasonable to request that the people who want to be President show proof that they're eligible? No, it's not. What is unreasonable is throwing a hissy fit when said proof is requested. What are those hissy fit throwers afraid of?
Posted by: koopy at January 27, 2010 10:26 AM (XllG0)
Posted by: SarahW at January 27, 2010 10:26 AM (CSrvi)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 27, 2010 10:26 AM (i3AsK)
Obama should produce this thing just to shut up his critics, and that's probably exactly why he won't. He knows its a non-issue and wants them to waste their energy on this.
Posted by: looking closely at January 27, 2010 10:26 AM (PwGfd)
Really, brah? That's not the impression I got when you wrote that people should just shut the fuck up about it because it makes us look like Truthers.
I was thinking the same thing as I read this. What gives, Ace? I never jumped on board with the toxicity of the "birther" label. It was given a label by the Left just so it could be mocked. Personally, I see nothing wrong with asking that this very basic Constitutional requirement be met. It's total balderdash that it's poo-poo'd away as some joke.
Posted by: Twinks at January 27, 2010 10:28 AM (LeFbD)
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 02:25 PM (Vqruj)
Please show me the words "authentic birth certificate" in the US Constitution.
I'll wait.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:28 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:28 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 02:25 PM (UAnTc)
We've been through this before, but, in lieu of a Constitutional amendment that detailed the operational definiton of 'natural born citizen' it is up to the SCOTUS to decide the operational definition. It was obvious enough to the Founders - because they had no dual citizens and natural born Americans, to them, were people who were born American and had never been anything but American. That definition didn't change just because our government got lazy and started allowing Americans to hold as many different citizenships as they wanted.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:29 AM (A46hP)
The most moronic line I've ever read on this blog.
""Besides, 'the people' voted for him. Presumably that means they were satisfied he was eligible."
Beyond stupid.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:29 AM (Vqruj)
Interesting.
What would happen if a super-polarized state (say Idaho or Rhode Island) says that it won't list a candidate on the ballot for President until they provide proper documentation of their eligibility to hold the office (eg a birth certificate)?
Posted by: looking closely at January 27, 2010 10:29 AM (PwGfd)
I guess I just want to know, what is the end game for everyone who demands to see the birth certificate? What is it they want to happen. And please don't tell me that "Obama is found to be ineligible and thrown out" because that isn't going to happen.......
That is an interesting observation/question. What would be the correct course to follow if it was found that Obama was ineligible? Clearly people fear there would be riots, perhaps even a civil war. Do we then allow a fraud to stand because of the fear of upheaval? I'm not sure myself and I'm somewhat ambivalent on the whole issue, primarily because I think if there was dirt to unearth, the Clinton machine would have found it and used it. They didn't and I don't think that was because they supported Obama's victory.
But it would bother me deeply at a fundamental level if a fraudulent election was allowed to stand. It would tell me what I've been suspecting for a while - the rules are whatever the fuck the left decides them to be.
Posted by: LGoPs at January 27, 2010 10:30 AM (tm/sN)
"Obama should produce it. I had to produce mine to get into Little League baseball, I don't think it is too much to ask for Obama to produce his to prove his qualification for the most powerful job on the planet."
By law, you have to produce a birth certificate or other documentation proving citizenship to get almost any government job in the country. IMHO, if you need to produce documentation before you can get a job with the DMV or streets and san, surely it's not too onerous to produce that documentation before becoming president.
Posted by: Brown Line at January 27, 2010 10:30 AM (VrNoa)
We could use Fox News' time machine.
DrewM--Good question...I don't have a PDF of it or anything; I believe I read about that here in the comments.
Huh. The sister's husband, who is Canadian, got a job at the Smithsonian last summer. Wonder if he had to provide proof of work eligibility.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:30 AM (mR7mk)
I was anti-birther last year when it was Orly Taitz and other such people questioning Obama's citizenship. I especially didn't like how some bloggers, including Pat Dollard, were aiming that message to the US military. I viewed them as traitors trolling for a coup.
I'm afraid that I still find birth certificate "skepticism" to be toxic, even if dressed up in a principle of "transparency".
This is not something we want to associate ourselves with.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 10:31 AM (9Sbz+)
Speaking of Presidents, here's a OT joke that LBJ loved to tell:
A politician goes on the stump and says to the crowd "My opponent Billy Wilson fucks sheep!" And the crowd goes wild.
His manager pulls him aside and says "Are you nuts? You know that Wilson doesn't fuck sheep!"
And the politician smiles and says ""Yeah, but I sure love watching him deny it."
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 10:31 AM (dcKUM)
Also, if we ask questions about his background the left will call us crazy racists? Like they wouldn't anyways?
Posted by: HHKirst at January 27, 2010 10:31 AM (DUwm4)
What would be the correct course to follow if it was found that Obama was ineligible?
He would need to resign. Period.
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 10:32 AM (9UmL5)
The Constitution lists few requirements for a president. Obama may not meet them. Should we say "oh, what the hell?" and let it ride? What other lies and evasions will we forgive?
Seems to me we might as well wad the Constitution up and use it for toilet paper if we don't have the will to follow its dictates.
It is not a "non-issue." McCain provided proof that he is eligible to be president; Obama did not. And, if he is not eligible, he should lose his office, just as if he had committed one of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that render him impeachable.
That's all there is to it. Produce the proof, and he's home free.
Posted by: Chapeau du Tinfoil at January 27, 2010 10:32 AM (h7Kel)
Otherwise, it probably won't interest you, but millions are loving their iPhones.
And this concerns me.
People up here are putting Apple stickers (little Mac stickers) on their cars. It's weird when someone loves a company's product so much they put a sticker on their cars.
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:32 AM (jVldi)
I don't think it goes that far. One doesn't need to believe any particular thing to stand for the proposition that given the Constitution only lays out two (?) prerequisites for assuming the most powerful office on earth -- age of 35 or older and "natural born" citizenship -- any candidate contending for that office should have the burden, without a lot of arguing about it, of proving his qualifications.
Ace...this is exactly the point I made to you some weeks back. Your position ...pretty much...was that they have already offered up enough documentation ...so "Shut up, that's why".(Their standard argument)..and that in your mind it was settled
I, too, think he should release the full birth certificate, The director of the Hawai'i dept of health has reported that she has the seen the original birth certificate...but then in a subsequent statement chnaged the term to "vital record".
Hawai'i is and always has been, a very transient place and it was common to accept those born outside the US as citizens....accepting a sworn affadavit of birth in lieu or in addition to of an actual BC
So..it is very possible that the vital record that Fukino refrred to is not the original BC...but could be the affadavit..which means he could very well possibly not be natural born as his mother because of her age and residency requirements does not fit the requirements.
My point is...why can't they just release his long form birth certificate...making all this go away?????
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 10:33 AM (AnTyA)
DrewM have you been sniffing glue? How many birth certificates do you have? The Constitution requires proof of natural born status. That proof is a birth certificate. I'm curious, why you would post something so moronic.
Do you believe that Opie has proven his birth status?
Maybe you were just kidding around, because you certainly cannot be as stupid as your post indicates. Right?
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:33 AM (Vqruj)
Heather,
Yeah, there's a lot of that with this issue. I find it's best to be very skeptical about claims like that, they don't usually pan out.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:34 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:34 AM (p302b)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:34 AM (mR7mk)
I guess I just want to know, what is the end game for everyone who demands to see the birth certificate? What is it they want to happen. And please don't tell me that "Obama is found to be ineligible and thrown out" because that isn't going to happen.......
But it would guaran-fucking-tee that he wouldn't get a second term
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 10:35 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 10:35 AM (i3PJU)
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 10:36 AM (9UmL5)
I'm afraid that I still find birth certificate "skepticism" to be toxic, even if dressed up in a principle of "transparency".
Duly noted. But just so everyone knows, you stopped your LGF de-programming before the process was complete.
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:36 AM (jVldi)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:36 AM (AZGON)
Yes, by all means, let's demand that Obama produces his birth certificate. In CAPS LOCK. I mean Barack HUUUSSSSEEEEIIIINNNNN!!! Obama. When he does, it will obviously be a FORGERY just like the last one, obviously FORGED birth announcement in the FORGED Honolulu "newspaper." Then, let's DEMAND that Congress look into the COVER-UP, and purge any GOP candidates who don't get on board be PURGED, because they are obviously IN ON THE SCHEME, because they are BEHOLDEN to the FIAT MONEY INTERESTS.
Only when the plot is finally revealed will the TRUE conservatives TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!! because the electorate will be so grateful that we rid our land of Barack HUUUSSSSEEEEIIIINNNNN!!! Obama.
Posted by: iowahawk at January 27, 2010 10:37 AM (veL4N)
I'm not so familiar with this issue so forgive me if I say something that is a given for those in the know. But, I think a lot of people were not really satisfied with what went on in Hawaii. Have heard regular folks say that before they became a state and even after a lot of weird stuff went on there.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:37 AM (p302b)
You state something as an affirmative fact (while insulting people who might not agree with you):
Let me make it simple for you dimwits. Obama is required to provide a authentic birth certificate proving he was born in the U.S.
He's provided a COLB. That's good enough for Hayworth's football analogy and you say, 'no it's not!'.
I'm simply asking you to show me where you specific document is written into the Constitution or statute.
Try backing up your 'facts' instead of insulting others sometime.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:37 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 10:38 AM (wuv1c)
What would happen if convincing (that's key) evidence emerged that Obama was NOT a natural born US citizen?
First of all, I don't think its going to happen. Clearly Obama's mom was a US citizen at the time of his birth, and I believe that makes him one all by itself. If Obama isn't a "natural born" citizen, then when did he become one, and how?
But lets say, for the sake of argument that evidence emerges that Obama was born in Kenya, and never applied for US citizenship.
There would be a partisan fight over this; if it were devisive enough it could go the US Supreme Court, and in THEORY the SCOTUS could unseat him. . . making Joe Biden President.
Hurray (?). . .
Posted by: looking closely at January 27, 2010 10:38 AM (PwGfd)
He's provided a COLB
I have no skin in this game, as the point is moot to america at this point as he is already the president. But what exactly is a Certificate of Live Birth? Do we all have one? Is that something issued by the hospital for their records that they keep or is it issued to the parents? Should I have one?
I had never really heard of one until this argument came about concerning BHO's birth.
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 10:40 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 02:35 PM (i3PJU)
Constitutonal eligibility for the Presidency is not based solely on the circumstances of ones birth. You can relinquish or lose your US citizenship and you can lose natural born status. Holding other citizenships obviates whatever natural born status one might have (though the SCOTUS needs to to rule on this). A birth certificate is not the last word on natural born status, especially for someone who ADMITS to having held other citizenship (Kenyan) and won't talk about Indonesian citizenship that it seems very likely he also held.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:40 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: zanne at January 27, 2010 10:41 AM (CqSMT)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:41 AM (u3fm3)
Because he produced a birth certificate. It was accepted. That's the end of the story. It may not be the version you want but it was accepted. If you're looking to have elections officials demand a particular version then a law has to be written.
Find a congressman, get him to write it, get it to pass and then come back to the table with it. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind and wasting time, that's why.
Posted by: Iskandar at January 27, 2010 10:41 AM (/o58C)
dangy 119, "He would need to resign. Period. "
Yes, he would NEED to resign, but he probably wouldn't. He then could count on the major cities and the black troops in the Army to support him. I, personally, do not want a ('n other) civil war with racial undertones. (But with added English Civil War nostalgia!)
Anyway this is all moot because he's a natural-born citizen, who is using this issue to make his opponents look bad.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 10:42 AM (9Sbz+)
I have a proof stamp on more than a few barrels that I own. I don't need to run high-power ammo through them to find out if it is certain that they will take it.
If the Hawaiian gov't would not verify the birth as being in Hawaii, I would have serious concerns. As it is now, it just looks like teh Won is continuing to cover up his embarrassing, bastard child, third world, C- past.
He a complete liar. That doesn't make the Hawaii gov't one.
Posted by: s'moron at January 27, 2010 10:42 AM (p1s9n)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:42 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2010 10:42 AM (AiIXV)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:43 AM (p302b)
That's why he doesn't want us to see it.
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 02:01 PM (9UmL5)
------------------------------------------------------
Now that would be excellent. It would explain the secrecy, too.
And Drew, your blog boss is now a Birther. Hope you and the other douchebag lawyer here are happy with that.
Posted by: angryoldfatman at January 27, 2010 10:43 AM (Yw4kE)
It's what Hawaii gives out when you ask for a birth certificate. It's accepted by all state agencies and the federal government (at least for passports, which is what I checked at one point).
Sorry, I don't have time to dig out the links from previous incarnations of this fight but you can start at the Hawaii Department of Health's website.
I got the same basic thing from NY and used it to get my passport, drivers license,, etc.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:43 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 02:25 PM (UAnTc)
So ... are you saying that there is nothing to check about Constitutional prescriptions for the Presidency and ANYONE is eligible to be US President, since you don't think anyone has the power to check and verify whatever 'natural born citizen' might mean?
Oh, that's a great argument.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:43 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: RobAlloyIV at January 27, 2010 10:44 AM (TqQ9r)
If I were a democrat I would be pushing this meme, just from reading the comments board I'm kinda disgusted by the condescension from each side.
My feelings on this issue is that it doesn't really matter. He's president. The only way you can get rid of him is voting in November 2012. That's it. Focus on that. Leave this issue by the wayside. Don't even address it because absolutely nothing good can come of it.
Ask youself this, if something happened and it was found out he wasnt born in America, what do you think would happen? Is there a constitutional recourse? Would America really throw out its first black president? What do you think would result in? Riots on the scale of 1968 after MLK was killed? Worse? A permanent, unrepairable division between black and white?
Focus on November 2010 and 2012 if you really want to defeat Obama.
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 10:44 AM (wuv1c)
Drew, I stated a fact. Obama is required to prove his natural born status.
He hasn't.
Other than that, you can fuck yourself.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:45 AM (Vqruj)
Maybe the media will discover the majority is not so keen on turning the country over to this group of frauds. (and that those ignorant knuckle draggers are not subscribing or tuning in to their leftist diatribe)
And yeah ... where are those college papers our Genius in Chief was cranking out in his formative years. If the media pillories him ... he'll turn into the Succubus.
Posted by: bill at January 27, 2010 10:45 AM (waEDp)
Oh, barf. "'Cause, like, ya know, man, those number crunchers and math types are so square, dude. We're all artistic, 'n' stuff."
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 02:42 PM (AZGON)"
Yesterday Erin Burnett interviewed the McGraw Hill guy. he gave away way too much info and she went into another person's show to get it. But, think about it, they are making textbooks for this thing and they were just thrilled.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:45 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 02:40 PM (wuv1c)
It's what Hawaii gives out when you ask for a birth certificate. It's accepted by all state agencies and the federal government (at least for passports, which is what I checked at one point).
Sorry, I don't have time to dig out the links from previous incarnations of this fight but you can start at the Hawaii Department of Health's website.
I got the same basic thing from NY and used it to get my passport, drivers license,, etc.
thanks for the explanation. I was honestly ignorant of what it was. I had never heard of it before. I have my birth certificate and never had to apply for another one or copy, so I, like most people, am unfamiliar with the process of getting one.
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 10:46 AM (wuv1c)
I think the Birth Certificate stuff is nonsense, but it's rather odd that Obama doesn't have one to produce. Maybe he lost it. It happens.
But then we ask about his transcripts from Columbia, and Occidental, and Harvard...he won't release them.
Then there's the questions about tuition. How did he pay for Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard law? That's got to be a over $100,000 in tuition alone. Where do you live cheap in Manhattan? What about Cambridge?
I really don't care about the birth certificate, but if he lost it just say you lost it. Hawaii says they can't reproduce one anyway. Their records were vaporized.
Posted by: WTFCI at January 27, 2010 10:46 AM (GtYrq)
Learning that the Great and Powerful Oz is just a shrivel-y white guy hiding behind a facade...that might leave a mark.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 27, 2010 10:46 AM (mR7mk)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (p302b)
Posted by: iowahawk at January 27, 2010 02:37 PM (veL4N)
You'd be amazed in a year of two what people will think of Barack Obama if this shit keeps up. The whole idea will be to keep him from a second term.
His defenders are already running for the exits.
It's classic FUD:
Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt
I'm not a Birther, and I believe that he is a natural born citizen, but I understand why people are demanding that he pony up all the shit that he has been able to hide from normal vetting.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (dcKUM)
strange .
I swear it was The Dem party that came out with a plan ( a couple of days ago) to GET Republicans to ask this question.
i want to know why a Republican would comply.
Posted by: reich at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (7FgWm)
With Obama's case, the only way that could possibly be is if he was born on US Soil (his parents couldn't possibly be the reason, one was only a citizen for less than a year, the other a non-citizen). I'm setting aside the dual-citizenship issue for now.
Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Kansas to parents who were American citizens.
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (kJLH9)
There has to be a birth certificate post at least once a month, is that how it works?
The topic annoys me, yet I cannot resist clicking on the comments....
Posted by: Luca Brasi at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:47 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 10:48 AM (i3PJU)
What would be the correct course to follow if it was found that Obama was ineligible?
He would need to resign. Period.
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2010 02:32 PM (9UmL5)
If he were found ineligible then there would be nothing to resign from, since he would have never been able to assume the office, to start (like a minor signing a contract - it's just void and meaningless). This is obvious when you think of why ROberts administered the oath twice. The first one had a word or two screwed up, so Roberts thought that it would not have been legally binding and did it again. If the Precedent were found inelgible, then that second oath would have also not been legally binding, since an ineligible person cannot take such an oath. The operation of the government would continue as if the Precedent had just died.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:48 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: SarahW at January 27, 2010 10:48 AM (CSrvi)
There's no chance Obama will be removed from office over his birth certificate. Best to focus our attention on what really matters.
Posted by: darii at January 27, 2010 10:48 AM (RdrW8)
I know - instead of taking this huge opportunity to focus on how the democrats are destroying the economy with their progressive tax & spend destruction - and crazy statist programs - lets focus on the birther nonsense. The left are hoping we do. Great idea - GOP.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (0fzsA)
WTFCI. Maybe Obama lost it. Maybe the DOG ate it. Maybe he was born on Uranus,
I don't waist a lot of time worrying and wondering. BUT.
It's OBAMA'S ONUS to PROVIDE IT. NOT OUR ONUS TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
Kook aid drinkers and idiots like DREWM are satisfied or don't care. What if Sarah Palin ran and didn't have hers?
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (Vqruj)
WTFCI. Maybe Obama lost it. Maybe the DOG ate it. Maybe he was born on Uranus,
I don't waist a lot of time worrying and wondering. BUT.
It's OBAMA'S ONUS to PROVIDE IT. NOT OUR ONUS TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
Kook aid drinkers and idiots like DREWM are satisfied or don't care. What if Sarah Palin ran and didn't have hers?
Read
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (Vqruj)
That's a bit, um, circuitous.
I'd offer the following...
The Constitution vests the power of actually electing the President in the Electoral College and the Congress with certifying their results.
Neither body can fulfill its function with an unqualified candidate (the electors can't elect him if he's not eligible and Congress couldn't certify the election of unqualified candidate).
Now, there's nothing that lays out how those bodies go about reaching their conclusions as to eligibility as laid out in Artilce II so it has to be presumed it's up to them.
The Courts have no role here and electing a President is a delegated power so the X Amendment doesn't come into play.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (UAnTc)
The topic annoys me, yet I cannot resist clicking on the comments....
Posted by: Luca Brasi at January 27, 2010 02:47 PM (YmPwQ)
Ditto
Posted by: darii at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (RdrW8)
As I understand it, an affidavit signed by Nancy Pelosi was provided to the various state agencies after the Democratic convention.
I'm not an expert on federal agencies, but I'd imagine that there is some sort of federal elections board that oversees such matters.Nope.
79 So does his half-sister, who was born in Indonesia.
AFAIK, this is just speculation that arose from folks staring at JPEG artifacts in the released COLB. Someone decided it was indication that someone else's certificate had been photoshopped and someone else thought that his sister's name could be shoved into the JPEG artifacts. It caught fire from there. If you have more solid info about this, I'd love to see a cite.
87 My money is still on embarrassing information to the bastard-god-child
My money's on it being largely blank. There's allegedly a passage in Dreams From My Father where he talks about finding his birth certificate in his grandmother's stuff and wondering why his name wasn't on it.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle at January 27, 2010 10:49 AM (3K4hn)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:50 AM (u3fm3)
Yes, I agree there is not time to ask Obama for his birth certificate.
None at all. Sex monster. You best run along and do the heavy lifting for us.
We're busy focusing on minutia and making LIBS happy.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:51 AM (Vqruj)
Meh. Just go buy a copy of Office 97 off eBay for $20 to go with it.
Then download the free Word viewer from MS that handles all the more recent formats. I'm still using Office 97 and it works fine.
OpenOffice works too, but is distinctly more ummm...Rubenesque than the MS product.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 10:51 AM (Yav4x)
The Hayworth/McCain battle will be fought in a fairly red state. I doubt the birth certificate stuff would have helped Scott Brown. This stuff won't play well in every state. Why bother?
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 10:51 AM (0fzsA)
FORGED birth announcement in the FORGED Honolulu "newspaper
Different reports have Obama born in two different hospitals..Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital..neither has confirmed nor denied..
...as far as the birth announcement in the newspaper..that proves nothing..Obama's grandmother was a bank VP and so was in some pretty savvy circles...as I mentioned above...Hawai'i is a very transient place...and issues of birth locations would be very common...in fact, it was practice by the state to grant citizenship to a pesron based only on a sworn affadavit that the indiviudal was born in Hawai'i..even though there was documentation he/she was born elesewhere...even outside the country..
...now Madelyn Dunham..the grandmother...could have had the foresight there might be problems with the fact that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant by a thirty-something married man...and it's quite possible she sought the advice and council of educated and experienced friends..and /or a lawyer and had the announcement made up and placsd in the paper to help avoid issues of his birth down the road..
plausible??...sure...likely?? ...who the fuck knows??
But why not just release the fucking BC if there is nothing to hide???
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 10:52 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:52 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 10:52 AM (i3PJU)
The 30% or so that always sticks with it's party, R or D, wouldn't, but the remaining 70%? Yeah, i think they would throw him out if it came to light he wasn't eligible and had lied to them. And if there are riots, so what? If kicking an ineligible liar out of office creates an unrepairable rift between black and white people, then there really wasn't any commonality there to begin with.
Posted by: koopy at January 27, 2010 10:52 AM (XllG0)
Better not to get drawn in. Let's go kick some ass, rather than fall into their trap. If GOP candidates are prepared to deal with this issue quickly and show it as the trick that it is, they'll be well served.
Posted by: darii at January 27, 2010 10:52 AM (RdrW8)
He hasn't.
Other than that, you can fuck yourself.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 02:45 PM (Vqruj)
No you stated he needed to produce a very specific type of document...
Let me make it simple for you dimwits. Obama is required to provide a authentic birth certificate proving he was born in the U.S.
I love how you are trying to pretend you didn't say something when it's, I don't know, right on the same page as your new claim.
BTW- You're the only one who has been calling names. Why so hostile just because I asked you to back up your claim?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 10:53 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 10:53 AM (u3fm3)
This exchange, along with the DNC memo of questions to ask GOP candidates, shows the left wants to divert focus from the real issues facing America. And by real issues I mean the fact the Democrats are screwing us over.
Better not to get drawn in. Let's go kick some ass, rather than fall into their trap. If GOP candidates are prepared to deal with this issue quickly and show it as the trick that it is, they'll be well served.
Yeah as i said in 156, if I were a democrat I would be pushing this like crazy as well. Regardless of how you feel this isn't a winning issue. If the republicans can side step minor issues in interviews why can't they side step this one?
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 10:54 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:54 AM (AZGON)
So Chaz, the COLB is NOT PROOF of natural born citizen status?
Alynski says to hold your opponents to their own standards.
Libs have no standards. Obama is a fraud.
In conclusion, we DO NOT KNOW if Obama was born in the U.S.
I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying he hasn't proven he was. Obama has had opponents thrown off of ballots for lesser offenses than this lack of proof.
Alynski rules. read them.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:54 AM (Vqruj)
188 - thank you.
And you think this is a productive use of time and political capital, huh? Pursuing a marginal issue that has little popular support and is so far down on the list of people's actual concerns that it is probably rated as a national priority somewhere between "getting my dog to stop shedding" and "printing larger expiration dates on milk jugs".
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 10:54 AM (0fzsA)
It may not matter. I think he's going to have some kind of a breakdown in the next year, in any case. There is something very wrong and weird about BHO.
We can all agree on that...
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 10:55 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: patrick hegarty at January 27, 2010 10:56 AM (L8gxJ)
Posted by: WTFCI at January 27, 2010 02:46 PM (GtYrq)
The problem is that he (Ayers) wrote in one of The Precedent's books that he was looking at his birth certificate, sitting right in front of him.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 02:47 PM (Vqruj)
Heh. Drew and I have the exact same arguments every time a thread on this comes up. At least Gabe admitted that he thought the Constitution would allow someone holding 73 other citizenships to hold the US Presidency, which I think most people just find to be a crazy idea, and seeing what the Founders thought about just dual alliegances ... out of this world.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:56 AM (A46hP)
Apple puts them in the box with the stuff. They've been doing it since the Apple II days, only then it was a rainbow sticker. People have been sticking them on their car since then.
Posted by: Anachronda at January 27, 2010 10:57 AM (3K4hn)
ha! Purple Avenger, I still have the Office97 I bought for cheap in 2002!
but the problem with netbooks is they don't have CD drives.
Posted by: This is boner at January 27, 2010 10:57 AM (jVldi)
Mallamutt, the candidacy petition has NOTHING to do with the Constitutional REQUIREMENT to natural born status.
If Obama was 23 and no one challenged his candidacy he could not be seated.
Obama has been challenged. Obama did not prove his natural born status.
I may be over ruled by a court in my opinion. Often you and I both are.
But if you want to tell me that he has proven his natural born status, give it a shot.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 10:57 AM (Vqruj)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 10:57 AM (AZGON)
If the State of HI has released a certificate of live Birth listing Obama, then I think that proves he is a US born citizen.
Maybe its not exactly the same as a birth certificate, or not as satisfying to his critics, but I think its conclusive proof in the legal sense. The same document would be accepted in any court in the country as legal proof of someone's birth.
More to the point, its too late now. The time for this sort of vetting was when he was looking for the Democrat nomination, not now. In practice, Obama has taken the oath of office and he simply is NOT going to be unseated over this nonsense.
Posted by: looking closely at January 27, 2010 10:58 AM (PwGfd)
Perhaps you should read the link I provided, Hawaii has released statements (at least twice now) saying they have it.
Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2010 10:58 AM (AiIXV)
Just one more indicator for those paying attention that the press doesn't pay attention to issues that might be embarrassing for their preferred candidates. And demonstrating again the principles that no one is 'above' the rules and hoops that us peons are forced to meet and jump through.
But really, who the cares what happens? Finding out the truth is its own reward.
Posted by: MlR at January 27, 2010 10:59 AM (0G5pp)
Dead wrong. Again, under established law, once a facially valid Petition of Candidacy has been filed, any challenges to the validity of the Petition falls on the challenger (those who do not believe that Obama is a natural born citizen) and not the candidate.
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 02:54 PM (V9SYy)
Incorrect. The SecStates had the responsibility to verify eligibility and several of them (in the D'Onofrio case, to name one) testified that they didn't check anything but took the word of the party. That's why Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua and not even an American citizen (he's a green card holder) was on the ballot for President in 6 states in 2008 - one of them being New Jersey where D'Onofrio filed his case and whose SecState admitted to checking NOTHING.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 10:59 AM (A46hP)
News Flash!!
Dan Rather forges President Obama's birth certificate.
Mary Mapes refusing to answer questions.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 27, 2010 10:59 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: SarahW at January 27, 2010 11:00 AM (CSrvi)
Both of my daughters' COLB, in NYS, have all of that information on it. Place of birth, date, time, parents, witnesses, doctor.
I imagine it varies by locale. In some places COLB does = Birth Certificate.
Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2010 11:00 AM (v0kvW)
Posted by: Crusty at January 27, 2010 11:00 AM (GvSpB)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 27, 2010 11:00 AM (2wWCQ)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 11:00 AM (muUqs)
For every crazed Bircher-type who believes Obama must be some fraudulent Manchurian candidate, I suspect there are 100 or more others who just want to see it because...why the hell not?
In any event, it would be just swell if the anti-Birthers could tone down their own spittle-flecked excesses when it comes to responding to this relatively mundane matter.
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 11:02 AM (LIH4p)
It has to have a LAN jack though. Just network it to a desktop and share out the desktop's CD over the LAN and assign it a drive letter on the netbook and run the install over the LAN. I do this all the time to load stuff on machines I've removed the CD from or are so old they never had one.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 11:02 AM (Yav4x)
Dr Spanky, DrewM will use the typical libtard tactic of calling you hostile.
It's fucking pathetic.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 11:02 AM (Vqruj)
Do you really want to know where Barack HHHHHUUUUSSSSEEEIIINNN!!!!! Obama's real birth certificate is?
Solve the word scramble:
TIRG PAILN
Layers and layers.
Posted by: Deep Uterus at January 27, 2010 11:02 AM (veL4N)
I recently noticed that my own "birth certificate" is, in fact, a Certificate of Live Birth.
So what the hell do I know?
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 11:03 AM (LIH4p)
That's rich, considering the most hostile rhetoric is coming from a Birther in this here thread. One who wants to be taken seriously while telling people to go fuck themselves and spelling Alinsky wrong.
Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2010 11:04 AM (v0kvW)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 11:04 AM (u3fm3)
It's here (pdf).
I know just railing about what you think the law should be is fun but why not trying to argue, I don't know, what the law actually is for a change?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 11:04 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 27, 2010 11:04 AM (DIYmd)
Dr Spanky, DrewM will use the typical libtard tactic of calling you hostile.
It's fucking pathetic.
You make personal attacks, and object to being called hostile?
Dude, you're a fucking asshole.
Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2010 11:05 AM (v0kvW)
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 11:05 AM (wuv1c)
I love when people who can't back up their arguments or admit they are changing them mid course call me pathetic.
It's almost like they (and by they, I mean you) have no clue what they are talking about.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 11:06 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 11:07 AM (i3PJU)
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:07 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:07 AM (p302b)
Posted by: RushBabe at January 27, 2010 11:08 AM (LKkE8)
Posted by: Crusty at January 27, 2010 03:00 PM (GvSpB)
Hehehe sounds like the story of Dr. Evil.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 27, 2010 11:08 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: SarahW at January 27, 2010 03:00 PM (CSrvi)
How does arguing about the birth certificate help you stop the Democrats in congress? Republicans need voters to focus on how bad the Dems are screwing us over, not to get sidetracked into a debate over Obama's birth certificate.
Say they release the long form certificate and it proves Obama's legitimate? How does that help Republican candidate X get elected?
I don't think the certificate will be released any time soon, if ever. Arguing over it is wasted energy plain and simple. It does not produce political capital.
Posted by: darii at January 27, 2010 11:08 AM (RdrW8)
What I AM surprised at is the acceptance by folks on the right that this label is valid, and can be used against our own. Why are some so willing to accept the words that the left uses to reduce people from folks asking common sense questions, to folks in need of a psychiatrist?
He who owns the words controls the debate. And the right just keeps wearing those words.
Posted by: mama winger at January 27, 2010 11:09 AM (677gh)
Why are you ignoring what I wrote to you? The Sec State of New Jersey ADMITTED to not checking anything, even though state law REQUIRED it, but just taking the parties' word for the eligibility of their candidates. The only reason the D'Onofrio case didn't go on was because the courts decided that voters have no standing in establishing the eligibility of candidates that they can vote for. That ruling was, of course, insane.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:09 AM (A46hP)
This topic predates this thread, and there is no shortage of hostility on the part of "anti-Birthers."
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 11:09 AM (LIH4p)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 11:09 AM (u3fm3)
It's almost like they (and by they, I mean you) have no clue what they are talking about.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 03:06 PM (UAnTc)
pwnage
Posted by: darii at January 27, 2010 11:09 AM (RdrW8)
Every American of voting age has had to produce an original or certified copy of their actual birth certificate, multiple times, for far less reasons than POTUS. In other words: It's No Big Deal.
That someone asks for 0bama to produce his, simply will not trigger the electoral apocalypse that the left hopes for and the hand wringers fear.
Posted by: Rebar at January 27, 2010 11:10 AM (Or4Gk)
The law up until was 1986 required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'. Obama's mother was 18 when she gave birth to her bastard son...so that requirement was not met.
The COLB that Obama produced has NEVER been verified by anyone with the state of Hawi'i as being true and accurate.
It was/is possible to have been born outside Hawai'i..even outside the country...and still be granted citizenship by the state
Obama never has proven he is natural born and therefore eligible
All he has to do is authorize the state to release his birth records. Why hasn't he?
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (AnTyA)
If you only listen to one source of news, you get trapped in a delusional world.
This is a big issue because it is SO EASY to show how ridiculous it is.
Posted by: Joya at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (1+c7l)
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (wPZU5)
You're supposed to use the Rules For Radicals against your political opponents."
They don't call us the Stupid Party for nothing.
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (LIH4p)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (p302b)
What I AM surprised at is the acceptance by folks on the right that this label is valid, and can be used against our own. Why are some so willing to accept the words that the left uses to reduce people from folks asking common sense questions, to folks in need of a psychiatrist?
He who owns the words controls the debate. And the right just keeps wearing those words.
It's shorthand, because there's no better term right now to describe people who are obsessed with this birth certificate thing. If you can think of something appropriately descriptive without claiming something trite like "truth seekers" then let us all know so we can use the better term.
Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (v0kvW)
"If a man wants to be president, he should have no problem releasing the run-of-the-mill public records that prove he satisfies the age and birth requirement.
Sure, I could take it on faith, but why the hell should I?"
You always argue with other posters about this. But they're really not saying anything different than what Ace posted above.
Posted by: Tami at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 11:11 AM (tJF9l)
If the netbook has a USB plug, you can also image the the Office CD onto a thumbdrive big enough to hold 700M or so and plug it into the netbook.
Just take the CD, stick it into a desktop that has a USB plug, wipe a thumbdrive clean, and XCOPY the whole mess from one drive to the other.
Usually this set of XCOPY switches works well where "X" is the CD, and "Y" is the USB thumbdrive.
XCOPY X:\*.* Y: /S /E /V /H
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 11:12 AM (Yav4x)
Posted by: nickless at January 27, 2010 11:13 AM (MMC8r)
Guy, to divide us. look at former chatters and good willed souls here fighting because of the question.
will it really divide us. i doubt it, but what else do they have. we Are starting to band together, re'tea party. independants health care
we Mustn't do that, it has screwed up their goals.
Posted by: reich at January 27, 2010 11:13 AM (7FgWm)
It wasn't enough for the State of IL to get my Drivers License, nor was it enough for the Social Security office to re-issue my Social Security Card, so nope... not really.
In some states, you don't even have to be in the country legally to get a driver's license.
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 11:14 AM (kJLH9)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 11:14 AM (tTdaQ)
I'm not a Birther, insofar as I don't give a damn about this issue. I just have zero interest in crapping on anyone else who does and see little sense in joining the dogpile.
For some reason, though, that hasn't been a good enough position for anti-Birthers in the past, God knows why.
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 11:15 AM (LIH4p)
Question: can you get a US Passport with just a COLB?
That is pertinent, I believe, since that is a Federal document. I honestly don't know.
I don't doubt Obama is a US citizen, I just hate to think that this is just another inflammatory "fuck you" to the country from that vane little piece of shit.
Most people would like to see his actual birth certificate. If he is the only reason that it is not available, then why? If it has been vaporized, then that would be OK. The larger question is; why is he always so secretive about his actual past?
Just don't ask me as an American citizen to enable or defend any dishonest politician.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: Tami at January 27, 2010 03:11 PM (VuLos)
In my first comment on this thread (#55) I took issue with what Ace wrote.
Some of the commenters may take the same approach as Ace but there are other flavors of this as well...people who don't think anyone with a foreign born parent can ever be a natural born citizen, people who don't think Obama was born in HI, people who , etc.
It's not all one big argument but a bunch of different ones.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (UAnTc)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (p302b)
'it would be nice if everyone had to produce their original docs, or the best docs available'
and
'so and so was or wasn't born here'
We know Obama has this original certificate because people mention having looked at it, it being in a safe, whatever. It's not crazy to expect that be something the people get to see.
I am sure Obama was born in Hawaii, but let's go ahead and have a standard in place to handle this issue going forward.
Posted by: Wigglesworth at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (dUOK+)
You are accepting terms that seek to marginalize elements of the conservative movement. By accepting those terms, you re-inforce the marginalization. I think using the tools of one's enemy against our own is a destructive strategy. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: mama winger at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (677gh)
Perhaps you should read the link I provided, Hawaii has released statements (at least twice now) saying they have it
No...they have not.
In the first statement Fukino says they have a birth certificate on file...not that it was a state issued one.
In the second, she says they have the vital record showing he was born in HI. Notice the weasel words here?
...thing is...Hawai'i has in the past accepted an affidavit stating an person was born in HI to establish citizenship when in fact that person could have actually been born outside the country
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 11:16 AM (AnTyA)
If I has some money, I'd give some to Hayworth.
Posted by: GregInSeattle at January 27, 2010 11:17 AM (B5cM9)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 11:18 AM (i3PJU)
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 03:16 PM (dcKUM)
Yes. Start here. Follow the link to Hawaii. Then the link under 'Birth'.
What they (the Hawaii Department of Health) gives you is what Obama released.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 11:19 AM (UAnTc)
So what the hell do I know?
In my state, if you show up at the courthouse of the county you were born in asking for a "birth certificate", you get a really nice computer printout with the vital details; one that is accepted by every state agency. Had to show it to the DOT to get a Hazmat endorsement, believe it or not.
Which is why I believe this whole discussion, while amusing on an academic level, is a waste of time.
Amen, brother.
Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 27, 2010 11:19 AM (wPZU5)
But hey, instead of writing an article in the paper in real time, bet some crackerjack "journalist" is writing a book about both issues right now so they can make money hawking their book and so no one will ask them why they didn't reveal this information during the election cycle.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:20 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 03:17 PM (V9SYy)
Okey doke, there. A NON-CITIZEN is on the Presidential ballot and you don't care. That is, at least, consistent with your attitude about The Precedent's eligibility. Who cares? ... Indeed.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:20 AM (A46hP)
hahahhahhahhahahahhahahha
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:21 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 11:21 AM (u3fm3)
The only question should be, really, 'Why hasn't he released it?'
The only practical answer to that is, it does not matter. The issue is moot. Obama, for good or ill, is the president. The time for challenge is past.
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 11:22 AM (kJLH9)
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 03:20 PM (V9SYy)
Incorrect. State law required the Sec State to insure that all candidates on the ballots were eligible. The Sec State of New Jersey admitted to not carrying this out. It was only a ridiculous standing argument that kept that case from discovery and being heard on the merits. And even leftist tools, like Turley, thought those 'lack of standing' arguments were weak.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:23 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: Chaz at January 27, 2010 11:23 AM (u3fm3)
For some reason, though, that hasn't been a good enough position for anti-Birthers in the past, God knows why.
Posted by: Kensington at January 27, 2010 03:15 PM (LIH4p)
I'm with you. It's like all the pseudo-Eeyores on HA that go apeshit and get into condemnation mode as soon as a Pubbie wanders an inch off the reservation.
There is a legitimate reason to demand transparency from this pathetic failure of a President, totally unvetted as he was. Some fellow conservatives feel that way about his Birth Cetificate and transcripts; I'm not going to be judge and jury. And as for "non-winnable", a year ago, we all were told by the MSM and even our own RINOs that the Republican party was finished.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:23 AM (dcKUM)
The only question should be, really, 'Why hasn't he released it?'
The only practical answer to that is, it does not matter. The issue is moot. Obama, for good or ill, is the president. The time for challenge is past.
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 03:22 PM (kJLH9)"
I'm not so sure that the American people would agree with you. They have been wholly misread at least three times, the last being Boston. Maybe if there was a poll we might discover how regular people view this birth certificate issue and if they want the issue pursued maybe ol JD is more plugged into the people than you might have thought.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:24 AM (p302b)
Posted by: sheik Yamani at January 27, 2010 11:27 AM (mhD2v)
I'm not so sure that the American people would agree with you.
You could be right. But given that most people in the country don't know the name of their own congressman and that anyone who pursues it is portrayed as a nutjob in the MSM, I doubt it.
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 11:28 AM (kJLH9)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 11:30 AM (7K04W)
But it's definitely okay to tattoo a company's logo on their bodies.
Posted by: Harley Davidson at January 27, 2010 11:31 AM (ZtwUX)
My end game is that the SCOTUS will hear one of the eligibility cases and establish the operational definition for 'natural born citizen'. The SCOTUS can punt on The Precedent and just declare that one can hodl thousands of other citizenships and still be a natural born citizen if he was born in America or to American parents or whatever they want to make up so that The Precedent falls within the class. There's no risk to them to take the case. Of course, much of America would be up in arms if a ruling came down that someone who was a citizen of China, Russia and Iran could be our President, so long as he was born under the right circumstances (like that Saudi jihadi who was born in Texas).
Anyway, the SCOTUS can easily put this all to rest wwith an awful decision along those lines and then it would take a Constitutional amendment to provide a more reasonable and sensible operational definiton to override that.
The only way the SCOTUS would not have a choice would be if The Precedent weren't actually born in Hawaii (which I don't think is the case, anyway). But if you believe that he has ample proof to show a Hawaii birth then there is no risk in taking this to the Court.
Personally, I'd like to see him ruled inelgible (since dual citizenship should obviate natural born status, as any of the Founders would have told you) and the succession taking place as if he had just died in office (which is how the mechanics of it would work).
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:33 AM (A46hP)
He is not eligible in my opinion, but, the horse has left the barn and there is little we can do about it. Let's concentrate on his crazy instead of ours, huh?
Posted by: catman at January 27, 2010 11:34 AM (NYdB8)
Posted by: conscious, but in pre-drunk mode at January 27, 2010 11:34 AM (Vu6sl)
@121 -
I've never understood those Mac stickers people put on their cars. I am not a fanboy either, but I sure won't pay out the wazoo for computer service (i.e taking a Mac back to the genius bar or whatever its called) that I can do myself esp after forking over a sizable amount of dough (over the competition's product) in the first place.
Posted by: Texan at January 27, 2010 11:34 AM (LmmGq)
I thought the BC crowd just wanted their day in court? Here they get a full airing of the legal issues involved and....crickets.
It's almost like the real law is irrelevant but the make believe pretend stuff is oh so important.
Well, I'm out for awhile.
Always fun.
See you at the SOTU!
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 11:36 AM (UAnTc)
ya know if we trusted politicians and haven't caught them in a gazillion lies. many from Obama himself. I doubt this would be an issue.
for instance Jennifer Brunner Ohio Secretary of State
A federal judge ruled this evening that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is breaking federal law by not giving county elections . so if this is what we face often. this is why questions come up.(this would be the type we count on? for verification?)
i'm not even a birther, (although that sounds insulting) the whole term "Birther", i might actually be one if i knew the right questions.
why let anyone label as a derogatory term. when it's a reasonable query. and if Obama were Transparent as he swore he would be.
Posted by: willow at January 27, 2010 11:36 AM (7FgWm)
Why is it that yesterday Drudge and others say the Democrats were going to start running on the "Birther" issue and today we are pissing and moaning about it?
Excellent question, why did Matthews ask Hayworth about Barry's BC?
Posted by: huerfano at January 27, 2010 11:37 AM (kJLH9)
The "Birther" thing is toxic and gets nobody anywhere imho. It would be wise at this point to let it go. I would have liked it if he had produced an actual certificate, and the biggest issue I have with the whole thing is why a sitting president would (rather childishly) go to such lengths to fight any request for one -- just produce the damn thing, say "see, I told ya so", and be done. End of doubt, end of divisiveness (but that's what he wants I think -- divisiveness and people making themselves into fools chasing a doubt, even if it started as a reasonable one). If there is anything to go after him for, imho, it would be this: how irresponsible is it to one's country (which he is sworn to serve) to let this sort of thing drag on, when the key to stopping the kerfluffle is to just hand over the damn thing and be done with it?
For myself, I would be more interested in his transcripts...but interested most of all in seeing the results of a full psychological battery...
Posted by: unknown jane at January 27, 2010 11:37 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 03:25 PM (V9SYy)
Why is that anybody who wants to find out about this cipher that is sitting in the White House is derided as a "conspiracy nut"? That is ad hominem nonsense.
I worked with George W. Bush in the early 80's. Inknwo hundreds of people who have known him and Laura for decades. He was never a hidden or mysterious person at any level.
I can't say that about BHO. He seemed to have left few footprints, and his entire mysteriously funded undergraduate career, when he became seriously radicalized, is a complete blank.
Investigate away, I say...
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:39 AM (dcKUM)
I thought the BC crowd just wanted their day in court? Here they get a full airing of the legal issues involved and....crickets.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 03:36 PM (UAnTc)
Please. If you have some lines from that decision that you think are yoru silver bullets, then post them, but don't just post a whole decision and say, "There!"
I guess you are bound to Roe v Wade and are convinced that the Constitution affords women the right to abortions whenever they want because the Court said so. That seems to be your argument, now. "The court said so!"
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:40 AM (A46hP)
274 just listened to yesterday's Mark Levin show
Get to the part yet where Levin told McCain and Co if they screw with him, he will sue them? And specified what he will subpoena and that he will personally handle their depositions?
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 27, 2010 11:50 AM (cniXs)
Constitutional eligibilty is a point of fact that does not come and go with elections. If someone is ineligible to be President, then they CANNOT hold the office. Period. There's no statute of limitations saying that if you can lie your way past an election, you're in. That's the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy.
Tell me, why do you think Roberts administered the oath twice to The Precedent? What was at risk if he didn't administer the second oath, thinking that a word or two were incorrect in the first?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:50 AM (A46hP)
Let's sum up shall we :
A. Country going down by the bow on almost an infinite number of levels.
B. No jobs for YOU, or you,or you, or you for as far as the eye can see.
C. A really nasty ongoing war in Afghanistan and a constant threat from International Terror.
D. A narcissistic and arguably unqualified President presiding over a completely dysfunctional Congress.
E. Corruption not the exception but now seemingly the rule.
F. A broken Financial System.
G. Something else important going South (fill in blank).
And this guy can't just STFU about this crappy little issue, which is identified with crazy people.
Bottom line --- If you need to have the birth certificate dooey to get your act on regarding BHO, you are in pretty sad shape to start with.
Birhters are marginally better than Truthers but the emphasis is heavy on the marginally. The opposition to Obama better not go there. They just had better not.
Posted by: Dougf at January 27, 2010 11:50 AM (uGDLP)
Posted by: Pelvis at January 27, 2010 03:47 PM (LlaBi)
McCain-Feingold was constitutional, and then it wasn't. Soon, it will be again.
Then when the people get pissed and armed, it won't be again.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:51 AM (dcKUM)
Of course I'm bound to it, legally, which is why there was a second part to that sentence, which was the meat of it - in analogy to the arguments Drew is offering here. Maybe you can address the second, truly important part of my post?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:54 AM (A46hP)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 11:55 AM (tpEh1)
As he (Roberts) said, an overabundance of caution.
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 03:53 PM (V9SYy)
Caution about what? What could have happened if it were determined that a minor technicality of the oath of office was not administered correctly? No one has standing to challenge the eligibility of The Precedent, so what difference could it have possibly made? Did Roberts think that The Precedent was really NOT the Precedent until the second oath was administered?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 11:57 AM (A46hP)
This post is full of righteous Eeyorish hand-wringing. I won't condemn fellow Conservatives or tell them to "shut up". That's the Left's job.
I don't agree with the Birthers, but I won't condemn them or call them nuts.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 11:57 AM (dcKUM)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 03:55 PM (tpEh1)
No. The Constitution is not amended by legislation. It is to the Court to define Constitutional definitions or there are amendments needed to provide those definitions. The Constitution provides power to the various arms to define what it wants them to have control over (as with high crimes and misdemeanors, where it is left to the Legislative branch) but plain Constitutional wording is for the Court to clarrify, unless amended.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 12:00 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Greg at January 27, 2010 12:01 PM (fHiua)
Excellent question, why did Matthews ask Hayworth about Barry's BC?
No. That's NOT the question. The question is why this fool answered it. Ace keeps talking about the Stupid Party. Well This is F****** STUPID. Your enemies TELL you they are laying a trap and you say, 'Can't trap me with that old trick'. Then ---- you leap into the trap.
Go McCain. Clean this guys clock. And then pick him up and clean it again just for the fun of it.
Posted by: Dougf at January 27, 2010 12:03 PM (uGDLP)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 12:04 PM (vb5IK)
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 03:51 PM (V9SYy)
Being legally bound to something is different than being morally bound.
Most Americans consider "bound" to mean morally bound, much like the people who actually wrote the Constitution.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 12:05 PM (dcKUM)
Is this among one of the longest comment threads evah? Says something...
Leftties branded this subject as untouchable so let's mess with it.. anyway, who
the hell spends 1 million + to avoid showing their birth certificate? That's kind of cracked out behavior there . ... bottom line... B0's hiding something ...
Posted by: so cal chick at January 27, 2010 12:06 PM (7FgWm)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 04:04 PM (vb5IK)
Congress does not have the power to define the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution. It's a separation of powers issue. Congress was only given the power, by the Constitution, to make rules of naturalization, not to define the class of natural born - which makes sense because it was obvious to everyone at the time what natural born meant, to a good extent, and holding other citizenships was never part of it. What the Senate did with McCain was meaningless. Congress cannot make anyone a natural born citizen or even decide whether someone is natural born or not. But I was glad that Congress, at least, tried to move on McCain. It was thought, at the time, that that would force the Indonesian imbecile to come clean with his records ... but we all know how that went.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 12:11 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: GuyfromNH at January 27, 2010 12:18 PM (GWXuo)
No ... the point of pushing the issue is that the Constitution should be followed, especialyy for the one specific are athat the Constitution was very partiucular about - and we know why, because the natural born clause was put in to stop (as much as possible) un-American foreigners from getting control of the Executive and the military. As John Jay said to George washington in his july 1787 letter about the natural born clause:
<I>Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. </i>
The answer you were referring to about getting an operational definition is the end of this particular fight (because people like you are claiming that you have no idea what natural born citizen means and that no one is even empowered to verify it - rendering it totally meaningless). It is not the end of the larger fight, which is to remain true to the Constitution, especially about very easy things, like having the friggin' Precedent present proof of his eligibility to some official body, which was never done.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 12:22 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Mallamutt at January 27, 2010 04:14 PM (V9SYy)
I never said I wanted to pursue the Birth Certificate issue, I was just saying that we conservatives should stop doing the Left's job of condemning other conservatives.
You could call me a "Transcript-er", however. I would like to see all the radicalized shit that BHO took that turned him into a hardcore Leftist sitting above the CIA and FBI, and to find out who funded his hyper-secret and strangely charmed $150,000 radical undergraduate education that he has spent millions of public and campaign funds to hide.
If that's a tinfoil hat, I'll be happy to wear it.
Posted by: TexasJew at January 27, 2010 12:25 PM (dcKUM)
325-Obama is not who he says he is. Pompous ass.
Posted by: Pelvis at January 27, 2010 12:26 PM (LlaBi)
The mulatto mendacity signed an executive order his first day in office(EO 13489, Jan 21, 2009) sealing all records of the president from access by any person other than himself, and after his death, his wife, and her death, his daughters. The only possible access to his personal records is for the next president to sign another executive order resending that one.
It was the first think he officially did. (other than attending, and passing up, a bunch of parties after inauguration)
Posted by: Eric at January 27, 2010 12:28 PM (Qc/s6)
If JD gets in the general he will not do well. There is a young attractive former Jag officer from Tucson the Ds will run. JD is right on the issues, but not loved by all, neither is McCain for that matter but McCain would win the general.IMO
Posted by: Sam at January 27, 2010 12:29 PM (ZErqS)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 27, 2010 12:47 PM (d1oFB)
I remember something about the passport files of all the presidential candidates being broken into-does anyone know what ever happened with that? It seemed fishy at the time and I don't recall hearing any more about it. As far as the BC goes, I too would be more interested in the college records but the O will never release anything. It's obvious he's hiding something, and will go to ridiculous lengths to keep whatever it is covered up. One day the truth will out, till then concentrate on defeating him and his minions.
Posted by: vaeriax at January 27, 2010 01:08 PM (jM7jR)
"One doesn't need to believe any particular thing to stand for the proposition that given the Constitution only lays out two (?) prerequisites for assuming the most powerful office on earth -- age of 35 or older and "natural born" citizenship -- any candidate contending for that office should have the burden, without a lot of arguing about it, of proving his qualifications."
This has been my position. I believe the problem with those using the legal path to get a look is that the only groups with standing are the States. It is the states that approve a candidate to get on the ballot.
Posted by: davod at January 27, 2010 01:12 PM (GUZAT)
No...they have not.
In the first statement Fukino says they have a birth certificate on file...not that it was a state issued one.
In the second, she says they have the vital record showing he was born in HI. Notice the weasel words here?
...thing is...Hawai'i has in the past accepted an affidavit stating an person was born in HI to establish citizenship when in fact that person could have actually been born outside the country
So Dr. Fukino, who donated $600 dollars to the Republican party in 2006, lied about records he had access to to ensure that the Democratic candidate would still be eligible. Obviously Dr. Fukino was deep undercover.
Let's recap, Obama recruits Dr. Fukino at least 2 years before his presidential run, convinces him to donate $600 to the Republican party to establish his bona fides, all in order for him to some day release a so-called "weasel-worded" statement convincing people Obama's a natural born citizen. Then, when the time is ripe, Obama releases (what Birthers call an "obviously forged") copy of his COLB. You'd think with Dr. Fukino's help, he could've done better, but I guess I just don't get the intricacies of the plan. I wonder if the Republican governor was in on it, too, if Obama has a whole nest of double agents within the Republican party. Not to mention the foresight his parents showed by placing his birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper. It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma dipped in pudding!
I apologize for even thinking Birthers are nuts.
Posted by: dorkafork at January 27, 2010 01:14 PM (AiIXV)
Posted by: SarahW at January 27, 2010 01:29 PM (CSrvi)
Posted by: citizen khan at January 27, 2010 01:42 PM (kYTxM)
Posted by: citizen khan at January 27, 2010 01:46 PM (kYTxM)
Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 27, 2010 01:51 PM (TUWci)
Posted by: Daybrother at January 27, 2010 01:55 PM (dtJc/)
Posted by: Gasoline Gus at January 27, 2010 02:10 PM (qExz3)
Excellent question, why did Matthews ask Hayworth about Barry's BC?
Posted by: Dougf at January 27, 2010 04:03 PM
Because Matthews had read the questions the DNC recoommended asking Repubs. The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right:
“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”
Posted by: Deanna at January 27, 2010 02:18 PM (qxH/X)
Please. If you have some lines from that decision that you think are yoru silver bullets, then post them, but don't just post a whole decision and say, "There!"
I guess you are bound to Roe v Wade and are convinced that the Constitution affords women the right to abortions whenever they want because the Court said so. That seems to be your argument, now. "The court said so!"Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 03:40 PM (A46hP)
Gee,where did I get the idea you and others would prefer to deal with fantasy level shit you spew out on the internet instead of actual court cases.
Why should I bother going through the case and chopping it up into small pieces for you when you can't be bothered to read it yourself?
My argument isn't 'the court said so', it's here's what the court said. perhaps that's a good place to start dealing with the actual legal issues involved. And your response seems to come down to, 'who cares what a court says'.
It's that type of position that makes a lot of birther types look like nutty conspiracy theorists. There seems to be a lot more interest in baseless theories than actual issues and laws.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2010 03:04 PM (UAnTc)
Posted by: ProudinNC at January 27, 2010 03:29 PM (Edv29)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at January 27, 2010 03:44 PM (NYoCw)
http://tinyurl.com/qv87zt
Except he may have figured this out in August and showed a little bit of low cunning. He picked a total dufus for VP and they are afraid to get rid of Obama. You cannot control a senile ass that cannot remember what you want him to do. This is the best explanation for Biden I have ever come up with.
Posted by: snookered at January 27, 2010 04:04 PM (7Vg6Y)
Posted by: texette at January 27, 2010 04:37 PM (a9Pxw)
Posted by: torabora at January 27, 2010 10:26 PM (CH5ak)
Posted by: torabora at January 27, 2010 10:29 PM (CH5ak)
Posted by: torabora at January 27, 2010 10:36 PM (CH5ak)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2355 seconds, 458 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








I think Obama probably was born in Hawaii, but I also believe that something on the FULL birth certificate will conflict with the public story he has concocted of his personal history. We have a right to know the real facts.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 27, 2010 09:52 AM (9zzk+)