An Obama Birther for Kansas Secretary of State?

By
Monday, July 13, 2009 at 8:43 am

At a Saturday barbecue for the Leavenworth County, Kans., Republican Party, former Bush administration lawyer and current secretary of state candidate Kris Kobach made the case for stricter voter ID laws by questioning the citizenship of President Obama.

A professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kobach kept the mood light with a political joke. He asked what President Obama and God had in common, with the punchline being neither has a birth certificate.

Other Kansas politicians spoke at the event, including Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Lynn Jenkins, and Rep. Todd Tiahrt. Kobach, a Marshall scholar and Yale Law grad who was chairman of the state GOP until earlier this year, is considered a frontrunner for the job with jurisdiction over elections in Kansas.

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

82 Comments

alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Well, what do you expect? It's Kansas.


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

God bless Republican women. Finally Republicans with balls.

Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-o…


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

What's even stupider is that he ripped that off from Rush.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

That keeps you going in the morning, doesn't it? The anticipation of the “OMG moment?”

Well then, who am I to crush your dreams.


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Alfred,

Ridicule is one of the lower forms of logical fallacy and would disqualify you for a grade school debate team.

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule.
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an ” argument.” This line of ” reasoning” has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
1. “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
2. “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
3. “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a tin foil hat idea. LOL”
4. The ubiquitous LOL is one of the most common forms fo this low level debate tactic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Click the link below for the punch line:
http://images7.cafepress.com/product/278928847v…

See Saul Alinsky rule below…
RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)

The “progressive movement” has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama –

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninf…

This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.

You might consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-…


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

Nope. I got it from here.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/final…

Rush got it from me.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

That's rich, a birther talking about logical fallacies.

LOL


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

OK, ATH, Let's talk about the issue here for a second.

Suppose Kobach gets elected. Given the fact that the state of Kansas keep electing people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old to it's state school board, it is possible that they will elect Kobach.

Let's say that it is early in 2012 and Kobach insists that all candidates for president provide certified copies of their birth certificates to be listed on the state ballot.

Let's just ignore the whole problem with the fact that the voters elect the electoral college delegates, and that the popular vote doesn't count for squat.

Let's just assume that Kobach is insisting that the candidates provide him with certified copies of birth certificates to establish that they meet the constitutional requirements.

So, in response to this request, let's assume that President Obama mails him this document:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…

In this case, you birthers will be SOL, since Kobach would be bound by the U.S. Constitution to accept this document as valid proof the President Obama was born in Hawaii.

—————
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
—————

Then what do you do?


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

OK, ATH, Let's talk about the issue here for a second.

Suppose Kobach gets elected. Given the fact that the state of Kansas keep electing people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old to it's state school board, it is possible that they will elect Kobach.

Let's say that it is early in 2012 and Kobach insists that all candidates for president provide certified copies of their birth certificates to be listed on the state ballot.

Let's just ignore the whole problem with the fact that the voters elect the electoral college delegates, and that the popular vote doesn't count for squat.

Let's just assume that Kobach is insisting that the candidates provide him with certified copies of birth certificates to establish that they meet the constitutional requirements.

So, in response to this request, let's assume that President Obama mails him this document:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…

In this case, you birthers will be SOL, since Kobach would be bound by the U.S. Constitution to accept this document as valid proof the President Obama was born in Hawaii.

—————
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
—————

Then what do you do?


David Weigel
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

That's a great point, and it also speaks to Rep. Bill Posey's (R-Fla.) bill in the House. The Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is going to be proof enough for every state election official who asks for it. Ironically, all that could come of this is a Kobach type getting a copy of the COLB and verifying its accuracy, which would demolish the conspiracy theories about it being a forgery.


Remainders: Mermaids
Pingback posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

[...] Birther certificate politics hit Kansas. [...]


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Fact check will continue to be embarrassed by their mistake in publishing this false document until the finally admit the mistake and remove it.

Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:

Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.

Can you please show me where the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate is? And if it has been produced, why has Obama spent almost $1 million on attorney fees to keep it from being made public?


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Maybe <s>Amanda Terkel</s> Dave Weigel could explain why BHO's “birth hospital” is literally covering up a letter he sent them.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

Yes, Alferd makes some good points when he's not constantly lying.

Say, could Weigel explain the procedure whereby Kobach or anyone else would verify the accuracy of the COLB?


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

It does not matter were he was born, he can never be natural born citizen.

His father was Kenyan and never became a US citizen.

He has a birthright to Kenya/Great Britain.

Our Forefathers where very clear that they did not want anyone with anykind of foreign allegiance to become President hence the Natural Born Citizen clause.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

I want to make it clear that I haven't looked into the NBC issue, and my interest in this is because people like Weigel keep lying and misleading about this issue.

For a recent example, Snopes, Wikipedia, and even Obama himself can't get their story straight on which hospital he was born in. You'd think that those who claim to know for a fact that he was born in HI wouldn't name one hospital and then later on change their minds and name a completely different hospital.

It would be hilarious if not for the fact that MSM lies aren't funny at all.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

Easy. If it has a raised seal and is properly dated and signed by the registrar, then it is legal.

There would be nothing that Kobach or anyone else would need to do.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

Oh, B.S. The document is real, it is valid, and it is legal.

Tell me. Since all the State of Hawaii would need to do to verify the legitimacy of the COLB posted on line would be to compare the posted image with their database, why haven't they prosecuted Obama for fraud?

Faking a COLB is definitely against the law.

The State is run by Republicans.

Your claims that it is a a fake are fraudulent themselves.

But please explain to me why the State hasn't done anything.

Are the republicans part of this conspiracy also?


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

President Obama was born in Hawaii. That is all it takes to be a natural born U.S. citizen.

Too bad, You lose.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

The whole claim that it is a forgery is simply foolish to begin with.

Do you honestly think that President Obama would be so foolish as to post a frged birth certificate on line?

All it would take to prove a forgery would be for the State of Hawaii to compare it to their records.

The Republican run state of hawaii.

The Republican run state of hawaii officials that have been hounded by birther about this very issue for the past year.

Certainly the very conservative, Republican state Attorney General would be able to instigate an investigation.

I wonder why he isn't a birther also?

How come none of the conservatives republicans in Hawaii's government are birthers either?


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

One more time:

All it would take to prove a forgery would be for the State of Hawaii to compare it to their records.

The Republican run state of hawaii.

The Republican run state of hawaii officials that have been hounded by birther about this very issue for the past year.

Certainly the very conservative, Republican state Attorney General would be able to instigate an investigation.

I wonder why he isn't a birther also?

How come none of the conservatives republicans in Hawaii's government are birthers either?


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

Also, what makes any of you think that another state would not accept this as legitimate?

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

You are confused, That is all it takes to be a US citizen.

To be a natural born citizen you must be born to two US citizen parents.

Why did the framers make it a requirment for the President to be a natural born citizen?

I'll tell you, They feared someone with foreign influence gaining control of our Government. Being born with split loyalties is a prime example.

How would they of defined the term?

See Vattel's Law of Nations.


nattyb
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

You guys are F—ING crazy. Seriously. You guys are nutters. Seriously. The factcheck.org link has Hawaii Secretary of State people on the record attesting to its genuineness.

That is prima facie evidence that is his legitimate birth certificate.

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO REBUT THIS PRESUMPTION?

Sandra Lines!?! Did you read what she said? She said she cannot verify it because it was scanned? That's not exactly strong evidence that it's a forgery. All she's saying is that any digitalized document could be forged, via photoshop. Thus, no evidence, short of touching the genuine article, could possibly satisfy her skepticism. In other words, you're so called expert is saying, now picture is genuine. ever. That's hardly credible evidence.

THAT STILL DOESN'T rebut what the officials from Hawaii Sec'y of state said.

You need evidence. You can't just say, oh well, they're all lying.

Seriously, you Obama birthers are all f—ing losers, who probably still live at home in your parents basement, blaming minorities for why you're such f—-ing losers. Man, if only I grew up in the projects of the Bronx, without a father, I would've gone to Princeton and Yale law.

What's next? Immigrants are all criminals? http://www.reason.com/news/show/134579.html

Woops, immigrants actually have lower crime rates than native born americans.

Seriously, you birthers are frickin losers.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

—”I want to make it clear that I haven't looked into the NBC issue,”——

Oh, BS.

This is your hobby.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

Vattel's law of nations is a book of philosophy. I'm talking about the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

The definition of the term “Natural born” as it is used in the U.S. Constitution is based on the historic common law usage of the term. which is quite simple and as “Plain language” as it can be.

“Natural born” means innate at birth. Thus if you are born a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born U.S. citizen.

This definition of the term is still in use today. For instance, when we speak of someone as being a “natural born” athlete we say this based on their innate talents, not the fact that their parents were athletes also.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

OK, as usual we have two sets of goalposts here.

One group of birthers claims that he was born in Kenya and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

The other group acknowledges that he was born in Hawaii but claims that he is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen.

Both groups are bat guano crazy.

Then of course there is the third group that bounces between either claim as it suits them. When they lose an argument based on one set of goalposts, they switch to the other. when they start to lose on that one, they switch back again, ad idiotem.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Hmm, US Supreme Court Justice Scalia seems to disagree with you. He has referred to Vattel's Law of Nations as a legal text book.

see District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller.

The U.S. Constitution does not define the term one way or the other.

You have to look into the reasoning into why the Framers made it a requirment for the President to be a natural born citizen.

To be a Senator or a Congressman you only have to be a citizen but to be the President you must be a natural born citizen. Why?

How can someone with a birthright to another Country be considered a natural born citizen. This would undermind the framers intent.

A natural born citizen must only have allegiance to the US.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

A “legal text book” is not the same as the actual law.

Philosophy is one thing, but the law is another.

The term “Natural born” was well understood by the framers of the Constitution.

They were, after all, lawyers trained in English Common Law. Up until the Constitution was ratified, English Common law was the law of the land in the Colonies.

The fact that the Framers of the Constitution did not redefine the term from its traditional meaning (as they understood it, based on historical precedence), makes it clear that they intended it to be defined by its traditional meaning.

You are not allowed to redefine it based on your warped views.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:41 pm

In addition, Justice Gray makes it quite clear in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the historical context of the term is exactly as I have described it.


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

—-”How can someone with a birthright to another Country be considered a natural born citizen.”—-

That birthright, as you call it is based on the laws of a foreign country, not U.S. laws.

We do not let the laws of a foreign country trump our laws. What are you, un-American?


alferd
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

I'm waiting for a birther to answer my questions here . . . (crickets)


nattyb
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

I looked at your website for your so called evidence.

It reads like a geocities/tripod website from the mid-90's with tiki torches and all. Between all the banners, ads, and pictures of Anne Coulter, it's really hard to see what the heck your proof for anything is.

It's as if, your website is an internet version of the National Treasure film series. You click on one link, and you're deeper in the labyrinth, clicking on another link, is like pulling a book from the bookshelf, that takes you deeper into the lair.

I wonder when was the last time 24aheaddotcom and thalightguy made love to a real live woman?

Have you guys heard of Occam's razor? Like, we don't need to go back to 1776 here. He's born on American soil, Hawaii, thus, he's a Natural Born U.S. citizen. He's not the subject of the queen. If his father was a Kenyan diplomat, that could change things, but, his father wasn't a diplomat, and his mother was a US citizen at his birth, so none of this matters. Now, get out of the basement, it's a sunny day.

OR, try World of Warcraft. That's a much more fun, and less harmful way to detach from reality.


nattyb
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

“All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citiz…

You're either Natural Born or Naturalized. If you're a citizen at birth, then you're obviously Natural Born.

You don't have to go back to the “framers” because this is dealt with in the 14th Amendment.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

Obama seems to disagree with you.

During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

It says citizen not natural born citizen and it puts citizen in the same category as naturalized citizen.

We know their is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen, both can be a Senator or a Congressman but only a natural born citizen can be President.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:59 am

IT’S REAL! Hearing set on default in Obama eligibility case

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-real-hearing-set-on-default-in.html


Anonymous
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:59 am

IT’S REAL! Hearing set on default in Obama eligibility case

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-real-hearing-set-on-default-in.html


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

Has “Alferd” ever written anything that wasn't full of lies? Who is Alferd, anyway? I only have time to post the occasional comment, but for him this seems like a full-time job. Is he Weigel using an assumed name? Does he work for the BHO admin in some way? Why is he constantly spreading disinfo about this issue?

In the current case, I'm not claiming that BHO was born in Kenya, Hawaii, Ice Station Zebra, or the Moon. I'm only claiming that no definitive proof has yet been offered of where he was born. That's backed up by the facts of the matter.

And, Weigel still hasn't explained why BHO's “birth hospital” is literally covering up a letter he sent them. He still hasn't explained why BHO, Snopes and Wikipedia can't get their stories straight on which hospital it was.

Why, Weigel? Let's see you do some real reporting for once.


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 12:24 am

So, you are saying that British laws determine who is eligible for president in the U.S.?

I thought that is why we fought a revolution.

The laws of a foreign state have no bearing on the the U.S.


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 12:26 am

Sorry, but Minor v. Happersett had nothing to do with this issue.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray could not have made it any plainer that the tern “Natural Born” applied to those born in this country, regardless of their parents status.

Your argument fails.


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 12:27 am

Whatever. No one buys your argument.


Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 7/13/09 | Design Website Easy
Pingback posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:34 am

[...] Dennis Moore in KS-03, is a GOP candidate for Secretary of State. And guess what else? He’s a birther. Used the birther myth to make a point about voter ID laws, apparently. The birther argument, of [...]


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 12:40 am

Please get this straight:

Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man.

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say “My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record”. But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy is the former Emperor of China. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:03 am

Your thinking of natural born subject not natural born citizen.

There is only one definition of natural born citizen and that comes from Vattel's Law of Nations the framers readily had this available to them during the drafting of the US Constitution.

A matter of fact it was translated into English from French only 10 years after the signing of the Constitution and it was translated to natural born citizen.


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:46 am

On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a “natural born citizen.”

It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate.”

And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of “natural born citizenship” and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's.

Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for “natural born citizenship.” He indicted it would take two to tango.

He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president.

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.

And what did Leahy say to that? “That is mine, too.”

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a “natural born citizen” – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a “certification of live birth” on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.

But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!

So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.
http://themunz.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-obama-w…


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Can you please show me where the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate is? And if it has been produced, why has Obama spent almost $1 million on attorney fees to keep it from being made public?

“I have nothing to hide but I'm hiding it anyway.”

A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam’s razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. I condense this to the simple question: what is most likely?

For example, which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?

What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure. “ The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records.” New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo


AristotleTheHun
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:03 am

I have not persoanlly vetted this yet because it has just been announced:

BREAKING NEWS!
Monday, July 13, 2009 in the Federal Court Building, Santa Ana, CA.

Former Marine Judge David Carter says he will hold an expeditious trial to hear Obama's eligibility to be POTUS and CINC – on the MERITS!

'DISCOVERY' is here!
Judge Carter stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

Today, July 13 2009, Dr Orly Taitz was at the Federal Court building in
Santa Ana CA, before Judge David Carter, in Keyes v Obama.

“At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge Carter stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

“The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn't clear if they
would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.


GregNH
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 5:04 am

That joke was first told by Rush Limbaugh and I hope he gave proper credit.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 5:10 am

Now your just lieing.

See : Leo Donofrio's blog

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


Chima
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 5:23 am

So in other words, you're telling me that even though I was born in New Jersey and have spent my entire life of 34 years as a US citizen…since my parents are both non-citizens, then I'm NOT a natural born citizen? Ever heard of first-generation AMERICANS??
You apparently have no clue what the term “natural born citizen” means.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 6:03 am

At birth you had citizenship to whatever Country your parents where from. I'm sorry to tell you that you only qualify as a citizen and not a natural born citizen.

I have a niece and nephew who's father is from Canada he's only here on a work permit and these kids are not natural born either.


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

It looks like Orly screwed the pooch again.

—————-
At a previous hearing, Carter had ruled that Taitz had not properly served the case on Obama. In Monday's hearing, both Taitz and DeJute tried to prematurely argue the merits of the case. Carter, a former marine, told both parties that the case could easily be tied up for months or another year on procedural technicalities. A better approach would be for Taitz just to file the paperwork so that the case could proceed without more delays, the judge said.
—————-


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

I particularly like these parts from the WND article.

———–
While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.

–and–

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
—————–

The Stupid, IT BURNS.

LOL


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

for the third time

All it would take to prove a forgery would be for the State of Hawaii to compare it to their records.

The Republican run state of hawaii.

The Republican run state of hawaii officials that have been hounded by birther about this very issue for the past year.

Certainly the very conservative, Republican state Attorney General would be able to instigate an investigation.

I wonder why he isn't a birther also?

How come none of the conservatives republicans in Hawaii's government are birthers either?


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

Afturd said:

“All it would take to prove a forgery would be for the State of Hawaii to compare it to their records.”

Perfect Alf! That is a great idea. And then they can post a comparison or the ” factcheck” forgery and whatever is really in the vault. Then we can all know the truth. And then you can go GET A JOB!


RedGraham
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

It all comes down to the missing Birth Certificate and all college records on Obama. He was a moslem. He was an Indonesian. He was named Barry Soetoro. His real father was a Kenyan-Arab. His adoptive father was an Indonesian-Moslem. Obama was likely born in Kenya but may have been born a dual-citizen regardless. If he has nothing to hide why is he hiding it? The COLB posted online does not exist in paper form(unless you print it off your computer). It was actually made from Obama's younger half-sisters Hawaiian COLB which was scanned, and altered and hence the document number has been blocked out. Half-sister Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia but somehow obtained a Hawaiian COLB.


luther blissett
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a “natural born citizen” – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

By the way, that's some quality dumbass logic. For your next trick, argue that because cats have cats for parents, dogs aren't animals.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The Zone's status as part of the United States was ambiguous. That's what Chertoff and Leahy were talking about.

If you're born outside the U.S to American parents, then your citizenship descends from them. If you're born in the U.S., then your citizenship comes from being born in the U.S. If you were never naturalized, then you're natural-born.

Since the legal distinction is meaningless outside the office of the presidency, and since no-one born outside the U.S. has been elected President, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it.

Birfers are funny.


luther blissett
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

We'd explain the difference betwen jus soli and jus sanguinis to you, but you're clearly too dumb to understand that Springsteen-Americans are natural-born citizens.


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

So, Randwulf, why haven't they done so if it is a fake.

Certainly with every birther calling them and hounding them for months about this nonsense, they would be duty bound to look into it.

What's your explanation for why they haven't done anything about this clear violation of state law?


alferd
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

And your name is red, so you must be a communist.

LOL


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

I can't tell you why anyone commits a particular crime. I can't tell you why Hawaiian officials do or don't do anything. All I'm saying is that if they have a real “Born in Hawaii USA” birth certificate for Obama and it states the hospital name and attending physicians name, they need to confirm that and they need to produce it. If someone is “monkeying” around with these documents, then someone needs to be charged with whatever crime is applicable but if Obama wants to put this thing away and never hear about it again, he had better produce a real long form certificate. If he can't do that, well, then,………CHECKMATE!


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

US Attorneys, OH MY!


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

“It looks like Orly screwed the pooch again.”

Sexist. Xenophobe.


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

Well, I think he is a British subject, or an Indonesian citizen, Kenyan born, and an illegal alien who needs to be deported after serving time in a federal incarceration facility for defrauding the American public. Oh, did I leave out the part about failing to properly register for the draft and attending Occidental as a foreign student receiving US taxpayer money? How careless of me.

HERE COME DE JUDGE!!! HERE COME DE JUDGE!!!


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

Just show us the F@CKING original and shut the F@CK up about it! All you blithering monkey chatter is getting tiresome. If Obama is legitimate, why doesn't he prove it. One criminal case under some law he signs will be his undoing. Anyone charged with a crime has a right to have any document produced in court which might tend to prove their innocence. Especially if the person who signed the law was not legally able to sign it into law. End of story. This will be how it ends.


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

Monkeys eat crickets. Don't they? You'd better go get your supper.


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

How much does Acorn pay you to make an ass of yourself daily?


Randwulf
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

Oh, and now Alfturd speaks for everyone. How presumptuous!


thalightguy
Comment posted July 15, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

Anchor babies are not natural born citizens, they shouldn't even be citizens.

Look at the Congressional Globe for the 39th Congress to find the exact meaning for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

But of course in Wong Kim Ark they pulled a Sotomayer and legislated from the bench.


luther blissett
Comment posted July 15, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

You're declaring Wong Kim Ark judicial activism? Good luck with that challenge: it's only been on the books for 111 years, so Scalia might give you a crack at it if you ask nicely.

Until then, you're just plain wrong, and repeating your lies a thousand times doesn't make them true. You'll have to find another country (and another set of parents) that fits your opinion about where natural-born citizenship comes from, because the U.S. isn't one of them.

Birfers are so dumb.


thalightguy
Comment posted July 16, 2009 @ 12:10 am

Here's everything you need to know about why they got it wrong.

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_bab…


luther blissett
Comment posted July 16, 2009 @ 6:01 am

Like I said, good luck with that challenge.

Just because you and a bunch of other cranks think the Supreme Court got it wrong 111 years ago doesn't make your lies about natural-born citizens true.


cdeville
Comment posted July 17, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

You guys are the laughingstock of the nation. Congratulations, Neanderthals.


LemonMeringue
Comment posted July 18, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

Who cares?

It will not matter how many birth certificates he produces (the state of Hawaii has) or how many hospitals confirm (the hospital did) or how many newspapers announced the birth (two did).

They have nothing on this man, he is pure as the driven snow, so they harp on this. They will not accept any proof, no matter how air-tight.


LemonMeringue
Comment posted July 18, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

Once again, Kansas makes me ashamed to live in Kansas.


AcaciaJules
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

I agree with him. This was stuff I learned when I was 13, and relearned when I took Government in college. Your own education is obviously lacking.


AcaciaJules
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

It's a pilot term, duh.
to screw the pooch (third-person singular simple present screws the pooch, present participle screwing the pooch, simple past and past participle screwed the pooch)

1. to screw up; to fail in dramatic and ignominious fashion

[edit] Synonyms

* crash and burn
* f&ck up
* drop the ball


Randwulf
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Well, in that case your f@cked up bastards have done all three.


mannix1962
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

Where do you get the idea that he's produced his original birth certificate. He has provided only the short form we still don't know who delivered him and we don't know the hospital he was born at. When he was running for the presidency the newspapers said he was born at Queen's Memorial Hospital. Now it comes out it was Kapolani Hospital but they won't confirm or deny it. Then the address they give as their home address can't be substantiated by the neighbor that has lived there since the 1950″s. There hasn't been any proof


Michael Roston - Newsbroke – First term Congressional Republican Lynn Jenkins looking for a ‘great white hope’ - True/Slant
Pingback posted August 26, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

[...] joked around that Obama didn’t have a birth certificate, according to Dave Weigel at the Washington Independent. I don’t see any indications that Rep. Jenkins guffawed out loud at the joke, but apparently [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.