Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention

By
Saturday, February 06, 2010 at 11:00 am

NASHVILLE — During WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah’s Friday night dinner speech, which spent around 10 of its forty minutes on questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship, Andrew Brietbart was among the conservatives in back of the room grumbling audibly about what he was hearing.

After he introduced the evening’s closing entertainment — a film titled “Generation Zero” — Breitbart walked outside to the convention hall. There, I heard Breitbart criticizing Farah, and briefly talked to him about it before I noticed that WorldNetDaily’s Chelsea Schilling was already talking to him, holding up a voice recorder. I backed up to allow her to continue her interview, which consisted of questions on why Breitbart didn’t think Obama’s citizenship was a legitimate issue.

“It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue,” Breitbart told Schilling. “It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare.”

“Wouldn’t you say,” asked Schilling, “in this case, that Farah is asking Obama to prove something rather than his disprove it?”

Breitbart rejected the premise. “When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?”

After a few minutes Breitbart ended the conversation and Schilling started interviewing Tea Partiers about the speech, finding a little less skepticism. (I found some Tea Partiers, like Rita Grace of Virginia, who said they didn’t appreciate Farah’s speech.) I spotted Farah and asked him if his speech had been approved by Tea Party Nation.

“They asked me to speak,” said Farah. “They didn’t ask me, ‘What do you want to speak about?’ No, this operates like a free and open society, not like the kind of Marxist society you would apparently like to be a journalist for.”

I told Farah that his speech was getting negative attention already, and that Breitbart, who’d taken the stage after him, had criticized the “birther” parts of the speech. Farah shook his head and walked over to Breitbart in what seemed like an attempt to debunk my question.

“Andrew is my friend,” said Farah. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…”

Breitbart raised his eyebrows. “I’m dumb to do what?”

“Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”

“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart, pointing to Schilling. “I was talking to you. And I was saying that I disagreed on the birther stuff.”

“OK, well, did you know that Dave Weigel from The Washington Independent was”–

“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart. “She was asking me if I thought it was wise to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they’re all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue–”

“It is a winning issue!”

“It’s not a winning issue.”

“It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–”

“You don’t recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order.”

“Nothing exposes the president’s–”

“Then prove it!”

“The press isn’t asking the question–”

“Prove it!”

“Prove what?”

“Prove your case.”

“I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”

Breitbart tensed up after that insult. “Right.”

“I know you’re not a journalist, so that’s fine. But don’t diminish people who’ve been doing this for 35 years.”

“So you’re going to go on record saying that I’m not a journalist?”

“Are you? I’ve never heard you claim to be. Are you?”

“I’ll let it be answered by you.”

“Well, I knew Drudge didn’t consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. … I don’t know, I’m not trying to insult you.”

“You did.”

At that point, Judson Phillips — who had spotted a very small crowd around us — walked into the fray and tried to simmer everyone down with a joke.

“I can give you absolutely conclusive and definitive proof that Obama’s birth certificate does not exist. How else do you explain why Joe Biden is vice president?”

That more or less ended the conversation — Farah moved on, and agreed to talk more about why he and WorldNetDaily continued to pursue stories on Obama’s citizenship. The citizenship issue had stuck around and taken off, he said, “because of us.” He ran stories asking questions about the issue — including stories that were quickly debunked — because the rest of the media wasn’t asking the questions.

“Do you think this has made my life easier, doing this?” asked Farah. “I used to be on TV all the time. I haven’t been on Fox News once since I started talking about this.”

Asked whether he thought his speech created any problems for Sarah Palin — prompting reporters to ask why she patronized a convention with rhetoric like this — Farah rejected the premise.

“Sarah Palin is a big girl,” he said. “She can take care of herself. I have a lot of confidence that she’ll take care of herself well. … My objective is not to get Sarah Palin elected or something. My job as a journalist is to seek the truth.”

Update: Here’s audio of the Farah-Breitbart dispute:

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

1,157 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:12 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention http://bit.ly/a5E5Xf...


evreport
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:14 am

Heh. That's what I want to see, Birfer/Bagger cannibalism.


katahdin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:15 am

If Mr. Farah's job as a journalist is to seek the truth, then why won't he accept the truth when it's shoved under his nose?
Maybe because his real job is to sell yard signs and bumper stickers to credulous morons.


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:57 am

In Fact the Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a birth certificate. Hawaii has said so themselves. They also give out certificates of live birth to foreign born children to parents who are residents (the only state in the nation to do so).

This begs the question as to, “Where is the real birth certificate”. Since this is the first time this issue has been raised, why is it so wrong or destructive to actually ask it. And why on heavens earth does obama simply not show it?

It seems to me that he is doing this to create more of a schism in the American body politic; more divisiveness from a President that seems to thrive on it.


sterngard
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Anyone starting off a post with “In fact” usually doesn't know what a fact is. That's true of the birther poster who makes claims about Hawai'i that he's repeating from other sources. Those purported facts are lies. The birth document to which the poster refers is a legally recognized certificate which may be used in all 50 states under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Hawai'i does not certify that foreign births actually occurred in Hawai'i. That's a Berg-Taitz lie that birthers love. But that doesn't make it a “fact.”


ejs
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

These people are either incredibly ignorant or incredible cynical and opportunistic. I guess they could even be both.


ejs
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Does this Commentor have a certified copy of his birth certificate? I don't have a copy of mine, I don't want one and I would have to search long and hard to try to come up with one. Does George W. Bush have a copy of his? The whole argument is patently ridiculous. It has been proven beyond any rational doubt that President Obama was born in Hawaii. The “birther” argument, however, is not rational and is not based on facts. They would continue to “ask the question” even if someone came up with a film of Obama's mother giving birth with the swaying palm trees of Waikiki Beach visible through the window. It's useless to argue with them.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

LOL LOL LOL

That must have been great!


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

yeah and the COLB's say the children are born WHERE THEY WERE BORN, not Hawaii. Why is it so important you see the birth records YOU deem necessary when this has not been demanded from any other President? Hmm? The birfers have moved way beyond the birth certificate issue and have goofy and erroneous theories about two citizen parents, etc. They also demand every scrap of paper that Obama may have ever been mentioned on, starting with his KINDERGARTEN records. This isn't about the BC and you know it. It's about being pissed that there is a black man in THEIR White House. Please go do something useful with your time.


Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breitbart, Farah argue Birtherism at Tea Party convention
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

[...] Weigel has been covering the Tea Party Convention in Nashville for the Washington Independent, and earlier today walked into an unplanned but heated debate between World Net Daily’s [...]


The Know-Nothing Party Redux - Swampland - TIME.com
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

[...] about the drift of the country away from prosperity and, they believe, freedom. It is also has more nuts than a forest of almond [...]


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

You know it just astounds me that some idiots in our country still cannot accept the simple fact that our president is a US citizen. It's as sad and delusional as it gets but I wouldn't really expect anything less from the Beck-Birther brigade. Fox News and talk radio should be so proud of the ignorance and paranoia they spread to the ignorant masses.

It reminds me of children who cover up their eyes, thinking that because they cannot see me, that I cannot see them.

But I hope losers like Farah keep at it. I don't want these morons to ever stop their gallant crusade of showing the world who 'teh real Obama' is.


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

Not an impressive post, Randy. Beck has openly repudiated the birthers more than once. Please try to do a little research before posting. It reflects poorly on you to throw out various insults like “morons”, “ignorance”, “paranoia”, delusional”, etc. and the premise of your statement is completely concocted.


LaLee
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

“It's as sad and delusional as it gets but I wouldn't really expect anything less from the Beck-Birther brigade.”

I don't like Beck's “schtick” (so to speak) but FWIW he's not one of them.

“I don't want these morons to ever stop their gallant crusade of showing the world who 'teh real Obama' is.”

I kinda agree with you on this one.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

The question is not whether someone is a citizen – the question is whether Obama is a natural born Citizen! This is the eligibility requirement for POTUS.

Why is he still hiding the original birth certificate?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Proven – LOL.

The DoH would not confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.


believesobama
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

My opinion…Farah is a nut case!


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

He's hiding his birth certificate so no one knows that he was really born on Krypton.

You see, since he was conceived, his parents knew right away that he would become president. Which is why there's been this 46 year old conspiracy to assist him, involving the media, state and federal govt agencies and universities who are dedicated to keeping his secret safe.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

Beck may not be 'one of them' but you bet your ass his idiot viewers are. He's done everything to try and make Obama out to be some 'foreign other' that somehow isn't legit and his morons who watch him just nod their fat ugly heads in agreement.

Have you seen the latest poll on what Republican voters believe? They buy this crap like it's on sale. They think he's not a citizen and that ACORN stole the election. Gee, wonder where they got that idea?

I could go to ANY teabagger rally in the country, and within seconds I could find a Beck fan AND a birther, holding up their “where's teh birf curtificutt” sign.


bob
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:52 pm

And the DoH would not confirm that you have more than two brain cells.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

Of course you have to ignore the question. You have no good answer for Obama's behavior regarding his original birth certificate


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

That's right, idiot. Obama isn't a citizen. It's all one giant conspiracy to install a secret agent muslim socialist commie terrorist to the highest office in the land, and it worked perfectly! No one ever caught on! Wow, that Obama is good and now he can begin his task of destroying the country as we know it. Once he is finished, then he will hand over the keys to China. Bow down to your new master!

Help me Chuck Norris! Help me Pat Boone! We surround them!


Brietbart Challenges Farrah on Obama Birth Certificate « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

[...] in Nashville this weekend, The Washington Independent’s always-excellent David Weigel recounts an extraordinary hallway confrontation between online publisher Andrew Breitbart and WorldNetDaily [...]


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

I did answer the question. You wingnuts are just too afraid to accept 'TEH TRUFF!”

It's all one giant conspiracy, don't you get it yet?

No one ever caught on, except loser bloggers who are 45 still living home with mommy.


Buzzm1
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

When Drunk Driving Lawyer Judson Phillips (TeaParty Nation.org), with a far less than sterling reputation, and Mark Skoda, a bloviate opportunist, organize a for profit convention, what else should anyone expect.

Better first do an extended background check before allowing oneself to follow.

Ensuring Liberty Corp…anyone who contributes anything for self-aggrandizement of a few individuals, deserves to be taken.

this convention, replete with persons looking to capitalize on the movement, flies in the face of the meaning of the movement; there isn't any room for groups such as this, except to demean the purpose.


Jessica Alba and Hilary Swank attended the Audi Super Bowl party | Jessica Alba Celebrity Monitor
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … [...]


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

If anyone trust Dave Weigel's coverage of this issue, see the link. He's repeatedly lied and misled about the basic, objective, easy-to-understand facts of the cert matter. Not only that, but he has a problem with journalistic ethics: he wrote about me and then refused to approve a comment I left pointing out how he's wrong. Things like that just aren't done, except by the ethically-challenged like Weigel.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

You're so funny. You're the best parody wingnut out there. I salute your comedic talents.


Pongo
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

He has made it available on several occasions, along with the magically placed birth announcement in the paper at the time of his birth and the the certified electronic version the State of Hawaii uses for all of its citizens. When the paper version was revealed, birther's questioned the creases and folds in it as evidence of it being a fake. The birther's are not satisfied with any proof of Obama's natural citizenship and they never will be because they don't really want to know the truth, they want to believe a childish fiction. When the more intellectual members of your own movement tell you to knock it off with the silly stuff, you should know your movement is in trouble. This whole issue and your stubborn refusal to let it go despite clear evidence of the folly of your position makes you look ridiculous.


de stijl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

STFULW


de stijl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

When the more intellectual members of your own movement tell you to knock it off with the silly stuff, you should know your movement is in trouble.

And when Andrew Breitbart can possibly be considered one of your more intellectual cohorts, you're in real, real trouble.

Just wait until your father comes home.


Mojotron
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

I had never seen someone inadvertently yet properly use the phrase “begs the question”; it's like a stopped clock that's right 3 times a day.


Pupster
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Did stop him from calling Obama a “racist” who hates white people.

Yeah, the irony of you defending Beck then turning around chastising other for inflammatory rhetoric is not lost.


NewsCorpse
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

Breitbart at war with Farah?

A battle of wits where no one is armed.


Pupster
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

My goodness, you're really a naturalized citizen? Objecting to a man who was actually born here (in Hawaii) and has already released his birth certificate and have had the Hawaiian government attest to it, including the current Republican governor. You just don't want to listen or check the many many pieces of evidence available on the net.

Please, naturalized citizen, where were you naturalized because we may have to check that before letting you spout all over the US internet with the rest of us 'real' citizens. (lol) Are you claiming to be more American than the president? Maybe you just have a green card or something. (lol)


ignatov
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

“Judson Phillips… tried to simmer everyone down with a joke. 'I can give you absolutely conclusive and definitive proof that Obama’s birth certificate does not exist. How else do you explain why Joe Biden is vice president?'”

I don't get it. Stupid wingers and their stupid nonsense non-jokes.


Pupster
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

Obama's “behavior”? What are you talking about?

Considering he's a little busy running the country and all, he doesn't have a lot of free time to satisfy crackpots like yourself, “naturalized” citizen. Where were you born, BTW, that you were “naturalized”? You're not one of those brown people we are all supposed to be afraid of, are you? Please share your personal journey so we can make others fear you and your origins.


Tim
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

I think it's funny that Senator McCain wasn't even born in one of the 50 states — he was born in the Panama Canal zone. Yet we never heard anything about it. Surely there's a stronger argument against his natural born citizenship than against Obama's? I would never argue it myself (I think the birthers are crazy), but it does seems, at best, slightly hypocritical.


Pupster
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

How do you know about US birth certificates and COLBs, “naturalized citizen”? You may know about those things in the country you're originally from, but since your handle admits you weren't born here, how could you possibly know?

Frankly, you may have to prove to us “real” Americans that you aren't some foreign agent since you can't produce your own US birth certificate. And show us your citizenship test score, because I don't trust that you know enough about America to dialogue with the rest of us. And if you can't produce it, I think that's sufficient to prove that you aren't American and should be commenting on websites in China or Iran or wherever you're from. Produce the document, suspicious foreign agent! I'm troubled by your “behavior”.


Breitbart Shocked, Shocked to Find That Birtherism is Going on at TeaBagCon - Charles Johnson - The Lizard Annex - True/Slant
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

[...] some people want us to think they didn’t see it coming; for example, Andrew Breitbart. I spotted Farah and asked him if his speech had been approved by Tea Party [...]


Mary
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

Yeah, they just devoted a whole web page with the index data that PROVES they registered his birth.

hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html


FairNYC
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

I think the Birther thing has hurt this convention and will hurt Palin.

I can imagine that certain people aurrounding her were probably not happy with the way the audience reacted so positively to Farah.

Not a good thing for her political career at all.


Pupster
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Mr. Farah's job is to look crazy so that rich white rightwing nutjobs will keep giving him money to run that rag of his. Rile up the hoi polloi so they're distracted about birth certificates and other meaningless nonesuch. Meanwhile, the rich nutters will unleash their lobbyists on DC making backroom deals to get government contracts because the hoi polloi are worked up about something else. Thus, rich nutters get richer.

Farah is just the monkey doing the dance, not the grinder pulling the strings and making the money.


Mary
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

IN FACT, Hawaii has stated very clearly that the COLB IS a birth certificate.

They also stated very clearly that it would NOT say the birth place was Hawaii if it was not.

AND, other U.S. states DO issue BCs for foreign born citizens and adoptees, but none, including Hawaii, ILLEGALLY say the person was born in that state.

Why is it so hard for you birfoons to comprehend that US vital statistics management is the strictest and most accurate in the world?


Breitbart Vs Farah at Tea Party Convention | NewsReal Blog
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention By David Weigel 2/6/10 11:00 AM [...]


InTheHills
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Why are you left wing idiots defending a Marxist POTUS who is out to Socilaize America? Our liberties and freedom are being taken away day by day and you defend the lying fraud that is destroying our counrtry. I don't care where the Communist was born, he needs to be impeached immediately. He hates America. Look at the economy. Any idiot could create jobs if you wanted to. Look at what's happening to our National (in)security! Pay attention you idealogues! Wake up people!


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Hey Tim, you can stop laughing. I'll anxiously await your retraction, Tim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…


ProudConservative
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

What is Obama hiding and why?


InTheHills
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

Beck's “schtick” is playing videos of what your beloved messiah and his Marxist cronies say right out of their own mouths. The truth is very painful, I know. Liberals are in a perpetual fantasy land where truth has no place. Look at what your party is doing to the country. Want to blame Bush? Of course you do! Try blaming Congress and the gov't in general. Pay attention to WHY we are REALLY in this mess and how BHO has not improved a thing. Hmm. I wonder why that is…


Irish_Wake
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

The question is not whether someone is a citizen.
The question is not whether Obama is a naturalized citizen.
The question is not if Obama is eligible to be president.

The question is why the most elementary legal proofs and official state pronouncements are rejected like food by a bulimic. Yet convoluted and carefully minced fictions are swallowed whole and declared manna from heaven.


InTheHills
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

BHO not only hates white people, but hates America. You really should pay much closer attention. Libs are in huge denial. It's very sad to witness. How do you people sleep at night? I guess with a small brain and few thoughts, it's probably pretty easy for you. Pay attention and wake up! OUR country is at stake!


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

I am not calling for seeing the records. However, having investigated several fraud cases, I have found where there is smoke there is fire. In ALL other instances where nationality was at issue the person in question showed proper records.

I would also remind you that Obama is half white. The fact that he is the ONLY president not willing to share a piece of documentation with the people he works for is puzzling.

I would also contend that since you, and many others like you, resist so vehemently, that you might just suspect something rotten in Denmark. Perhaps you are willing to have a president that have allegiances’ to other countries be your president, or perhaps you simply disbelieve. Regardless, since this is causing such division and can be easily dispelled with providing the birth certificate, why not do so?

This is causing issues across the entire country, even in the military itself. My God man simply show the certificate and get on with the presidency. Rarely, in politics, can a matter be resolved so easily; so why not?

Therefore, the question does not really become is he a natural born citizen, but why won't he bring the country closer together with such a simple gesture?

Any intelligent person that is not completely gullible would ask that same question.

There are two possible answers for a leader:
1. He has no birth certificate
2. He does not want people to come together as he promised

For people who aren't leaders there are many other answers, but very unfitting for a sitting president.

So I still must ask why not. I find this a useful question for my time. With regards, it is the peoples’ white house, I do not know to whom you refer to as THEY. The people are asking.


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

Yes, of course I do. I also have a SS card, a DL and other documentation to prove who I am. If you have no BC then how in fact did you get a license?


Ben
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

Yeah, when Reagan comes back, he's gonna be pissed…


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

That page does not in fact say anything of the sort. It says, “State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records”

This means no one but Obama, or his wife or children – who have Direct and tangible interest. Being as that you are not related to him you have no direct interest.

However HRS [§338-17.8] says this: Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

So this COLB does not in fact establish he was born in Hawaii, it does in fact suggest he is not born in Hawaii.

Look, I am sure he has a BC, I just have to wonder why he would prefer dissension in the ranks of the military, and the population to tears its throat out rather than simply show it. Don't you wonder such a thing? If not, why not?


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

Please itemize for me, right here and now, all your freedumbs and liberties that have been taken away from you since Obama became president.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

Dude, you are like, OMG, like, so right on! I mean, like, Obama is like a communistsocialistmuslimterrorist all rolled into one. Like, OMG, like, whatever shall we do?

We surround them!


Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Breitbart versus WorldNetDaily
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

[...] This Dave Weigel piece is fascinating, even more interesting than the usual from Weigel. It captures Breitbart berating a WND editor for giving a birtherist speech at the teabagger convention. [...]


- Macsmind – Home of the MacRanger Show
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

[...] that Washington Independent writer Dave Weigel picked up on a little spat between World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah and Andrew Breit… over a disagreement about Obama’s – yes – birth certificate issue. You know my [...]


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

You say other states do, but I haven't found any, please send a referrence. With regards to your insults, it seems to me that those who insult do so because they are losing an argument.

Note: I am not arguing his citizenship, merely his decision not to show his BC. It is a curious question. My experience with politicians is this: 1. Never trust a politician farther than you can throw them. 2. Never touch a politician; getting the scum off is harder than you think.


Farah vs. Breitbart: The Trutherism Edition | Little Miss Attila
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

[...] Here. [...]


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

You're done like DINNER, you retarded little aye-aye! Wrong and wrong and wrong again! *sticks fingers in ears and blows a raspberry*

Go back to Birtherland! Maybe Obamacornlies will be waiting for you and you can have birther babies! Wouldn't that be nice? A WHOLE TRIBE OF IDIOTS!!!!


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

Ladies and gentlemen – the Cheyne-Stokes breathing of a bankrupt theory! Whee!

*applauds*


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

*leads the groundlings in chucking rotting fruit and dead oysters*

You're done and you're too dumb to know it! BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

Oh, With respect to your statement, “argument, however, is not rational and is not based on facts.” The US Constitution says it is rellevant,

Article 2, Section 1, paragrapgh 5:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


InTheHills
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

“Teabaggers” You mean the people that cheish the Constitution and value the wisdom of the Founding Fathers? The ones who believe in smaller government and less taxes? Yea, they're just crazy!


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Ah, NC. This is a person who claims to be from somewhere in the Balkans, can barely read or write English, repeats him/herself constantly, and from internal clues seems to have a very close and personal relationship with someone who is intimately familiar with dentistry AND gets very, very, very upset when called a “mascara-sucking cretin.”


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

Go drown in some tea dregs, and take your little buddy Grover Norquist with you.


InTheHills
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

I'll tell you what I am going to do: I am going to go work now and create some wealth so that it can be redistributed to those who didn't start a business or work hard. Let me know when you receive your government check off the backs of those of us who actually work. What the government gives you, it can also take away.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Beck and his bum-buddies on Fox specialize in lies, doctored videos, and selective editing. They're the latter-day Know-Nothings, and worth as much as a bucket of warm trilobite dung.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

No, the ones who go around inciting riots, perverting the meaning of the Gadsden flag, and whinging about the evil government needs to keep its hands away from their Medicare.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!! What great snark!


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

On Saturday? Man, I pity you – you clearly didn't hear about this nice little invention courtesy of the labor movement called the “weekend.” You know, when the average hard working American *has two whole days in a row off??????*


ejs
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:07 pm

Who said it wasn’t relevant. I just said there was absolutely nothing to it.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

Wow. You sure have a lot of handles. Any chance you'll be selling them at a tag sale?


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

No, people are insulting you because you're not only wrong, but an ignoramus who seems to enjoy it. THAT is funny.

As for certifications of birth, I have one from Pennsylvania that works just fine without my height, weight, footprint, or name of delivering doctor.


ejs
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

Duh, gee. I dunno. Maybe I was really born in Indonesia. I’ll bet President Obama has a SS card and a DL and “other documentation.” Would that satisfy you? I didn’t think so.


Howard
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

…and when did you stop beating your wife?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

This is the funniest piece of snark I’ve read in ages! Keep up the good work!

*applauds wildly and throws confetti*

“fraud investigator” God, what a cut up!


Birther Tension at Tea Party Convention | The Lonely Conservative
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

[...] spent a good portion of the speech on the President’s birth certificate, or lack therefore. The Washington Independent reported that Andrew Breitbart walked out during the speech. There, I heard Breitbart criticizing [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

What a great imitation of an illiterate birther! You even included a clumsy misspelling! Keep up the good work!


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

You might also note this:
In 2008, a resolution sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Thomas Coburn, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Barack Obama, and Sen. Jim Webb recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen was introduced and passed Senate without amendment. This resolution stated that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

U.S. Code definition

Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:15 pm

I have a Certification of Birth from Pennsylvania – the little souvenir from the hospital with my footprint and the doctor’s name got thrown out years ago when my mother got Alzheimer’s. And my original Social Security card would be pretty worthless these days if it hadn’t been stolen in 1983 or thereabouts since I signed it when I was twelve and my handwriting really isn’t very similar. Besides, SS cards aren’t accepted as identification, only as proof of eligibility to work, which is why non-citizens who have work visas have them, too. Wherever did you get the silly idea that they *were*?


christene101
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

Why is this topic considered crazy when those who put Obama in office are the very same people -LSM- trying to control that topic and drop this topic right along with the race card game? The fact that LSM media is trying to stop this topic is the very reason it should be fully investigated! Why hasn't he released a Birth Certificate? The one posted on fight the smears was removed after it was reported to be a fraud, another reason to look into this topic. Remember people, the same people trying to shut this topic down, are the same people who will tumble down right along Obama if this is found to be true….what is the harm with some true investigative journalism on this topic if they have nothing to hide?


kth
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

Believing in ACORN conspiracies is no less loony than believing in Obama birth conspiracies.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

Oh well…at least you called him Mr. before calling him a monkey, that’s a start anyhow.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

DISSENSION IN THE RANKS?????

Since when does a handful of people stupid enough to hire Orly Taitz constitute “dissension in the ranks”???? And just WHO is tearing out anyone’s throat? The hell?

You really need to see a psychiatrist. Delusions like this are a symptom of something very serious and should be treated as quickly as possible.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

Cute…mean nicknames for everyone….recess is in 30 minutes kids.


Howard
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

“They also give out certificates of live birth to foreign born children to parents who are residents (the only state in the nation to do so).”

And how often do they give out COLBs to foreign-born children that say that they were born in Honolulu? Come on.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

You are coming around, Pupster. Surely if you’d expect such out of a poster on a blog then you’d certainly expect no less from the most powerful man in the world.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:20 pm

NC claims to be from the Balkans and seems to be relatively fluent in Serbian. Since Serbia seems to have won the Balkan Wars of the 90s (as much as anyone could claim to “win” that internecine conflict), I really have to wonder why a Serbian would emigrate. Perhaps NC is a war criminal on the lam who wants America to be as much of a ruin as his/her/its homeland?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

Yes, we should always believe what politicians tell us. Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, and Blago? If so, how many will it take to convince you?


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

It appears to me that serious questions are raised, but no one here wishes to actually discuss the issue.

Instead they call names, and insult one another. Debate is more than using logical fallacies to diminish the credibility of people but in reality an enerst attempt at discussing the facts at hand.

No wonder our country is falling into such disrepair. People cannot have a civil discussion about a subject that potentially effects all Americans. Debate is the conerstone of a free republic. Insulting and attacking people is a tool used by party politics to distract and evade.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

Sorry dude, your $8 job cleaning up aisle 9 at Walmart won't generate much wealth. You really should stop buying all those lotto tickets and Big Macs.


christene101
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

Tim,….A big deal already made on this topic, in fact the Dems pushed for this very topic, McCain's parents are both AMERICANS,..yes,..if only they would look as hard at obama as they did McCain….Here's a little help….Go to your search engine and put this in ..”Senate Deals With McCain's Citizenship”


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

Are you upset at any use of the r word or only when it is thrown at one of your perceived allies? Or do you believe that only conservatives can be racist? Would you consider Van Jones and Rev. Wright racists?


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

Gosh, I did not hear about these riots- got a link?


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

Oh noez, run and hide! Help me Glen Beck, I love my country! I fear for it! Let me cry on cue right now! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

There's no serious question, redneck. You're just a sore loser and an idiot, that's all.

People like you deserved to be made fun of and mocked and called names, because you're morons.

THis is your brain on Fox News, kids. Don't let this happen to you


christene101
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

Hey Randy,…or is it Ellie?..”Randy (unregistered) wrote, in response to christene101:

Oh noez, run and hide! Help me Glen Beck, I love my country! I fear for it! Let me cry on cue right now! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!”"”………..research is your friend. ..Glen is spelled Glenn Beck.


Was at a Tea Party When a Birther Rally Broke Out - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

[...] Read the whole thing here. [...]


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

No, I mean the ugly fat old white men who cannot get a woman, holding signs showing Obama with a Hitler mustache, asking “where's da birf certificutt?”

Or the yokels who are so fucking dumb, they don't understand the irony of holding a sign that says “hands off my medicare”.

How's the little teabagger conference going in TN this weekend? Wow, what overwhelming numbers you rednecks have…600 people! Gosh, that will show 'em you're serious.

And of course $arah PAYlin will be right there , giving you decrepit impotent old geezer hard-ons all night.

Who knew wingnut men were so desperate?


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

You're absolutely right, Name. I'm also amazed that people on both sides are so quick to believe the government. What is it going to take to make people skeptical? We've had the bailouts, recession, deficit, earmarks, social security is broke, and we've been lied to all the while by both parties. From George HW Bush's “read my lips, no new taxes” to Bill Clinton's “I did not have sexual relations” to the absurdity of George W. Bush's “Heckuva job, Brownie” to Barack Obama's promise for public health care negotiations; what's it going to take to make people realize they should not have blind loyalty to politicians.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

Where is Orly Taitz!

LOL


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

Rev Wright? Bwaahahahahahahahaaa!!! Man, that is SO 2008. And I hate to break it to you, but that smear didn’t stick, at least not with anyone with an IQ over 60. Obama did get elected despite Sean Jerkoff Handjob and his weekly “Obama is friends with radicals” infomercials.

I knew wingnuts were not exactly what I would call ‘with it’ but come on, man. Unplug your Rush Limpballs talking points for just a moment if you can and come up with something fresh.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

Randy, may I ask what noble profession you are in? Since you look down your nose at Wal Mart jobs and liberals tend to attack various other industries- oil, pharma, food, auto, etc.- what lines of work do you find acceptable?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

I don't know. why don't you DEMAND to see his Kenyan Birth Certificate!


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

I love birthers. They are just CRAZZZZZY


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

Van Jones was in 2009- which was the same year Beck called O a racist, but I’m obviously wasting my time because you are just here to insult people.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Hey Orly, did you actually READ Chris Strunks filing?


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Yes, wow, what a game changer that is. I am shocked, shocked find out there's gambling going on here!


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

Do you ever insult ugly fat old people of other races or only white?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

The funniest birther crap ever!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26257994/Strunk-Motio…

LOL LOL LOL


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

Not so big on the tolerance, aye elli?


kgregt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

Not so big on the tolerance, aye elli?


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

I love birthers too. They are really funny. Birthers/teabaggers, all cut from the same cloth. Bitter, old, white morons who cannot stand the fact that the face of America has changed from their lily-white 1950s Leave it To Beaver world.

Do let me know when the teabaggers actually do something beside give all their money to the grifters who run the teabagger collective. You people are such gullible rubes.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

Oily titz


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

Just morons who have no sense of irony when they try to equate the president with one of the worse mass murderers in history.

And so far, at the teabagger rallies, all I see are dumb old white people, the same demographic that watches Fox News and the same demographic that listens to talk radio.


Randy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

I’m a pimp who goes into ACORN offices trying to get tax breaks.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

According to Mister Farah journalism isn't about proving things, it is about asking questions and seeking truth. Let me them ask a question so that we may begin to seek the truth:

Did Joseph Farah rape and murder a young girl in 1990?


"Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention" and related posts
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:00 pm

[...] Source:"Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention" and related posts [...]


JL
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

I also have a serious question. Does Sarah Palin worship Satan? This is a legitimate question that has been raised and is being discussed. As a journalist, I am asking Ms. Palin to prove she is not a worshiper of Satan. I am simply seeking the truth.


davew
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

Agreed. Sarah Palin should not be any sort of political representative, formally or informally, until she has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt she does NOT worship satan.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

Here's a simple question for the sockpuppets: was Ed Morrissey wrong when he said that Hawaii only holds certificates for those born in Hawaii? Answer yes or no.

That will put the sockpuppets in a bind: will they support a BHO opponent rather than admitting the truth?

Note: the reason for this question isn't to prove that BHO was born here, there, or somewhere else. It's simply to show that most commentators on this issue can't get there facts straight. That's as true for Ed as it is for Weigel and a whole host of MSM reporters.

Once again, a note to the sockpuppets: I want a yes or no answer to the question above, not your usual smears, lies, and deflections. Yes or no.


Steve
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

An original birth certificate, if mine is any example, is a very unimpressive document that varies in form from hospital to hospital and is crudely filled in by hand and signed by a doctor no one knows. I could produce that kind of document on a computer and get a neighbor to sign it. It is foolish to believe that showing such a document to birthers would do anything except encourage more and more preposterous claims that the document is forged, that it doesn't look convincing, etc., and basically feed their insanity.

The transcript from the state attesting that their documents on file since the time of birth show Obama to have been born in Hawaii is far stronger evidence than any “original” birth certificate scrawled out by a doctor at a hospital would be. And has that document had any effect on stopping the birther idiocy?


THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention » POPNEWS
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

[...] spent around 10 of its forty minutes on questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship… Go to Blog Post – © POPNEWS | POPULAR NEWS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. var cookie = [...]


de stijl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

STFULW


Greg
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

If they give out a certificate to someone born in another country, the certificate will have a space for “place of birth” that says Kiev, or Tokyo, or wherever. It will not say Honolulu, as Obama’s does. Moron.


piniella
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
Updated at 2:57 p.m., Monday, July 27, 2009

In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawai'i's health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

Y'know, I really shouldn't be so hard on Joseph Farah. When he calls birtherism a 'winning issue', we should wholeheartedly endorse the right-wing embracing this tactic.

Because nothing else will drive our growing African-American and Hispanic population more to the Democrats than showing the GOP base as the racist loons they are.


Tea Party Power « Olliander
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

[...] and the Tea Party is no exception.  The birther contingent is alive and well in the movement, and its ruffling a lot of feathers among non-birther conservatives: During WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah’s Friday night [...]


ProudConservative
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

Why is it racist to request Obama reveal a copy of his long form birth certificate and college/university records?


Elsie
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

Wrong. There was no big push from Dems about McCain's birth certificate, since most of them knew that he was a citizen if only ONE of his parents was. In fact, it was Democrat Claire McCaskill, one of Obama's own backers, who helped craft the resolution, in response to a NYT story which raised questions. The non-issue wasn't really “resolved” by the Senate's resolution, which doesn't have the force of law behind it, but McCain was never required to produce any birth certificate to the members of the Senate.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28994…


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

The thing is, Obama has proven that he is a natural born U.S. citizen. Proof:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Your problem is that you start from the conclusion that there must be something there and then work backwards to try to prove it. You do this by pointing out that other politicians were involved in scandals but fail to prove that Obama’s birth certificate constitutes a scandal. Plus, you’re asking us to believe that Obama’s political enemies who would love nothing more than to get him out of office, investigated the issue, found a scandal and decided to cover it up for whatever reason. That, my friend, is what any sane person would call “batshit crazy.”


luvmerica
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

It is not racist, necessarily. A lot of people use it as a stalking horse for the racism they don't feel comfortable stating in public though. It is pointless for sure. There is no reason whatsoever to think he wasn't born in Hawaii, and he is President – what does it matter what he got in gym as a freshman?


ProudConservative
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

That is not a good analogy. Try again.


luvmerica
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

What analogy?


nrha37
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

Hi! I think all of those people who do not agree with Farah are absolutely unread and uninformed. If they would just read on the internet, maybe even in the Whistle Blower Magazine–which has spent SEVERAL issues with total FOCUS on the birth certificate issue and of Barrack Hussein Obama and his shenagans!! How about even purchasing the book, “Obama Nation”; that tells ALL ABOUT Barrack Hussein Obama. We MUST NOT ALLOW Barrack Hussein Obama to be elected in 2012!! And if everything goes just PERFECT, he won't even be able to run for that position!!!

By the way, go to: wndstore.com or call 1-800-496-3266 and purchase any of the above mentioned references. Also, search him on the internet with “birth certificate” and “birthers” as a prime focus. Also, at the above number, you can purchase an excellent source for your investigation: A DVD titled, “A Question of Eligibility.”

Good Reading to You!!!


Polyorchnid Octopunch
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

So, when are you going to post links to all your ID? It would also be handy to know your first and last name, residence, date of birth, and SSN. Makes it a lot easier to clean out your accounts that way.

When are you going to ask W to do that… or GHWB? Or Clinton even? Look at that… a black guy becomes Pres and all of a sudden a bunch of folks want him to “prove” his citizenship. What could possibly be the motivation behind that?


OSoccer
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

Farah is Right, and Breitbart a Coward (2010-02-06)

http://washingtonindependent.com/75949/birther-…

—————————————-
[Breitbart] : “Prove your case.”

[Farah] : “I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”
—————————————-

I say that Farah is completely correct, and I consider Breitbart's avoidance of Obama's usurpation of the Office of President as completely self serving acquiescence to racist political correctness. Apparently Breitbart has self-censored his scrutiny of Obama's flagrant breach of our Constitution for the cowardly reason that he fears being called a racist when he states: “You have to disprove that you’re a racist!”

Are we really living in an Orwellian the twilight zone?

I fear that we may be doomed as a free people in view of the fact that Obama has blatantly trampled upon our Constitution, and yet the majority of “important” people in the media refuse to utter “the emperor has no clothes on.”

The case against Obama’s usurpation is so evident that a child can understand it:

Fact 1 : Our Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

Fact 2 : The definition of “natural born Citizen” is found in Vittal’s “Law Of Nations” Book I, Chapter 19, section 212: “…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” This means that both the father and the mother must be citizens of the country at the time of their child’s birth to consider the child to be a natural born Citizen.

Fact 3 : The person currently holding the Office of President of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama Jr., maintains that his father was from Kenya and was a British subject at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, and not a citizen of the United States.

Conclusion : Therefore, regardless of where Obama was born, whether in Hawaii as he claims, or in Kenyan as his paternal grandmother Sarah Obama claims she witnessed, because Obama’s father was not a United States citizen when Obama Jr. was born, Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr., is not a natural-born citizen, and hence is constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of President.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

Here's a procedural question: is the “de stijl” who's twice now told me to “STFULW” named Scott Forsell? If that's not the real name of “de stijl”, let us know.


Al
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

You do know that he has released his “Certificate of Live Birth”. There is no other type of birth certificate from Hawaii. There is no such thing as a “Long Form”. Check out the Hawaii Secretary of State website. When you order your birth certificate you get what Obama has released and that journalists have viewed and posted pictures of on their websites. A Certificate of Live Birth is a birth certificate. My son was born in Kentucky and we have a “Certificate of Live Birth”. If you are thinking of the paper you get with the cute little foot prints; well, that's not a birth certificate but simply a souvenir that hospitals give to the parents, but it is not considered a legal document.

And one final piece of bad news for you; the “Certification of Live Birth” is on the Fight The Smears website.


nuckfut
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

OSoccer,
How is Obama not an natural born US citizen if he was born in Hawaii?


trashhauler
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Tea Partiers help elect conservatives, Randy. They do so by supporting people who agree with the principles of small government and fiscal responsibility.

Aside from accuse them of being racists (without any proof), what do you bring to the discussion? An intentionally insulting reference to a gay sexual practice.

At the same time, you support people who wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. So, who's the rube, Randy?


Mike
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Hopefully, The government will start rounding up these traitors and put them in the camps soon.


Eric Dondero
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

It's too late on Obama. There's nothing that can be done. The US elected a foreigner as President. Case closed.

The “Birther” movement now, is more about helping to prevent this from ever happening again. Rep. Posey's bill with 12 co-sponsors now would require proof of US citizenship i.e. genuine birth certificate for all future US Presidents.

Surely, that's something even Liberals could endorse. Or, would they rather open the US Presidency up to foreigners?


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

HEh, finally, we got them Dem's on the run. Trash, you're so right, and these high and mighty types just don't get it. We 'baggers are for small gub'mint and money repsonability. Omamy isn't American! The “mans” a spook fromAfrica, and He and his Muslim friends are going to oblirate this great country. I've studied all the books, read enough copies of newsmax (real news, not that msm crapola) and i've prayed on it with the good book in my hands. Omamy is dangerous, and we 'baggers are gunna bag that c**n in 2012!


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

D*mn straight. Some one needs to man up and put that sand ni***r in his place. Can't wait for Sarah P.'s speech!


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

No offense to some of the others that post here, but the America I grew up in was christian and pure. Then all the others wanted to get recognized, and took control. This is a pure christian nation, and the 'baggers representive that. Thank God they finally have a real voice in America. We're going to take back this country from the people that want to turn it into some disgusting multicultural s-hole. Stae by stae, town by town, we 'baggers are gunna sweep in, and sweep out all you libs,coloreds,f*gs, etc. You socialismists are gunna get the boot, and God willing, you are gunna b_rn in he!!.


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:04 pm

Anyone who states the facts no matter what their political leaning is, is right. So in answer to your question, if Ed Morrissey said that Hawaii only holds certificates for those born in Hawaii, then he was not wrong. I'll even go a step farther and say that those lunatics Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were not wrong when they said the birther issue is a non-issue. Here are some other web sites that are not wrong:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifica…

And stop trolling for clicks on your lunatic website.


ProudConservative
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

Playing that old race car doesnt work anymore.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

Ah yes, the last defense of the racist asshole: 'Playing the race card.'

Not our fault we can see your hood and bedsheets as clear as daylight.


Kolohe
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

STFULW


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

Obama has already presented more proof than any other president in history of where he was born. The fact that you don't want to believe that proof says more about you than it does about him.

As far as foreigners becoming president, I don't really care. I personally think that the natural born citizen requirement is antiquated and should be done away with. It should be opened up to naturalized citizens as well.


Kolohe
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

DONDEROOOOOOOOO!!!


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

You mean you're actually from Nazi Germany? COOL.

Tell me, what was Hitler really like? Was he nice to his dog? Did he ever sneak a bit of wiener schnitzel past his vegetarian cook? What about Geli Raubal?


philboyd studge
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

Sorry, no it wasn't “christian and pure”. You just thought it was. America was never Christian, it was always a mixture of religious and non-religious beliefs. And as for “pure” America hasn't been “pure” in any sense since before it was America. It's been a melting pot of people from different cultures, races, and backgrounds, since the Vikings and Columbus discovered the people who were already here.

You believe it was “christian and pure” because you lived in a bubble, and you have never had the courage to leave it.
Well, “POP”!


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

DeVattel is not the Constitution.

0-64 in court cases.

Barack Hussein Obama is still President of our great country.


euphgeek
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:23 am

Idiots who continue to beat a dead horse nearly two years after the birth certificate was released deserve nothing more than “mean nicknames.”


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

I hope you realize that the Posey bill would require candidates to provide a valid birth certificate as proof of citizenship….

Which the President did. Over a year ago.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

I don't know whether to salute you as an awesome spoof or for having the balls to wear your racist asshat proudly.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

You seem to be forgetting about a little thing called the Secret Service….


ourmatrixsux
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

U.S. code (i.e., U.S LAW), not the Vital reference, establishes the definition and scope of 'natural born citizen,' for the purpose of facilitating operations/processes in our current republic, so your “fact 2″ is wrong, which makes your entire supposition total birther bullshit.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

Wrong from beginning to end. Also, you are insulting the children of America by stating that they would believe in this idiocy any more than the average American does.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:26 pm

Hi, Mr. Farah! Tell me, when are you going to admit that your mustache is a fake?


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

He released his legal birth certificate over a year ago. College records are not relevant.

You can go back to your Klan rally now.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:28 am

Now that’s funny.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

Since when do race cars have anything to do with the Presidency?


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

Dude, I could smell the snark from Jim's post a mile away. One big clue is that he referred to the Tea Party movement as “'baggers.”


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

It's people like you who drove me to become the first non-Republican in my family since the Civil War. Nice job.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

Christ Almighty, would you STOP trolling for clicks on your web site? And would you PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY update the damn thing? It's 2010, not 1996!


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:32 pm

Does that mean that he's actually Glenn Beck in a clever plastic disguise?


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

She also needs to produce the birth certificate for her youngest child to prove that he is actually hers and not either the fruit of her daughter's loins, a random baby she stole from a Haitian orphanage and subjected to an illegal skin bleaching operation, or a space alien.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:38 am

I don’t think they’ve released a picture of his dog’s poo on the South Lawn yet. Why do you want to see it?


race42008.com » Blog Archive » The Tea Party Convention Creams Birtherism
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

[...] to Hot Air for this: Dave Weigel has been covering the Tea Party Convention in Nashville for the Washington Independent, and earlier today walked into an unplanned but heated debate between World Net Daily’s Joseph [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:41 am

Sorry, but if the teabaggers don’t want the decent, hardworking citizens of America to think they’re racists, they need to denounce the Obama/witchdoctor signs, the Kenyan birth certificate nonsense, the Obama=Hitler meme, and immediately disavow Tom Tancredo’s dog whistle call for repeal of the Voting Rights Act.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:45 am

Not for idiots who advocate the removal of the legally elected President based on a moronic rumor, I’m not. That’s called “sedition,” and I see no reason to support anyone who advocates it.

As for Grover Norquist, he needs to move to Colorado Springs to see what “drowning the government in a bathtub” looks like, the anti-American little thug.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:49 am

If the vast majority of teabaggers were anything *but* bitter middle-aged Caucasians who hate anyone who isn’t like them, that would be a different matter. Alas….


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:56 am

Let’s see…

The Sarah Palin rallies in 2008 where people were screaming “KILL HIM!” when she mentioned Barack Obama.

The “town halls” this summer where members of Congress were screamed at and threatened, and where desperately ill people with no health insurance were mocked as whiners.

The meeting where Republican Mike Castle of Delaware lost control to a shrieking lunatic and a claque.

The New Hampshire speech by the President where a man wearing a t-shirt advocating the assassination of politicians showed up with a gun…and anyone who thinks that he wasn’t trying to intimidate the President and the Secret Service probably tried to buy the Grand Central Station news kiosk and turn it into a fruit stand.

The Knob Creek gun show where t-shirts explicitly equating Barack Obama and Joe Biden with Adolf Hitler were for sale.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:58 am

And does the Democratic Party need to denounce every nutjob that graces the internet on the Left? Remember all those crying “Chimpy McBusHitler?” Of course not.

Bear in mind that any movement pulls in its fair share of oddballs and hangers-on amd it is a classic Alinsky move to define you opposition by the very worst characteristics that you can dredge up. And that’s even discounting how many false-flag types are out there trying to bring discredit on the vast majority of normal Tea Partiers.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:04 am

Jim, you’ve got to be a false flag type. Your tone and trashy way of referring to the President is not representative of any Tea Partier that I would care to associate with.

Your kind of help ain’t needed or wanted, chum.


kirbykral
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

Listen up, jackass, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with race. It has to do with what is constitutionally allowable in terms of who and who can't be president. If your going to throw around invectives like molotov cocktails then you'd have to call our Founding Fathers racists, since they crafted the “natural born citizen” statue. I'm frankly quite sick of you people who call people racist for DARE questioning BHO on his more than murky past. Get an effing clue, would you? By the way, John McCain's citizenship was questioned by a bunch of people. Barack Obama even gave his two cents on McCain's citizenship status, but said that McCain met the requirements. Maybe to cover his own hide? Fact of the matter is, Barack Obama could not possibly be an “NBC” as required. His father was never a citizen of the U.S, even though BHO Jr.'s mother was. It takes BOTH parents to be a citizen of the U.S in order for a person to run for President. The presidency is the only office that requires that a person be a “natural born citizen”, rather than just a “native citizen”. Quit slurring people for having doubts and questions. I'm sick of your crap.


belairjeff
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

my concept for a “change” that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will get behind. why? because it's what makes SENSE. read this blog post: read my blog post:

http://jeffircink.blogspot.com/2010/02/peoples-…

if you can't open the blog, email me and i'll send a hard copy.
irc_64@hotmail.com


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Aw man! I thought I nailed the whole “teabagger” attitude-dumb and racist!


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

God, I've prayed on it, and the only pure christian thing to do, is for me to strip you nekkid and like your BOOTYBOOTYBOOTYBOOTY!


Jim Forrest
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

Also, God told me I should put my Dinkle in your Stinkle….


conanthelibrarian
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

I love how any mention of the teabaggers brings out all the white men who are soiling their diapers at the thought of losing their privileged position in society. Or maybe they are just upset because black men are getting more white pussy than are the pale skinned right wingers.


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

A natural born citizen does not need two citizen parents. That's why children of illegal aliens who give birth here in the U.S. are natural born citizens, hence the term “anchor baby.” Anyone still arguing that Obama is ineligible for the presidency is either racist or ignorant (or possibly both). Which one are you?


aarrgghh
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

breitbart and farah — the pot calling the kettle “hack!”

i guess joe conveniently forgot that his little scandal sheet already gave his seal of approval to the birth certificate he supposedly hasn't seen:

“a separate WND investigation into obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…

of course, that was before joe realized those silly birthers make a great little atm machines. ka-ching!!


Pat
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

Did he ask Palin to produce a birth certificate?


Tired of it
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

Has any candidate been asked to produce a birth certificate. No one asked Palin for hers. If you ask him ask everyone.


Tired of it
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

Pure christian .. do you mean pure white. This smells like the new Klan.


Sheryl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

I'm slow tonight. I still can't tell if you are using satire or if you are the genuine thing. You're either really good…. or really deluded.


Shade Tail
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

Farah: “[Journalism] is not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”

Feh. What an absolutely perfect case of someone using the Cavuto.


AZH
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

Breitbart is right. I am a liberal and this birther obession with some radicals (not conservatives) is a definite loser.


arlandbaee
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

that was pretty funny.


AZH
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

Another fascist loving white man who doesn't realize his time is up. Thank God you represent a SMALL amount of whites who think this way. You can't even spell.


Sheryl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

I just did some quick research…

Did you know that Martin Van Buren was the first President that was actually born a United States citizen? All previous presidents were actually British citizens upon birth, since the American revolution had not taken place. The president after Van Buren, William Harrison, was to last President to be born as a British citizen. And both parents of all these initial presidents where NOT US citizens when their child wa born. They were British subjects!! Interesting, huh?


Sheryl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

I just did some quick research…

Did you know that Martin Van Buren was the first President that was actually born a United States citizen? All previous presidents were actually British citizens upon birth, since the American revolution had not taken place. The president after Van Buren, William Harrison, was to last President to be born as a British citizen. And both parents of all these initial presidents where NOT US citizens when their child wa born. They were British subjects!! Interesting, huh?


AZH
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

Jim, you must love the Confederacy and want to bring back slavery. I think you are scared that blacks like me are going to take over (we are only 14 percent of the population) and make guys like you the new n***ers for about 200 years. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!


derrick
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

“That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”

I wonder if he got the irony of his own statement. If it isn't about proving things, then what exactly is truth?


Sheryl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President, was born in 1829, at which time his father was a British-Irish citizen. His father was not naturalized as a US citizen until1843.


daveinboca
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

Yeah, Jim-bo is likely one a them f*gs he's raggin' on about.


Doc Rock
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

Vittal was wrong.

Sorry, but I'll have to go with all the federal court's previous rulings on challenges to Obama's citizenship over your's, which have all been thrown out. Each and every one.


Schmice
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

Unnecessary comment.


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:55 am

Interesting isn’t it? They still call names and do not realize that by doing so they show intolerance, ignorance, and are self defeating.

One truth is this; this country was not founded on trusting government.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I find it humorous that these people only trust “their” politician.

I place my belief in the constitution. Most people here need to read it and try to understand that document IS the foundation and structure of a FREE people.

Their pitiful ad hominem, straw man, and no true Scotsman fallacies are simple ruses to distract. Obama works for us, and as such needs to listen to us. Personally, I believe he is in fact a natural born citizen and the president of the US. Strange, though, that my asking a simple question makes me a, redneck, loon, sore loser, racist, etc.

But my right to free speech will not be diminished by those who do not understand my points or my rights. They have their right to speak also, though I do wish they’d refrain from trying to prevent others from having their rights, by making unsubstantiated claims of racism.


Doc Rock
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

Thank you for utterly decimating this idiot's rantings.


AZH
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

We MUST NOT ALLOW Barrack Hussein Obama to be elected in 2012!! And if everything goes just PERFECT, he won't even be able to run for that position!!!

Basically you are saying that perfection is President Obama dead by assassin or impeached. I have one question. If you love America so much and love “democracy” (why because of hate toward Arabs) would you want either of these things to happen?


Schmice
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:57 am

then maybe you should stop doing it.


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

I have no idea, but she *did* lie during a radio broadcast when she claimed that she had produced a birth certificate for her youngest child to settle the rumors that Trig wasn't really her baby.


Doc Rock
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

“It takes BOTH parents to be a citizen of the U.S in order for a person to run for President”

WRONG!

No matter how many times that FALSE assertion is made, it doesn't make it true. Only ONE parent is required for citizenship.

And since he was born in the United States, in Hawaii, your point is rendered completely moot, and you have NO PROOF that he wasn't born in Hawaii.

Weirdo conspiracy theories…..maybe.

Proof. Not a shred.


Sarah Palin: Tea Party Movement ‘Bigger Than Any Charismatic Guy with a Teleprompter’ | Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics
Pingback posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

[...] a day when the “birthers” took a lot of heat from the Tea Partiers. Breitbart sounding beyond himself. “I was talking to her,” said [...]


ellid
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

Wrong, as you would know if you'd actually bothered to do more than parrot Orly Taitz. Birth on American soil is all that is required, and the President meets that criterion.

As for your sensitivity to being called a racist, I'm sure your best friend is a dark-skinned mestizo lesbian with one leg.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

Um no they didn't. He's posted a copy of his birth certificate on line. and if you remember civics which I doubt his mother is an american. OPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSS that fact is not convenient.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:04 am

“An intentionally insulting reference to a gay sexual practice.”

Does that mean I’m turning my wife into a lesbian?


AZH
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:05 am

You should call yourself Proud Fascist or Racist not Conservative. Another thing whites who think like you created the so called “race card”. Question: What is the race card?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:08 am

Those footnotes actually made me scream and run.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Beacuse no other person has been asked. and two his mother was a citizen so hate to burst your bubble of crap


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:09 am

At the teabag convention, God help us all.


davemartin7777
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

“Breitbart is right. I am a liberal and this birther obession with some radicals (not conservatives) is a definite loser.”

So what?

You're a liberal, oh sure.

If you were really a liberal, you would be happy to see the wingnut hang themselves with their crazy rope.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:13 am

Sorry, but I think I missed the crowds at John Kerry rallies screaming for President Bush to be murdered, or the aging hippies bringing guns to his appearances, or the howling mobs storming the offices of Republican legislators demanding that government keep its hands out of Social Security, or the signs claiming that George W. Bush = Joseph Stalin. Can you post links to any of these?


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

The sad thing is they choose to be so willfully stupid. I know I shouldn't be but I am constantly amazed at their lack of basic knowledge and common sense.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:21 am

Perhaps you’d prefer “knee-walking turkey”?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:23 am

A lot more than an anonymous blogger bringing up completely irrelevant scandals going back forty years.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:24 am

Aw, come on. Jim Forrest gives him a run for the money.

I call Poe’s Law on this “24AheaDocCom” poster, though.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

This is just another way to prove that they are racist.


yourcaptainspeaking
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

Me loves some spelling Nazi!


lvwilkerson
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

That was a great statement. Let's hope someone from the tea party reads this and then decides it's best to be quiet. Thanks.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:35 am

And you would miss the crowds screaming for harm to come to President Obama, as well.

Out of the scores of thousands of Tea Partiers out there, with the MSM and Democratic Party seeking all evidence of their supposed nuttiness, the score has been a handful of people doing anything that can be used against them. That includes a grand total of two gun carriers far away from the scene of the real event. And one of those was a black libertarian whom MSNBC later tried to use as an example of an angry white man by cropping the video.

No, sorry, you can keep it up, of course. But all you get for your attempts is more hard feeling and the conviction that your sort what to deligitimize me sort. That way leads inevitably to violence and I won’t play that game.


AZH
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:35 am

Like I said this is not twitter. Do you think you are a good christian with these remarks? Are you a liberal posing as a teabagger?


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

yeah sad but true and not very bright


LowOnProzac
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Breitbart is right of course. It’s the issues that are important. This “birther” junk is exactly what the Progressives want. They are probably its biggest “supporters”, and they’re more than likely behind the racist posts here, also.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

How hard can it be to present the original birth certificate accompanied by the signature and thumbprint of the physician, a copy of the medical diploma and medical license (current as of Obama's birth, not a more-recent one) that proves the person was licensed to practice medicine, and a foundation document that proves the valid authority of whomever issued the medical license and another foundation document that verifies the authority of the entity that issued the birth certificate?

In order to prove that foundation document, the originating charter or constitution of the organization or government that issued the foundation document must show documents proving their validity and authority and their origin. All of those documents will have to be backed up by the originating charter, constitution or other document of origin of whichever authority granted that power (be it a signer of the Declaration of Independence or a member of the First Continental Congress – we don't want to make this difficult).

Originals only, please. Please have carbon dating, ink analysis and complete chain-of-custody records on hand for each of these documents. Acceptance of any document is at the discretion of the Tinfoil Hater of the Day.


The Fighting Corpsman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

Young military recruits have more integrity than Obama as Commander in Chief: The Military’s Moral Dilemma
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

Now you are trying to invalidate white former Presidents, too?

There's an even bigger movement afoot to prove Obama's lack of qualification:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/aft…


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

And this is because you personally know somebody so that you can make judgements on them. PFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT


jillibrown
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

Jim – do you know what year it is? Do you know what country you're in?

Loosen up the tinfoil hat and take you're meds

Yikes!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:46 am

You missed this part of constitution or ignored ……….a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

please read before yuo post


AZH
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:46 am

Kgregt, you would not know a racist if you were a deer in the headlights?


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

Thank you, Joseph Farah! We know far less about this “I'm Mr. Entitled” President than any other US President. Why should Obama be spared the perusal and inspection of his birth, educational and medical records…which no President since Kennedy has been spared? Oh, that's right…because he's black, and OOOH, THE HORROR…we might be called “racists” if we expected him to be treated just as all the other Presidents since Kennedy…and we're just too PC to have THAT, aren't we! Therefore, we must believe him, on faith. (GIVE ME A BREAK.)

Who are the REAL racists here? It's the mainstream media and those who deny treating this President “equally” by failing to demand of him proof of eligibility, instead of allowing him to get away with this deceit. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS WORTHLESS.

Hooray for Joseph Farah…one of the last true journalists alive today.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

We do all understand his mother was an american right? or do we forget civics and not pay attention because it's inconvenient.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

We do all understand his mother was an american right? or do we forget civics and not pay attention because it's inconvenient.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:50 am

Hell, we weren’t even able to get details on GW Bushs supposed service in the national guard – were you complaining about missing documentation then?

I’m just wondering how deep your hypocrisy runs.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:52 am

Proof of limited education. Those who question Obama’s birth are ignorant. This is more reason why we need to put money in education. We have hundreds of thousands of idiots in the world who do not know what the requirements of U.S. citizenship.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

Funny do not recall good ole george being asked for his birth certificate nor bill clinton nor george w bush nor nixon nor ford nor carter nor johnson. so i guess i got back to kennedy. huh? the real racists are those who call for this when it has already been posted. his mother is american. forgot that didn'tya


chaney
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:56 pm

This “birther” movement is insulting. Why do these idiots think that this president should do any more than other President? Is it because he was born in Hawaii? or that he was born to a bi-racial couple and his father was Kenyan,? and he happens to have spent times as a child in a Muslim country……No way, No How do I ever want this bunch of fools in charge anywhere…. and if Sarah insists on condoning this vitriole then she needs to go fishing or whaling, or moose hunting.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Where's HER birth certificate?

Plus some tissue samples for DNA testing.


faucetman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Some “Quick” research??? You see that is the problem. By your statement it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about eligibility. No offence, you are not alone. Article II, section 1, clause 5, reads as follows:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

“….or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution….”


faucetman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Some “Quick” research??? You see that is the problem. By your statement it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about eligibility. No offence, you are not alone. Article II, section 1, clause 5, reads as follows:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

“….or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution….”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:58 am

Do you not realize that the FBI does a background check on all political appointees and on Presidents, Legislators, Judges, etc. If Obama was not a citizen, I can guarantee you he would not be in the White House and the Secret Service would not be protecting him.

You should seriously go back to school and get an education. His mother is an American citizen and he was born in America.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

or just away they also forget his mother is american but that is inconvenient. back to what i said about willfull stupidity


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

where's yours


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Lie. He posted an image on the web.

Is there any government job where you can post an image on a private web page and be treated seriously by a government agency?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Lie. He posted an image on the web.

Is there any government job where you can post an image on a private web page and be treated seriously by a government agency?


euphgeek
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

Hey, it's a lot better than being a birther. Or a Republican. Not like there's much difference between the two. Both are incompetent and gullible.


cliffc
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

Obama was not born in Kenya. If you doubt it, go to http://www.factcheck.org and look it up. The folks there went to Hawaii and have pictures of his birth certificate. NOT copies, pictures of the real thing, from many angles, showing the indentations of the state seal. Keep in mind that fact check, the website, was founded as a non-partisan organization as part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The Annenbergs were die hard Republicans distinguished, in part, by being Reagan's largest individual donors. This issue is not an issue to agree to disagree on, it's a fact, supported by evidence and every court in which a suit has been filed has so far dismissed or denied to even hear the case.

This is exactly the problem. Regardless of certifiable evidence, we all choose to hear only those voices which affirm our initial theses. The conversation has to start going two ways. Disagreements are good, but intentional falsehoods are indeed corrosive. Especially when they start to enter the public consciousness as fact. It is not helpful to talk of Death Panels and Fascist Socialists when there is so much at stake. Nor is it helpful to talk of Bush/Bin Laden partnerships. As John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things, it's too bad we've all learned to ignore them.


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

Do YOU not understand that, in 1961, Obama's alleged birth date, Hawaii (Obama's alleged birthplace) had laws requiring the mother to have lived in the state for X number of years after a certain age in order for her child to be a “natural-born citizen” of Hawaii? (His mother failed that test, having had him at 18, not fulfilling the requirement.) Then there's the FACT that Obama himself stated that according to the laws in effect at the time of his birth he was a British subject. (Kenya was a British colony–which mandated that the child's FATHER's citizenship determined the baby's citizenship at birth.) A child born of a British subject…i.e. his father, a citizen of Kenya…was by law a British subject at the time of his birth…and the US does NOT recognize dual citizenships as also constituting “natural-born citizenshp status”.

You need to read something in addition to MSM propaganda, like Jerome Coursey (WND journalist and expert on this subject) and Phil Berg, Democrat and attorney with a Qui Tam suit pending in Federal Court which addresses Obama's eligibility.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

How many previous presidents had their birth reported in three different countries?

Could this be a reason why people are asking the question about Obama's original birth certificate?


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

See but they do not want to look at that because it skews there idiot view of the world.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

do you not understand that she is still an american. do you not understand a parent of mexican descent comes across the border to give birth and that child is maerican. or you forget your civics?


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

Oh, PLEASE…Factcheck.org has been debunked long ago…and NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE has yet been presented that shows Obama's hospital of birth, name of mother, name of doctor delivering him, etc. And Obama claimed to have been born in ONE of the TWO hospitals in Honolulu, while his sister claims he was born in the other…while–isn't it FUNNY–NEITHER of them has stepped forward to declare proudly that THEY'RE the hospital Obama was born in?? Hmmm…

AFTER ALL THIS TIME…HOW DUMB CAN YOU PEOPLE BE? NO WONDER OBAMA GOT ELECTED!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:13 am

What is the definition of a natural born citizen according to the US law?


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:13 pm

again with the lies . it was reported in the hawaiian papers and the governor has attested to it but they are all lying aren't they. dullard.


katahdin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:14 pm

Born in the USA equals natural born citizen of the USA. States have residency requirements, but there is NO SUCH THING as a natural born citizen of a state. That's just stupid.


peed
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

yeah it's all a conspiracy god how dumb


katahdin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:16 pm

Also, neither Clinton nor Bush released their medical records.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:17 am

What is the difference between the citizen at birth, native citizen and natural born citizen?


katahdin
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

Birther lies don't equal “reporting.”


jpatt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

Look at FactCheck? Oh, birther movement over. NOT. Annenberg FactCheck is biased. The group, out of Chicago, received earmarks from Senator Obama. The DailyKos and FactCheck got to see his short form certificate. Big whopptydo.

Folks, the Constitution says the people rule this country. The people have been denied access to birth records, college records, health records, travel logs and about a dozen other requests. The Constitution has been null and void since Jan 20, 2009.

As far as the birth records, I have given up. It has been proven we can win without attacking his eligibility. I would like everyone to attack Joe Biden for his records. Not b'cuz I think he is not a citizen, but to prove that the people own this government. We will see how hard or easy it is to get those records.


Sheryl
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

Researching information is never a problem. Others should do so more often. And, I thought it was interesting. Also, there is one President who, like President Obama, had a parent who was not a citizen.

Of course, none of it matters. President Obama is clearly a 'natural born citizen' and has had his citizen scrutinized more than any other public official. This is a dead issue.


faucetman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

Under laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth, his mother did not meet the requirements to pass citizenship of any kind to Obama. If he wasn't born in USA, he isn't likely even a citizen at all.

His original birth certificate has NEVER been posted, unless it is the one from Mombassa.

http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

I got all the DNA sample you need right here in my pants.


cliffc
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:25 pm

Seems to me that Factcheck.org is the debunker. Just admit it sir, there is no source that will convince you of what you have already decided. Nevermind that Factcheck has its roots in republican activism, or that the republican secretary of state in Hawaii certified the authenticity of his birth certificate. Everyone is in on it. The tendrils of conspiracy reach across oceans, and decades of time. They've been grooming Obama to take over the world since he was a chocolate bar in his daddy's back pocket.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

Well, Honolulu Advertiser reported Obama being born in Indonesia. They wrote an article about Tammy Duckworth (she ran for a Congress seat in Illinois few years ago) Obama supported her candidacy.

Many Afrikan newspapers reported about Obama's Kenyan birth.

Then we have a left wing web site “snopes.com” reporting his birth in the Queen's hospital in Honolulu. That report was probably based on a newspaper article about Obama's family where his half-sister Maya was intervieved (in 2004).

Finally in January 2009 (after the inauguration) Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Hospital proclaiming that he was born there.

All birther stories, right?


faucetman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

What's the big deal? I'll show my birth certificate to anyone who wants to see it. If I were president, I would show any and all documentation anybody wanted to see. WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING?


Natasha999
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Who is to blame?
An insatiable arms dealing industry. An insatiable oil industry. A superstitious Fundamentalist religious community.


Name
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

i have a few requests i'd like you to follow up on for me. where are the notes of cheney's secret energy meeting in jan 2001?? why isn't oliver north in jail??


faucetman
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

cliffc, your ignorance is on display for all to read


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:33 am

Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. That includes children of foreigners, and even nonwhite people too. You should be embarrassed to take legal advice from Orly Taitz. She understands exactly nothing about our legal system.


Remy
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

The belief that Obama is not a US citizen is just ridiculous on so many levels. That's a rather BIG conspiracy to keep under wraps, isn't it? It would involve so many people, so many institutions, and so many federal entities. If the evidence was there it would be out. Are you telling me thousands of people have conspired to keep evidence of an Obama foreign-birth hidden? Ha ha.

What is it about the American people these days that they are enamored with conspiracies–on the left and right?

And Obambinlyin–who debunked Factcheck.org? Evidence? Can you provide links to ALL of your broad unprovable assertions?


cliffc
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

Please, do enlighten me.


Brian H.
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

We'll never see the original birth certificate so what does it matter? If Obama is not an official citizen, will it automatically make unemployment fall back to 6%? The answer is a resounding, “NO!”

Just work towards electing people that will cut taxes and get this economy moving again. That's what we should do.


schooledyou
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

You say that there was a law on the books in Hawaii that made Obama ineligible due to his mother not living there long enough.

What's the name of that law?

I know that you can't answer this question, because it doesn't exist. Like every other birther theory, this one has been debunked. Still you cling to it because your partisan website has claimed it so. You tell others to read up on the issue, but you only pay attention to the information that supports your beliefs regardless of their validity.

The Governer of Hawaii, Linda Lingle (R), has already stated that Obama is a US citizen that comes from Hawaii and met all the requirements of office. So should I believe a woman who voted against him and knows the laws of her own state. Or a nut job who believes that the US doesn't recognize dual citizens (which isn't in the constitution by the way)?

You're wrong and too stupid or stubborn to admit it.


cliffc
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

Wiki of Walter Annenburg, at the heart of this socialist takeover:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Annenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck


jpatt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

Where are the notes from secret closed door meeting on healthcare reform Where's the notes from the administration meeting with banks? Where's the notes from meetings with auto execs, labor unions? Why isn't Dodd in jail? Why isn't Rangel in jail? Why isn't Frank in jail? Quit living in the past Bush Derangement Syndrome loon.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

Ad hominem: The sincerest way to show that your racist asshat arguments have no merit.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

YES! Let's cut taxes to where the were in the 1950s and 1960s, when the US enjoyed the biggest sustained economic growth in its history!

Wait a minute. Top marginal tax rates were HOW HIGH then?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:40 am

You are wrong, of course. You even posted the proof that you are wrong. The statute you cited regarding registrations of foreign births was passed in 1982. Nineteen Eighty Two. As in this reference YOU posted: [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Obama was 21.

Are you saying his mommy went in for his 21st birthday and had him declared a US citizen as a present?

The COLB is the same as a birth certificate for all material purposes; Obama is proven to be a natural born citizen, and in point of historical fact is the ONLY US president ever to so prove his eligibility.

Case closed.


Donald_D
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

Those of you that call you selves birthers, I thank you for given my children the advantage of getting a better start in life than you and your children. While you are stuck in stupid my children will be ruling your bums (you and your children). Proud to be an American. Proud to know that one day my children will become the boss of yours, as you continue to waddle in the mud.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

The GOP can do no wrong. The Democrats can do no right. Gotcha.

I thank you, Comrade jpatt. Your Stalinist adherence to the Party uber alles is what has driven the GOP out of the power, and God willing, will keep them out of power.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

Wait. “All” would include me, right?

I'm not seeing it.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:42 am

I’m sick of idiots who willfully ignore the law of the land because they can’t accept that a black man (who’s really good-looking, by the way) is our legally elected president, duly chosen by a convincing majority of the electorate.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:44 am

“I am not calling for seeing the records. However, having investigated several fraud cases, I have found where there is smoke there is fire. In ALL other instances where nationality was at issue the person in question showed proper records.

I would also remind you that Obama is half white. The fact that he is the ONLY president not willing to share a piece of documentation with the people he works for is puzzling.”

You’re quite wrong and in fact 180 degrees wrong; NO OTHER PRESIDENT ever released this document; Obama is the only one who has. You act as though Obama has not released his birth certificate. He has. He has resolved it conclusively. You behave irrationally when you claim he has not. He is NOT the only president who has not; he is in fact the only president who HAS released his birth certificate.


jpatt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:45 pm

You got nothing, as usual. The God of Democrats is Alinski, the TEA party movement puts God Almighty first. You have no chance in hell. Democrats won power by lying their ass off and Bush hatred. Keep telling yourself the Democrats will be ok.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:47 am

Where did you find the definition of a natural born citizen?
There is none in the Constitution and the Supreme Court never ruled on this issue.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

Keep thinking blind obedience to the Party and blind hatred of liberals will be OK, comrade. It did wonders for America in 2006 and 2008, it'll do wonders in the future as well.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

Mombasa? Wasn't that Dubya's place of birth, too?

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/18be…


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:52 am

He is not hiding his original birth certificate. He obtained an original COLB from his native state in 2007 and he put it online, and Hawaii twice verified it is real and that Obama was born there. Case is closed.

No other president in history went this far to prove his is a natural born citizen. None. Obama has set a new standard for disclosure.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:53 am

The Hawaii DoH refused to confirm that they issued a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.
Why would Dr. Fukino say that Obama was born in Hawaii yet she refused to confirm that her office issued the COLB posted on factcheck.org?


jpatt
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:53 pm

Keep thinking you know what your talking about stooge. You're blind sheep following the Dear Leader off a cliff. Three victories for Republicans in the most recent elections in blue states, 20% of Democrats voting for Republicans. Just shrug it off.


MrComments
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

Jerome Corsi also said that the Twin Towers were brought down in a government executed controlled demolition. He, like Lyndon LaRouche, will say ANYTHING to get attention and money. There are a million websites on 9/11 “proving” the government did it, just like the Obama birth websites that are not in the “mainstream media” I equate the Obama birthers with the 9/11 Truthers. Another name for both is Looney Tunes. We are to believe thet the ruthless political machines of Hillary Clinton and John McCain did ALL those attack ads on Obama, but decided not to attack his “easily proven” non-citizenship? Get a life!!!


midnight
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

What a complete bunch of morons the birthers are. My Lord, don't they have anything to do?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:59 am

“The Hawaii DoH refused to confirm that they issued a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

Sorry, but they did confirm it. It’s on the COLB in the form of the embossed raised seal and signed certificated signature of Alvin Onaka. Case closed.


midnight
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 11:59 pm

The bottom line is that the birthers cannot endure the fact that a black guy is POTUS. They will do anything to negate that. If Obama had been white, we would not have this problem.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:00 am

Could you care to mention the size of federal budget at that time? How much did the government spend at that time?


midnight
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:01 am

You cannot stand that a black guy is your President and you will do anything to make it not be so. You are a racist and a fascist.


cliffc
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:01 am

Factcheck is funded by the Annenburg Public Policy Center. It is not an arm of the democratic party or Barack Obama, or do you forget Dick Cheney referring to the site during a 2004 debate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Annenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck

Please, tell me that wiki is in on it.


midnight
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:03 am

You are an obnoxious ***hole but you have a right to your insanity.


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:04 am

Don't cry, your mom said it was past your bed time. I'll take a black guy over this half black half white half commie half Muslim any day of the week. Epic fail.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:08 am

Don't worry, I will.

By the by, isn't it past your bedtime, Little Internet Tough Guy?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:09 am

LOL. An image posted on the Obama friendly web page is proof? Ever heard of Adobe Photoshop?

The DoH refuses to answer a direct question whether they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. What is the big deal to confirm it if that is the truth?


MrComments
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:11 am

Oh, and Jerome Corsi ALSO said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11. He says anything so he can take money from gullible idiots. This guy is your “source”?…..haha And I find it funny that when Hannity or Beck have him on, they NEVER discuss his idiotic 9/11 theories, only his idiotic Birther theories. You are getting “played” by media pundits.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:13 am

In the span from 1950 to 1950, government spending as a percentage of GDP bounced between 22 and 29 percent.

As of 2000, government spending as a percentage of GDP was at 32 percent.

As of 2009, after several years of the Bush tax cuts, it was at 42 percent.

But yeah, more tax cuts are the answer!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_cen…


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:14 am

Cliff, just continue to stay blind and present more liberal wikipedia propaganda. If you really want to do some research; find out who authorized Fact Check to see his birth records. Find out who was on the board of Annenburg at one time (hint: just a guy from the neighborhood and Asshat BO). Find out how much money in earmarks Obama gave to Annenburg as a Senator. It's all just an internet away. Or cling to your liberul answer book, idc.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:15 am

Birthers could be easily proven wrong by releasing the original birth certificate the one that mentions Kapiolani Hospital. Why is Obama hiding this document?

His birth was reported in three different countries – stories go back several years when there were no birthers around.

McCain is not a natural born citizen either. He was born in Panama outside the canal zone. At least that is what his birth certificate says. The one media obtained in 2008.


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:18 am

At-a-boy. We're counting on you staying unaware. As your dear liberal Bayh said “If you don't see the election of Scott Brown as a wakeup call, You never will.”


somegayname
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:20 am

Ignore JPATT! HE IS BIASED!!!1oneONE.

QED, bitches


ryanvietnow
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:21 am

“Fuck Jesse Jackson because it's not about race now” quote from a black artist who sells millions of records stupid, You picked the wrong decade. It's about masters and slaves, You think a jew in a shop cares if your black , white or mexican shit even muslim will take a christian money idiot , oil drugs , arms, nat. resources , fuck u race-baiters


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:21 am

As wartime budgets go (assuming that we count Vietnam as a war), federal spending was low in terms of percentage of GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_cen…

…but the sustained growth in GDP in the late 1950s through the 1960s allowed goverment spending to go relatively unnoticed.

Isn't it funny that once the Republicans also embraced deficit spending (in the 1970s, at Jude Wanniski's urging), our Federal budgets really ran amok?


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:22 am

A wake-up call that hiding behind your celebrity wife, celebrity daughter, and pick-up truck while doing your best RINO impersonation all the while your opponent sleepwalks through the election can win you a Senate seat?

But it scared DINO Bayh, so that counts for something. Isn't it still past your bedtime, little Internet Tough Guy?


somegayname
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:22 am

ignore jpatt. HE IS BIASED!!1!!oneONE.
QED
(claim of bias wins argument).
BIAS BIAS BIAS


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:22 am

Race-baiter. When you can't win an argument, just throw around negro dialect. I bet Midnight is really Chris Matthews.


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:24 am

Whatever. See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. Then you can always be right.


somegayname
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:26 am

don't do jpatt's homework for him. he is biased! and lazy.
jpatt: “unfounded internet conspiracies” [citation needed]


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Tax cuts have nothing to do with government spending.

Lets reduce government spending to those levels that you mentioned (1950s).


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:29 am

You just happen to use yours for thinking and posting, little Internet Tough Guy.

Off to bed with you, and see you in four years after the uppity negro is re-elected President again.


jimrand
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:29 am

Birthers are nuts. What is even more nuts is that this article skipped over the rest of Farah's comments, which were to start a cultural war and have the right (bible thumping right that is) take over our media, education, social and cultural institutions as well as our government. Now THAT is fascism.


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:29 am

Biased, oooohhhhh. And you are? somegay. I bet you are 9/11 truther. Freak


somegayname
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:31 am

jpatt has a magic sky fairy!!!oneONE11
That is why GOP have beat DEMONcratic party about 50% of the time (averaged over history).


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:31 am

Well you were the one who asked about government spending.


ed
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:33 am

That’s not a BirthCertificate! No Hospital, no Doctor’s name, etc. Obama’s Kenyan born sister has the SAME THING, recieved in 1970! If he had a REAL birth certificate it would list the hospital and the doctor and he can get one just by ordering it. ONE HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN, regardless of what “officials” may SAY.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:33 am

American Taliban


jimrand
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:34 am

you should see a doctor. something is very wrong with you. you don't think Hillary Clinton would have found this out in the primaries – I mean she only ran against him FOREVER before conceding – it isn't like she wanted to lose….. You don't think former President Bill Clinton has access to Obama's birth certificate if he wanted it????? Cmon. Think it through. How about Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld??? You don't think they could've found out???? You think they wanted him to win??? Obama has plenty of more important enemies than you – with access to those in places where things like birth certificates are kept…. give it a rest. It'll give you more time to hate him for something else.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:36 am

Obama's nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court proves he's a Muslim, and his Muslimness proves that he's a Godless Communist.

So there.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:39 am

Government spending is out of control. You could tax the people much higher and we would still have budget deficits.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:40 am

Jude Wanniski taught you well, young one.


cliffc
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:40 am

Thank you – I just knew wiki was in on it. It's liberal propaganda, of course it is. Obama bought them off, along with the 1000's of others he would have to buy off to keep this thing under wraps!

I have no liberal answer book (though I'm aware of the correct spelling) – I'm not even a liberal, but thanks for asking. I know their findings go against your narrative, but they've been known to debunk the left as well. It is a fact that the Annenberg Public Policy Center is funded mainly by the Annenberg foundation. The Annenberg's are dyed in the wool republicans. Are they in on this as well?


cliffc
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:46 am

Bigot much?


teapartybagger
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:51 am

The reason why this issue is not going away or taking as fact is becuse there is no evidence showing here ally is not an natural born citizen. Granted that the two American pairents thing should be the way it is, but its not. If the Tea Baggers or rather the Tea Partys want a real issue sto deal with, its Cap and Trade, One-child Policy being force on America in order to cut America's carbon foot print, you know the CO2 stuff that you breath out every time you exhale, the North American Union, and getting rid of the Income tax.


CharlesChaplin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:53 am

So, birthers, let's pretend that despite all signs and evidence thus produced, you're right and Obama isn't a natural born citizen, a term which is not without its legal ambiguities. Let's also ignore the fact that McCain's birth in Panama raises similar questions about his eligibility, which none of you seemed to have cared about in 2008. The question is–so what? Obama is clearly a man born and raised in the U.S. Why all the fuss about whether he meets some technical but ultimately arbitrary degree of citizenship? He's not an immigrant, right? You have to agree that he's an American born in Hawaii, even if you disagree about his eligibility for citizenship at birth, right?

Could it be that (a) you're acting like a bunch of whiny brats who are pissed because your guy lost the election? and (b) you have been deluded by Glenn Beck et al into believing Obama is a secret Stalin? and (c) a clearly non-white immigrant name couple with a non-white face makes you think that this guy can't be trusted when you trusted Bush and Cheney, two men absolutely proven to have lied about huge national issues?

If Obama is lying, in whose interest is it to hide the truth? Why would Hawaii's Republican governor not come out with the truth? Don't you think the GOP would love to catch Obama making a mistake?

Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? He already has. He doesn't have to mail it out to each one of you. He's the president.


larmar
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:53 am

Look at his justification for continuing the birther narrative. Infected by the zombie virus.

Loud speaker, “Woodie Harrleson, clean up on isle 2.”


euphgeek
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:54 am

Absolutely nothing.


larmar
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:55 am

It has all been done to debunk the zombies. No amount of certificates or explinations will convince the zombies.

Don't try to reason with them, just turn em over to Woodie Harrleson.


karela
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:58 am

When Bush took over, government spending as a percentage of GDP wasn't far from what it was in the 50's. Remember that at that time we were still paying for the war and the Marshal Plan was rebuilding Europe. Government spending certainly is related to it's income and it's income is all about taxes. That's why, as a percentage of GDP, the numbers shot up after Bush cut taxes. In the 50's people who earned more than a million dollars per year were in the 90% tax bracket. Now the Warren Buffets of America are in the 33% tax bracket, but few people pay that because of loop holes and deductions. Warren Buffet pays about 17%.


euphgeek
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:59 am

It’s a birth certificate. The state of Hawaii said so. And if Obama’s Kenyan born sister has the same thing, you won’t mind showing it to me, right? Also, you wouldn’t mind showing me the order form one can use to get a birth certificate listing hospital and doctor from the state of Hawaii, right? Of course you can’t do any of the above because you’re only repeating long-debunked nirther lies. The fact that you don’t believe officials who have the final say on things like this tells me that you will never believe any proof because you don’t want to believe it. In any event, the following proof that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen has never been debunked by any nirther:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-certificate-final-chapter-time-we-mea/
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp


BH
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:59 am

Wait, you question whether Obama was born in the States and you're going after someone as a 9/11 Truther?

Really? Really?

You're an idiot.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:03 am

A person born in a foreign country (one parent is a US citizen) is a native citizen!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:08 am

Where is the original birth certificate that would confirm birth in the Kapiolani Hospital?

Tha Hawaii DoH refuses to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:18 am

How is the government spending related to the tax revenue?

They spend freely regardless of the size of a budget deficit.


Double_Barrel
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:20 am

These wanna-be tea partiers are an insult to the honest citizens who risked the necks of themselves and their families in Boston Harbor.They repeat their puposefully myopic banter likes monkees throwing crap.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:26 am

How did factcheck debunk birthers?

Have they ever seen a legitimate Hawaii issued COLB document prior to seeing a document presented to them by Obama campaign?
Have they asked Hawaii DoH whether a COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.

Their role was not to verify the COLB – they provide a cover for Obama.


frankblank
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:39 am

Farah's red baiting remarks are the key phrases indicating the teabaggers' profound stupidity and anti-americanism. These people are not the heirs of the founders; they are the sons and daughters of Joe McCarthy


Thabit
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:41 am

Hell no they dont have anything better to do …most of them on medicare and social securiy just look at a group photo of these people for once… and obviously after 30 years of Republicans cutting funds to schools they arent going to get any smarter either .

If Al Qaeda wanted to destroy the America we knew and loved…..
They're TOO LATE…….Republicans beat them to it


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:48 am

“LOL. An image posted on the Obama friendly web page is proof?”

You need to get your brain around the fact that the image is that of the actual document. The web page (it’s actually on multiple sites) is not “Obama friendly.” You’re just saying that because it says something you disagree with. But you’ve been proven wrong.

“Ever heard of Adobe Photoshop? ”

Ever heard of having evidence? Didn’t think so.

“The DoH refuses to answer a direct question whether they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

Good. That means it is abiding by state law.

“What is the big deal to confirm it if that is the truth?”

It already has been confirmed. Hawaii does not owe you multiple confirmations. Case is closed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:53 am

While there may be debate about whether Panamian-born John McCain is a natural born citizen due to the statutory and retroactive extension of citizenship extended to him after his birth, the most basic class of natural born citizens are those born on US soil, like Obama. This was settled by SCOTUS in Wong. Case closed.

Vattel is moot. His writings are meaningless to our Constitution.


daveinboca
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:58 am

I’m none of the three, so I wouldn’t know.


howiegeewhiz
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:12 am

By ALL means keep bringing up the birther argument. It destroys your credibility, makes you seem like ignorant, loony conspiracy theorists. It also exposes an enormous intellectual deficit by focusing on a petty, simplistic, and debunked issue when there are actual substantive issues that need to be discussed. No informed person with an IQ over 90 takes the birther issue seriously, and it;s a political loser, so PLEASE keep it up.


meglon978
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:14 am

Stupid question really… you're simply being disingenuous. You know that when spending > revenue, you create deficit, or national debt. There's two ways to reduce that debt.. less spending, which will never happen, never has (even with republicans in charge), or increasing revenue.

THE reason we have 12 trillion in national debt is because of the tax cuts Reagan started, and Bush finished with.

Even a republican sponsored study of tax cuts showed they DO NOT increase revenue in the long term (long term being over 18 months), and always.. ALWAYS.. add to the deficit overall.


meglon978
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:18 am

And that right there is the problem. Maybe you should try putting the United States first.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:41 am

You did not answer the question: How is government spending related to the tax revenue?
I am not talking about deficits here.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:49 am

There was no SCOTUS ruling on the definition of a natural born citizen. WKA case was about citizenship at birth for a child born in the USA whose parents were US residents.


henry
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:58 am

Boy, you guys in the liberal media are more afraid of the Obama Birth Certificate issue than even Sarah Palin's candidacy for president.


Mari
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:59 am

The Republican Hawaiian Governor and the Director of the Hawaii Health Department both checked and found that indeed, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. They personally saw the certificate of live birth and vouched for his U S citizenship. All this “birther” nonsense just makes Republicans look like a bunch of stupid racists or so dull witted that they are unable to take in facts. Either way, it is loosing Republicans votes. Frankly, all this stuff makes me ashamed of the Republican Party of which I have been a member all my voting life. But this stuff is getting really, really stupid and whoever called this guy out is a sensible person. We will not win on this totally bogus, stupid issue. Just Google it and check out the Republican Hawaiian Governor's statement on this issue.


Mari
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:06 am

You need to check your facts. In fact, both the Governor and the Department of Health director stated categorically that they had seen his certificate of live birth and he indeed was born in Hawaii making him a natural born U S citizen. Try just checking the facts for a change.


Anthony
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:18 am

Didn't you provide a link of a Hawaiian certificate of live birth of someone who wasn't the president. You did this all in a feeble attempt to argue about one word. Time and time again you have made disjoint arguments all in the hope that someone will be tricked by you deception.

“Their role was not to verify the COLB – they provide a cover for Obama.” – Who is they? The State of Hawaii did verify the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. So, it can be concluded that you are just spreading more misinformation.


chiguy08
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:18 am

They are related like two sides of the ledger – because that is what they are. The govt collects money as taxes (tariffs were once an important part of govt collections too, but not so much now) and spends that money as we, through our congressional representatives, direct. You know that. Where are you trying to go with your question?


Anthony
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:30 am

The entire argument about the president's birth is that he can't be American, and that he isn't one of us. They attempt to protray him as being a Muslim. These elements are xenophobia and a core value of the birther movement. There is no denying it. Bring in racism against the president because he is perceived as being black doesn't solve anything. However, by attempting to discredit the president as being a Muslim is racism. If he was, which he isn't, this would make him any less an American citizen or an American by birth.


Mari
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:41 am

Actually although I am a Republican, I have had to admit that the Bush Administration conducted two wars off budget and that is why we are in such a mess. N plan for selling extra war bonds, etc to help finance the wars. Only the military are making any sacrifice. Raise taxes if you want to have two shooting wars that you drummed up.


electricgrendel
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:46 am

No one is afraid of Sarah Palin's candidacy. She's a joke. No one outside of ignorant, uninformed conservative cultists believe that she's even viable. And even a majority of your loony fringe believes she's unqualified for the Presidency. You've all been taken for a ride by a hillbilly grifter who does not love this country, is incapable of being informed, and is willing to take all of you rubes for every last dollar. So please remain consistent in your delusions. When Democrats retain control of both houses in the Fall and the proceed to humiliate your camp in 2012 because you put forward insane, far-right candidates I want you and your ilk to ruminate over how pathetic your Savior Sarah really is.


electricgrendel
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:53 am

I really feel sorry for you. I assume you're also the sort that, between 2001 and 2009, loved to scream: “Respect the office of President, even if you do not respect the person holding it!” Conservatives are just pathetic hypocrites in the end. You will never accept a Democratic president as legitimate. Ever. Look at what your camp did to Clinton. And now Obama? You're radicals: each and every one of you. You care nothing about America as it exists, but instead want to impose your narrow, radical, insane worldview. If you had anything approaching rationality you'd accept the fact that more than enough evidence has been presented to satisfy your radical and derrogatory claims. You show yourself to be a fringe conspiracy theorist when you insist that already offered data is not valid because it is not specifically the data you requested. You do not control the terms of data, nor the terms of the debate. You can continue to refuse to accept reality as amply proven, but doing so only makes you look like a foolish, unstable radical. In other words- it makes you look like a conservative.


umon
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:05 am

what's so stupid about pepole like Farah,is that they will not listen to the other side of any argument be it about Obama' birth place or any other issue,as long as thier narrow mind is made up.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:19 am

Your rant is irrelevant for the topic being discussed. I hope you feel better but nothing you said changes the facts:
1. The original birth certificate that would confirm Kapiolani Hospital as Obama's place of birth is hidden from public (if it exists at all)
2. The Hawaii DoH refuses to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.


wwinfrey
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:25 am

I don't often agree with Bretibart, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It's really no use trying to convince these folks that the birth certificate story makes them look like lunatics; one of the hallmarks of delusional thought is that the afflicted soul will come up with any number of explanations to explain away the holes in their story. IMHO, the biggest “tells” that this whole story is bullshit are the facts that: A. the story originated with a known conspiracy theory peddler, Jerome Corsi, who was trying to sell a book at the time, B. they'll run in circles coming up with new ways to refute the Annenberg Foundation's investigation into the issue, but accept cheap frauds like the fake Kenyan birth certificate that they keep saying exists, and reinforce their circular logic by pointing to numerous debunked stories as evidence, as if somehow the volume of bullshit that they're presenting will make up for the fact that most of it stinks to high heaven.

It's also a big tell on the race issue that when someone posits that Obama's non-whiteness just might be a factor in the birther's motivation to believe bullshit, they start screaming “race baiter! race baiter!” in a truly Pavlovian display of programmed behavior.

Much like Dubya, much of the Teabagger movement is living in a hermetically-sealed bubble where no outside independent facts are allowed in, and the only thoughts and ideas that occur are those that echo off the walls from the sound of their own voices in a never-ending cacophany of self-reinforcing beliefs. Their anger is amplified even further when the majority party acts as a majority party, where even the most banal left-of-center ideas are tagged with not just the “Socialism” label, but the more extremist-sounding “Maoist” or “Marxist”. I mean, shit, you know they really want to scream “Commie Pinko Simps!” but they're fearful of dating themselves, when in fact, the sell-by date is plain for all to see.

Keep yelling, wingnuts, you beautiful losers, you. I'm still not convinced that the whole Teabagger movement isn't the biggest performance art joke in American history; so much of their mythology seems straight of a “Yes Men” lecture.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:28 am

I have no problem with your statement. I wish the government decided to finance the war by selling war bonds. That would force them to be more accountable to US citizens/voters.
No money – no war. If there was a reason for war, they better had explained it well to the public to ensure financial support for it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:36 am

I am just trying to point out the obvious reality: the US government spends money without any restraints including tax revenues.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:50 am

They = factcheck.org

The other document you mentioned is Decosta COLB, which was posted on the web.
Unlike Decosta COLB, the first COLB for Obama (which was posted on Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and did not have creases from being folded. When people pointed out at these flaws, an improved version of the Obama COLB was posted on factcheck.org.

DoH never confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. The DoH officials have been asked this question many times and refuse to answer.
Does it make any sense that Dr. Fukino says Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” (her words), yet she would not confirm that her office issued COLB?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:50 am

They = factcheck.org

The other document you mentioned is Decosta COLB, which was posted on the web.
Unlike Decosta COLB, the first COLB for Obama (which was posted on Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and did not have creases from being folded. When people pointed out at these flaws, an improved version of the Obama COLB was posted on factcheck.org.

DoH never confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. The DoH officials have been asked this question many times and refuse to answer.
Does it make any sense that Dr. Fukino says Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” (her words), yet she would not confirm that her office issued COLB?


wwinfrey
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:50 am

Yes, liberals are very scared of a Palin presidential bid! I am not a liberal myself but I work with a bunch of liberals, and they all are secretly VERY VERY AFRAID of a Sarah Palin running for President! They'll say things like “oh yeah, that'll work out, YOU BETCHA!” and then they'll give a nervous little laugh that just tell you that the Alaskan Barracuda is their WORST NIGHTMARE!

They say things like, “Sarah Palin resigned the Alaskan governorship 2 years before her term was up, who is going to take her seriously?” but I think the American people can see that hey, if they suddenly found themselves launched into the national spotlight by a senile old man, why, when the house of cards came crashing down, they'd make a run for the money too! I mean, Sarah is like us — she trash talks her oldest daughter's baby daddy and why not when her ex-son-in-law has a meth addict for a mother! That's pure trash right there. Who wouldn't want that for President? I mean, and given her track record with her ex-brother-in-law while she was governor, you know when she's elected that ole Levi “Playgirl” Johnston is gonna get capped Vince Foster-style! Meanwhile, we'll all be saying OH NO SHE DIN'NT!”

Palin's appeal to the American people is just a natural extension of what Republican Presidents are evolving into. Baggers wanted to have a beer with Dubya (even if he wasn't drinking because of the whole alcoholism thing), but with Sarah, they want to get DRUNK with her and hope she'll go from MILF to MIDF where the D stands for DID!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:56 am

Do you remember the Iraq WMD story from few years ago?
The vast majority of politicians from both sides of the aisle were convinced that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Unlike that story, we do not need to invade a foreign country to find out the truth about Obama's birthplace. Why is the original birth certificate still hidden from US public?

Why should we trust politicians when there is an easy way to verify their words?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:00 am

You forgot to tell us one thing: When did Obama stop using hard drugs? How did he finance his habit?


britcom
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:01 am

Arrgh! Its not us 'birthers' that are the racist bigots here, it is all the Whig retards in the GOP who are the chauvinistic and Christophobic BIGOTS. These people are so afraid of religious freedom that they will bash anyone of faith who has a high profile in politics or journalism. They will insult, slander, and smear anyone who dares to mention God or Jesus Christ in public and they are not above using the Dems race card to publicly assassinate the character of anyone who is not banker-loving, urbanite, sheep skin bragging, country clubber with a fake ivy league accent and a mansion and a yacht and who sneers at the Constitution and those who stand up for it. I on the other hand can PROOVE that as a 'birther', I am not motivated by race. In my blog at NewsBusters I exposed John McCain's lie about his Natural Birth in Panama outside the the Canal Zone long before there was any mention of Obama's birth status. I worked on McCain until he was forced to release his birth certificate and now I work on Obama to release his real birth certificate. McCain is a white as they come, so I, and most everyone else who is working on this story, are Equal Opportunity 'Birthers' and not the ignorant racist bogeymen that the Dems and their Whig lapdogs would have everyone believe we are.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:06 am

“Yes, liberals are very scared of a Palin presidential bid!”

You're delusional. A Palin nomination would be a catastrophic train wreck for the GOP. (And they know it, too.)

Palin hides from the mainstream media and avoids challenging interviews because she doesn't have the goods. The Katie Couric interviews made that abundantly clear. That's why she offers empty bumper sticker platitudes and bromides from the safety of the podium or to deferential softball interviewers from Fox News.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:06 am

My statement is 100% accurate. The original birth certificate (not the COLB) is still hidden from US public.

The DoH director (Dr. Fukino) did say that Obama was born in Hawaii , yet she still refuses to confirm that her office issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. Why?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:06 am

My statement is 100% accurate. The original birth certificate (not the COLB) is still hidden from US public.

The DoH director (Dr. Fukino) did say that Obama was born in Hawaii , yet she still refuses to confirm that her office issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. Why?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:11 am

“Where is the original birth certificate that would confirm birth in the Kapiolani Hospital?”

Playing dumb, eh? Never mind that the DoH has stated that Obama's original birth certificate is on file. I guess that's just an inconvenient fact.

“Tha Hawaii DoH refuses to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

There you go again, like a broken record. The DoH under Hawaii law is not permitted to disclose information from a vital record to non-interested persons. Confirmation of a vital record is disclosure.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:14 am

When did an interviewer ask Obama about his eligibility for office?
A direct question like:
Are you a natural born citizen? or
Where were you born?

They are not throwing even softballs at Obama. Have they ever asked him about eligibility lawsuits and the reason why he has been fighting for their dismissal?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:16 am

“The DoH director (Dr. Fukino) did say that Obama was born in Hawaii , yet she still refuses to confirm that her office issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. Why?”

It's all a very carefully coreographed conspiracy of fraud, managed very carefully by attorney advisors to preserve deniability. That must be it. LOL!


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:19 am

“Tax cuts have nothing to do with government spending.”

That's actually part of the problem.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:20 am

“I wish the government decided to finance the war by selling war bonds.”

I agree. And they should reinstitute the draft to make it clear that no war goes without financial and personal sacrifice.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:21 am

LOL.
How is the confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007 any different from publishing the index data?

Dr. Fukino can say that Obama was born in Hawaii (and add a legal statement that he is a natural born citizen) but she cannot confirm that her office issued COLB? It does not make much sense if the official birthplace story were true, does it?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:29 am

“DoH never confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. The DoH officials have been asked this question many times and refuse to answer.”

You make this statement as if the DoH has not offered a valid reason why it has not confirmed Obama’s COLB. And that unstated (and incorrect) insinuation forms the entire basis for your implication that the DoH is somehow acting suspiciously.

Your problem, of course, is that the DoH has made it very clear on its website that it is not permitted under the DoH to disclose information from vital records. Confirming a COLB is the very essence of disclosure. (Otherwise, why ask for confirmation?)

“Does it make any sense that Dr. Fukino says Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” (her words), yet she would not confirm that her office issued COLB?”

If Fukino were covering up the fact that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, then there are probably better ways of going about this than publicly stating he was born in Hawaii, don’t you think?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:29 am

“DoH never confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. The DoH officials have been asked this question many times and refuse to answer.”

You make this statement as if the DoH has not offered a valid reason why it has not confirmed Obama’s COLB. And that unstated (and incorrect) insinuation forms the entire basis for your implication that the DoH is somehow acting suspiciously.

Your problem, of course, is that the DoH has made it very clear on its website that it is not permitted under the DoH to disclose information from vital records. Confirming a COLB is the very essence of disclosure. (Otherwise, why ask for confirmation?)

“Does it make any sense that Dr. Fukino says Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” (her words), yet she would not confirm that her office issued COLB?”

If Fukino were covering up the fact that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, then there are probably better ways of going about this than publicly stating he was born in Hawaii, don’t you think?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:32 am

“How is the confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007 any different from publishing the index data?”

Duh! The HRS is very specific that no vital records may be disclosed except as provided by statute. And statute provides that index data is to be made available to the public.

“Dr. Fukino can say that Obama was born in Hawaii (and add a legal statement that he is a natural born citizen) but she cannot confirm that her office issued COLB? It does not make much sense if the official birthplace story were true, does it?”

If Obama weren't born in Hawaii, it wouldn't make any sense to go on record and state he was born in Hawaii, now would it?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:36 am

“The God of Democrats is Alinski, the TEA party movement puts God Almighty first.”

It’s ironic you say that, considering that one of the most popular books among conservatives over the past year has been Alinski.

And as for the Tea Party putting God Almighty first, what is that supposed to mean? I don’t recall “tax cuts” or “defense spending” in the Bible.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:36 am

“The God of Democrats is Alinski, the TEA party movement puts God Almighty first.”

It’s ironic you say that, considering that one of the most popular books among conservatives over the past year has been Alinski.

And as for the Tea Party putting God Almighty first, what is that supposed to mean? I don’t recall “tax cuts” or “defense spending” in the Bible.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:46 am

“Oh, PLEASE…Factcheck.org has been debunked long ago”

Utter BS.

“NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE has yet been presented that shows Obama’s hospital of birth, name of mother, name of doctor delivering him, etc.”

The Hawaii COLB, depicted in multiple high-res FactCheck photos, states Obama was born on Oahu at 7:24p.m. on August 4, 1961. Under Hawaii state law, the COLB is a derivative document. It says Obama was born on Oahu because the original birth certificate says so. If it didn’t, the COLB couldn’t either. The fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is all that is necessary to demonstrate that Obama was born in the U.S. and is a natural born citizen. Therefore, questions concerning what hospital he was born in, or the delivering doctor, may be interesting Trivial Pursuit questions, but are rendered unnecessary by the existence of the COLB.

“And Obama claimed to have been born in ONE of the TWO hospitals in Honolulu, while his sister claims he was born in the other.”

Not surprisingly, untrue. Obama never claimed he was born anywhere other than Kapi’olani. Maya never said he was born anywhere other than that, either. As she noted on the Diane Rehm Show a couple months ago, several years ago she was interviewed for a local high school newspaper. The reporter mistakenly wrote that Obama was born at Queens (which was also nearby), and other newspapers, like lemings, picked up on that article and passed it on as truth.

“isn’t it FUNNY–NEITHER of them has stepped forward to declare proudly that THEY’RE the hospital Obama was born in??”

That requires dismissing Obama’s letter of January 24, 2009 in which he stated that Kapi’olani was his place of birth.

“HOW DUMB CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?”

Dumb enough to research the facts for ourselves. I guess only the true geniouses buy the crap from WND lock, stock and barrel.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:46 am

“Oh, PLEASE…Factcheck.org has been debunked long ago”

Utter BS.

“NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE has yet been presented that shows Obama’s hospital of birth, name of mother, name of doctor delivering him, etc.”

The Hawaii COLB, depicted in multiple high-res FactCheck photos, states Obama was born on Oahu at 7:24p.m. on August 4, 1961. Under Hawaii state law, the COLB is a derivative document. It says Obama was born on Oahu because the original birth certificate says so. If it didn’t, the COLB couldn’t either. The fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is all that is necessary to demonstrate that Obama was born in the U.S. and is a natural born citizen. Therefore, questions concerning what hospital he was born in, or the delivering doctor, may be interesting Trivial Pursuit questions, but are rendered unnecessary by the existence of the COLB.

“And Obama claimed to have been born in ONE of the TWO hospitals in Honolulu, while his sister claims he was born in the other.”

Not surprisingly, untrue. Obama never claimed he was born anywhere other than Kapi’olani. Maya never said he was born anywhere other than that, either. As she noted on the Diane Rehm Show a couple months ago, several years ago she was interviewed for a local high school newspaper. The reporter mistakenly wrote that Obama was born at Queens (which was also nearby), and other newspapers, like lemings, picked up on that article and passed it on as truth.

“isn’t it FUNNY–NEITHER of them has stepped forward to declare proudly that THEY’RE the hospital Obama was born in??”

That requires dismissing Obama’s letter of January 24, 2009 in which he stated that Kapi’olani was his place of birth.

“HOW DUMB CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?”

Dumb enough to research the facts for ourselves. I guess only the true geniouses buy the crap from WND lock, stock and barrel.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:51 am

“What’s the big deal? I’ll show my birth certificate to anyone who wants to see it.”

Obama went to the State of Hawaii, and asked for a copy of his birth certificate. The DoH responds to such requests by providing the COLB. Naively, Obama thought showing an official state document representing his place of birth would resolve the bizarre suspicion that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

But Obama was giving birthers the benefit of the doubt they didn’t deserve.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:51 am

“What’s the big deal? I’ll show my birth certificate to anyone who wants to see it.”

Obama went to the State of Hawaii, and asked for a copy of his birth certificate. The DoH responds to such requests by providing the COLB. Naively, Obama thought showing an official state document representing his place of birth would resolve the bizarre suspicion that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

But Obama was giving birthers the benefit of the doubt they didn’t deserve.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:53 am

The essence is important. The index data confirms that Obama's birth was registered in Hawaii.
The same would be true with the confirmation that DoH received a payment for issuing the COLB for Obama.

After all, the DoH did not publish the COLB. They would only confirm whether they received a payment for issuing the COLB to Obama. There should be a record of such a payment on their books, should it not?
The statute gives freedom to DoH to release this information.

If Obama's birth had been registered by a relative, Dr. Fukino could have issued her statements without perjuring herself. Her statement would not necessarily confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii – it would only confirm that his birth was registered there.

You are aware of the fact that nobody in Hawaii DoH checked birth registrations by a relative. An honor system was used.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:02 am

“Do YOU not understand that, in 1961, Obama’s alleged birth date, Hawaii (Obama’s alleged birthplace) had laws requiring the mother to have lived in the state for X number of years after a certain age in order for her child to be a “natural-born citizen” of Hawaii?”

You’re completely confused. What you’re referring to are federal laws which required that a person born outside the U.S. could not receive birth citizenship solely through the mother unless the mother had lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years, five of which were after age 14. The purpose of the law was to ensure that the parent had both a long-lasting and recent attachment to the U.S. But the unintended consequence of such construction was to make it mathematically impossible for a mother under age 19 to confer citizenship to a child born outside the U.S. Congress, recognizing this effect, revised the law in the 1980s to ensure that mothers age 16 and older could confer citizenship.

This law is irrelevant to persons born in the United States, since the U.S. citizenship of all persons born on U.S. soil is determined by the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are U.S. citizens at birth.

“the US does NOT recognize dual citizenships as also constituting “natural-born citizenshp status”"

According to your logic, even if Obama’s father had naturalized, Obama still couldn’t have been a natural born citizen, because Obama Sr. would have remained a UK citizen unless he renounced his citizenship with the UK Home Office.

Your logic would also invalidate several other presidents who had British born fathers who still would have been British citizens even after naturalizing as U.S. citizens: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur.

“You need to read something in addition to MSM propaganda,”

You need to learn about American history, federal law, and the Constitution before your start lecturing other people with your foolish, ignorant, illogical, and ahistorical birther nonsense.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:08 am

If DoH confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama, how would it be any different from the fact that they published index data. They would have said nothing about his parents or date of birth.

Would they be required to disclose a payment received for issuing a COLB?

Dr Fukino does not have a first hand knowledge about Obama’s birth. She has to go by the DoH records. If the original birth certificate was filed by a relative (who lied about the birthplace), Dr Fukino would not know about it. From her perspective Obama was born in Hawaii because a document said so.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:08 am

If DoH confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama, how would it be any different from the fact that they published index data. They would have said nothing about his parents or date of birth.

Would they be required to disclose a payment received for issuing a COLB?

Dr Fukino does not have a first hand knowledge about Obama’s birth. She has to go by the DoH records. If the original birth certificate was filed by a relative (who lied about the birthplace), Dr Fukino would not know about it. From her perspective Obama was born in Hawaii because a document said so.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:08 am

“I know that you can’t answer this question, because it doesn’t exist.”

You’re right. It doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as residency requirements for state citizenship. He’s thinking of a federal law which applied to persons born overseas. The Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Federal statutes are therefore irrelevant in such cases.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:08 am

“I know that you can’t answer this question, because it doesn’t exist.”

You’re right. It doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as residency requirements for state citizenship. He’s thinking of a federal law which applied to persons born overseas. The Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Federal statutes are therefore irrelevant in such cases.


Billyboy949
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:40 am

Why have you singled out this President and never before made this an issue?

In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, numbnutz, the burden of proof falls upon the whack job, fringe, extremists in the teabagging movement, known as the “afterbirther's”.

Honor his constitutional rights and either prove he's not a citizen or shut your greasy pie holes!!! Continuing to demand that he prove his innocence to you, shows just how little you truly know about our Founders, our Constitution and our rights. Your ignorance undermines the entire movement and damages what little credibility remains.


marciaalther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:50 am

I communicated via email with Joseph Farah some years ago. Back then, I found him to be an angry, unreasonable and defensive man. Apparently, nothing has changed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Are we talking about the same letter that was promptly withdrawn from the Kapiolani Hospital web site when WND asked for the confirmation of its authenticity? Is it the same letter that the White House did not want to confirm?

It is a strange behavior for someone claiming to have been born in that hospital.

The first image of Obama’s alleged COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and creases caused by folding. You also assume that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. There is no evidence for such claim.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Are we talking about the same letter that was promptly withdrawn from the Kapiolani Hospital web site when WND asked for the confirmation of its authenticity? Is it the same letter that the White House did not want to confirm?

It is a strange behavior for someone claiming to have been born in that hospital.

The first image of Obama’s alleged COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and creases caused by folding. You also assume that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. There is no evidence for such claim.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:11 am

No other presidential candidate had his birth reported in three different countries and two USA hospitals few years prior to the presidential campaign when birthers did not exist.

You don't even make a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen. It is not about proving Obama's innocence but his eligibility for the office (POTUS) under the Constitution.


Must Know Headlines 2.7.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:14 am

[...] Farah And Breitart Spar Over Tea  [...]


mnm
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:23 am

those types of questions remind me of the old chestnut

when did you stop beating your wife?

Our POTUS' birth certificate is legit and legal. Your “other sources” are bogus. The birthers reek of stupidity. I HOPE you make this an issue in 2012. Your clock will be cleaned.


Billyboy949
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:38 am

Henry and WWinfrey, are you two for real? I am reading your posts and in the back of my mind, the banjo music from “Deliverance” just gets louder and louder.

Please, please, please nominate Mrs. Palin for President (preferably after you're done deflowering her…love the respect you show your proposed Commander In Chief). I've seen losing contestants on “Are You Smarter than a Fourth Grader” that would handle the media better than she does.

Do you rejects from the Hee Haw Cornfield really think that the American people are going to elect a woman whose primary form of communication with the American people is via Facebook? Why is she hiding behind a website and why won't she go on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or any other news station and answer hard questions? Both Palin and Huckleberry, your two most conservative prospects for 2012, are now Fox News lapdog's and any chance of appealing to independent voters is gone. You have nobody to run, Obama has awakened and the Dem's are gonna slaughter you in the mid-terms.

Please continue to post all the trashy details of Palin's white trash family. It's the kind of stuff that makes evangelicals cringe and hopefully split the Republican party in half to ensure the Dem's win.

Trust me, it's in your best interest for the Dem.'s to stay in power. Once we pass Health Care reform and the public option (btw, “the public” would be you and yo kin folk), you'll be able to get all the treatments you need. New talking rocks for so you can eat corn again, help sewing cousin Zeke's fingers back on once you find the crawdad that snapped em off and this wonderful thing called “mental health care”…you'll love it cause the rooms they'll give you are just like having beds on the floor and on the walls, everything is soft so you won't hurt yourselves.

You all come back now, ya hear!!!!


Billyboy949
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:46 am

Hey Naturalized…I have some questions for you…

Does your family know that you're gay?
What kind of lubricant do you like guys to use when they engage in anal intercourse with you?
Are you still giving half priced hand jobs to unemployed teamsters, provided they agree to french kissing?

These are the same kind of questions you've suggested reporters ask Obama.

Why don't we both come back down to planet earth and let our President and our elected officials move forward to clean up Bush and Cheney's mess. OK?


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:50 am

Granted that the two American pairents thing should be the way it is, but its not.

Always is a long time. You want to invalidate some of the white past Presidents, too?


Washington Wizards | Washington Wizards NBA Announcer
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:51 am

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … [...]


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Don’t get her started on the moon landing….


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Don’t get her started on the moon landing….


Billyboy949
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:58 am

So, if Obama campaigned, ran and won, then you have to conceded that he was a citizen. Have we ever had a situation in 235 years, where a non-citizen slipped through the system and was able to run for President? That's a big, fat, resounding, “NO”. Why? Because we vet the candidates and make them present the required proof of citizenship when they submit their application to run. The FBI, CIA and other security agencies complete exhaustive background checks on all candidates and if Obama wasn't born here…they would have caught it…

So, did you trust the Bush Administration? They were responsible for ensuring that anyone running to replace Bush, was vetted and cleared. So is it Bush/Cheney covering this up? Don't you think if Darth Cheney had the silver bullet, he'd have loaded and fired already? <ey-ay-ey-ay>——-> What does the jackass say???


skeeterville
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:59 am

Sarcasm is more or less lost on you, isn't it?


richhancock
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:12 am

Well Britcom, you are just as irrational as any other Birthjobber. That which you demand of Barack Obama–his original birth cirtificate–is not his to give you. It is the property of the State of Hawaii, which has validated the President's citizenship. Do you actually believe that you can change the rules of validating citizenship to suit your own paranoid, conclusion-selective desires? I have an extract of my birth certificate from Brockton, MA. It is a photocopy of a partially handwritten document which I have used along with my social security card to get a driver's license, voter registration card, and passport–all of which establish my citizenship and afford me the rights therein, including my right to seek elective office. Do you actually believe that different rules of proof should apply to your political opponents, as my friend, conservative talk show host Mark Davis (who substitutes for Limbaugh on occasion) suggested to me recently? “It's too important not to be sure,” he said, suggesting that holding Obama to a different standard of proof was legitimate. Well, it's not.
If you are willing to defend your allegations on the air, send me a note. I won't let you get away with anything, but I will have you on the show.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:18 am

Lies from beginning to end.


Maruice
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:19 am

No, you people are complete morons. Let's get on with the governance of a country in trouble. We have no time for idiots like you who simply want to waste the country's time with this moronic crap. All but a lunatic fringe accept the birth certificate that was provided by President Obama. Enough of this crap.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:20 am

YOU'RE still around?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:21 am

I'm afraid that I would die of laughter the first time President Palin looked down at the crib notes written on her hand during the State of the Union address.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:24 am

Why should they? He was born in Hawaii.

As for YOU – you claim to be a naturalized citizen. Where's the proof? I heard a rumor that you're actually a Serbian suicide bomber who was too chicken to do anything more than shoot a bunch of defenseless Muslim boys in the back. Can you prove otherwise?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:24 am

When did you stop killing Croats and burning their houses to the ground?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:26 am

Where are your naturalization papers proving that you didn't murder a village of defenseless Croats? I heard you did, and that's why you're in the United States.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:26 am

Where's the proof that you aren't a multiple murderer and ethnic cleanser?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:27 am

Where's your naturalization papers?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

And the big budget increases came…

*drumroll*

During the Reagan and Bush II presidencies.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

And the big budget increases came…

*drumroll*

During the Reagan and Bush II presidencies.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Where is the proof that you are a naturalized citizen and not a war criminal fleeing the Hague?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Where is the proof that you are a naturalized citizen and not a war criminal fleeing the Hague?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

I agree. Let’s reduce government spending. The first thing we should do is throw all those old Teabaggers off the gravy train. You know, Medicare and Social Security. Give ‘em what they want.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

I agree. Let’s reduce government spending. The first thing we should do is throw all those old Teabaggers off the gravy train. You know, Medicare and Social Security. Give ‘em what they want.


Charles Johnson’s Character Problem, Exhibit #6,174 « Calvin Freiburger Online
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:37 am

[...] Problem, Exhibit #6,174 February 7, 2010 — Calvin Freiburger Andrew Breitbart recently got into a fight with WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah over WND’s idiotic obsession with Barack [...]


E Z Rider
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:20 am

Hey, no big deal another of their leaders, and speakers wants to go back to John Crow days. Their fearless leader wants devine intervention.

As noted before, they to will destroy themselves giving strength to the republican party.

I love it, really


D_Right_One
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:22 am

Ha haaa! Darth Cheney! That's a good one. Ol Naturalized citizen couldn't answer that one!


steve909
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:24 am

A room full of all white, mostly older people whom a majority probably believe the earth is 6000 years old, Obama's not a citizen, and Sarah Palin is a winnable candidate in a nationwide election……nuff said.


Mike’s Blog Roundup
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:24 am

[...] Sparkle Pony’s Photo Blog: Hairdressers and fetuses will destroy tea baggers. Internecine warfare has already erupted. But check out the invite I got [...]


fallforanything
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:41 am

people who by the birther theory can't help them selves. what they believe in is as naturnal to them as a dog licking himself. it's in their DNA. it's science


robinstl
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:47 am

“I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous.

Exactly.


The Strata-Sphere » Tea Party Self Destructs With Conservative Fringes
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:58 am

[...] See what I mean – NJ, VA and MA were won by winning over centrists, not repulsing them or rejecting [...]


katahdin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:23 am

President Obama's birth was not “reported in three countries.” President Obama was born in Hawaii, and crazy birthers started pretending he may have been born somewhere else. Absolutely no proof exists to support any of the wild birther conspiracy theories. They leavened this nutbaggery with loopy alternate theories as to what constitutes a natural born citizen. They even invented a third category of super duper citizenship designed to disqualify President Obama from holding the office to which he was duly and properly elected by a clear majority of his fellow citizens.
None of your fantasies has any basis in reality and I'm glad our president hasn't devoted a single moment of his time to the nonsense that you spout.


katahdin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:31 am

Yes, it's important to remember who had custody of passport files during the 2008 election. The Bush administration wouldn't have hesitated to use confidential government records to influence the election if they could. After all, these are the people who outed a covert CIA agent.
And Republicans have done it before. During the 1992 election, they rifled through the passport files of both Bill Clinton and his mother.


katahdin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:36 am

He would simply answer “yes” and “Hawaii.”


Des
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Yes, the Taliban beats women, kills homosexuals and punishes everyone who won’t conform to their beliefs with physical violence. That exactly the same thing as someone who’s obsessed about their belief that a person is lying to them about something. There are a reason why Liberals are the smallest part of the electorate….because they’re far nuttier than any other fringe group. {sigh}


Des
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Yes, the Taliban beats women, kills homosexuals and punishes everyone who won’t conform to their beliefs with physical violence. That exactly the same thing as someone who’s obsessed about their belief that a person is lying to them about something. There are a reason why Liberals are the smallest part of the electorate….because they’re far nuttier than any other fringe group. {sigh}


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:39 am

Hey britcom, Nevermind that your post is complete BS, lets focus on another issue. Present your evidence that their ever was a Jesus Christ. Present your evidence otherwise your full of shit! I don't normally have a problem with people of faith other then they are very stupid but when you cannot tell the difference between fantasy (which is your faith) and reality then you become a threat to other people. Do the world a favor and shut the hell up. Their are alot of things to complain about with our President, his Birth certificate is NOT one of them!


CharlesChaplin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:05 am

Obama admitted to smoking pot, which isn't a hard drug. Your mom might've smoked a lot when she was pregnant with you. If you want to talk hard drugs, George W. Bush is the ONLY president to have admitted using a “hard” drug, which was cocaine. The guy also had an admitted drinking problem. So which is worse? Who funded that “habit”?


CharlesChaplin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:06 am

I hope they nominate Palin. She has no chance whatsovever to holding up to public scrutiny. She'd get destroyed in debates.


CharlesChaplin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:13 am

Birthers, don't worry so much. One day you will find a woman or man who likes or maybe even loves you. The two of you will lie together in bed at some point and have sex. After this happens a few times, you'll see that the world is a different place and that you don't have to be so angry and paranoid and so very very sad deep down. It's going to happen, guys. You just have to believe.

Good luck.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

“There was no SCOTUS ruling on the definition of a natural born citizen. WKA case was about citizenship at birth for a child born in the USA whose parents were US residents.”

You’re wrong, of course.

WKA was found to be a natural born citizen. Both parents were non-citizens. This settles it. He was botn on US soil neither parent was a citizen. Case closed. You lose.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

“There was no SCOTUS ruling on the definition of a natural born citizen. WKA case was about citizenship at birth for a child born in the USA whose parents were US residents.”

You’re wrong, of course.

WKA was found to be a natural born citizen. Both parents were non-citizens. This settles it. He was botn on US soil neither parent was a citizen. Case closed. You lose.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

“Birthers could be easily proven wrong by releasing the original birth certificate, the one that mentions Kapiolani Hospital. Why is Obama hiding this document? ”

Birthers already have been proven wrong. Obama isn’t hiding anything. The COLB is proof. Case is closed.

“His birth was reported in three different countries – stories go back several years when there were no birthers around. ”

His birth has never been reported anywhere but in Hawaii. You’re wrong.

If you are referring to erroneous third-party reports, that’s clearly ludicrous. Officials are not bound by the mistakes of reporters or birthers. I could say Obama was born in Antarctica. That does not constitute a valid report that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii, where his birth is a proven fact.

“McCain is not a natural born citizen either. He was born in Panama outside the canal zone. At least that is what his birth certificate says: the one that media obtained in 2008.”

There is a legal issue to be settled about McCain, but I would side on the case that he is a NBC despite that due to his foreign birth being to two US citizens, one in the military service on deployment. However, it is a fact to be dealt with that the statute making Canal Zone babies citizens from birth was passed AFTER McCain was already born, and therefore some purists would argue he actually was not a citizen at the moment of his birth.


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

“No other presidential candidate had his birth reported in three different countries and two USA hospitals few years prior to the presidential campaign when birthers did not exist.”

That is of course a lie. There are some who insisted FDR was born on Campobello Island in Canada and not Hyde Park; Chester Arthur was thought my many to have been born in Canada as well, and by the way, his dad was not a US citizen but that didn't matter as long as Arthur was born in Vermont.

“You don't even make a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen. It is not about proving Obama's innocence but his eligibility for the office (POTUS) under the Constitution.”

That already has been proven by virtue of his borth in Hawaii, which is a proven documented fact.


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

“How is the confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007 any different from publishing the index data?”

Hawaii confirmed it issued the COLB on the COLB itself, chum. It is stamped, sealed and signed. Case closed.


nickifellenzer
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

Oh. Dear. Sweet. Mohammed. In. A. Schoolgirl. Outfit.

I think Obama is an incompetent dolt, but this birther thing is SO incredibly stupid, it burns! Do these douchebags HONESTLY believe that the President of the United States wasn't properly vetted, and his background assiduously probed by every intelligence agency in the nation???????????? Come on!

Or is the entire Intelligence Community in on Teh Grand Conspiracy ™?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Fact check did not look at anything “presented” to them. They went to Hawaii and examined the original.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The pictures of the original are attached here.

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as supporting documents to this article.”

Nothing will change your mind on this. I know that. I just can’t let this pass without struggling for some vestige of civil discourse in this country. We can have disagreements with the president without resorting to this kind of insanity. Reminder – centrist talking here.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Fact check did not look at anything “presented” to them. They went to Hawaii and examined the original.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The pictures of the original are attached here.

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as supporting documents to this article.”

Nothing will change your mind on this. I know that. I just can’t let this pass without struggling for some vestige of civil discourse in this country. We can have disagreements with the president without resorting to this kind of insanity. Reminder – centrist talking here.


cliffc
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

Well said – we can have disagreements with the president without resorting to this insanity.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

“The first image of Obama’s alleged COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and creases caused by folding. You also assume that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. There is no evidence for such claim.”

Yes there is. There is proof. It is on the COLB itself which is embossed, signed and sealed.

You do realize that there is no actual legal requirement for any president to show a birth certificate, yet Obama is the ONLY ONE WHO HAS? No prior president presented his birth certificate for public inspection to prove eligibility prior to election. Yet you behave as though Obama is the only one who hasn’t. Is is truly only racism that drives this?


somegayname
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:00 pm

I agree with naturalizedcitizen! we have the same level of evidence that we had for the iraq war!!!11oneeeONNNEwon A bunch of dumbasses spreading rumors amongst each other led us into a 7 year (and counting) drain of military and financial resources. Having no scrap of evidence will not stop them this time either!!!!11 *triumphantly storms out of moms basement*


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

“1. The original birth certificate that would confirm Kapiolani Hospital as Obama’s place of birth is hidden from public (if it exists at all)”

Immaterial since it is a fact that ALL original birth records are “hidden from the public” in that they are confidential records. Dismissed as irrelevant, especially since Obama has released his Hawaiian-issued COLB which proves he is a natural born citizen. He is the ONLY president EVER to release such a thing,

“2. The Hawaii DoH refuses to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

The confirmation is on the document. Case closed.


euphgeek
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

Never said you were. A bit quick to defend yourself, are you?


euphgeek
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

There may be some age restrictions but otherwise, yes, they would be considered a natural born U.S. citizen even if born in another country.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

“Do these douchebags HONESTLY believe that the President of the United States wasn't properly vetted”

Sadly, yes.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

“I hope they nominate Palin. She has no chance whatsovever to holding up to public scrutiny. She'd get destroyed in debates.”

She probably wouldn't agree to participate in any debates. She'd claim they were an instrument of the mainstream media to make her look bad because she couldn't screen the questions in advance.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

“I worked on McCain until he was forced to release his birth certificate and now I work on Obama to release his real birth certificate.”

This is where you go off the tracks. The COLB is a “real” birth certificate. It may not be the original dating back from 1961, but it is by law derivative of that document – which the Hawaii DoH has stated is on file – and it has full legal status as a birth certificate in its own right by law.

Before you start lecturing other people on what the law is, why don't you go figure it out first?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

“what's so stupid about pepole like Farah,is that they will not listen to the other side of any argument be it about Obama' birth place or any other issue,as long as thier narrow mind is made up.”

In their view, people who agree with them are open-minded patriots. People who disagree with them are closed-minded “brownshirts,” as Orly likes to say.

They live in a parallel universe where the common sense is idiocy, and the ridiculous is reasonable.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

“When did an interviewer ask Obama about his eligibility for office?
A direct question like:
Are you a natural born citizen? or
Where were you born?”

Perhaps they are too ashamed to ask such a ridiculous question to the President of the United States.

You know, I've heard a handful of GOP congressmen make snide remarks about Obama's birth certificate. If they're so skeptical, why don't they personally confront him and ask such questions?

You know why they don't? Because it's a bunch of hooey, and they know it. That's why they blow kisses at their birther base, and then weasel out when it comes to directly confronting the president.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Citizen or a natural born citizen? You have to be precise about the eligibility requirement.

Do you think that Bush and Co. would dare to order a background check of a political opponent particularly at the time when they were not very popular and Democrats took the control of Congress?

The media would be screaming for their heads if they tried to do anything like that.

Nobody vets any candidates when they apply to run for US president. Secretaries of state rely on a statement sent by candidate's party claiming that eligibility requirements have been fulfilled.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

“The essence is important. The index data confirms that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii.
The same would be true with the confirmation that DoH received a payment for issuing the COLB for Obama.”

The “essence”? What on God’s earth are you talking about? The HRS specifically makes index records available to the public. Nothing else related to the birth certificate falls into any exception to the rule that vital records cannot be disclosed to non-interested persons. If you don’t like that, try to have the HRS changed. But that is what the law is. You’re pretending that, by following the law, they’re violating some rules that you made up in your own mind, thus creating “legitimate” suspicion.

Receiving a payment for issuing a COLB says nothing about a person’s vital records. Hawaii can issue a COLB to a person regardless of where or when they were born. Disclosing the EXISTENCE of vital records is not the same thing as disclosing their contents, obviously.

“If Obama’s birth had been registered by a relative, Dr. Fukino could have issued her statements without perjuring herself. Her statement would not necessarily confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii – it would only confirm that his birth was registered there.”

Again, wrong. Fukino said Obama “was born in Hawaii.” There were no qualifications on that statement. If she had reason to believe otherwise, she would have been lying. (As a technical matter, regardless of what she said, it was not possible for her to perjur herself in that statement because she wasn’t under oath or making a statement on an official document.)

“You are aware of the fact that nobody in Hawaii DoH checked birth registrations by a relative. An honor system was used.”

Under the HRS, such registrations are completely valid and legitimate. Not that I have any reason to believe that this has anything to do with Obama’s case, but you’re trying to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of certificates filed by relatives when there in fact aren’t any such doubts or concerns.


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

I would ask why we should believe he was properly vetted, since it is clear that more than half his staff has niot been properly vetted. Your argument is nonsensical and illogical. I would say the better question is why not simply show the BC?

We do know that Obama could nopt clear a security check to work at an airport. The FBI said that, so I jusat have to wonder why he doesn't show a BC. There is nothing insane about asking for that.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

Last week you were talking about victims in Sarajevo going to hell and today you are talking about defenseless Muslims.
Can you make up your mind?


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

You are a racist


nickifellenzer
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

Because candidates undergo stringent security checks. DUH. If he was improperly vetted, it was during Bush's administration, not his. Moron.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

The eligibility question is a legitimate one. After all, the Constitution puts a restriction on who can command the US military.

It would take Obama less time to authorize the release of the original birth certificate than it took you to write the previous post.


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

Seems to me that if a Certificate of Live Birth were a Birth Certificate, it would be called Birth Certificate.

Just as a SS card is not a DL. See how the logic works?

I COLB is NOT a derivative of that document. You need to read the HRS statute 338-18.7 which CLEARLY states a COLB is not a BC.

It does in fact state that it is issued to FOREIGN born children. THAT is its purpose.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

Obama admitted using hard drugs, not just pot.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

If I created a document resembling the COLB with a stamp, seal and (stamped signature) it would prove that the document was issued to me by the Hawaii DoH, right?


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

Asking for a Birth Certificate for the first time coorelates to having a president with a foreign born Father since Andrew Jackson. Simple


kafirman
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

Here we have Obama claiming to respect the Constitution and then turning around and running all over it. By refusing to divulge his birth certificate to the American people to demonstrate that he meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements, Obama has disrespected both the Constitution and the American people.

But hey, he is a liberal black guy and the Constitution gets flexed for these guys right? Terrific!

Obama is neither a uniter nor a healer, but a despot.

Brietbart got spanked in that mini-debate. I suspect that you are a democrat.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

“If DoH confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama, how would it be any different from the fact that they published index data. They would have said nothing about his parents or date of birth.”

Revealing index data is specifically permitted under Hawaii law, the rest is specifically not permitted.

If you show me a birth certificate that says Person X was born on August 1, 1980, and you ask me if it is an official state-issued document, and I say it is, by definition I have also confirmed that the state has records indicating that’s when he was born. And the law doesn’t permit me to say that a vital record says Person X was born on a specific date. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend this?

“Would they be required to disclose a payment received for issuing a COLB?”

I highly doubt they are required to disclose the existence of specific requests for vital records.

“From her perspective Obama was born in Hawaii because a document said so.”

But you have identified the paradox underlying this entire debate. Likely no one alive has a personal first-hand memory of Obama’s birth anymore, so any “proof” is going to be based on documentation which purports to accurately represent facts. The question is what documentation is sufficient to resolve reasonable doubts about the facts of Obama’s birth.


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

Explain why it is irrational to ask for a BC from Obama?

1. He has the first foreign born Father since Andrew Jackson.
2. He has only show a COLB, which is issued to children that are foreign born HRS 338-18.7
3. Refuses to show any records, and suppresses record that show (supposed) foreign aid for school.

So since the fear of undue foreign influence on a president has always been a concern (it has been written on extensively in many founding era documents), and this is the first President with a foreign born father in some time, I think it is reasonable to ask for the real thing.

Moreover, I think a better question is why does he refuse to silence these people by simply showing it. Is it political? Is it spite (hardly presidential)? Does he not have one?

I think a skeptic would in fact be easily skeptical of this politician. Not that politicians, in general, don't give people enough reason to be skeptical.

I think it is a reasonable question and request, and I think these people should be allowed to ask for it without being labels as, insane, or nut jobs, or foolish.

I think what is unreasonable is the attacks that are taking place. Where there is smoke there is fire. Childish, demeaning labels and ad hominem attacks is a method of laying smoke over the issue. This could very much be resolved by simply waving the BC under these peoples noses. That is what a real president would do. Why does he just not do that? You have to admit it would be very funny.


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

Good point.

1. Politicians are rather slimy
2. Governments do not tell the truth
3. We have been burned before by both
4. We are a gullible people always supporting our party candidate

Why can’t anyone see these things? This is too important to not be certain!


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

That's irrelevant, FDR's parents BOTH of them were US citizens. Read the US code, it tells you why that matters.

A COLB is issued to FOREIGN born children, NOT children born IN hawaii. HRS 338-18.7


Name
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

He did report three countries as did his family.

No I did not trust Bush.
No, there had never been an attack on the trade towers before 1993, and not a trully successful one til 2001. You argument is specious.

I gotta go guys, I have a SB to watch and a steak to eat!!!

Peace


WND Joseph Farah and Andrew Brietbart tangle over birtherism | Obama Conspiracy Theories
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

[...] and former editor for the Drudge Report, clashed with Farah in the hall with some harsh words, are reported by David Weigel of the Washington Independent. The basic disagreement was whether the “birther” questions are a winning or losing [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

blankFRANK

McCarthy was right. Apparently only a half dozen humanistic fascists–but who call themselves liberal–know this.


Controversey after Joseph Farah questions Obama’s citizenship at tea party | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

[...] The speech was recounted by the LA Times, and details on Breitbart’s reaction is here. [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

A confirmation that a COLB was issued to a person does not mean that DoH discloses any vital information. You said that a person does not even have to be born in Hawaii to be able to get a COLB. If all we knew about a person named John Doe was the fact that the DoH issued him a COLB, we would know nothing about that person’s vital information.

It is a ridiculous position to argue that DoH cannot confirm that they issued a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. Can they legally hide the books holding the registration of payments received from the public? I think that this is a legitimate public information.

Dr. Fukino does not have a first hand knowledge about Obama’s Hawaii birth. Her statement is based on the DoH documents. As I said before – she would have said the same thing even if the Obama’s birthplace claim was based on a lie from a relative. This scenario cannot be discounted until we see the original birth certificate with the assumption that the original birth certificate would confirm the birth in the Kapiolani Hospital.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

So called investigators from Factcheck did not travel to Hawaii. They photographed a document presented to them at Obama campaign headquarters.

Factcheck never verified that the document was issued by the Hawaii DoH. I asked Factcheck multiple times about verification methods used – they never responded to me directly or described it on their web site.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

I agree with JohnC. This is, after all, the woman who allegedly called her vice presidential opponent “Joe” because she kept mispronouncing “Biden.”

Also, I seriously doubt that she could pull that crib-sheet-on-her-hand thing in a Presidential debate. I'm surprised the teabaggers let her get away with it.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

Uh, Ms/Mr Nameless? *I* have the Pennsylvania equivalent of the birth certificate the President released in 2008, and I was born at the same Pittsburgh hospital my great-grandfather co-founded. No one has EVER questioned this document, which I've used repeated to obtain employment, get a driver's license, and renew my passport, and no one has ever attempted to use it to prove that I somehow was born in Canada or somewhere other than Pittsburgh.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Uh oh. What do we have here?

Why, we have garbled syntax. And poorly phrased arguments. And a total inability to write coherent English. And many, many, many arguments that could have come straight from the golden pen of the best known “graduate” of the William Howard Taft Diploma Mill for People Too Stupid to Get Into a Genuine Law School.

*waves* Hi, Orly! How was Nashville? Was Charles Lincoln there? Did you go to the Grand Old Opry or learn to boot-scoot? Or did you run out of mascara and miss the fun buying up the entire contents of the Maybelline rack at the nearest CVS?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Um, Tomm? Or whatever your name is this time? That law wasn't passed until 1981 or 1982, when the President was already an adult.

Thought you'd like to know.


Joel
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

Joseph Farah gets it…
…and nails it too in this very important speech that every American (not using that term loosely folks) should make the time to watch (and not just for “birther” issue reasons):

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Tea_Party_Convention_…


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

Of course not. Why would you even think that?

Hawaii has verified Obama’s COLB twice now. Just go try to get them to verify your hand-made one.

Good luck with that.

Case is closed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

Obama is also the only “president” whose birth was reported in three different countries.

A scenario that Obama’s birth was registered by a relative (who lied about the birthplace) cannot be discounted without seeing the original birth certificate indicating Kapiolani as birth hospital (official story).

If Arnold Schwarzenegger came up with a document resembling the Hawaii COLB that would be a sufficient proof that DoH issued a document, right?


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

“That's irrelevant, FDR's parents BOTH of them were US citizens. Read the US code, it tells you why that matters.”

Seemds YOU need to read the US Code, sport. <chuckle> It is not automatic that the child of two US citizens is a natural born citizen if the birth takes place outside the US. There is legitimate question about McCain, as well as FDR. You also forgot Arthur. Typical birthtard.

“A COLB is issued to FOREIGN born children, NOT children born IN hawaii. HRS 338-18.7″

That is, of course, another blatant birthtard LIE. A COLB is issued to EVERYONE for whom Hawaii possesses a birth record. Are you nuts? You think a COLB is not issued to children born in Hawaii?

As well, the statute you cited was passed in 1982. NINETEEN EIGHTY TWO. How old was Obama then? I'll help you. He was 21. Are you actually saying his mommy got him a foreign-birth COLB for his 21st birthday? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!! You racist nutbags get more desperate by the hour!


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

“He did report three countries as did his family.”

He did no such thing, of course. You are merely lying. But good luck with that whole lying thing. It worked for you America haters before.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

“I COLB is NOT a derivative of that document. You need to read the HRS statute 338-18.7 which CLEARLY states a COLB is not a BC.”

Why don't you read HRS §338-13(b), which states:

Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original“.

What part of that do you not understand?

“It does in fact state that it is issued to FOREIGN born children. THAT is its purpose.”

A COLB can be issued to foreign-born children, that's entire true. But you're insinuating, with utterly ZERO support, that a COLB can state a person who actually wasn't born in Hawaii was born in Hawaii. So, my challenge to you is: SHOW ME THE HAWAII STATUTE OR REGULATION THAT ALLOWS A COLB TO STATE FACTS DIFFERENT FROM ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS ON FILE.


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

“Citizen or a natural born citizen? You have to be precise about the eligibility requirement.”

NBC, of course. He was born on US soil, and that is the primary definition of a natural born citizen under the English common law as used by the Constitution's framers. Case closed, Obama is eligible; still questionable though about McCain.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

“Obama is also the only “president” whose birth was reported in three different countries.”

That is, of course, a blatant lie. His birth has never been reported to be anywhere but in Hawaii. Third parties who have nothing to do with Obama cannot change report any other thing. A person merely saying “George Bush was born in Khazakstan” does not create an actual “report.” Nor does some reporter making a mistake create an actual “report,” but merely an “error” having nothing to do with Obama. Otherwise, any person on the street could create a “report” by merely uttering a lie. Obama has never claimed any birthplace but Hawaii.

“A scenario that Obama’s birth was registered by a relative (who lied about the birthplace) cannot be discounted ”

Yes it can. Proof must accompany.

“without seeing the original birth certificate indicating Kapiolani as birth hospital (official story).”

Wrong.

“If Arnold Schwarzenegger came up with a document resembling the Hawaii COLB that would be a sufficient proof that DoH issued a document, right?”

No, obviously. Hawaii could not possibly have issued such a thing, as it has verified doing in Obama’s case. There is no record of Schwarzenegger being born in Hawaii.

Case is closed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

“Here we have Obama claiming to respect the Constitution and then turning around and running all over it. By refusing to divulge his birth certificate to the American people to demonstrate that he meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements, Obama has disrespected both the Constitution and the American people.”

You are, of course, a liar. Obama has in fact divulged it, put it online, Hawaii has twice confirmed it, people have inspected it… and in fact, Obama is actually the first and only president EVER to actually document his constitutional eligibility. No other president ever did. yet you act like they all did and Obama didn’t, the exact opposite of reality. Why?

“But hey, he is a liberal black guy and the Constitution gets flexed for these guys right? Terrific!”

Actually, Obama is the only president in history EVER to respect the Constitution’s eligibility requirement by proving it. Why do you say he hasn’t when he has?

“Obama is neither a uniter nor a healer, but a despot.”

You are clearly a kook.

“Brietbart got spanked in that mini-debate. I suspect that you are a democrat.”

Breitbart clobberted the World Nut Daily kook. I suspect that you are insane.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

“He has the first foreign born Father since Andrew Jackson.”

Untrue. What about James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur?

“He has only show a COLB, which is issued to children that are foreign born HRS 338-18.7″

But you imply, with ZERO support, that a COLB can state facts at odds with the vital records on file with the state. A COLB issued to a foreign-born person will state that that person is foreign-born. You have offered no support to show otherwise. If you have any, put your cards on the table.

“Refuses to show any records, and suppresses record that show (supposed) foreign aid for school.”

Ironically, WND likes to tout a document submitted by Lolo Soetoro for the proposition that Obama was a Muslim and an Indonesian citizen. But that same document says clearly that Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. Why would Soetoro lie to Indonesian authorities?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

Cutting taxes in a recession makes the economy worse. That’s a fact. Check out 1937. When the private sector is shuitting down and in recession, cutting back on public sector spending is the worst thing you can do.

Even a moron like Bush realized this.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

“That's irrelevant, FDR's parents BOTH of them were US citizens. Read the US code, it tells you why that matters.”

The U.S. Code has nothing to do with the citizenship of persons born on U.S. territory. Please read up on citizenship law before you make asinine assertions here.

“A COLB is issued to FOREIGN born children, NOT children born IN hawaii. HRS 338-18.7″

1. There is no HRS 338-18.7 on the books. Try to get your laws straight.
2. Show me the statute or regulation by which COLBs are only issued to foreign-born persons, and not to native born persons.
3. Why would the COLB state he was born in Hawaii if it is only issued to foreign-born persons?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

The question is not whether Obama was born on August 4, 1961 but whether a COLB was issued to him on June 6, 2007. That date is not relevant for Obama’s vital information.

The likelihood of Obama being able to falsify Kapiolani records and DoH records to indicate his birth in Hawaii is very small. If he authorized the release of the original document and it confirmed the Kapiolani hospital – the birthplace issue would be dead.

I cannot reconcile the official story and Obama’s behavior. He promised to change the tone in Washington – but won’t release a simple document that would resolve the debate about his birthplace.

The only explanation I am left with is the possibility of a birth registration by a relative. Such admission would open a can of worms for Obama and that would explain his reluctance to authorize the release of original documents.


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

You are incredibly naive if you think Obama was vetted. ALL of the secretaries of state admitted, after the fact that they did NOT vet Obama, but “assumed” that he'd been vetted by Pelosi, Howard Dean, or…SOMEONE ELSE. In fact, each Sec. of State has the obligation to personally request the qualifying documents for each candidate instead of blindly relying on those whose responsibility it is to vet the candidates FIRST, before nominating them…and that was Pelosi or Howard Dean…NEITHER of whom vetted Obama.

Doubt it? Then how hard would it be to have Obama UNSEAL his qualifying documents? He REFUSED to go through “proving” before Congress that he is eligible, ALTHOUGH JOHN McCAIN WAS WILLING TO, AND DID! Like I've always said, Obama voters were racists–unwilling to demand that he show his COLB and other sealed-up qualifying documents–though NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO DO SO SINCE KENNEDY. Obama got–and still gets–a “pass” because he's black!


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

YOU are quite the moron if you believe the Bush administration has responsibility for vetting a Democratic Presidential candidate. OMG!!


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

“The eligibility question is a legitimate one. After all, the Constitution puts a restriction on who can command the US military.”

The Constitution provides that the President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief. That’s all.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

“A confirmation that a COLB was issued to a person does not mean that DoH discloses any vital information.”

But if confirmation does not disclose any vital information, then why the interest in having the DoH confirm the COLB? Because you want the DoH to stand behind a document stating that Obama was born in Hawaii, which would in effect officially disclose Obama was born in Hawaii because the document itself says so.

“Can they legally hide the books holding the registration of payments received from the public?”

What kind of red herring is that? What vital information is revealed by disclosing a REQUEST for a vital record?

“Dr. Fukino does not have a first hand knowledge about Obama’s Hawaii birth. Her statement is based on the DoH documents. As I said before – she would have said the same thing even if the Obama’s birthplace claim was based on a lie from a relative. This scenario cannot be discounted until we see the original birth certificate with the assumption that the original birth certificate would confirm the birth in the Kapiolani Hospital.”

You still can’t show how any of the documentation would show Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. The best you can do is say it’s “suspicious,” without giving us any means for resolving said suspicions.


ardchillicothe
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

I happened to come in to the main the main convention room and sat down at a back table. I appeared to be between two reporters. The one to my right struck up a conversation after I had stood up when they asked who was running for office. (I had recently picked up my petition to run for Ohio's 18th Congressional district seat. He asked me about the National Journal I was carrying and why I had decided to run. I told him how I got started following politics after hearing Prewsident Clinton (and many other Democrats) use two false claims during their 1996 campaign. Two false claims may not sound taht bad for a campaign, but these were their main claims:

1. Interest rates came down after the passage of the Presidents 1993 economic plan
2. We had four years of successive deficit reduction for the first time since before the Civil War.

He quickly told me that I was taping the speeches so couldn't talk. And after the speeches were over he told me he really had to leave to interview some other people. In retrospect, he seemed quite uncomfortable being near me. AFter getting out the card he had given me, I see it was the same author of this article. So Now I see why he left so quickly! David would rather write things that might cause disruption in a cause that is a significant threat to the Progressives than to report the truth to the American People so they could cast informed votes.

Is that called Journalism?


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

People who fall for the HopeyChangey Messiah and believe that he's constitutionally eligible “on faith”–despite his choice to seal up all his qualifying documents–need cult deprogramming therapy.


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Actually, since Palin supposedly believes that the GOP should subsume the Tea Party Movement–I hope she gets nominated by the GOP and that the Tea Party Movement nominates its OWN slate of Presidential candidates for 2012!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

That is open for debate. The NBC definition is not in the Constitution and the SCOTUS never ruled specifically on this issue.

Quote from the FightTheSmears web page:
” When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

How is it possible that a foreign law governs the status of a natural born US citizen?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:50 pm

“The question is not whether Obama was born on August 4, 1961 but whether a COLB was issued to him on June 6, 2007. That date is not relevant for Obama’s vital information.”

The DoH is not going to give information which is going to confirm a specific document. But you could try approaching the DoH and asking whether a COLB has at some point been issued to Obama.

“The only explanation I am left with is the possibility of a birth registration by a relative. Such admission would open a can of worms for Obama and that would explain his reluctance to authorize the release of original documents.”

You’re obviously free to rationalize the DoH’s/Obama’s behavior any way you see fit. But you still haven’t identified how anything you’re proposing would result in turning up documents showing Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.


nickifellenzer
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

Actually, the IC does a background check on him. Has nothing to do with politicians. ALL of the “secretaries of state”? Just how many of them do you think there were? Good lord.


nickifellenzer
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

No, genius. The intel community runs a background check. Duh. Not the administration. But it would have been PERFORMED during the Bush administration. Geeze. Birthers. Please.


ObamabinLyin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

That's right–we should believe Messiah HopeyChangey just cause he's black. After all, YOU, a boringly PC “white guy,” are deathly afraid of being called “racist” by your handlers more than standing for the requirements of the Constitution and doing what's right. And besides, why should the black Oba-Messiah have to go through what all other Presidential candidates since Kennedy have done, (including the hearing on eligibility John McCain went through in front of Congress)? Being black got the Oba-Messiah everything in life–from affirmative-action admittance to Harvard/Columbia all the way to the WH despite his non-eligibility!


nickifellenzer
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

Please, God! Make the stupid stop!


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

“Are we talking about the same letter that was promptly withdrawn from the Kapiolani Hospital web site when WND asked for the confirmation of its authenticity? Is it the same letter that the White House did not want to confirm?”

This is the letter that a Kapi’olani official stated was real and came from the White House, as was reported in the July 16, 2009 WND. The article continued:

“WND asked her why the hospital simply didn’t post a scanned image of the paper letter on its site to begin with instead of the HTML version.

“”We did that because we didn’t want people to take it from the Web and use it for purposes other than for what it was intended,” she responded. “I’m sorry it created suspicion on your part, but it was not our intention.”

“A close-up view of the photographed letter reveals the signature on this document is a far cry from the crude, computer-generated graphic made to look like a letter on the Kapi’olani Medical Center’s website.That online image was concealed by the hospital after WND revealed it was not a photo of an actual paper letter.

“When asked why Kapi’olani suddenly yanked the letter off its website after displaying it online for close to half a year, Peters acknowledged removing it “not because it doesn’t exist, but because it was becoming a distraction.”

“”The inquiries about it became a distraction in running our hospital,” she said.”

“The first image of Obama’s alleged COLB posted on the web (Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and creases caused by folding.”

It was a low-quality image. What do you expect?

“You also assume that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. There is no evidence for such claim.”

Obviously, the multiple high-quality images of the COLB shown to FactCheck don’t qualify as “evidence” in your book. That’s a principal reason why I’m skeptical that images of the original birth certificate would resolve your “suspicions.” You’re so cynical that no amount of evidence on earth is sufficient to address your “concerns.” So you’re just going to have to remain dissatisfied.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

Go Birthers, GO!

Go Birthers, GO

This is too much fun.


steve909
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Ummm..I'm white.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

Honolulu Advertiser reported Obama’s birth in Indonesia. That was a story about Tammy Duckworth (when she run for Congress seat in Illinois).
Several African newspapers reported about Kenya birth. The ambassador of Kenya said the same thing in a radio interview.

Web site Snopes.com reported about birth in Queen’s hospital and finally we have official claim of Kapiolani Hospital birth.

It is highly unlikely that such inconsistencies would appear if Obama was forthcoming about his birthplace. He never mentioned Kapiolani as his birthplace in his books. The birth certificate mentioned in his book was not presented to the public. Was it just another lie included in the book to create an image of a birth in the USA.

Replace Schwarzenegger’s name with John Doe, it might be easier for you to understand my point.
If John Doe came up with a document resembling the Hawaii COLB would that be a sufficient proof that DoH issued a document?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

So, are you claiming that no president or vice president sinve Andrew Jackson has had a foreign born parent?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

So, the RNC didn't “VET” the opposition candidate?

How careless of them.

No wonder they lost.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

You are quite naive if you think that the Bush administration didn't investigate the hell out of every major Democratic politician.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:10 pm

“Well, Honolulu Advertiser reported Obama being born in Indonesia. They wrote an article about Tammy Duckworth (she ran for a Congress seat in Illinois few years ago) Obama supported her candidacy.”

What city in Indonesia the article say Obama was born in? Why would Dunham have been there at a time years before she met Soetoro when she was married to a Kenyan? Does the article address any of this? Of course not.

A reporter’s lazy, offhand, unsupported assertion is not the same thing as “reporting” an Indonesian birth, sorry.

“Many African newspapers reported about Obama’s Kenyan birth.”

And where was Obama born according to these stories? What were the circumstances?

“Then we have a left wing web site “snopes.com” reporting his birth in the Queen’s hospital in Honolulu. That report was probably based on a newspaper article about Obama’s family where his half-sister Maya was intervieved (in 2004).”

Maya has explained the circumstances of that interview. Other papers picked up on this mistake, and Snopes reported from them.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

That's hilarious. One of the Tea Party Convention speakers wants to roll back the civil rights act and you have the gall to compalin that critics are racist!


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

She had to write crib notes on the palm of her hand.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

This birther clown claims in an Orly Taitz lawsuit that he actually “fired” Barack Obama.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26258075/Strunk-Exhib…

Folks, birthers don't get much crazier than that.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

The eligibility for POTUS was included into US Constitution because of a worry that a foreigner might become the commander of US military.

Do we need to revisit the debate about John Jay’s letter where such concern was raised and natural born citizen phrase proposed for inclusion into the Constitution?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

“That is open for debate.”

No, actually, it is not open for debate at all, much as you may wish for it. SCOTUS settled it in the Wong case. The first set of people who are by definition natural born citizens are those whose birth occurs on US soil — no matter who the parents are. This was English common law and was the basis for the Framers’ reference.

“The NBC definition is not in the Constitution and the SCOTUS never ruled specifically on this issue.”

The definition is not in the Constitution because it was well known and commonly accepted at the time that a person born on the soil was a natural born citizen of that land. End of story. This of course answers why they never bothered to define it — they all knew what it meant and so did SCOTUS in Wong.

“Quote from the FightTheSmears web page:
” When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

“How is it possible that a foreign law governs the status of a natural born US citizen?”

It doesn’t. That quote doesn’t change it. The British can make Obama whatever they want, it has no force or effect on Obama’s US status at all, nor can it. End of stoyr. Case closed.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

“That is open for debate. The NBC definition is not in the Constitution and the SCOTUS never ruled specifically on this issue.”

The Supreme Court has given plenty of indications of where it would come down on the issue if it did rule directly on it.

“How is it possible that a foreign law governs the status of a natural born US citizen?”

You’re completely spinning what that passage is saying. Foreign law doesn’t govern the natural born U.S. citizen status of any person – that is a question which only U.S. law can resolve. But foreign law does govern whether a person is considered a citizen by a country other than the United States.

Come on, this isn’t very hard.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

“The eligibility for POTUS was included into US Constitution because of a worry that a foreigner might become the commander of US military.”

That’s right – a “foreigner”, which was universally understood in 1787 as meaning a “non-citizen.” The NBC requirement by its very architecture prevented a person who was ever a a non-citizen from naturalizing as a U.S. citizen – which back then was very easy to do – and then becoming president.

It’s not hard.

“Do we need to revisit the debate about John Jay’s letter where such concern was raised and natural born citizen phrase proposed for inclusion into the Constitution?”

Only if you think it’s necessary.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

1. Minor party candidates asked for verification of Obama's eligibility to be placed on the ballot and were ignored by the secretary of state (California).

2. McCain is not eligible to run either – how could he challenge Obama's eligibility when he had the same problem?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

“Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President, was born in 1829, at which time his father was a British-Irish citizen. His father was not naturalized as a US citizen until 1843.”

Of course, even if Arthur’s father had naturalized before Chester’s birth, his father still would have been a British citizen. The UK has never recognized renunciation of its citizenship unless it is done directly to British authorities.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

Don't forget about the vice Presidents as well, since they have to meet the came criteria as the President.

Does anyone remember Spiro Agnew and Charles Curtis,


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

“Asking for a Birth Certificate for the first time coorelates to having a president with a foreign born Father since Andrew Jackson. Simple.”

You're making James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur feel left out.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

Hi Orly!


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

What about the Republican Party?

There were more candidates than just McCain, or did you forget how our political system works?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

Let's not forget about Spiro Agnew and Charles Curtis


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

1. Which Supreme Court are you talking about? WKA case (judge Grey) or the current SCOTUS?

2. I am not spinning anything, verb “govern” was quoted from the FightTheSmears web site.

“…That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

Do you think that the current SCOTUS would overturn WKA?

Rolled up to the top of the thread


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Why did Obama campaign include that statement on their web site if it wasn’t true?

If the law was settled and based on English Common law, why do we need Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

A question for naturalizedcitizen:

Do you think that if a birther case were to actually make it to the Supreme Court, that the current SCOTUS would overturn WKA?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:56 pm

“Which Supreme Court are you talking about? WKA case (judge Grey) or the current SCOTUS?

Because the Supreme Court operates on the principle of stare decisis, I’m referring to opinions ranging from Minor v. Happesett and Wong Kim Ark to Schneider v. Rusk. And there’s no reason to single out Judge Grey from Wong Kim Ark. Five other justices joined his opinion. And all SCOTUS decisions since that time have fully adopted the reasoning of Wong Kim Ark. It remains good law.

“2. I am not spinning anything, verb “govern” was quoted from the FightTheSmears web site.

“…That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”"

You’re clearly spinning. “Governed” is used with respect to the operation of foreign law, not U.S. law.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

Narualized citizen asked:

If the law was settled and based on English Common law, why do we need Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?

To nullify the Dread Scott decision.

Is that what you want to reinstate?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

See the top of this thread.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

Can we restart this at the top of the thread?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

If the DoH could issue a press-release saying that Obama was born in Hawaii, nothing prevents them to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

Yet they refuse to do so.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

“If the law was settled and based on English Common law, why do we need Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?”

According to Wong Kim Ark we technically don’t. That’s precisely why the opinion states that Section 1 “is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

Can we move this up to the top of this thread?

I hate these scrunched up posts on page 2


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

“Honolulu Advertiser reported Obama’s birth in Indonesia.”

It was wrong and ran a correction. This is not a “report of his birth in Indonesia,” sport. A “report of birth” must come from an authority so authorized to make a report, not a rookie reporter covering a weekend political forum who misunderstands or doesn’t fact-check.

Are you saying that if a reporter wrote that George Bush was born in Italy, it would constitute a valid report that must force open his otherwise private records?

“Several African newspapers reported about Kenya birth.”

They were wrong. Thay had no basis for it. Sorry. You’re losing pretty badly here when you’re insisting that African newspapers must be taken at face value.

“The ambassador of Kenya said the same thing in a radio interview.”

Actually that’s another one of your lies and by now you should have known it is a lie. He said no such thing; he was of course talking about Obama’s father.

“Web site Snopes.com reported about birth in Queen’s hospital and finally we have official claim of Kapiolani Hospital birth.”

Again, irelevant. The only authorities here are Hawaiian state vital records, which prove beyond doubt that Obama was born there. It cannot possibly constitute a valid “report” that a web site said something. you can read anything you want on the web. Some of it even true.

“It is highly unlikely that such inconsistencies would appear if Obama was forthcoming about his birthplace.”

That is a complete falsehood on your part. Obama HAS been forthcoming; how else could you possibly describe his being the ONLY PRESIDENT EVER to release his birth certificate?

“He never mentioned Kapiolani as his birthplace in his books.”

Why do you imagine that he is under some obligation to specify that in his book? Are you insane? you think you can infer that he wasn’t born in Hawaii because he didn’t specify in a book the name of the hospital? You have a very illogical thought process.

“The birth certificate mentioned in his book was not presented to the public.”

So what? What makes you think he has it? Why do you assume he possesses it? In the book, he saw it among his mother’s posessions in a trunk or bag or something… His mother moved around the world several times after that. His mother had it, not him. My mother had mine; she’s gone. I have no idea where it is. I got a passport using a brand new COLB from my birth state. I don’t have my original copy.

“Was it just another lie included in the book to create an image of a birth in the USA.”

No. It’s just a passage in a book, kook. Hawaii has spoken and has settled the matter. Obama was born in the US. End of story.

“Replace Schwarzenegger’s name with John Doe, it might be easier for you to understand my point. ”

I had no trouble at all understanding it. You have trouble realizing that it is immaterial; Hawaii verified Obama’s. It did not nor can it verify Schwarzenegger’s.

“If John Doe came up with a document resembling the Hawaii COLB would that be a sufficient proof that DoH issued a document?”

It sure would if Hawaii twice went through the trouble of issuing press releases verifying it.

Case is closed, chum. You lost.


jpatt
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

I love how everyone piles on birthers. Alinksy tactics do work. This was the plan from the beginning. Obama never intends to release his long-form birth certificate and he dares you to try and get it. A million dollar worth of lawsuits says he doesn't have to release it. But he wants you to keep trying because it makes them look foolish. Let's be honest, the media are slugs for deceit and they refuse to investigate. Obama can lie all day long, he will not be intimidated nor will he be put to any test. The Constitution says 'We The People' own his ass however that is not good enough for judges to permit birther lawsuits to move forward. As you rip birthers a new one, Alinski/Obama has you right where they want you, disgraced.

While I would personally love to see something come of all this, it's over, Obama won. But his political fortunes are a complete disaster. He is a one-term President. The birther issue has been debunked? Nope. That's what the MSM is telling you. Obama neither proved or disproved his birth. It's ok, without Obama we would have the same old politics. We would have moderates who talk bi-partisanship and the same old lobbyists getting rich, at the expense of taxpayers. But we have Obama. From this bad fruit we have a growing movement to rest control from statist and liberals and career politicains. The TEA party is here to stay. They are networked like never before. They have made enough of an impact already to seat Scott Brown in the land of liberals. They were instrumental in taking a bruised-brand Republican party and sending them to victory in Virginia and New Jersey. The TEA Party is made up of common Joes; not just the right or Republicans. It includes independents and Democrats as well. 20% of Democrats voted for Scott Brown. They are the deciding factor from now on. Good times ahead as Obama fumbles and fails, America rises and rebuilds. Authentic leadership is the result of Obama taking office and driving hard left liberal. USA USA USA


“Did You Know That Dave Weigel From The Washington Independent Was-” « Around The Sphere
Pingback posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

[...] David Weigel at The Washington Independent: After he introduced the evening’s closing entertainment — a film titled “Generation Zero” — Breitbart walked outside to the convention hall. There, I heard Breitbart criticizing Farah, and briefly talked to him about it before I noticed that WorldNetDaily’s Chelsea Schilling was already talking to him, holding up a voice recorder. I backed up to allow her to continue her interview, which consisted of questions on why Breitbart didn’t think Obama’s citizenship was a legitimate issue. [...]


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

“Rep. Posey’s bill with 12 co-sponsors now would require proof of US citizenship i.e. genuine birth certificate for all future US Presidents.”

The COLB is a genuine birth certificate. It was issued by the State of Hawaii. It is in no sense not “real.” The language of Posey’s bill itself does not require anything more than this.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

minutes ago
“Why did Obama campaign include that statement on their web site if it wasn’t true?”

Are you hard of reading or something? Who said it was not true? I said it is irrelevant with regard to Obama’s status as a US natural born citizen. The British can consider him anything they like, but it’s US law that matters here.

“If the law was settled and based on English Common law, why do we need Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?”

Easy. Because of racists like you.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:13 pm

“If the DoH could issue a press-release saying that Obama was born in Hawaii, nothing prevents them to confirm that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

You lie. State law does.

It already has been confirmed. Look at the document Hawaii acknowledges issuing. Look at the date on it. Case closed.

You really do have nothing at all to support you.

“Yet they refuse to do so.”

Good. I like to see people upholding the law.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:14 pm

“A person born in a foreign country (one parent is a US citizen) is a native citizen!?”

Nobody knows for sure. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled upon it. But given that the Supreme Court is on record as stating that NBC is the same thing as “citizenship by birth,” and that British law has long accepted foreign-born persons as natural born subjects, there is no reason to discount the possibility.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

“An image posted on the Obama friendly web page is proof? Ever heard of Adobe Photoshop?”

I know Photoshop is a great program, but I highly doubt it can create the photos seen on the FactCheck site.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

Low quality image?
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

How is it that we can see the fine lines (document borders) in a “low quality image”, yet there is no crease to interrupt those fine lines. The width of a crease shown in the Factcheck image is larger that the thickness of fine lines in the document border.

Folded document shown on Factcheck:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_4.jpg

The Kapiolani letter could became a distraction only in case if it did not represent the truth.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:26 pm

“Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.”

Actually, no it doesn’t. It provides for who is a citizen of the United States at birth if the child isn’t a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment – i.e. if the child is not born in the U.S.

This statute is completely irrelevant as to the citizenship of a child born in the United States.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

“Obama neither proved or disproved his birth.”

If you are willing to ignore the COLB, then sure. Of course, that's an act of self-delusion.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

No need to overturn the WKA. It does not define what a natural born Citizen (nbC) is. It ruled that a child born in the USA of Chinese immigrants is a citizen at birth.

We need a specific ruling from SCOTUS on this definition.


Shade Tail
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

Birthers *are* racist, and they all know it. These are the same people who spent eight years vilifying Clinton in every possible way, up to and including lying that he masterminded a murder. But it never even occurred to any of them to question his citizenship. Why? Because he’s a white guy from Arkansas.

Obama, on the other hand, isn’t white. He doesn’t “look” American, by these people’s measure, so it is a natural step to make this accusation.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

“How is it that we can see the fine lines (document borders) in a “low quality image”, yet there is no crease to interrupt those fine lines.”

I downloaded and magnified the FightTheSmears image. And sure enough, you can see a crease EXACTLY where it is found in the FactCheck photograph. There’s just no “there” there.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

More specific than deciding that every case filed lacks the merit to be argued before the Court?

How many crazy cases have The Supremes turned away already?


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

It's an admission that they've become a minor party.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

I think you'll find bipartisan support for that plan.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

“No need to overturn the WKA. It does not define what a natural born Citizen (nbC) is. It ruled that a child born in the USA of Chinese immigrants is a citizen at birth.”

And would you care to explain to Antibirther why the Supreme Court made so many mentions to natural born citizen and natural born subject if those concepts were irrelevant to – and contrary with – Wong Kim Ark's status as a U.S. citizen by birth (considering that his parents were not U.S. citizens)?


trashthinker
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

…'We The People' own his ass…

No. The 13th Amendment ended ownership of people.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:51 am

“Hooray for Joseph Farah…one of the last true journalists alive today.”

Farah is a fraud. His articles keep mentioning that foreign-born people can obtain COLBs in Hawaii, which implies that Obama could have been foreign-born and received the very COLB he received. But Farah is too cowardly to come right out and assert that Obama’s COLB could state he was born in Hawaii even if other documents on file say he wasn’t. That’s because he knows such an argument is a crock, and he’ll get called out on it.

So he just sticks with his cutesy and intellectually dishonest insinuations, and rakes in the dough as gullible readers fill the coffers.


cmblake6
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

“Birther”, or not? Regardless of where he was born, Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. Period. The LAW is BOTH parents must be American citizens. John McCain had to stand before SCOTUS and be judged. Both parents were American, he was born on an American property, the Naval Base. Therefore, he was valid. Who asked about Obama? His FATHER was a British subject, therefore Obama is a dual citizen REGARDLESS of where he was born.


cmblake6
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 8:59 pm

The COLB misses a whole lot of required details. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:00 am

“One truth is this; this country was not founded on trusting government.”

In a political sense, that’s true. But when the government issues a birth certificate, or a driver’s license, or a permit, or currency, we should take pause before questioning their validity, which is what you’re doing when you claim Obama’s COLB is somehow insufficient to demonstrate he was born in Hawaii.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:11 am

“That page does not in fact say anything of the sort.”

I’m afraid that just doesn’t line up with the facts. That very page states:

“The index data regarding President Obama is:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male”

“So this COLB does not in fact establish he was born in Hawaii, it does in fact suggest he is not born in Hawaii.”

That’s pretty rich, considering the COLB itself states his place of birth is “Oahu.” Nothing in the statute you quoted expressly or implicitly permits the COLB of a foreign-born child to state he/she was born in Hawaii. If you argue that it does, show me how.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:20 am

“Listen up, jackass, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with race. It has to do with what is constitutionally allowable in terms of who and who can’t be president. I’m frankly quite sick of you people who call people racist for DARE questioning BHO on his more than murky past. Get an effing clue, would you?”

Oh, it’s racist all right.

You never asked for Bush’s birth certificate. You never asked for Clinton’s. It only becomes important to you when the black guy is elected — and the irony, you stupid goober, is that Obama DID RELEASE HIS OFFICIAL STATE CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE while no other president ever did.

“Fact of the matter is, Barack Obama could not possibly be an “NBC” as required. His father was never a citizen of the U.S, even though BHO Jr.’s mother was. It takes BOTH parents to be a citizen of the U.S in order for a person to run for President.”

That is a blatant lie.

The child of illegal aliens is a natural born citizen. There is absolutely zero support for your ludicrous claim.

Aren’t you late for your cross burning?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

“The LAW is BOTH parents must be American citizens.”

Is that so? Then show me one single case from the history of state or federal jurisprudence that supports your claim.

And don't waste our time with Vattel quotes. The original English translation familiar to the Founders never used the word “natural born citizen.” That term first appeared in translations printed a decade after the Constitution was adopted.

“John McCain had to stand before SCOTUS and be judged. Both parents were American, he was born on an American property, the Naval Base. Therefore, he was valid.”

The test for citizenship at birth outside the United States is not whether a person was born on American property, but whether the circumstances of his birth fall within applicable U.S. statutes. When McCain was born in 1936, no extant U.S. law provided that he was a citizen at birth. Congress passed a law applicable to him in 1937. Legal scholars debate whether the law was retroactive, and even if it were, whether natural born status can be conferred retroactively. It is also not entirely clear that a person may be an NBC if born outside the U.S., although the Supreme Court appears favorable to that interpretation, given that it has equated NBC with “citizenship by birth” – a concept not limited to birth within the U.S. (See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)).

“His FATHER was a British subject, therefore Obama is a dual citizen REGARDLESS of where he was born.”

Again, irrelevant. If it were relevant, then James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur also were not legitimate U.S. presidents, because their fathers had dual U.S.-British citizenship.


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

“I love how everyone piles on birthers.”

When people spout assertions that are obviously empirically and demonstrably wrong, they're going to be mocked.

“Alinksy tactics do work. This was the plan from the beginning.”

That's right. We're all part of a plot. I was afraid you'd find us out. Don't tell anybody, okay?


JohnC
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

“The COLB misses a whole lot of required details.”

It says he was born in Hawaii. There isn't a lot of room for misinterpreting that.


AlCum
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

“I would say the better question is why not simply show the BC?”

Ummm, Obama HAS shown his official state certified birth certificate. Case closed. NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVER has shown a birth certificate. Obama made history by doing so, yet you birthtards rave on ignoring the reality of this historic moment.

“We do know that Obama could nopt clear a security check to work at an airport. The FBI said that, “

No it did not. The FBI said no such thing, you're just one more lying nutbag.

“so I jusat have to wonder why he doesn't show a BC. There is nothing insane about asking for that.”

Yes, there is, when he's already shown it and you pretend he hasn't.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:45 am

“Do you think that the current SCOTUS would overturn WKA?”

Immaterial. It could not be made retroactive. The curretn SCOTUS could suddenly rule that a natural born citizen had to be a white male. It owuld not change the fact that at the time of Obama’s election that was not the case.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

Not according to either American or Kenyan law. Try again, birther.


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

What, no tranya?


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

Actually, it's called “avoiding a lunatic.”


ellid
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

Or Barry Goldwater, who was born in a territory, not a state, or Gerald Ford, who was adopted.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:40 am

Had Obama’s father been, say, a white citizen of South Africa, would we even be talking about this?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:40 am

Lies from beginning to end.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:48 am

All I need to settle the question is your birth certificate and naturalization papers. Then I’ll know if you’re a Serbian ethnic cleanser on the run, a self-hating Muslim Croat, or a Kosovar who hates everyone else in the Balkans.

As for your statement about “victims in Sarajevo going to hell,” I said no such thing. I said that the people and the city were BLOWN to hell by bombs. Once again, your limited English has left you unable to interpret a common idiom.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:01 am

I think the teabaggers are doing a wonderful job of delegitimizing themselves without any help from anyone.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:04 am

For all their screeching, it’s rather odd that the teabaggers don’t seem to realize that the first use of the term seems to have been on the Free Republic web site in late February of last year, or well before Rachel Maddow pointed out that the teabaggers didn’t seem to realize what the term actually meant.

And oh yes – it’s perfectly possible for heterosexual couples to engage in teabagging.


katahdin
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

Mocking crazy people is entirely reasonable.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

John McCain was born in the Colon Hospital in Panama – outside the canal zone, outside the US military base.

Neither presidential candidate was eligible to run in 2008.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 7, 2010 @ 11:50 pm

Would you care to elaborate on Buchanan, Johnson and Arthur:
What was the citizenship status of their parents (father) at the time of their birth and when did this information became widely known?


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:01 am

“Neither McCain nor Obama were eligible to run in 2008.”

Such a definitive statement is totally unwarranted.

MCCAIN:

There are some questions which are unanswered by legal scholars:

1. Did the 1937 law or any other law retroactively make McCain a citizen by birth?
2. Can NBC status be conferred retroactively?
3. Is a person born outside the U.S. and a citizen at birth an NBC?

Because these questions have not been answered with any degree of authority, it is not possible to say whether McCain was ineligible to be President.

OBAMA:

Multiple Supreme Court decisions make it clear that the United States adheres to a jus soli basis for citizenship by birth, and that it has its origins in English law. Before any Founding Father ever considered questions of national security or presidential eligibility, the term “natural born citizen” was already in use to describe persons who were born on U.S. territory (or the territory of a given state). The constitutional term, absent any other evidence, therefore, must be understood in this light.

The State of Hawaii has issued a COLB to Obama stating he was born on the island of Oahu, which in 1961 was part of the State of Hawaii, and therefore U.S territory. Obama was, by virtue of this fact alone, a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution.

Ironically, your statement that Obama was not eligible belies your repeatedly-asserted need to resolve doubts that Obama's “official story” is true. Why bother if it's already conclusive that he's not eligible?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:06 am

The nbC is an example of a principle that a citizenship can be obtained upon birth.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:12 am

“Would you care to elaborate on Buchanan, Johnson and Arthur:”

Most certainly. The constitutional claim being advanced is that a person is ineligible for the presidency if he is or was a dual citizen.

The following is true:

1. The fathers of Buchanan, Johnson, and Arthur were born in the UK and were therefore UK citizens.

2. Just because they subsequently naturalized as U.S. citizens does not mean they therefore lost their UK citizenship. UK citizenship can only be lost through affirmative renunciation to UK authorities, and it is not clear even this was permitted back in the 19th century. (You may recall the Wong Kim Ark dissent placed great importance on the fact that British citizenship could not be renounced, whereas U.S. citizenship could be renounced.) Therefore, it does not matter whether they had naturalized at the time their U.S.-born sons were born. They were still UK citizens able to pass along their UK citizenship to their children.

3. Foreign-born children of male UK citizens by birth other than by descent (i.e. jus soli) have long been UK citizens by descent (i.e. jus sanguinis). Buchanan, Johnson, and Arthur were foreign-born children of native born male UK citizens.

4. Therefore, Buchanan, Johnson, and Arthur were, an addition to being U.S. citizens by birth, UK citizens by birth through descent. They were therefore in fact dual citizens at birth and throughout life (no evidence exists any of them renounced their UK citizenship), and they still served as president.

If the Constitution prohibits dual citizens from serving as president, Buchanan, Johnson, and Arthur were therefore ineligible for the presidency.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:21 am

“The nbC is an example of a principle that a citizenship can be obtained upon birth.”

So why extensively cite NBC and NBS for the proposition that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment meant Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth? If we take your position on NBC (which was also that of the dissent) as correct, then “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as understood in the context of NBC/NBS could never have applied to Wong Kim Ark, and the Court would have found he was not a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The definition of NBC as meaning at least “born on U.S. soil” (with few exceptions) is essential to explaining the outcome of Wong Kim Ark. That is inescapable.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:32 am

My naturalization paperS IS in my home, LOL.

What happened to your language policing skills?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:58 am

1. The translation of Vattel's book at the time when Constitution was adopted illustrates that there were some people who thought that parental status is important in nbC definition.

2. Did all states use the same definition for nbC prior to the adoption of US Constitution? Was there a single state that required that the father be a citizen for child to be considered an nbC?

3. The birthplace story is much easier to understand for vast majority of US citizens. The nbC definition is something that the Supreme Court should deal with.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:11 am

“1. The translation of Vattel's book at the time when Constitution was adopted illustrates that there were some people who thought that parental status is important in nbC definition.”

Or, rather, who thought Vattel thought that parental status is important in NBC definition. In any event, this does not shed much, if any light, on what the Founding Fathers understood NBC at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

“2. Did all states use the same definition for nbC prior to the adoption of US Constitution? Was there a single state that required that the father be a citizen for child to be considered an nbC?”

I can't say for sure, but my own research indicates no variation from jus soli principles. Nor could the Lynch v. Clarke court identify any. Nor could the Wong Kim Ark dissent find any.

“3. The birthplace story is much easier to understand for vast majority of US citizens. The nbC definition is something that the Supreme Court should deal with.”

Either Obama's birthplace is relevant, or it isn't. If Obama simply can't be an NBC by virtue of his father's citizenship, it seems to me the COLB argument is much ado about nothing.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:47 am

Obama's father was never naturalized. His case is different from all other previous presidents.

The only one you could put in the similar category as Obama is Chester Arthur.

His father was naturalized after his birth. This was not a widely known fact until recently. At the time, there was a debate whether Chester Arthur was born in the USA or in Canada.

He would be the only example of a president who did not fulfill the “US born of citizen parents” definition for nbC.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:48 am


naturalizedcitizen wrote, in response to Anthony (unregistered):

They = factcheck.org

The other document you mentioned is Decosta COLB, which was posted on the web.

Unlike Decosta COLB, the first COLB for Obama (which was posted on Daily Kos) did not show the state seal and did not have creases from being folded. When people pointed out at these flaws, an improved version of the Obama COLB was posted on factcheck.org.

DoH never confirmed that they issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. The DoH officials have been asked this question many times and refuse to answer.

Does it make any sense that Dr. Fukino says Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” (her words), yet she would not confirm that her office issued COLB?
See you continue to argue on nonsense. In order to make a logically consistent argument your statements must be applicable to all cases, not to cases that you want to.

On both documents it specifically states that “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE.” Please keep that in mind as I will address it later.

It is the State of Hawaii Department of Health who are responsible for all birth certificates and maintaining the original birth records. As the head of the Department of Health this is one of Dr. Fukino's responsibilities. This includes all people born in Hawaii.

The Department of Health doesn't have to confirm when a birth certificate has been issues, as this is a matter of privacy. The State of Hawaii actually has laws that stipulates what information can be released and to whom. This rules governing the release of information can be obtained from the State of Hawaii's government website, if you what to check. It is your responsibility to take the time and search.

You continue to harp about not being able to see the back of the document or a crease in the document. This seems to be your only real complaint.

The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Barak H. Obama is a natural born citizen. However, according to American law a birth certificate is proof of citizenship for those who are born in America. “Citizenship fraud is a direct violation of federal statutes.” Thus, it is easy to conclude that Dr. Fukino has confirmed that her office HAS issued the COLB.

First there were complains that the document wasn't in a specific format. Now there are complaints about the document seems to be not folded. Folding a document is not a form of alternation. Also, all the information that you harp about has always been on the document. This obviously includes the date that the document was issues.

Those who seem intent on spreading this ridiculous conspiracy theory seems more interested in picking examples that support their position, that look at the big picture.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:00 am

3. I believe that Obama is not an nbC because of both: birth outside the USA and his father's citizenship status.

The debate with Obama supporters taught me that the evidence regarding the nbC definition is not convincing – there should be a SCOTUS ruling about this definition.

Common sense and the observation of Obama's behavior regarding his birthplace tells me that he was not born in the USA.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:05 am

As a birther you a flipping more. You mention John McCain. It was Congress who had written the law that enable John McCain to become a natural born citizen. The law was passed when he was about 1 year old, but was retroactive to 1904. Thus anyone who was born in Panama to American parents became natural-born citizen.

A birther isn’t a person who doubts Obama’s birth status. A birther is a person who doubts a natural-born citizen citizenship status which is inconsistent with American law.

A simple statement by lawmakers in Washington confirmed McCain’s citizenship stop the McCain birthers. However, a simple statement and a posting of an actual birth certificate hasn’t stop the Obama birthers. With an seemingly unattainable threshold for the president the motives seems more like xenophobia.

The use the term xenophobia is due to the prejudice is broader than some will argue.


Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … | Drakz Free Online Service
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:10 am

[...] is the original post: Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … Share and [...]


Poisoned Fruit and Political Entrapment: “Birthers”and the Persistent Power of the Socialist Smear « Conservative Policy News
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:21 am

[...] one of their own, Dave Weigel, managed to cleverly plant the poisonous fruit of the “birther” controversy smack-dab in the middle of the Tea Party Convention in [...]


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:22 am

“Obama's father was never naturalized. His case is different from all other previous presidents.

I was specifically responding to the claim that a person is ineligible to be president if he is a dual citizen at birth. That is not the same thing as whether a person had two U.S. citizen parents.

Having said that, I have pointed out previously that the supposed two-parent citizen requirement does not prevent a person with dual citizenship – and therefore multiple allegiances – from becoming president. (Which is arguably a bigger concern than a person with PARENTS with foreign allegiances.) It just goes to show that the theorized dual-citizen parent requirement wouldn't have even satisfactorily addressed the allegiance problem that the Founders supposedly were trying to avoid.


Mari
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:32 am

Well, sorry to tell you but you are absolutely wrong. He was born in Hawaii and the director of the Health Department, who is a Republican by the way, verified it. But never let facts stand in your way. We shall all just carry on with the facts and ignore your silliness. For sure, I never expect a birther to listen to rational information. As a Republican, you guys totally embarrass me.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:34 am

No one believes the the president is a messiah. This is what those who seem flat footed in dispelling Obama’s words refer to him as. If you disagree with his policies just say so.

There are only three requirements to be eligible to become president of America.
1. To have lived in America for 14 years.
2. To be 35 years old or older.
3. To be a citizen by birth.

Reasonable people believe that all that is required to be eligible to be president is the production of a birth certificate. This includes Bobby Jindal, George Bush, Hilary Clinton, or anyone who wants to become president. Of course they don’t have to make their birth certificates publicly available.

We have believed all presidential and vice- presidential candidates are “constitutionally eligible on faith.” It seems that it is you who needs “cult deprogramming therapy.”

What makes Obama different that the other politicians mentioned?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:40 am

I am having more difficulties seeing the same thing. Check the following link. It shows two COLBs (DeCosta and Obama)

http://www.againstobama.com/2008/07/27/barack-obamas-forged-birth-certificate-the-smoking-gun-has-been-found/

It is Obvious that DeCosta COLB clearly shows creases and the State Seal. Even Onaka’s signature stamp is clearly visible.

It would be a very interesting exercise to have an independent scan of the document shown by Factcheck and compare it with the first COLB image posted on the web.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:40 am

One Hawaii birth certificate. Honestly, it isn’t that of an complicated of an issue. The state of Hawaii has twice confirmed the authenticity of the document.

See what you fail to realize is that Naturalizedcitizen uses the same mind set that started the Iraq war. You are agreeing with the wrong person.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:47 am

I assume the debates are those for the Republican nominee with I doubt she will get. The Tea Party are anti-government, and from previous primaries the GOP faithful hasn’t strongly embraced anti-government politicians.

She seems to be pleased with her performance, but I agree that see might skip the debates.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:51 am

Facts aren't a strong suit for your arguments are they.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:58 am

Here is where your logic falls apart. The Obama’s COLB clearly states the place of birth to be Hawaii. No matter how much you wish it to be to support your conspiracy theory, Hawaii isn’t in or a foreign country.

The document is actually a Certification of Live Birth. Both the COLB and birth certificate certifies the fact of birth. Please open a dictionary and look up the meaning of “certification” you will see that it is just a variation on certificate.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:59 am

Compare DeCosta and Obama COLB images:
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/07/27/barack-o…


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:05 am

Starting an argument with a lie makes people actually doubtful that you actually are being honest.

ALL of the secretaries of state admitted, after the fact that they did NOT vet Obama

You weak attempt to distort the truth to present something that is factually false. Better luck next time in your deception.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:18 am

I am not a GOP member – no need for you to feel embarrassed.

In case you missed my conversation with JohnC, nothing Dr. Fukino said discounts the possibility of the original birth certificate being filed by a relative. She refused to comment on the source used for her statements.

Dr. Fukino's statements could have relied on a document that was based on a lie from a relative. The DoH did not verify birth registrations by a relative.

Ask yourself why is it that Obama refuses to authorize the DoH to release the original birth certificate. He could let the Kapiolani Hospital confirm his birth.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of government officials.

Birthers could be proven wrong in an instant by releasing the original document that would indicate birth in the Kapiolani hospital. Why is it that such a trivial proof is still hidden from US public?


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:19 am

What tripe. Obama was elected because of his political philosophies. Raising taxes on the wealthiest 5% is a “left-leaning” policy. Yes, this is what he promised which resulted in the raise of the Tea Party. However, his election was won on some of his “left-leaning” policies. So it is easy to conclude that America took a hard turn to the left. Or did you actually miss the election.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:38 am

Were did you crawl out from. Did you know that your nonsense has already been disproved. You attempt to present yourself as a causal observer who is being reasonable, but you are not. There are several categories that make a person a natural born citizen. One acknowledges a person be born on American soil. Also, American does recognizes dual citizenship but doesn't encourage it. So your arguments fail on that fact that it is inconsistent with American law.

“Generally, if you are born in the United States or born to U.S. citizens, you are born a U.S. citizen, unless you are born to a foreign diplomat.”
(http://www.american-citizenship.org/)

There is absolutely nothing in American law that support your arguments.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:42 am

Ah. The document is actually double sided. Every “required detail” is on the document. Or, did you miss that fact.

Kool-Aid. No Kool-aid. But you are just disillusioned and we still don't understand why.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:49 am

It seems that American law disagree with you. Just being born in America makes a person a natural-born citizen. Second congress enacted a law that made John McCain a natural-born citizen, retroactive over 30 years before he was born. Yes, it is congress who decides what a natural-born citizen is and you failed on your arguments.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:51 am

And the GOP must be very thankful. Having loony toons birthers associated with the party would greatly de-legitimate it a party that wants to govern.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 8:53 am

Bzzt, sorry, guess again, I’m not Orly Taitz and not a female. BTW writing in an online forum is quick and dirty and not meant to be prose, so naff off with your English bigotry.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 8:53 am

Bzzt, sorry, guess again, I’m not Orly Taitz and not a female. BTW writing in an online forum is quick and dirty and not meant to be prose, so naff off with your English bigotry.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:02 am

Yes, and they both are actual COLB. You seem more at grasping at straws than presenting a real argument. You will never make a good investigator.

So what is your problem?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Congress has not the power to abrogate the natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution, only a Constitutional Amendment ratified by by three-fourths of states may do so, good luck with that.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Congress has not the power to abrogate the natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution, only a Constitutional Amendment ratified by by three-fourths of states may do so, good luck with that.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Well it seems that you are wrong, as that is what they did.

“However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship”

“…Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

It seems that American law disagrees with you. Please do some honest research of your own and stop reading birther websites.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Well it seems that you are wrong, as that is what they did.

“However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship”

“…Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

It seems that American law disagrees with you. Please do some honest research of your own and stop reading birther websites.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Even though John McCain lied about his birth place. (He was not born at the Coco Solo hospital as he once claimed) It has been documented and proved beyond any doubt that John McCain was not born on US soil, was born in Colon, Panama and at the time of his birth was a natural born citizen of Panama and (by virtue of his parents citizenship) a US National only, but not a US citizen and certainly not a natural born US citizen. So even if McCain had won, he would not have been eligible for POTUS and as VPOTUS Palin would have been sworn in as Acting President in his stead as the Constitution dictates.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Even though John McCain lied about his birth place. (He was not born at the Coco Solo hospital as he once claimed) It has been documented and proved beyond any doubt that John McCain was not born on US soil, was born in Colon, Panama and at the time of his birth was a natural born citizen of Panama and (by virtue of his parents citizenship) a US National only, but not a US citizen and certainly not a natural born US citizen. So even if McCain had won, he would not have been eligible for POTUS and as VPOTUS Palin would have been sworn in as Acting President in his stead as the Constitution dictates.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:23 am

Bzzt! You don’t know the legal difference between a US citizen and a citizen of natural birth. Arnold is a US Citizen, but not a natural born citizen. The framers of the Constitution allowed non-natural born citizens to become Congressmen and Senators, but added the “natural born” clause to POTUS and VPOTUS. Why do you suppose they did that?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:23 am

Bzzt! You don’t know the legal difference between a US citizen and a citizen of natural birth. Arnold is a US Citizen, but not a natural born citizen. The framers of the Constitution allowed non-natural born citizens to become Congressmen and Senators, but added the “natural born” clause to POTUS and VPOTUS. Why do you suppose they did that?


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:30 am

John McCain has not lied about his place of birth.

John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.

There is absolutely no source that suggest otherwise. You are a fraud.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:30 am

John McCain has not lied about his place of birth.

John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.

There is absolutely no source that suggest otherwise. You are a fraud.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:42 am

Everyone knows that Mr. Schwarzenegger wasn’t born in America. This is part of common knowledge.

There are two types of American citizens naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen. A natural-born citizen is a person whose birth certificate is proof of citizenship. It isn’t really that of a complicated.

It would be believed that the framers of the constitution included the term natural-born citizen for people such as naval officer John Sidney McCain Jr.’s children.

It in no way does your arguments disproves that McCain is natural born citizen.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:42 am

Everyone knows that Mr. Schwarzenegger wasn’t born in America. This is part of common knowledge.

There are two types of American citizens naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen. A natural-born citizen is a person whose birth certificate is proof of citizenship. It isn’t really that of a complicated.

It would be believed that the framers of the constitution included the term natural-born citizen for people such as naval officer John Sidney McCain Jr.’s children.

It in no way does your arguments disproves that McCain is natural born citizen.


Have A Heart-Heat A Home | Foxy955STL | Educational Missouri
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:43 am

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:45 am

Bzzt! What O’s people posted online was an image of an alleged ‘certificaTION of Live Birth’ . Which amounts to no more than a print out of a database record. It’s worthless in court and worthless as proof of birth place as it contains no record of a hospital or witnesses or signatures of witnesses. The document that does contain those records would be a copy of an original ‘certifiCATE of Live Birth’, a document generated by the birth hospital at the time of birth. The purpose of a birth certificate is not to BE proof of birthplace (it cannot do that), but rather to name eyewitnesses of a birth. O seems unwilling to allow anyone to see the names of those witnesses (if they exist) and depose them in court. This is not the action of an honest man, this is the action of a fearful man with something to hide. Why all the secrecy surrounding this simple document and why all the secrecy surrounding his school and college records? Are this man’s claims of education credentials a complete fraud too? Eventually we WILL find out.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:45 am

Bzzt! What O’s people posted online was an image of an alleged ‘certificaTION of Live Birth’ . Which amounts to no more than a print out of a database record. It’s worthless in court and worthless as proof of birth place as it contains no record of a hospital or witnesses or signatures of witnesses. The document that does contain those records would be a copy of an original ‘certifiCATE of Live Birth’, a document generated by the birth hospital at the time of birth. The purpose of a birth certificate is not to BE proof of birthplace (it cannot do that), but rather to name eyewitnesses of a birth. O seems unwilling to allow anyone to see the names of those witnesses (if they exist) and depose them in court. This is not the action of an honest man, this is the action of a fearful man with something to hide. Why all the secrecy surrounding this simple document and why all the secrecy surrounding his school and college records? Are this man’s claims of education credentials a complete fraud too? Eventually we WILL find out.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Wrong again, there three types of Citizen,
1) Natural (by reason of birth on US soil to two US Citizen parents),
2) Legal, (by act of Congress) and,
3) Naturalized, (by lawful immigration of a foreign national to the US.
McCain is either 2 or 3 but cannot be 1 since he failed to be born on US soil and failed to qualify as a Legal US citizen until some time after he was born. 2 and 3 fail to meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the courts and legal precedents and ICE policy.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Wrong again, there three types of Citizen,
1) Natural (by reason of birth on US soil to two US Citizen parents),
2) Legal, (by act of Congress) and,
3) Naturalized, (by lawful immigration of a foreign national to the US.
McCain is either 2 or 3 but cannot be 1 since he failed to be born on US soil and failed to qualify as a Legal US citizen until some time after he was born. 2 and 3 fail to meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the courts and legal precedents and ICE policy.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:13 am

Well, nobody cares where ellid was born, unless you run for POTUS, then you have to be Natural Born and show proof of such, if you are, then you pass, if not, then you are ineligible for POTUS, if you refuse to show proof like O, then you have failed to qualify until proof is found one way or the other. The Constitution only has two jobs that require natural born citizenship and 99.9999% people never need to qualify for either of them since they never seek and get elected to either of those two offices.


LaGuardia
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:29 am

“We need a specific ruling from SCOTUS on this definition.”

Well, you won't get one. The SCOTUS is loath to interfere in political questions, and overturning the election of a sitting POTUS is the mother of all political questions.

In any other hypothetical year, under another President with impeccable credentials and a so-called “long-form” birth certificate, birth witnesses and wet nurses galore (heh!) — and with this same Court, with the same conservative Justices, you won't get it either.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:31 am

You mean besides all all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ birth and life documented in the books and letters compiled in collection we call the Bible? And besides the billion or so Christians who accept those witnesses testimony? And besides the many nations that declare Him to be the founder of their State religions? And besides the fact that Jewish and Arab historical accounts name him?

Well, maybe that’s not enough proof for you, but I am not in any hurry, I am confident that you will see Him with your own eyes at the resurrection of the dead.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:31 am

You mean besides all all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ birth and life documented in the books and letters compiled in collection we call the Bible? And besides the billion or so Christians who accept those witnesses testimony? And besides the many nations that declare Him to be the founder of their State religions? And besides the fact that Jewish and Arab historical accounts name him?

Well, maybe that’s not enough proof for you, but I am not in any hurry, I am confident that you will see Him with your own eyes at the resurrection of the dead.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:39 am

This point is moot. Neither the Legislature of HI, nor the US Congress has the power to abrogate the Constitution or it’s natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and any statute that conflicts with it is void and fails to have legal effect including the one you quote. The courts have upheld this legal doctrine time after time after time.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:39 am

This point is moot. Neither the Legislature of HI, nor the US Congress has the power to abrogate the Constitution or it’s natural born citizen requirement for POTUS. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and any statute that conflicts with it is void and fails to have legal effect including the one you quote. The courts have upheld this legal doctrine time after time after time.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Bzzt! The rule of law is more important than politics. The way you fix this nation is by making our representatives comply with the Constitution first, then everything else will fall into place.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Bzzt! The rule of law is more important than politics. The way you fix this nation is by making our representatives comply with the Constitution first, then everything else will fall into place.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:06 am

richhancock,
It is not I, but the framers of the US Constitution established ‘different rules’ for POTUS than other offices and the Natural Birth requirement is one of those. You just can’t wish that away, its the LAW. And as I said above, I have held McCain accountable to the same law.

I don’t do live interviews, but I am happy to debate the subject via email or your blog. I will send you my email address.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:06 am

richhancock,
It is not I, but the framers of the US Constitution established ‘different rules’ for POTUS than other offices and the Natural Birth requirement is one of those. You just can’t wish that away, its the LAW. And as I said above, I have held McCain accountable to the same law.

I don’t do live interviews, but I am happy to debate the subject via email or your blog. I will send you my email address.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:35 am

Bzzt!
McCain was born at the Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama.
Here is a link to McCain’s long and short form Birth records showing the same.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/JohnMcCain-Birth-Certificate-long-and-short-form-Colon-Panama-1936


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:35 am

Bzzt!
McCain was born at the Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama.
Here is a link to McCain’s long and short form Birth records showing the same.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/JohnMcCain-Birth-Certificate-long-and-short-form-Colon-Panama-1936


britcom
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:05 am

Actually McCain was not born on a Naval base or any US property, his birth certificate states that he was born at the Colon Hospital, which was never part of a US base nor was it part of the Canal Zone.


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:07 am

It's no more valid than it was the first thirty times you posted it. Where's your naturalization papers?


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:09 am

And it's back to Vattel, despite the fact that it's irrelevant. SO predictable.

Where's your naturalization papers?


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:10 am

I think NC belongs to the Old Brain-Damaged Drunks Party.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

Sorry, but it’s the Dominionists and their allies who anoint political leaders, not Democrats. See John Ashcroft, whose father (a deacon in their Pentecostal church) anointed him with Wesson Oil when he became Attorney General.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Wrong from beginning to end.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

#1 is not correct. Birth on American soil is all that is required. With the exception of diplomatic children, all persons born in America are natural born.

Why don’t you go watch Hyacinth Bouquet and leave the grown-ups alone?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

#1 is not correct. Birth on American soil is all that is required. With the exception of diplomatic children, all persons born in America are natural born.

Why don’t you go watch Hyacinth Bouquet and leave the grown-ups alone?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

And if I did run for President, I would produce that certification of birth, and it would be accepted.

Just like President Obama’s.

*pats on the head and sends off to Sleepy-Bye Land with a nice cup of milk in a Father Ted mug*


The Death of the “Tea Party,” as a Charismatic Movement « Submitted to a Candid World
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 7:33 am

[...] Similarly, perhaps the group could be forgiven for taking fringe endorsements, and for its more, ah, subversive elements, but the focus on Palin functions to put divisive culture issues front and center (“If there’s hope in Massachusetts, there’s hope anywhere!”), subordinating and ignoring the economic message upon which the movement is allegedly based. If for nothing else, Friday should be remembered as the day the tea party movement’s leaders forfeited their populist bona fides for a listless star, visibly out of depth even in her preparation, and a string of birthers. [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

Ah, a self-proclaimed Christian! Even better, one who’s too ignorant to know the following:

1. There are NO “eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ birth.” The accounts in the Gospels were written between 70 and 120 years later, and are mutually contradictory. BZZT! Wrong!

2. There are NO accounts of Jesus’ birth in the epistles, let alone eyewitness accounts. Paul never even MET Jesus, let alone addressed the Nativity, and the epistle attributed to Jesus’ brother James was probably written by one of James’ followers who, again, never met Jesus himself. BZZT! Wrong!

3. The numbers of people who claim to follow Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with proof of his birth. BZZT! Irrelevant.

4. America chucked the whole “state religion” concept quite some time ago. BZZT! Irrelevant!

5. The ONLY “Jewish historical account” naming Jesus is the Slavonic Josephus. The passage in question is an interpolation written hundreds of years after Josephus’ death. There are a couple of *Roman* accounts mentioning Christians as a bunch of quarrelsome troublemakers, but again, ALL were written long after Jesus died. BZZT! Wrong!

6. There are no contemporary Arab documents naming Jesus at all. The Qu’ran was written six hundred years after his death, and the passages mentioning him state that he was a prophet, not a messiah, and explicitly claim that he was taken bodily up to heaven. BZZT! Wrong!

7. Your religious views concern the Jesus of faith, not the historical Jesus. They’re not proof of anything except what *you* think. BZZT! Irrelevant!

Your ignorance about the Bible is as profound as your ignorance of the law. Very, very sad.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

Ah, a self-proclaimed Christian! Even better, one who’s too ignorant to know the following:

1. There are NO “eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ birth.” The accounts in the Gospels were written between 70 and 120 years later, and are mutually contradictory. BZZT! Wrong!

2. There are NO accounts of Jesus’ birth in the epistles, let alone eyewitness accounts. Paul never even MET Jesus, let alone addressed the Nativity, and the epistle attributed to Jesus’ brother James was probably written by one of James’ followers who, again, never met Jesus himself. BZZT! Wrong!

3. The numbers of people who claim to follow Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with proof of his birth. BZZT! Irrelevant.

4. America chucked the whole “state religion” concept quite some time ago. BZZT! Irrelevant!

5. The ONLY “Jewish historical account” naming Jesus is the Slavonic Josephus. The passage in question is an interpolation written hundreds of years after Josephus’ death. There are a couple of *Roman* accounts mentioning Christians as a bunch of quarrelsome troublemakers, but again, ALL were written long after Jesus died. BZZT! Wrong!

6. There are no contemporary Arab documents naming Jesus at all. The Qu’ran was written six hundred years after his death, and the passages mentioning him state that he was a prophet, not a messiah, and explicitly claim that he was taken bodily up to heaven. BZZT! Wrong!

7. Your religious views concern the Jesus of faith, not the historical Jesus. They’re not proof of anything except what *you* think. BZZT! Irrelevant!

Your ignorance about the Bible is as profound as your ignorance of the law. Very, very sad.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

There is absolutely no definition in the US Constitution. You are a pathetic liar. It is up to Congress to define what a natural-born citizen is. Please read what make an American citizen, as you seem to be utter incompetent in understand what one is.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

There is absolutely no definition in the US Constitution. You are a pathetic liar. It is up to Congress to define what a natural-born citizen is. Please read what make an American citizen, as you seem to be utter incompetent in understand what one is.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

McCain wasn’t born on US soil, he was born in Panama thousands of miles away from any US soil, so you have apparently conceded that McCain isn’t a natural born citizen.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

McCain wasn’t born on US soil, he was born in Panama thousands of miles away from any US soil, so you have apparently conceded that McCain isn’t a natural born citizen.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

Being an utter moron you refused to actually read the legal terms on the document. It explicitly states that the document represent the fact of birth. More specifically, “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

As it is a federal crime to forge ones citizenship, and that the State of Hawaii has confirmed that they have seen the original birth records, it is easy to conclude that the document is authentic.

I have more confidence in the State of Hawaii in insuring the integrity of their vital records, than a pathetic birther who seems more interested in spreading lies.

The word of an official in the State of Hawaii will have more weight in a court of law than a silly person that you present yourself as being.

Why all the secrecy surround the real reason that you are engaging in politicking? We know this has absolutely nothing to do with a birth certificate. So, I will ask again.

Why all the secrecy surround the real reason that you are engaging in politicking?


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

Being an utter moron you refused to actually read the legal terms on the document. It explicitly states that the document represent the fact of birth. More specifically, “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

As it is a federal crime to forge ones citizenship, and that the State of Hawaii has confirmed that they have seen the original birth records, it is easy to conclude that the document is authentic.

I have more confidence in the State of Hawaii in insuring the integrity of their vital records, than a pathetic birther who seems more interested in spreading lies.

The word of an official in the State of Hawaii will have more weight in a court of law than a silly person that you present yourself as being.

Why all the secrecy surround the real reason that you are engaging in politicking? We know this has absolutely nothing to do with a birth certificate. So, I will ask again.

Why all the secrecy surround the real reason that you are engaging in politicking?


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

Unfortunately, it seems that the courts disagree with you, and in America that is the only thing that matters. To bad you seen to refuse to recognize the laws of America when they challenge your views.


Anthony
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

Unfortunately, it seems that the courts disagree with you, and in America that is the only thing that matters. To bad you seen to refuse to recognize the laws of America when they challenge your views.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

things are not always as they seem, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but steadily.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

The Congress cannot define that which created it. Only the supreme court or the people acting to amend the constitution define the terms therein, this is basic civics. The term natural born citizen was in use prior to the Constitution (which is itself a common law contract) so common law precedent defines the term. The Congress has no role to play.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

The Congress cannot define that which created it. Only the supreme court or the people acting to amend the constitution define the terms therein, this is basic civics. The term natural born citizen was in use prior to the Constitution (which is itself a common law contract) so common law precedent defines the term. The Congress has no role to play.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

You’re forgetting jus sanguinis, which is how McCain counts as a natural born citizen. Both apply in the United States.

Looks like your pledge drive is a few bucks short of a coffee mug…


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

An amazing castle in the air you have built there. First of all we haven’t seen ANY bona fide birth certificate. A digital copy of a photograph of an alleged “official” database printout is not even real, its a stream of electrons. A real birth certificate is made out of paper and comes from a verifiable official source. The photo image is not itself an official document any lawyer will tell you that. Photos can be easily forged, real official documents cannot be easily forged.

Second, the alleged document in the image even if produced in hard copy is not what we are looking for, we are looking for a hospital and a doctor to verify the birth certificate’s authenticity (if one exists) The Doctor and the Hospital staff were present at the birth (if there was one) only people can be witnesses, pieces of paper are inanimate objects, and images of paper are not even objects, they are projections of light. It is the witnesses of the birth that will offer proof through their testimony to validity or invalidity of a document. The state employee that prints the ‘birth certificates’ was not present at the birth.

The State of Hawaii has not offered any bona fide documentation to support O’s claim either, all they have said is that a document exists in their archive, but refuse to produce it or state what it says (if anything) about the hospital or doctor. It could very well be mostly blank with no hospital, doctor, address or father’s name. We don’t know and no one in the government is offering to go on the record or produce a copy. They are just saying something exists in the file with O’s name on it If O continues to stonewall this issue, he just prolongs his illegitimacy and further destroying his own credibility. Your assumption that the word of a State official has any weight in court is false, since any State official is an eyewitness to the event, their testimony is hearsay and inadmissible in court because they have no personal knowledge of the validity of alleged birth. Therefore everything you have said is based assumption of an out come that you desire rather than fact.


katahdin
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:42 am

What do state laws have to do with anything? The constitution and federal law always supercede state laws. A little thing called the Civil War settled that.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:47 am

You forgot about Spiro Agnew. His forther was a Greek Imigrant and based on the 1920 census, neither of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

When did it become known? It was a major platform during the election.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:50 am

“It does not define what a natural born Citizen (nbC) is.”

Wrong. It quite clearly does define the term.

It is part of the Ratio Decidendi of the court opinion.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

jus sanguinis (by right of the blood) is not an American common law doctrine nor was it of British common law prior to the treaty of Paris. It is a Roman Civil law doctrine (i.e. European) The USA adopted British common law precedent, not Roman Civil Law. Only King of England had the right of blood, Britain and the USA have ever been disposed of the doctrine of jus soli (by right of the soil) In American jurisprudence, jus sanguinis refers loosely to a body of legislation that tries to emulate jus sanguinis by enshrining it in statutory laws, but statutes are imperfect as they are created by congress and not legal precedent by judges nor by Constitutional mandate of the people. Statutory laws (legislation) has no effect when it comes to the definitions and clauses of the Constitution. Only amendments have effect there.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

jus sanguinis (by right of the blood) is not an American common law doctrine nor was it of British common law prior to the treaty of Paris. It is a Roman Civil law doctrine (i.e. European) The USA adopted British common law precedent, not Roman Civil Law. Only King of England had the right of blood, Britain and the USA have ever been disposed of the doctrine of jus soli (by right of the soil) In American jurisprudence, jus sanguinis refers loosely to a body of legislation that tries to emulate jus sanguinis by enshrining it in statutory laws, but statutes are imperfect as they are created by congress and not legal precedent by judges nor by Constitutional mandate of the people. Statutory laws (legislation) has no effect when it comes to the definitions and clauses of the Constitution. Only amendments have effect there.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:53 am

Did all states use the same definition for nbC prior to the adoption of US Constitution?

priot to the adoption of the U.S. Constituion they “states” were british colonies and therefore opperated under English Common Law.


Get Over It, Joe « The Camp Of The Saints [New Main Site]
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:09 am

[...] minute speech on this issue.  David Weigel [no friend of the Right] witnessed what happened and filed a report.  Here are two highlights: …Andrew Brietbart was among the conservatives in back of the room [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

BZZT! Wrong! On all counts! You fail basic civics!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

BZZT! Wrong! On all counts! You fail basic civics!


katahdin
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:11 am

Let's see. The State Department requires birth certificates to contain the name of the child, names of the parents, date of birth, and place of birth. The certificate that President Obama has shown contains all the required information.
Kool-Aid indeed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

You seem to have as much comprehension of how the American government and legal system work as you do the Mayan calendar. Pray tell me where this analysis came from, and what medications you consumed in your youth to induce such a very original theory.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

You seem to have as much comprehension of how the American government and legal system work as you do the Mayan calendar. Pray tell me where this analysis came from, and what medications you consumed in your youth to induce such a very original theory.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

And basic grammar would capitalize “Things,” not to mention substituting a period for a comma after “seem.”

Just thought you’d like to know.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

And basic grammar would capitalize “Things,” not to mention substituting a period for a comma after “seem.”

Just thought you’d like to know.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

Sorry, but being a bastard is no bar to office in the United States.

As for the rest of your analysis, perhaps you should consult an actual attorney before continuing. Rumpole of the Bailey won’t do, being a) British, b) fictional, and c) played by an actor who is dead.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

Sorry, but being a bastard is no bar to office in the United States.

As for the rest of your analysis, perhaps you should consult an actual attorney before continuing. Rumpole of the Bailey won’t do, being a) British, b) fictional, and c) played by an actor who is dead.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

I really hate to break this to you, but right now the British monarch is female.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

I really hate to break this to you, but right now the British monarch is female.


Matt Osborne: Sarahpalooza! Part II: Convention Crashing | Twitmerlin - News, Celebs Gossip, Social Media
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:30 am

[...] the Huffington Post business model to spread demonstrable lies and paranoid racist agit-prop, was a central figure at the convention). Huffington Post alone does not get invited to the tea party. Wing Nut Daily is more [...]


monkey99
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:32 am

Even the baggers diss this crowd!

It's what happens when you follow a court jester and forger. Now that she has resurfaced, will the birfers regroup?
Got another “new” angle to follow?

Get some new horses**t for everyone to debunk and ridicule. I see everyone's here….Let the games begin!


tmv
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:43 am

Does anyone else get the Joe Biden joke? I assume it's related to some kind of wingnut in-joke? I swear, it's like these people are developing their own language. Soon they'll be entirely incomprehensible, and we'll all be better off for it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:53 am

The US legal system is corrupt. Three months prior to the elections courts could not and did not want to issue a ruling about eligibility even though a lawsuit had been filed.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

“”…Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”"

For what it’s worth, legal scholars have pointed out that “declared to be a citizen” does not expressly state whether the designation applies retroactively to the date of birth, so a question remains as to whether people covered by the 1937 legislation, such as McCain, became citizens by birth under the law. (An argument can be made that citizenship by birth is not the same thing as – and a looser requirement than – citizenship from birth.)

Not that I’m trying to argue that McCain was not a natural born citizen. But I am pointing out that the questions concerning McCain’s NBC status are legitimate and open, unlike those about Obama.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

“”…Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”"

For what it’s worth, legal scholars have pointed out that “declared to be a citizen” does not expressly state whether the designation applies retroactively to the date of birth, so a question remains as to whether people covered by the 1937 legislation, such as McCain, became citizens by birth under the law. (An argument can be made that citizenship by birth is not the same thing as – and a looser requirement than – citizenship from birth.)

Not that I’m trying to argue that McCain was not a natural born citizen. But I am pointing out that the questions concerning McCain’s NBC status are legitimate and open, unlike those about Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 11:56 am

The Obama COLB does not show the seal, creases and Onaka's signature.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

We are looking at the origin of nbC phrase in the US law – what was the understanding of that phrase at the time when the Constitution was adopted.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

“Wrong again, there three types of Citizen,
1) Natural (by reason of birth on US soil to two US Citizen parents),
2) Legal, (by act of Congress) and,
3) Naturalized, (by lawful immigration of a foreign national to the US.”

That cannot possibly be correct. Persons born as U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to less than two U.S. citizen parents are by definition NOT naturalized, and their citizenship is conferred by jus soil principles inherent in the natural born citizen/natural born subject doctrines and declared and restated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Wong Kim Ark.)Such citizenship is therefore NOT conferred by an act of Congress.

You might want to recheck your theory. It needs a lot of work. But your speculation – posturing as legal analysis – is amusing.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

“Wrong again, there three types of Citizen,
1) Natural (by reason of birth on US soil to two US Citizen parents),
2) Legal, (by act of Congress) and,
3) Naturalized, (by lawful immigration of a foreign national to the US.”

That cannot possibly be correct. Persons born as U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to less than two U.S. citizen parents are by definition NOT naturalized, and their citizenship is conferred by jus soil principles inherent in the natural born citizen/natural born subject doctrines and declared and restated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Wong Kim Ark.)Such citizenship is therefore NOT conferred by an act of Congress.

You might want to recheck your theory. It needs a lot of work. But your speculation – posturing as legal analysis – is amusing.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

“The term natural born citizen was in use prior to the Constitution (which is itself a common law contract) so common law precedent defines the term.”

You are correct in pointing out that the term “natural born citizen” predated the Constitution. But if you actually research HOW that term was used by courts and legislatures of the time, you will find it was, without exception, used to refer to persons born on U.S. soil (or within the state in question).

Since there is no evidence the Founding Fathers sought to change this well-established meaning, it goes without saying that the purported two-parent citizen meaning of NBC is nothing but the figment of your imagination.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

“The term natural born citizen was in use prior to the Constitution (which is itself a common law contract) so common law precedent defines the term.”

You are correct in pointing out that the term “natural born citizen” predated the Constitution. But if you actually research HOW that term was used by courts and legislatures of the time, you will find it was, without exception, used to refer to persons born on U.S. soil (or within the state in question).

Since there is no evidence the Founding Fathers sought to change this well-established meaning, it goes without saying that the purported two-parent citizen meaning of NBC is nothing but the figment of your imagination.


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

Wrong again!

Also, where's your birth certificate? Your naturalization papers? Why won't you release them? What are you hiding?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

That’s because the lawsuit was frivolous and a waste of scarce judicial resources.

Also, still waiting for your naturalization papers to prove that you really are an American citizen and not a foreigner sent here to undermine our democracy.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

That’s because the lawsuit was frivolous and a waste of scarce judicial resources.

Also, still waiting for your naturalization papers to prove that you really are an American citizen and not a foreigner sent here to undermine our democracy.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

“Statutory laws (legislation) has no effect when it comes to the definitions and clauses of the Constitution.”

By your own argument, that cannot be true. You yourself say that a person is not eligible for the presidency unless both of his parents are U.S. citizens at the time. But if those parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, their citizenship is conferred and defined by Congress, not by the Constitution. So an act of Congress altering the citizenship of one’s parents could therefore alter whether a person is an NBC by your own theory (not that I subscribe to it).


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

“Statutory laws (legislation) has no effect when it comes to the definitions and clauses of the Constitution.”

By your own argument, that cannot be true. You yourself say that a person is not eligible for the presidency unless both of his parents are U.S. citizens at the time. But if those parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, their citizenship is conferred and defined by Congress, not by the Constitution. So an act of Congress altering the citizenship of one’s parents could therefore alter whether a person is an NBC by your own theory (not that I subscribe to it).


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Which was well researched by the Supreme Court in the WKA case.

You lose again.


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

Asked and answered at least a hundred times.

Where's your birth certificate? And your naturalization papers?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

Then move back to Israel, Orly.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

Then move back to Israel, Orly.


ellid
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

Well, Sarah Palin couldn't remember how to pronounce his name during her debate prep. Beyond that, who knows? The teabaggers really seem to live in a different reality than the rest of us.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

“An amazing castle in the air you have built there. First of all we haven’t seen ANY bona fide birth certificate. A digital copy of a photograph of an alleged “official” database printout is not even real, its a stream of electrons.”

That means no evidence of Obama’s birth is satisfactory unless you touch the tangible object in your hands, a very unlikely prospect if there ever was one.

“Second, the alleged document in the image even if produced in hard copy is not what we are looking for, we are looking for a hospital and a doctor to verify the birth certificate’s authenticity (if one exists)”

The COLB itself, as a state-issued document based on original vital records, IS by its nature verification of the existence of a birth certificate in Hawaii files which states that Obama was born in Hawaii. The words on every COLB state “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Those are not words to be taken lightly.

For Obama to eligibile to be president, he must be a natural born citizen. A person born on U.S. soil, and not the child of diplomats or citizens of a hostile occupying power, is a natural born citizen. The COLB states Obama was born on Oahu in 1961. In 1961, as today, Oahu is part of the State of Hawaii. In 1961, as today, Hawaii is part of the United States. Therefore, a child born on Oahu in 1961 was born on U.S. soil. That is all the information necessary to satisfy the NBC requirement.

The identity of the hospital or the delivering doctor, while perhaps of historical interest, is of no legal consequence in connection with whether Obama is eligible to be President of the United States of America.

“The State of Hawaii has not offered any bona fide documentation to support O’s claim either, all they have said is that a document exists in their archive,”

For someone who purports to be interested in facts, you are obfuscating known facts that rebut your claim. a DoH official has specifically said that Obama’s “original birth certificate” is on file.

“It could very well be mostly blank with no hospital, doctor, address or father’s name.”

No it can’t. Obama’s COLB states it was “filed by the registrar.” Under Hawaii law, a vital record cannot legally be filed with the registrar unless it is “substantially complete.” See HRS §338-5. What you are describing is a document which is not substantially complete. If that had been the case, the DoH would not be able to state that Obama’s original birth certificate was “on file.”

Next time, please check your facts and learn the applicable law before you make such baseless speculation.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

here is the 1920's census report on the Agnew family (line 72) Note that his parents were listed as aliens. Spiro was born in 1918.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5Ru9m0c4Ho/S05BipCq5…

what is your repsonse to that, Naturalizedcitizen?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

Another question for naturalizedcitizen:

What do you think is the Ratio Decidendi of the WKA court opinion?


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

“Neither the Legislature of HI, nor the US Congress has the power to abrogate the Constitution or it’s natural born citizen requirement for POTUS.”

Nice point, but completely irrelevant to the point I was making. The claim is that because a COLB can be issued to foreign-born persons, Obama could be foreign-born because he received a COLB. What is implied is that the COLB Obama received could state he was born in Hawaii even if he had been born anywhere else. Otherwise, the “foreign-born” claim with regard to Obama’s COLB has no meaning.

I have repeatedly posed the question of how a COLB can state a place of birth other than the actual place of birth. Not surprisingly, no one has risen to my challenge. That speaks for itself.

As for the merits of the argument you are introducing, I agree that Congress cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. However, in the words of Justice Marshall, “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the meaning of NBC, because under the case and controversy requirement, no case involving presidential eligibility has ever had to be decided by the Court. Nonetheless, the Court operates under principles of stare decisis. And the Court has made it clear on a number of occasions that, at the very least, it interprets NBC to mean born on U.S. soil to parents who are not foreign diplomats or citizens of a hostile occupiyng power.

You are free to show me specific precedent which supports your contention, however.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

“Neither the Legislature of HI, nor the US Congress has the power to abrogate the Constitution or it’s natural born citizen requirement for POTUS.”

Nice point, but completely irrelevant to the point I was making. The claim is that because a COLB can be issued to foreign-born persons, Obama could be foreign-born because he received a COLB. What is implied is that the COLB Obama received could state he was born in Hawaii even if he had been born anywhere else. Otherwise, the “foreign-born” claim with regard to Obama’s COLB has no meaning.

I have repeatedly posed the question of how a COLB can state a place of birth other than the actual place of birth. Not surprisingly, no one has risen to my challenge. That speaks for itself.

As for the merits of the argument you are introducing, I agree that Congress cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. However, in the words of Justice Marshall, “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the meaning of NBC, because under the case and controversy requirement, no case involving presidential eligibility has ever had to be decided by the Court. Nonetheless, the Court operates under principles of stare decisis. And the Court has made it clear on a number of occasions that, at the very least, it interprets NBC to mean born on U.S. soil to parents who are not foreign diplomats or citizens of a hostile occupiyng power.

You are free to show me specific precedent which supports your contention, however.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

“You mean besides all all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ birth and life documented in the books and letters compiled in collection we call the Bible? And besides the billion or so Christians who accept those witnesses testimony? And besides the many nations that declare Him to be the founder of their State religions? And besides the fact that Jewish and Arab historical accounts name him?”

That’s interesting. I thought your argument against the COLB is that, no matter how many people accept the online images as satisfactorily demonstrating its existence, only the underlying documents can prove the fact for which the COLB purports to represent.

Now you’ve flipped the argument 180 degrees. Now all of a sudden it matters what the general public believes with regard to the veracity of biblical accounts, despite the fact that most people have never personally seen or touched the underlying source texts of the Bible, are not familiar with how the texts were altered before reaching final form, and whether they accurately represent what they purport to represent.

To be that hypocritical, you’ve got to have guts.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

“You mean besides all all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ birth and life documented in the books and letters compiled in collection we call the Bible? And besides the billion or so Christians who accept those witnesses testimony? And besides the many nations that declare Him to be the founder of their State religions? And besides the fact that Jewish and Arab historical accounts name him?”

That’s interesting. I thought your argument against the COLB is that, no matter how many people accept the online images as satisfactorily demonstrating its existence, only the underlying documents can prove the fact for which the COLB purports to represent.

Now you’ve flipped the argument 180 degrees. Now all of a sudden it matters what the general public believes with regard to the veracity of biblical accounts, despite the fact that most people have never personally seen or touched the underlying source texts of the Bible, are not familiar with how the texts were altered before reaching final form, and whether they accurately represent what they purport to represent.

To be that hypocritical, you’ve got to have guts.


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

“The Obama COLB does not show the seal, creases and Onaka's signature.”

As I mentioned before, I downloaded the COLB image directly from the FightTheSmears site. It is definitely not of the quality of the photos taken by FactCheck. Nonetheless, I enlarged the photo, and sure enough, the crease was faintly visible exactly were it is seen on the FactCheck photos. As for the seal, I couldn't see it, but then it's also hard to see even on a couple of the FactCheck photos.


Brazilian American Wax Picture Before After Guys Honest Opinion … | Waxing Beauty Wisdom
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … [...]


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

So, if it is fake, why hasn't the State of Hawaii prosecuted Obama for forging his COLB?


Obamas Citizenship And The Tea Partys | Political News NOW!
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention — The Washington Independent.com [...]


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

“So, if it is fake, why hasn't the State of Hawaii prosecuted Obama for forging his COLB?”

Because according to NC, the state is in on the coverup.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

Because they are Republicans, is that it?


JohnC
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

Of course. And because pigs can fly.


» Get Over It: ‘Birtherism’ Is Not Journalism - Big Journalism
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

[...] of some journalists who purport to be on the Right.  As depicted in a fairly straightforward Washington Independent article, WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah used his Friday night dinner speech at the Tea Party [...]


John Avalon Reveals Birtherism’s LEFT-Wing Origins | NewsReal Blog
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

[...] the feet of WorldNetDaily and other fringe conservatives, even giving Andrew Breitbart credit for recently standing up to WND’s Joseph Farah on the issue (which is more than can be said for certain “conservative” [...]


Antibirther
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Birther fight!

http://bigjournalism.com/kschlichter/2010/02/08…


Breitbart and Farah debate eligibility issue | Western Journalism.com
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

[...] Read the Full Article: By DAVID WEIGEL, Washington Independent [...]


methuencitizen
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

“I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”

Okay, first off, so you need to ask questions. I would agree with that, but what are the questions that are to be asked? Do they have any real relevancy to the point at hand? Can a 'journalist' just make up questions to sensationalize their story? Isn't it all about readership and not 'proof'?

Secondly, 'seeking truth'. Which 'truth'? If the truth is something other than what you want it to be, do you just continue 'seeking'? After all, 'seeking truth' and reporting 'truth' are two totally different things. And if you do find the 'truth', isn't that the proof of what you are 'seeking'?

So I will take it that journalism isn't about accuracy, but rather keeping the reader entertained. That actually makes sense. Unless there is an obvious conclusion, journalists can keep their readers strung along like fish on a line. Does it matter if they can prove what they report, either right or wrong? Not at all, “It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”, not about whether what they report has any basis in reality.


Bipartisanship And Other Urban Legends | Political News NOW!
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 6:54 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention — The Washington Independent.com [...]


Terry Krepel: WorldNetDaily Extends Fawning Tea Party Coverage to Convention | Blog SDN
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 9:30 pm

[...] another controversy, even though she witnessed it. The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel detailed how Schilling asked Andrew Breitbart about his criticism of birtherism, and how Farah joined the [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:02 am

You’re the one guzzling here. The COLB misses not one essential detail, especially not the only two that you have any right to be nosey about — date and location of birth, to meet the age and natural born citizen requirement. The Constitution doesn’t require you to be delivered in a hospital at all, or even by a doctor, to be president, nor to have a specified birth weight.

COLBs are completely acceptable for passports and all other uses. Case is closed. Obama is the ONLY president ever in history to even release his birth certificate, yet you nutbags carry on like every other one did and Obama didn’t. You’re insane.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:07 am

“No need to overturn the WKA. It does not define what a natural born Citizen (nbC) is.”

Actually it did.

“It ruled that a child born in the USA of Chinese immigrants is a citizen at birth. ”

Someone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Q.E.D.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:10 am

“The US legal system is corrupt. Three months prior to the elections courts could not and did not want to issue a ruling about eligibility even though a lawsuit had been filed.”

The lawsuit stated no claim. It was properly dismissed. Birthers are corrupt, intellectually and politically. The case is moot. Obama in fact is the ONLY president in US history to document the plain fact that he is a natural born citizen. You cannot get around this and it defeats your entire “argument.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:15 am

“1. Minor party candidates asked for verification of Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the ballot and were ignored by the secretary of state (California).”

Good. That was the proper thing to do. I never saw Alan Keyes’ birth certificate. Hypocrite. Obama RELEASED his official certified birth certificate and you act as though he didn’t.

“2. McCain is not eligible to run either – how could he challenge Obama’s eligibility when he had the same problem?”

McCain couldn’t challenge it because Obama was proven to be a natural born citizen.


The Right Side of Life » #TeaParty: Palin the Presidential Hopeful; Farah and the “Birther” Brouhaha
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

[...] things got even more interesting, as good ol’ lefty David Weigel at the WashingtonIndependent reported Mr. Farah and Andrew Breitbart (of BigGovernment.com fame) were in disagreement over the whole [...]


Congress The Banks Own The Place. | Political News NOW!
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention — The Washington Independent.com [...]


AlCum
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

“The only one you could put in the similar category as Obama is Chester Arthur. His father was naturalized after his birth. This was not a widely known fact until recently. At the time, there was a debate whether Chester Arthur was born in the USA or in Canada. “

That is a lie. It was well known at the time of the 1880 election that Arthur's father had not been a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. The only debate was over the location of birth, precisely because his father's lack a naturalization at the time would have made Arthur ineligible. If Arthur's father had been thought to be a US citizen at the time of his birth the location wouldn't have mattered.


Terry Krepel: WorldNetDaily Extends Fawning Tea Party Coverage to Convention - www. netai.net - deep web news radio
Pingback posted February 8, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

[...] another controversy, even though she witnessed it. The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel detailed how Schilling asked Andrew Breitbart about his criticism of birtherism, and how Farah joined the [...]


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 1:29 am

Do you have any links to the source about Arthur's father naturalization status being a known fact at the time when Arthur run for presidency?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 6:36 am

You have conveniently ignored the fact that the early Congress made a clear distinction between the citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.

You need to look at the change in the Naturalization law where Congress declared children born abroad to US citizen parents to be natural born citizens (1790) then corrected the error in 1795 by declaring them citizens (at birth).


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:08 am

Why does Supreme Court quotes Vattel and his definition of who the natives are (THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)?

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“…The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents…”


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

Yes, really slowly in your mind. In has been moving slowly since 2000, when John McCain previously ran for president. It seems that you are trapped in a perpetual time machine where nothing is the past has reliance, nor does anything in the future.

Unfortunately for you and other birthers reality destroys your ludicrous arguments.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:08 am

Why do you continue to talk about that obvious forgery? No one has released John McCain's birth certificate.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Now that your realize that your arguments are nonsensical you have decided to paint your smears with a wide brush.

You are definitely Orly Taitz, only she cries when the law finds her wrong.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Sorry, but that doesn’t overrule 20th and 21st century law.

Still wrong.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:18 am

Where is proof of your naturalization status?


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:19 am

Unresponsive, argumentative, and out of context.

Where's the proof that you're actually naturalized?


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:23 am

Unresponsive and argumentative. You really are desperate, aren't you?


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

From doing some research it seems that their is confusion on where Congress can retroactively declare a person a citizen. There confusion about John McCain’s citizenship, where on Obama isn’t. Not as much effort has gone into determining the actual facts about Mr. McCain birth situation. However, it hasn’t been discussed to much detail about him obtain citizenship at birth from his parents.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:29 am

That information can be seen on the back, and when the document isn't flat. Reading your arguments are more amusing that watch a cat chase its tail. Yes, that was 'cat' and not 'dog.'


The Strata-Sphere » Conservatives Deserve Serious Leaders
Pingback posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:38 am

[...] of some journalists who purport to be on the Right.  As depicted in a fairly straightforwardWashington Independent article, WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah used his Friday night dinner speech at the Tea Party [...]


trashthinker
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 9:24 am

“Seeking truth” is what they call innuendo these days. Also known as “Cavutoism”.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 9:57 am

The truth hurts, but as the article points out birthers don't “accept the answer provided by the facts.” They just go on bizarre tangents that are more amusing than disturbing.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

Wow. 1795 was about what over 200 years ago. A lot has changed. More states, end of slavery, women getting the right to vote, and the list goes on. Take your time reviewing the changes in laws that have occurred over the past 200 years, just maybe this will give you a more productive hobby.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 10:17 am

An excellent example of quote mining. So you want to argue on the Women's Suffrage Movement, were women were not allow to vote. Any book on American history easily dismisses your arguments. Please stay in your perpetual time warp it is getting really funny.


Anthony
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 10:24 am

200 years must be a pretty long time. Now you might start telling us that there are only 13 states.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

On the contrary it is the irrational world of failed liberal/socialist/Marxist/communist/Maoist groupthink that creates a mental block in the mind of simpletons with no knowlege of history other than what their anti-American professors have spoon fed them that is apparent here. Shouting down an opponent in a debate and/or slandering them does not make your argument right, true, or reality. The consequences of failed logic, failed legal theory, failed governance, failed ideology, and failed public policy will come home to roost regardless of how many dissidents you send to the gulags. This nation’s past success is a result of a successful system based on constitutional-republicanism, not socialastic democracy that was so hated by the founders of this nation.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

Since I am posting on a blog and not writing an essay, I don’t care about grammar, spelling, or punctuation; and I don’t care if that annoys nitpickers.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 11:27 am

“Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“…The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents…”"

Let's start with the implied claim by using this passage from Minor v. Happersett. The claim is that the Court was intentionally making a distinction between “natural born citizens” and all other citizens, including certain classes of citizens by birth. And this, we are supposed to believe, is the smoking gun.

But does this claim hold up? We shall see…

The main support for this argument is that the Court uses “natural born citizens” in the quoted passage to specifically refer children born in a country of parents who were citizens of that country.

The Court then cites that “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents…” An astute reader will pick up on the fact that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents” by definition includes children with citizen parents. So such persons are “natural born citizens” in one sentence, while merely “citizens” in another.

Beyond NC's quotation, we find another curious passage: “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Again, children born of citizen parents are described as “citizens”, not “natural born citizens.”

Why this inexplicable switch between “natural born citizen” and “citizen”? Because they were interchangeable terms in the context of the point the Court was making. How do we know that? Let's look at the context of what the Court was saying.

Minor v. Happersett involved a woman who claimed that, as a U.S. citizen, her rights were violated by not being able to vote. The Court ultimately held that not all citizens had a right to vote. But what's important for us is that the Court began its opinion by analyzing who were citizens of the United States. This was not a case concerning presidential eligibility – it was about the mere existence of U.S. citizenship with respect to a given person.

The Court noted that “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.” After making reference to the NBC and naturalization provisions in the Constitution, the Court repeated the thrust of its discussion: “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

But in the very next sentence, which is where NC's quote picks up, when the Court proceeds to unpack citizenship by birth, it uses the term “natural born citizen.” The Court makes no effort to explain or qualify that in using the term “natural born citizens” it is merely discussing the citizenship of some persons born as citizens, not all. And, as we have seen above, the court uses the term “natural born citizens” as interchangeable with “citizen” even with regard to children born in the U.S. to citizen parents. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that not only was “natural born citizen” the exact equivalent of, and the same thing as, a U.S. citizen by birth, but that it was so obvious that the reader would not need to have this explained.

Furthermore, when the Court makes an attempt to distinguish “natural born citizens,” it does so not with respect to other citizens by birth but with respect to “aliens” and “foreigners.” This is yet another clear signal that the Court wasn't talking about special classes of citizens by birth, but whether persons were citizens by birth at all.

The Court states that there was some “doubt” as to whether persons born to non-citizen parents were citizens at birth. Since the Court did not cite such “doubts,” we can only assume it had dusted off an old Vattel text. But if there were any doubts as to whether a person born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was a citizen by birth, they were completely resolved by Wong Kim Ark 23 years later, which utilized an extensive analysis which frequently made reference to “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject”. Coincidence? I highly doubt it.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:33 pm

“You need to look at the change in the Naturalization law where Congress declared children born abroad to US citizen parents to be natural born citizens (1790) then corrected the error in 1795 by declaring them citizens (at birth).”

So, within months after the Constitution was adopted, Congress made an “error” with regard to the meaning of “natural born citizen”? How did that happen? Where’s the evidence?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

“You have conveniently ignored the fact that the early Congress made a clear distinction between the citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.”

And YOU have conveniently ignored that what you are pointing out here CONFIRMS what I am saying and contradicts you. Read on:

“You need to look at the change in the Naturalization law where Congress declared children born abroad to US citizen parents to be natural born citizens (1790) then corrected the error in 1795 by declaring them citizens (at birth).”

What the Congress did in 1790 was extend NBC status to children of citizens born abroad, since all those born on US soil already were natural born citizens. It EXTENDED it beyond people like Obama. By amending it in 1795 to merely call those born abroad **even to two citizen parents** as citizens at birth, it is a concession that it does not require two citizen parents to produce a natural born citizen.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

“Why can’t anyone see these things? This is too important to not be certain!”

Are you hard of reading? You HAVE seen Obama’s birth certificate and it’s settled. Hawaii said so. Case closed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

Read the Brooklyn Eagle archives from 1880.

Even Hinman conceded that Arthur would be a natural born citizen as long as he was born on US soil with his father being an immigrant from Ireland. The fact that his father was a British citizen was not at issue at all, only the location of Arthur’s birth. As long as the family was living in he US at the time, NBC was satisfied. Q.E.D.

If his father’s naturalization were an issue, it would have been a second line of argument in 1880; it was not. In fact it was conceded. Hinman didn’t care about it.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

Read the Brooklyn Eagle archives from 1880.

Even Hinman conceded that Arthur would be a natural born citizen as long as he was born on US soil with his father being an immigrant from Ireland. The fact that his father was a British citizen was not at issue at all, only the location of Arthur’s birth. As long as the family was living in he US at the time, NBC was satisfied. Q.E.D.

If his father’s naturalization were an issue, it would have been a second line of argument in 1880; it was not. In fact it was conceded. Hinman didn’t care about it.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

Brilliant and thorough, as usual. Are you an attorney?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

*shrugs*

Suit yourself. it just makes you look more and more like an illiterate fool, but that’s par for the course with birthers….


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

Totally irrelevant to the President’s status as natural born.

Also, there is no such word as “socialastic,” or so my Communist/Marxist/socialist/whatever professors at Smith College taught me. Please provide a definition.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

What do you think?

* WINK *


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

There are two different schools of thought on this subject, one school belives that citizenship is by birth to US citizen parents alone, the other maintains that citizenship is by birth on incorporated US soil regardless of parental citizen status (with the execption of those not under US jurisdiction.) My statement above merely states the position that the only status that everyone accepts is a status that includes both circumstances. Almost no one would argue that a person born of two US citizen parents on incorporated US soil does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is a statement of pragmatic acceptance of both rather than an ideological argument that one is true while the other is not. Only the SCOTUS can settle this issue short of an Amendment. Lacking that, we are all just making informed guesses as to what way the SCOTUS will ultimately decide the case. I belive that jus soli has more and better legal theory to support it generally which leaves out, but I also believe that O must demostrate his legal eligabiity when challenged, failure to do so willingly when documentation easily produced is suspicious and stonewalling the process is downright corrupt. Having said that, I believe that O will ultimately be removed from office based on lack of US jurisdiction over his birth since his father was a forign national even if he was born on US soil (which remaines to be seen) His mother was a legal minor married to a foregn national who was under British soverenty, exactly the case that John Jay warned his fellow framers against, and his Natural Born Citizenship clause was adopted by the framers to prevent such a case of dual allegence in a POTUS..


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

socialistic: having a socialist nature


Montana
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

The source states that the short form record was obtained from Panama’s records office which considers a birth certificate a public record, not a private one. The source of the long form record states that the record was obtained as a result of discovery in a case against McCain’s eligablity that continued after the election.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

My response to britcom:

“There are two different schools of thought on this subject, one school belives that citizenship is by birth to US citizen parents alone, the other maintains that citizenship is by birth on incorporated US soil regardless of parental citizen status (with the execption of those not under US jurisdiction.)”

That's not quite right. Wong Kim Ark directly ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a citizen by birth regardless of the parental citizen status. That has been absolutely settled law for 102 years now. The debate is whether citizenship by birth is the same thing as natural born citizenship.

“Almost no one would argue that a person born of two US citizen parents on incorporated US soil does not meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen.”

That's true.

“Only the SCOTUS can settle this issue short of an Amendment. Lacking that, we are all just making informed guesses as to what way the SCOTUS will ultimately decide the case.”

That's true. But some guesses are better informed than others.

“I belive that jus soli has more and better legal theory to support it generally which leaves out, but I also believe that O must demostrate his legal eligabiity when challenged, failure to do so willingly when documentation easily produced is suspicious and stonewalling the process is downright corrupt.”

And my view, for which I have given ample support, is that a COLB issued by the State of Hawaii, which states that a person was born on a Hawaiian island, is sufficient proof that the person was born in the United States. Is it absolute factual proof? No. But no document has the power to convey absolute factual proof, unless the question concerns the nature or contents of the document itself.

“Having said that, I believe that O will ultimately be removed from office based on lack of US jurisdiction over his birth since his father was a forign national even if he was born on US soil (which remaines to be seen)”

That is even less reasonable than when liberal activists predicted that Bush would be impeached and removed over the Iraq War.

“His mother was a legal minor married to a foregn national who was under British soverenty, exactly the case that John Jay warned his fellow framers against, and his Natural Born Citizenship clause was adopted by the framers to prevent such a case of dual allegence in a POTUS.”

First, you're reading things into John Jay's letter that simply aren't there. Here's the precise quote from Jay's letter:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Notice Jay doesn't talk about preventing “foreign allegiances.” He specifically refers to preventing “Foreigners” from serving as President/Commander-in-Chief. “Foreigner” had a very specific meaning in those days: it meant “non-citizens.”

Sure enough, the NBC clause operates to provide that “strong check” on non-citizens from becoming president. By its architecture, no person who has ever been a non-citizen can become president, because a person must have been born a citizen. It's not a hard concept. (Whether it makes sense in this day and age – or whether it ever did – is a different conversation…)

Second, the supposed dual citizen parent requirement, if newly woven into the meaning of NBC, would not have resolved concerns about “foreign allegiences” anyway. I have repeatedly shown exactly how a person may have dual citizenship even when his parents are U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

;)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

1 Where is the comment about Venus case?

2. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners….”

Can you show me the SCOTUS ruling that explicitly defines the nbC phrase and does it in such way to support your position?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

Why is it that DeCosta COLB image shows the seal and Onaka's signature? They were also applied on the back of the document, yet are clearly visible in the front page scan.

Poor Obama, so many coincidences that point out to problems with his proof of birthplace?

When Obama campaign finally decided to publish COLB on the web they used a low quality scan (according to JohnC's excuse). A person who has nothing to hide would behave differently from what we have seen in Obama's case.


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

just because you don't accept the two schools of thought, doesn't mean they both don't exist nor does it mean that the people who support either of them don't have political weight behind them. Until the SCOTUS rules, people will maintain they are right about their particular school of thought regardless of the law. People have a tendency to think that the law operates according to their expectation of how it “ought” to operate. They then put pressure on elected officials to “fix” the law not understanding that constitutional mandates cannot be “fixed” by mere legislation. The resulting flawed legislation then operates under color of law until some later date when a court throws it out as unconstitutional. Current public policy is rife with such flawed legislation and aberrations such as the last election continue to happen.

The system is broken.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

Which part of WKA ruling defines the nbC?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

Wrong. And your delusional lies are irrelevant.

British laws don't apply. You're an idiot.

“ohn McCain had to stand before SCOTUS and be judged.”

Now you're just making shit up.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Liar.

Here's your problem, which has been addressed over and over:

The language you birthers love to quote, the language you have quoted, comes from p. 101 of the 1797 English translation, published in London, of the French original. Take a look:

http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&d

As you should know, that is 10 years after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, and seven years after ratification by Rhode Island (the last of the 13 colonies to ratify). Can you show us a version contemporary to the Constitutional Convention that says the same thing? There was an English translation published in 1759, and one published in 1787. Neither used the term “natural-born citizen.” And the original text in French does not use a direct parallel of “natural born citizen.”

So for the Founding Fathers to have based the phrase “natural born citizen” on de Vattel requires that the 1797 translation travel back in time 10 years.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

“A million dollar worth of lawsuits says he doesn’t have to release it.”

Repeating a lie doesn’t magically make it true.

Prove it or STFU, idiot.


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

I don't think either case you quoted above is applicable to the Constitution's POTUS mandate, since the Constitution's NBC language would have to be understood to mean what it meant at the time it was written and not be affected by later definitions that don't involve POTUS or VPOTUS. The definition of NBC for constituional purposes of POTUS/VPOTUS eligability is distinct from other later uses and case involving other non-POTUS/VPOTUS cases arrising out of unrelated subsiquent and inferior legislation adopted by Congress, which cannot change the meaning of what created Congress in the first place, the Constitution itself.

The egg can't redefine the hen that laid it as a goose and expect that it now contains a gosling as a result of its redefinition.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

I don’t subscribe to the notion that Congress has the power to create ex post facto (retrocative) law.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

“1 Where is the comment about Venus case?”

I don't find the Venus case particularly worthwhile or relevant, but since you insist, here it is…

The Venus case had to do with whether a U.S. citizen merchant residing in the territory of, and trading with, an enemy (in this case, England during the War of 1812) could obtain restitution for merchandise confiscated by the United States that was shipped from England to the U.S. before the war started.

The case obviously had nothing to do with who constitutes a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, as the individual's U.S. citizenship was never in dispute. Rather, the case concerned whether property shipped by a U.S. citizen from a foreign country could be considered enemy property if war was declared AFTER the property was shipped.

The Court was concerned with whether the citizen's continued presence in England after war broke out should be a justification for punishing him through confiscation of the goods he shipped.

Chief Justice Marshall, in exploring this question, turned to Vattel's discussion on citizenship and domicile, not for the proposition of who was a citizen, but for what constitutes being “domiciled” as opposed to being a temporary “resident” of a foreign country. Although the Court quoted the passage about citizenship, it was entirely a throwaway which served no substantive purpose in the court's discussion.

Did the Court view Vattel as a legitimate source? Sure it did – but not in the context of determining who was a citizen, which had nothing to do with the case at hand.

Venus therefore is simply not helpful for determining who is or isn't a citizen or natural born citizen.

“2. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners….”"

That's simply not responsive to the points I made. I take it you can't refute what I said.

Furthermore, the very quote you keep regurgitating says “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners….” Can you explain exactly what the Court was arguing when it made this statement? How do non-natural born U.S. citizens by birth fit into this framework?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

Only the monarchs (and their laws) prior to the Treaty of Paris are applicable to the current topic under discussion. Current UK law precedent has no effect after the treaty.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

“A person who has nothing to hide would behave differently from what we have seen in Obama's case.”

You sound more like a psychologist than a person evaluating the constitutional legitimacy of Obama's presidency.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

Don't forget that Jay underlined the word “born” in that letter as well, not both “natural” and “born”, just “born.”

This seems to me that he was emphasising the idea of one being “born” a citizen.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

The image posted is not admissible in court and is not evidence. A true copy of the original document, or the original document itself signed by the state keeper of records with raised seal (not a database print out) is the only acceptable document for showing the status of someones birth. When such a document is subpoenaed and surrender to a court of law with competent jurisdiction, then I will accept it as genuine.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Nice analysis, John.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

“just because you don't accept the two schools of thought, doesn't mean they both don't exist nor does it mean that the people who support either of them don't have political weight behind them.”

You're confused, so let me reiterate. There cannot be two schools of thought, except for a correct one and an incorrect one, with regard to whether a person born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents is a U.S. citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court has directly decided that question and repeatedly affirmed it. As far as the courts are concerned, legitimate debate on the issue is therefore foreclosed.

On the question of the definition of NBC, I was very explicit in recognizing a debate exists (even if I don't find much merits in the contention of one of the sides) so I don't see your beef.

“Until the SCOTUS rules, people will maintain they are right about their particular school of thought regardless of the law.”

As I responded to your previous post, agreed.

“People have a tendency to think that the law operates according to their expectation of how it “ought” to operate.”

In a general sense, that is true. But in terms of the legal profession and the courts, such a statement would reduce law to a relativist mishmash. The fact is, courts review the substance and context of laws and precedent, evaluate the merit of various contentions, and are empowered to make definitive rulings that not everyone will agree with.

Courts are not black boxes. In certain cases involving novel questions and little precedent, or in fact-heavy cases, one may genuinely not have a clue as to which way a court will decide. But there are certain issues which aren't seriously disputed by the courts, even if outsiders believe otherwise.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

“I don't think either case you quoted above is applicable to the Constitution's POTUS mandate, since the Constitution's NBC language would have to be understood to mean what it meant at the time it was written and not be affected by later definitions that don't involve POTUS or VPOTUS.”

The court wasn't coming up with “later definitions” of NBC. It was trying to discern who was a citizen by birth at the time the Constitution was written. By its use of NBC and citizenship by birth interchangeably, the Court implicitly concluded that the two were identical, and by inference, identical when the Constitution was written.

“The definition of NBC for constituional purposes of POTUS/VPOTUS eligability is distinct from other later uses and case involving other non-POTUS/VPOTUS cases arrising out of unrelated subsiquent and inferior legislation adopted by Congress, which cannot change the meaning of what created Congress in the first place, the Constitution itself.”

But that's just it. There's simply no evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to mean NBC to mean anything different than its accepted meaning throughout the U.S. in 1787. My understanding of “natural born citizen” is informed by how it was used when the Constitution was written, the fact that the Founding Fathers offered no new definition of the term, and the excellent and copious historical analysis found in opinions like Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark.

For illustative purposes, imagine that the Constitution requires that the President live in a “purple” house. Now imagine that someone comes along and says that “purple” has a different meaning in the Constitution than it did in the vernacular at the time, and that “purple” actually has a special Constitutional meaning equivalent to blue. You'd at least like to see evidence showing that the Founding Fathers really saw “purple” as meaning something other than what it was long understood to mean.

Same here. We have ample sources supporting the proposition that natural born subject in English law meant all person's born in the country, regardless of parentage. We know very well that the U.S. took much of its common law from English law. We also have a number of pre-Constitution references to “natural born citizen” in which no reference was made or implied regarding parentage.

But we have these claims that the Founding Fathers coined a brand-new, special Constitutional meaning for “natural born citizen” despite the fact that we have no evidence of a debate or public discussion concerning this change. And despite the fact that for decades after the Constitution was adopted, the term “natural born citizen” was used both by courts and by commoners to mean born in the country without any reference to the parents.

You can't win an argument just by saying we have to go by the original meaning of the Constitution. I agree with you on that point – but I completely disagree with you on what the Constitution requires from that standpoint.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

I have read that at the time prior HI becoming a state and shortly thereafter, HI had a practice of accepting the word of a relative that a person was born in HI. The reason for this was that many native Hawaiians did not then live in HI and could not document their birth as it was not their practice to create such documents. The HI government was in effect looking the other way for people that it considered aboriginal Hawaiians. It was later discovered that many non-Hawaiian Polynesian aboriginals arrived in HI and claimed Hawaiian birth and requested and received a HI birth certificaTION, not a certificATE which HI also generates.

In your arguments you refer to a “COLB” but you fail to specify if you are referring to a “CertificaTION of Live Birth” or a “CertificATE of Live Birth” , these are two similar sounding but dissimilar documents.

In O’s case he has failed to surrender either of the above. He has instead opted to post on the internet several different versions of a highly questionable image of a photo of a document that purports to be a “Certification of Live Birth” from HI. This internet image amounts to political smoke and mirrors and fails to answer the question. A question he is also spending millions on attorneys to avoid answering. This damages credibility severely, perhaps severely enough to warrant a congressional investigation as to the purpose of his evasion.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

And once again, NC shows that s/he/it is a) quote mining to take sections of Supreme Court rulings out of context and b) being deliberately argumentative.

And, of course, 100% wrong.

Hey, old cock – where are your naturalization papers? Why won't you prove you're actually a citizen? What are you hiding?


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

Poor NC, who's so consumed by hatred that s/he/it can't see the truth, and so terrified of being outed as a fraud that s/he/it refuses to prove that s/he/it is actually a citizen and not a war criminal.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

Asked and answered, repeatedly.

Also, where are your naturalization papers?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

Shine on, you loudmouthed idiot….


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

*laughs and laughs and laughs*

You do realize that it’s 2010, don’t you?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

Define “retrocative” and I might actually agree with you. Otherwise, please learn to spell. It’s impossible to know what you’re trying to communicate.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

Sorry, but you wrote “socialAstic,” not “socialistic.” Please define what you actually wrote, not what you thought you wrote.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

So? John McCain didn’t win the election. Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, did. You may not like this result, but there’s a nice Constitutional remedy: vote for someone else in 2012. Otherwise, deal with it.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

BZZT! Bad metaphor! Bad spelling! Ignorance! Stupidity!

YOU LOSE!


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

“Don't forget that Jay underlined the word “born” in that letter as well, not both “natural” and “born”, just “born.”

This seems to me that he was emphasising the idea of one being “born” a citizen.”

Thanks. Point well taken. But I'm sure we'll soon be hearing that Jay was using a special definition for “born” as well.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

NC? Come out, come out where ever you are


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 8:59 pm

BZZT! Inaccurate! The President hasn’t spent anywhere near a million dollars on these lawsuits. See “Birtherism Comes Cheap” on this site. The figures cited by Joseph Farah and the rest of his merry bigoted band were paid to vet presidential appointees, not defend against frivolous lawsuits.

BZZT! Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200!


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Who knew that the birthers were using a Ouija board to communicate with the Founders?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

NC? Care to answer this question?


Writer for Breitbart claims: “Birtherism” Is Not Journalism | Western Journalism.com
Pingback posted February 9, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

[...] of some journalists who purport to be on the Right.  As depicted in a fairly straightforward Washington Independent article, WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah used his Friday night dinner speech at the Tea Party [...]


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

In which case you have a lot to hide since you haven't yet produced any proof that you are either a) not Orly Taitz, b) actually naturalized, c) in this country legally, or d) not a war criminal. Come on, NC. Put your money where your constantly flapping mouth is. You say you're not Orly? Prove it. You say you're from the Balkans? Prove it? You say you're naturalized? Prove it.

Otherwise, do the rest of us a favor and shut up.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

Did you forget about the Revolution? UK law and US law diverged when the UK recognised the States as independent from the the crown at the signing of the treaty of paris, or are you some kind of royalist in denial? :)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

When facing incomplete information I use common sense (based on previous experiences in life) to judge the new situation.

I am sure you do it as well.

Obama's words and actions regarding the eligibility issue do not match.


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

:p''


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

When did courts start taking images posted on private web pages seriously?


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

The legal authorites that I have consulted contend that if the subject of NBC were to come before the SCOTUS, the outcome is likely not predictable. There are too many vagaries in the American Common Law precedents on the subject and old British Common Law would have to be consulted. Therein lies a rat's nest.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

The case of John McCain proves that an ineligible candidate can make it all the way through the nomination system and show up as a major party candidate on the ballot for the highest office of the land. This proves the system is broken and must be fixed before the next election. It also casts a doubt on O’s eligibility since the system didn’t have checks in place to vet him properly either. If it can happen once, it can happen twice.


JohnC
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

“There are too many vagaries in the American Common Law precedents on the subject and old British Common Law would have to be consulted.”

You're attempting to conjure up controversy when there is none in the legal community.

The Supreme Court itself has indicated on several occasions that this “not predictable” issue is in fact an axiomatic no-brainer:

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;' and 'the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”

- Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

Note that the Court speaks only of “citizenship by birth” and “citizenship by naturalization.” Note also that the Court readily equates “natural born citizen” with “citizenship by birth.” And it readily links the NBC clause in the constitution with general categories of citizenship. There's not a whiff of some special subcategory of citizens by birth called “natural born citizens.”

If a decision from 1884 strikes you as antiquated, the Supreme Court spoke again on this issue in 1964:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

- Schneider v. Rusk (1964).

Again, there are exactly two categories of citizens: “native born” and “naturalized.” If there is some category of non-native born, non-naturalized citizens, the Court is defeaningly – and incomprehensibly – silent on the issue.

So, no, it is not the slightest bit in doubt where the Supreme Court would land if it were called upon to decide upon the meaning of NBC.


katahdin
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

The last election was not an “aberration.” The election was free, fair and aboveboard. President Barack Obama won fair and square. The Supreme Court didn't even have to get involved.


katahdin
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 6:21 pm

You're awesome.


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:03 am

“I have read that at the time prior HI becoming a state and shortly thereafter, HI had a practice of accepting the word of a relative that a person was born in HI.”

First, I am not aware of any such law or practice.

Having said that, you’re falling into the same trap as naturalizedcitizen. If the practice you speak of existed, and Obama’s birth was so recorded by the State of Hawaii, how do you prove such documentation is factually incorrect?

“In your arguments you refer to a “COLB” but you fail to specify if you are referring to a “CertificaTION of Live Birth” or a “CertificATE of Live Birth” , these are two similar sounding but dissimilar documents.”

Here’s my nomenclature:

“Original birth certificate” = Document provided to the State of Hawaii in 1961 recording Obama’s birth.

“COLB” = Official copy of information from that 1961 document as provided by the State of Hawaii.

“In O’s case he has failed to surrender either of the above. He has instead opted to post on the internet several different versions of a highly questionable image of a photo of a document that purports to be a “Certification of Live Birth” from HI.”

Surrender the COLB? To whom?

“This internet image amounts to political smoke and mirrors and fails to answer the question.”

There are nine different high-resolution photos of Obama’s COLB on the FactCheck website alone. If that’s not sufficient evidence that such a document exists, I can’t help you.

At some point, this comes down to a question of what you’re willing to believe.


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:07 am

“When such a document is subpoenaed and surrender to a court of law with competent jurisdiction, then I will accept it as genuine.”

Looks like you’re going to have to content yourself with being disappointed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:32 am

The payments to O’s team of lawyers is documented here:

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/updated-list-of-birth-certificate-posts-2/


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:36 am

Not for long.


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:41 am

Oh, puhleeez.


Montana
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

To the Birthers, prove it, Oh that’s right you can’t, just more of your unsubstantiated rumors you keep writing on your hands to help you keep up. You are just another Palin, just like “W”, just like Quayle, just like Reagan. I love you guys. Keep plucking that chicken.

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display…


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 9:15 pm

Well, that is as 'axiomatic' as mud.

First native born is not the same as natural born.

Second, you relate natural born citizenship with citizenship by birth, but fail to define either. Citizenship by birth? do yo mean 'by birth'… on US soil, or citizenship 'by birth' to US citizen parents, or perhaps both? All you have succeeded in doing here restate the controversy in different terms, you avoided answering the question of from whence comes US citizenship that is not naturalized. Once we have that answer, then we may know what yard stick to use to measure the eligibility of a POTUS candidate.

In order to discover the meaning of the term Natural Born, one must go back before the Constitution to the time when the States were still under the crown and their primary inhabitants were called Natural Born Subjects (of the British Crown). After the States achieved independence, the term 'subject' was dropped in favor of 'citizen', hence the term 'Natural Born Citizen' therefore, absent an American case that defines 'natural born' we must go back to British Common Law precedent that was in use in the Colonies/States at the time before the US Constitution was ratified. When the States achieved independence, their systems of jurisprudence was identical with the UK system but at independence the two systems forked and gradually evolved differently. Once we have exhausted our search for a definition within our own system with out result, we then may and must search back beyond the fork into the old British case law for an answer to the question.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 2:57 am

Wrong. Why do you feel compelled to post lies?


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

Orly Taitz and Phil Berg are not legal authorities. Sorry, wrong again.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 2:59 am

Not relevant to the question of natural born citizenship, which JohnC has explained in detail. That you either can’t or won’t read his detailed, thorough, and accurate analyses is not my problem.


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

*shrugs*

Whatever. You're still wrong.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:04 am

“Common sense?” “Common SENSE?”

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Dude, you’ve demonstrated many things over the last half year, but common sense isn’t one of them. “Common pigheaded stupidity,” is more like it.

*gasps for air*

Thanks for the laugh! Now, where’s your birth certificate? Why are you hiding it?


ellid
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 10:04 pm

Where's your birth certificate and naturalization papers?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:08 am

Then start a petition drive, or donate blood for Haiti. Otherwise, make a noise like a hoop and roll away. You’re wrong about the President, and making an ass of yourself arguing with JohnC.


britcom
Comment posted February 9, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview; “…it is certainly not a frivolous issue.” whose outcome would be “unpredictable” in the courts.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News…

'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty', 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988) >> (PDF)

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_not…


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 5:15 am

Better yet, lets pass this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1503

and have one like it in every State.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 6:15 am

What? You doubt?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 6:15 am

What? You doubt?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 7:37 am

What we want to see is either one of these: (certified true copy of original)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/hercuroc/090728birthcert.gif

or one of these: (Original)
http://nightwatch1.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hawaiian-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

One or the other should be surrendered to a court wherein a case questioning his eligibility is being litigated or to the chief justice of the SCOTUS.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 7:37 am

What we want to see is either one of these: (certified true copy of original)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/hercuroc/090728birthcert.gif

or one of these: (Original)
http://nightwatch1.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hawaiian-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

One or the other should be surrendered to a court wherein a case questioning his eligibility is being litigated or to the chief justice of the SCOTUS.


Heat Lasso Stars | Texas Stars AHL Announcer
Pingback posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:08 am

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat at Tea Party Convention « The … [...]


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 4:15 am

“First native born is not the same as natural born.”

So then why does the U.S. Supreme Court in Schneider v. Rusk use “native born” and “natural born” in exactly the same context in the same paragraph?

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't just make it so. Show me what evidence you have to support your contention that “native born” and “natural born” are different.

“Second, you relate natural born citizenship with citizenship by birth, but fail to define either. Citizenship by birth? do yo mean 'by birth'… on US soil, or citizenship 'by birth' to US citizen parents, or perhaps both?”

By “citizen by birth,” I mean – and the courts mean – a person whose U.S. citizenship is conferred by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. Period. It doesn't matter HOW the person became a citizen by birth – whether he was born in the U.S., overseas, or on Mars, or whether both parents were U.S. citizens or Tajiks, or whether his citizenship was conferred through the Constitution, common law, or statute. What matters is that the person need not do anything other than be born in the circumstances in which he was born to be a U.S. citizen.

By “naturalized citizen,” I mean all persons who are not “citizens by birth.” These are persons whose citizenship is conferred by virtue of some action taken or circumstances extant at a time subsequent to his birth.

“All you have succeeded in doing here restate the controversy in different terms, you avoided answering the question of from whence comes US citizenship that is not naturalized.”

There are two sources for conferral of citizenship by birth:

(1) Constitutional: The person is born in the United States, and is not a child of foreign diplomats or citizens of a hostile occupying power. Such person's citizenship is conferred by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Court in Wong Kim Ark noted, the Fourteenth Amendment itself is merely declaratory of pre-existing common law, manifested in natural born subjects in England, and their exact U.S. counterparts – natural born citizens.

(2) Statutory: The person is not born in the United States, but federal law provides that such a person falls into a category of persons considered citizens by birth.

“In order to discover the meaning of the term Natural Born, one must go back before the Constitution to the time when the States were still under the crown and their primary inhabitants were called Natural Born Subjects (of the British Crown). After the States achieved independence, the term 'subject' was dropped in favor of 'citizen', hence the term 'Natural Born Citizen' therefore, absent an American case that defines 'natural born' we must go back to British Common Law precedent that was in use in the Colonies/States at the time before the US Constitution was ratified. When the States achieved independence, their systems of jurisprudence was identical with the UK system but at independence the two systems forked and gradually evolved differently. Once we have exhausted our search for a definition within our own system with out result, we then may and must search back beyond the fork into the old British case law for an answer to the question”

Your argument is understood, and that analytical path is well-trodden. What do we find? I'll let the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark respond to your points:

“Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 10:28 am

The campaign scanned in the certificate. Factcheck.org and others took high resolution pictures of the document. Things that won’t show up in the scan will show up in the photo. The photo’s took pictures of the front and back of the certificate. You can get more definition from the photo than the scan.


youmustbejoking
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 5:30 am

Hey, Palin was using a hill billy palm pilot!


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Did you honestly take time to look at it. It seems to be a copy of a copy of a copy. In an age of ditigial photocopies and camera’s you would have thought that the copy would have been clearer.

Someone has to wonder why the case got dismissed.


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Did you honestly take time to look at it. It seems to be a copy of a copy of a copy. In an age of ditigial photocopies and camera’s you would have thought that the copy would have been clearer.

Someone has to wonder why the case got dismissed.


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 11:11 am

The president didn’t release his birth certificate to dismiss doubts from unreasonable people. It was just to confirm in certain democratic primary votes that the rumors were false. This was long before you found something about the president to hide your biases behind.

Every reasonable person has accepted that the presidents birth certificate is authentic.

What are you hiding? You would be behaving differently if you had nothing to hide. It is hard to understand what alternate reality you are from.

What are you hiding?


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 11:11 am

The president didn’t release his birth certificate to dismiss doubts from unreasonable people. It was just to confirm in certain democratic primary votes that the rumors were false. This was long before you found something about the president to hide your biases behind.

Every reasonable person has accepted that the presidents birth certificate is authentic.

What are you hiding? You would be behaving differently if you had nothing to hide. It is hard to understand what alternate reality you are from.

What are you hiding?


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 7:00 am

Clap. Clap. Clap.

It isn't a legal opinion. There is usually a companion rebuttal article, or an article that was presents the alternative argument.

Jill Pryor must be now a great lawyer, but the article doesn't add anything to your argument.

Also, it seems that you didn't even take time to read the full article. Was that it was almost 20 pagers? Or, was it for another reason.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

That will happen about the same time that the Air Force unleashes a block of aerial suvines on the Taliban.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

That will happen about the same time that the Air Force unleashes a block of aerial suvines on the Taliban.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

First, federal legislation would render any state legislation superfluous.

Second, the President would easily meet the requirement of providing a valid birth certificate *because he already has*, you pinhead.

Third, “state” should not be capitalized. This isn’t Germany.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

First, federal legislation would render any state legislation superfluous.

Second, the President would easily meet the requirement of providing a valid birth certificate *because he already has*, you pinhead.

Third, “state” should not be capitalized. This isn’t Germany.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Which will never happen, since the birther cases are, without exception frivolous and will be dismissed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Which will never happen, since the birther cases are, without exception frivolous and will be dismissed.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 8:38 am

Jill Pryor must be now a great lawyer…

How do we know that she didn't get where she is through Affirmative Action?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

Of course he does. Unlike you and your friends, he actually knows what he’s talking about.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

Of course he does. Unlike you and your friends, he actually knows what he’s talking about.


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 10:35 am

When you enter a conversation make sure that you understand what is being discussed. Did you actually take a look at the article mention? Or, are you more interested in showing your intolerance to others?


What is the Washington Independent, and why was their reporter in a strategy meeting with Freedom Works? « Potomac Tea Party Report
Pingback posted February 10, 2010 @ 11:29 am

[...] was trying to cause a rift among Tea Partiers, but didn’t think any more of it until I saw this article by the same [...]


ellid
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

Not to mention that law review articles are not settled law.

*shakes head as birthers grasp at straws*


katahdin
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

We have never had a president born outside the boundaries of the US, and we don't now. Hawaii is part of the US and President Barack Obama.


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Ironically, that same article states “It is well-settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born” (emphasis added).


Anonymous
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

Case is closed. It’s over. Obama in fact made history by being the ONLY president in US history to document with his birth certificate the fact that he is a natural born citizen. The COLB is completely sufficient. You don’t get and hospital or doctor data, sorry, not relevant. All courts in the nation would accept the COLB. It’s not necessary for you to accept it, you’ll just have to be satisfied with being on the losing end.


AlCum
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

“In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

So in other words, Panamanian native McCain would have a problem. What does this have to do with American-born Obama? Nothing. He was born within US national boundaries. Case closed.


AlCum
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:07 pm

“First native born is not the same as natural born.”

Yes, it is.


AlCum
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

“When did courts start taking images posted on private web pages seriously?”

You're missing something here. There is no court, there is no case, there is no need to show anything to any court. Were it to go to court and be heard, then the original document, which was scanned to be put online since it can't be passed asround to 300 million sets of hands, would be presented to the judge who would of course be compelled to accept it since Hawaii has authenticated it.

Case closed before it even begins. End of story,.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

Are you saying that my post fits Poe's Law?


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

There are times when things are parodies and other times they show your person biases. I would say the latter. This thread has nothing to do with the lawyer as a person, but an argument that the lawyer made. You obvious thought that you could be a comedian, but by not reading the conversation you failed.


Anthony
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

These grammar and vocabulary rules that birthers make up are very strange. Then there are their legal arguments. Mistake. Then there are their lack or distortion of legal arguments.


JohnC
Comment posted February 10, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

“These grammar and vocabulary rules that birthers make up are very strange.”

One thing that any person in the legal profession understands is that cases have to be understood in context. If you're going to argue that a particular case should lead the court to a particular legal conclusion, you'd better know your case backwards and forwards. Playing cute with a sentence or two isn't going to win you any favors with the court.

What we consistently see from birthers is a laserlike focus on an occasional ambiguous sentence or a term of art used in juxtaposition with a synonymous term of art. When they are confronted with the fact that their forced interpretation stands the opinion as a whole on its head, they play dumb, or just keep pointing to the same passages, over and over.

That may be clever on this board, or to the devoted followers of WND, but if the object is to demonstrate how birthers would prevail in a legal argument before a court, it's not happening.


RedGraham
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 4:19 am

Natural-born citizens are those born in the United States to parents who are CITIZENS (legal definition). The Constitution says “No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” Obama was born a Brit, per the British nationality Act of 1948, regardless of his birthplace, he lived as an Indonesian and it is unknown to the general public at this time which citizenship(Brit, Kenyan, or Indonesian?) he carried into adulthood however that information is in the Occidental College records where he apparently attended as a foreign student. On Sunday June 27, 2004 the Kenyan Standard Times through the AP wire printed Obama was “Kenyan-born”. In the Fall of 2004 Obama debated former-ambassador Alan Keyes for a seat in the US Senate from Illinois. At this debate Keyes faulted Obama for not being a natural born citizen. Obama quickly retorted “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, NOT THE PRESIDENCY” admitting himself that he is not eligible to run for president. Then there's the statements by Grandma Obama and the Kenyan Ambassador both claiming Obama was born in Kenya and the Kenyan Birth Certificate with the footprint.


Anthony
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 6:49 am

“Natural-born citizens are those born in the United States to parents who are CITIZENS (legal definition).”

There is no legal definition of natural-born citizen.

Did you know that a straw-man argument isn't anything new. An example of this is where a person uses their opinion to replace a fact or makes a false statement. The present that false statement the bases of their argument and attack that.

A person who is a person born in America or to American parents are citizens by birth, or natural-born citizen. There are other categories, but born a citizen by birth is a natural-born citizen. All that is required is an American document that states that it proof of the fact of birth. In American this birth certificate in several jurisdictions are called Certification of Live Birth.

Anyone with a basic understanding of English would understand that a document that has been certified as being true would be called either a certificate or certification. Certificate is just a variation of certification.

America doesn't recognize dual-citizenship, but doesn't encourage as a matter of routine. The reason is that America recognizes as causing problems for citizens who have two or more citizenship. America indicates that person with dual citizenship are subject to respect the laws of the jurisdiction that they are currently residing in.

What seems interesting is that some are under the cloud of misrepresentation and refuse to recognize the alternate of their arguments. A person can be conferred American citizenship through being born to American parents, as it is possible with other countries. However, as he has produced a Hawaiian birth certificate Obama was born an American and conferred Kenyan citizenship through his father. Which of course he lost it when he became older as Kenya doesn't recognize dual citizenship.

The Kenyan Standard Times mentioned was about the disgraced Illinois that Alan Keyes subsequently replaced. 10 letters in an article copied from an AP wire doesn't trump a legal document. There is absolutely no reference to those 10 letters in the original AP story, and seems to have been added later.

It is obvious that those who bring up the Kenyan Standard Times as proof didn't read the article, or only found 10 letters that they decided to argue supported their position. This is a kin to quote mining a sentence to support ones position. Where quote mining is using a quote from an article to misrepresent the facts, since the full text presents an opinion that doesn't support the “quote-mine.”

Mr. Alan Keyes acts like he had a gotcha moment in his debate for the US senate from Illinois. In the English language “So What?” means that what was said is irrelevant. Mr. Keyes's statement is like asking an adult male that he has to show some id to prove that they are over 21 to buy orange juice. Mr. Keyes statement was irrelevant on two points. The first is obvious neither person was seeking the position of vice-president or president. The second is that ones status as a citizen has no relevance to the governance that are important the residences of the state of Illinois.

“So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency.” doesn't mean that a person isn't eligible to run for president. It means that they are not running for the presidency. The statement made by Mr. Keyes was a cheap shot, and the Obama camp might have wish he expressed himself better. However, Mr. Keyes did end up losing the election. If that quote is all Mr. Keyes can hang on from his election lose it seems that he has to start listening to his advises and stop seeming to be stubborn. However, what was stated by Mr. Obama is correct he wasn't running for president.

The gorilla tactics used by those who interviewed Obama's grandmother isn't journalism, nor should it be considered journalism. It is practice by some to try to have a person admit the truth about a fact, however this seems to be effective in movies. In real life people will generally be very forthright or refuse to say anything. There is nothing new about the tactics used against Ms. Obama. They are just always dishonest.

What seems interesting is that birthers are more willing to accept a person's statement who doesn't have any facts to support it, than a government official who has. The State of Hawaii Department of Health through the governor of Hawaii's office has stated they have the original birth records. In America the word of a government agency that has direct interest to a legal document has legal weight over a forged Kenyan birth certificate.

Other that a State of Hawaii Department of Health Certification of Live Birth there are no legal documents that state that Mr. Obama has been born anywhere else than in the State of Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth clearly states that it is a copy of the original birth records, and that it certifies the fact of birth. It is a federal crime in America to forge birth documents, and the State of Hawaii has stated that they have seen the original birth records. Thus, the State of Hawaii has confirmed the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.


ellid
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 7:26 am

The same idiotic cut-and-paste as always. Who'd you plagiarize this time?


ellid
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 7:33 am

What puzzles me is how allegedly competent lawyers (like Phil Berg) actually think their suits have a chance. Orly Taitz clearly doesn't know what she's talking about, but surely Berg is aware that he's advancing a bogus reading of the law,


trashthinker
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 8:42 am

Are you with the Thread Police? Can I see your badge?

As someone who realized long ago that the birthers use semantic straw men, that the birthers aren't listening to anything they don't want to hear – so it is not a “conversation” at all – and that birthers make arguments that would not withstand the scrutiny of the lowest courts…I choose to taunt them.

I suppose you are right that I am showing my intolerance of the birthers.

Reading what you have written in this thread, it appears that you also know that the birthers “…are more amusing than disturbing” – yet you choose to be disturbed, where I choose to be amused.


Anthony
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 9:38 am

Someone took offense a term you used in your reply to a comment that I wrote. The reason is that people use the same term in an attempt to de-legitimize the accomplishment of people like the president.

In relationship with the birthers, I am being hash as I am more interested in understanding the issues.


Anthony
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 9:44 am

PS. The article was written by Ms. Pryor was published over 20 years ago.


JohnC
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 11:42 am

“Natural-born citizens are those born in the United States to parents who are CITIZENS (legal definition).”

Wrong, of course.

“The Constitution says “No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen f the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”"

President Obama was born on U.S. soil. He is not the child of diplomats or citizens of a hostile foreign power occupying Hawaii. Therefore he is a natural born citizen. There is not a court in the land that will disagree with these facts and that legal conclusion.

Obama was born a Brit, per the British nationality Act of 1948, regardless of his birthplace,”

True, but of course irrelevant.

“he lived as an Indonesian and it is unknown to the general public at this time which citizenship(Brit, Kenyan, or Indonesian?) he carried into adulthood”

“Unknown” perhaps to the self- deluded.

“however that information is in the Occidental College records where he apparently attended as a foreign student.”

“Apparently attended as a foreign student”? Evidence for your speculation, please.

“On Sunday June 27, 2004 the Kenyan Standard Times through the AP wire printed Obama was “Kenyan-born”.

Well that certainly invalidates the Hawaiian-issued COLB doesn't it?

“In the Fall of 2004 Obama debated former-ambassador Alan Keyes for a seat in the US Senate from Illinois. At this debate Keyes faulted Obama for not being a natural born citizen. Obama quickly retorted “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, NOT THE PRESIDENCY” admitting himself that he is not eligible to run for president.”

This exchange simply never happened. If you insist it does, show us the transcript and the date of the debate.

“Then there's the statements by Grandma Obama and the Kenyan Ambassador both claiming Obama was born in Kenya and the Kenyan Birth Certificate with the footprint.”

Liar. Sarah Obama's translator said “Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.”


JohnC
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 11:44 am

Anthony, you're giving RedGraham far more credit than he/she deserves. There is no evidence of such an exchange between Keyes and Obama in any debate between them. Just more made-up garbage masquerading as suspicious facts.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

“It would take Obama less time to authorize the release of the original birth certificate than it took you to write the previous post.”

Umm, he HAS released it. You need to deal with the fact that the COLB is a complete and satisfactory original state document that perfectly and fully answers ALL the constitutional issues that it can address (14 years of residency must be addressed elsewhere). It’s over,

Further, your screeds are ridiculous against the FACT that Obama is the ONLY US president ever to actually release his birth certificate, making birther complaints even more bizarre when no other president has ever documented his eligibility before now.


britcom
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

Re: Native born vs. Natural born
I did not explain further because I felt to do so would be off topic but here is what I have read on the subject:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856 edition) under 'Citizen' (para. 3) states thusly:

All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.

This appears to conflict with Vattel.

While this notion is offensive today, it appears to have been the way the law was interpreted and applied prior to 1856. Certainly today citizenship is applied to nearly all if not all non-whites but in cases, such as children born to Indians not taxed before the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, such inhabitants of the US were (are) native born, but not entitled to citizenship by (or at) birth through natural, legal, or common law means, even though they and their parents were born on US soil. Even though such people may be citizens now, they owe their citizenship to legislation, not common law and that citizenship fails to meet the common law definition of 'natural born' since they were not under the jurisdiction of the US nor held any allegiance to it, nor were they included in the language of the Constitution, they were specifically excluded. This shows that cases may exist today of persons native born in the US (even though they may be Citizens) may not be of the Natural Born Citizen variety. Therefore, the definition of 'Native born' cannot be identical to 'Natural born'.

Re: Citizenship by birth
I think you are conflating 'Citizen by birth' with 'Citizen at birth' the former is under common law, the latter is statutorily (legislatively) granted to some not having the former. Those who are not born on US soil (and under the jurisdiction thereof) may, under certain circumstances be entitled to US citizenship 'at' birth BUT, such entitlement is 'by' act of legislation, not 'by' birth.

We do not seem to disagree on the British common law definition of 'Natural Born Subject'. The question then becomes, has American jurisprudence modified it in any way.

Re: The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

If that is true, then why has Dred Scott never been reversed. The court to my knowledge has never said it's ruling in Dred Scott was wrong, only that the 14th changed the rules.

Indians were free persons. Why were they (or are they still) not Natural Born Citizens? It seems to me that the 14th doesn't address this, it just gives them a lesser status of Citizenship since it appears that they are not eligible to be POTUS.


britcom
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

Yes, I agree that McCain has an eligibility problem and I was one of the first to document it on my blog. O on the other hand has yet to release his HI CertificATE of Live Birth that he claims would show that he is elegance for POTUS. Contrary to popular belief, the image of a document that his people claim proves his eligibility does not, since its not a Birth CertificATE, and not real, it only exists in cyberspace. No independent party has requested and received an official copy of his alleged HI CertificATE of Live Birth and O refuses to release it, choosing rather to fight anyone who seeks a court order to release it. What is he so afraid of?


ellid
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

The best you can do is from 1856? You do realize that it's 2010, don't you?

As for Dred Scott, for you to blithely say that it “wasn't overturned” is to spit on the graves of 600,000 men who gave their lives because of that decision. For shame!


ellid
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

Wrong.


britcom
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 10:16 pm

The doctrine that one man may lawfully own another was well-settled too. But using the term 'well-settled' as a method to shoe away debate only carries weight with the weak minded. I expect a better argument than that from you.


britcom
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

I wish it had been over turned.

When one wants to understand the meaning of words used by the framers, it is best to consult a dictionary of the period, or as close to the period as you can get.

The SCOTUS of that day would not have overturn their own ruling, so the war between the states could not have been avoided at that point. Overturning the ruling would have to wait for a later court. The 14th righted much of the wrongs the court had precipitated, but to my knowledge the court has never acknowledged its mistake or it's role in fanning the flames of war.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Dred Scott was made moot by the 14th. Moot Court is a debate exercise, not a legal exercise.

Native Americans/American Indians were (are?) considered citizens of their own nations – though those nations are captive within the US. The treaties with those “nations” may have provided the flimsy excuse reasoning behind their exclusion from citizenship…but I'm making a guess here. Please remember that before they were considered citizens, their travel outside their “national” boundaries was often limited.


ellid
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

You are not only ignorant of the law, but ignorant of American history.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 6:21 am

Insulting my religion and calling the Apostles liars just makes you look small and bitter.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 6:58 am

There is probably more evidence that the books of the Bible are true copies of their original manuscripts than any other book ever written before the advent of the printing press. In fact there are likely more documents that attest to the fact that Jesus lived than attest to the fact that Columbus lived.

But even better than that is the fact that King James commissioned a Bible translation into English that is the most trusted and revered version of the books even today. The 1611 King James version (which replaced the crown authorized Bishops Bible) is what amounted to the official version for his realm including his crown colonies in America. So I would say that if the King James Authorized version of the books of the Bible is good enough for the King of England, it’s documented authenticity is as good as it gets. Christians know and understand the value of this which is why they continue to trust it. It has the King’s stamp of approval and the King.

When O’s birth certificate gets anywhere near that kind of official scrutiny, I’ll be happy to accept the result.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:59 am

As I said earlier, I believe that jus soli has the greater weight over jus sanguinis under the law, but I added that people don’t often see it that way, they see parentage as the source of citizenship. I suspect they see some aspect of Natural Law being involved since the child is the same flesh as the parents and if the parents have citizenship, the child has citizenship by virtue of his nature being an extension of his parent’s nature.

This belief, while not necessarily in keeping with the law, has an effect on our government. Look at the resolution that the Senate passed declaring McCain a natural born citizen. They did this knowing the public will think it has the force of law. By doing this, they cleared the way for McCain to continue his campaign for POTUS. The law doesn’t operate in a vacuum. In this case politics trumped law and affected the outcome of the election that we are now scrutinizing. As I also said earlier, the system is undoubtedly broken and many people now consider it fatally corrupt and are unwilling accept the excuses we were willing to accept in times past. We feel burned by the major parties and from now on we want these people who run for office to not only prove their eligibility to the government, we want them to prove their eligibility to the electorate as well. This apparently hasn’t sunk in with the politicians yet. The new mantra for politics should be, “it’s your legitimacy, stupid”, and in this new era of politics, even the appearance of illegitimacy should send them packing.


ellid
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:07 am

BZZT! Irrelevant! And insulting to JohnC, too.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:30 am

Who's chihuahua is this?


ellid
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 11:00 am

*rolls eyes*

Is that the best you can do, you nasty little dimetrodon?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

Ah, a biblical inerrantist! Not only that, one who believes that the King James Bible, which isn’t even used in seminaries these days, is the finest translation despite numerous errors, omissions, and downright falsifications (such as Phoebe being demoted to a “helper” instead of a deacon, Junia undergoing a gender change, and Joseph getting a coat of man colors instead of one with long sleeves).

No wonder you hate the President. Tell me, has your pastor repeated the lie that the Antichrist is supposed to be Muslim?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

I did no such thing, you bearer of false witness. All I did was point out, *correctly*, that the Gospels were not written when Jesus was alive (nor could they have, since they reference the destruction of the Second Temple forty years later), that there are numerous contradictions among the Nativity narratives (even in the three Synoptic Gospels), that there are no Nativity accounts in the Epistles (which were intended as theology, not history), and that there is not one single non-Biblical reference to Jesus of Nazareth in a contemporary Jewish or Roman document (Josephus wrote almost a century after Jesus died, ditto the Roman accounts). ALL of the above has been common knowledge in seminaries and among professional ministers and theologians for decades, and is regularly taught to divinity students and religion majors. Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, and Marcus Borg have written extensively on the early Church and the difference between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history, and if you truly love your religion as you claim to, you owe it to yourself to read their works.

I also must point out that not one word of that post called the Apostles liars (nor could it have, since they were all long dead by the time the canonical Bible was assembled at the Council of Nicaea). I also did not insult anyone’s religion. Your hysterical and inappropriate response speaks volumes to your personal insecurity, and the only response to *that* is prayer that your doubts will be answered and your fury at being challenged calmed.


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

“The doctrine that one man may lawfully own another was well-settled too. But using the term 'well-settled' as a method to shoe away debate only carries weight with the weak minded. I expect a better argument than that from you.”

Hey, you're the one who cited the article to support your NBC theories. I merely pointed out that even that author totally disagrees with your assertions about NBC as they pertain to people born in this country.

If you want to walk away from it now, fine.

(By the way, for the legally uninitiated, “well-settled” is term commonly used by the courts, lawyers, and scholars to refer to legal principles or rules which are no longer legitimately in dispute. Lawyers who dispute well-settled laws to a court can be sanctioned by the court as making legally frivolous arguments.)


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

How many times does he have to tell you people, hes not a muslim anymore. ;)


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

“Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856 edition) under 'Citizen' (para. 3) states thusly:

All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.

This appears to conflict with Vattel.

While this notion is offensive today, it appears to have been the way the law was interpreted and applied prior to 1856. Certainly today citizenship is applied to nearly all if not all non-whites but in cases, such as children born to Indians not taxed before the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, such inhabitants of the US were (are) native born, but not entitled to citizenship by (or at) birth through natural, legal, or common law means, even though they and their parents were born on US soil. Even though such people may be citizens now, they owe their citizenship to legislation, not common law and that citizenship fails to meet the common law definition of 'natural born' since they were not under the jurisdiction of the US nor held any allegiance to it, nor were they included in the language of the Constitution, they were specifically excluded. This shows that cases may exist today of persons native born in the US (even though they may be Citizens) may not be of the Natural Born Citizen variety. Therefore, the definition of 'Native born' cannot be identical to 'Natural born'.”

That doesn't make any sense. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, those native-born African-American persons weren't considered native-born citzens OR natural born citizens, even though they were clearly within the jurisdiction of the United States.

The entire premise of Wong Kim Ark is that such restrictions on citizenship by birth were inconsistent with our common law inheritance (as expressed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and therefore in error. And the Court referred to NBC and NBS to make its point.

The story with Native Americans is different. The Court in Elk v. Wilkins determined that Native Americans were part of an independent political community, and thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship to them. That's why Congress, through its naturalization powers, has extended citizenship to Native American tribesman.


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

“Re: Citizenship by birth
I think you are conflating 'Citizen by birth' with 'Citizen at birth' the former is under common law, the latter is statutorily (legislatively) granted to some not having the former. Those who are not born on US soil (and under the jurisdiction thereof) may, under certain circumstances be entitled to US citizenship 'at' birth BUT, such entitlement is 'by' act of legislation, not 'by' birth.”

I'm simply repeating the words the Supreme Court itself has used. See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) (“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution…”)


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

That’s right keep digging that hole.


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

“Re: The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

If that is true, then why has Dred Scott never been reversed. The court to my knowledge has never said it's ruling in Dred Scott was wrong, only that the 14th changed the rules.”

Here's what Wong Kim Ark says on the matter:

“As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

At the very least, the Court viewed the Fourteenth Amendment as extending pre-Fourteenth Amendment principles of citizenship to African-Americans.

There is little doubt that the Court viewed citizenship law pre-dating the Fourteenth Amendment as being based in common law:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 3:49 pm

“Indians were free persons. Why were they (or are they still) not Natural Born Citizens? It seems to me that the 14th doesn't address this, it just gives them a lesser status of Citizenship since it appears that they are not eligible to be POTUS.”

Native Americans belonging to tribes were not viewed by the Court as being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Therefore, they were not citizens by birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment . Instead, Native Americans belonging to tribes are treated exactly like persons born abroad to U.S. citizens – they are citizens by birth by virtue of federal law.

Therefore, they are natural born citizens to the extent that other citizens by birth by virtue of federal law (and not the Constitution) are natural born citizens.

I have no doubt the Supreme Court would hold that such persons are natural born citizens, since the Court on a number of occasions has divided citizens into two categories – citizens by birth, and citizens by naturalization, and has equated the former with those eligible for president under Article II, Section 9.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

You're making a plea to authority again. Stick to the debate.

I cited the note to show you that one of your own species (who has well studied the issue) disagrees with your assertion that the outcome of a case on eligibility brought before the SCOTUS would be predictable. Clearly she says it wouldn't be.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

So you agree then. Indians not taxed, are not natural born citizens even though they are native born. They are naturalized citizens.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Legislation conferring citizenship often uses the phrase 'at birth' do you agree that this is not identical to the meaning of 'by birth'?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

He never was, you white sepulchre.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

What hole? Or are you upset that I mentioned authors who write for religious publishers other than Zondervaan or Focus on the Family? Where *did* you learn your Bible, through old episodes of Veggie Tales?


ellid
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

Please provide evidence that JohnC is anything other than human, as I was not aware that space aliens were permitted to sit for the bar exam.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

Again, you make it clear that certain Indians (undoubtedly native born) owe their citizenship to legislation. This makes it clear that native born and natural born do not have identical meanings.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

You contradict yourself.
Native Americans belonging to tribes are treated exactly like persons born abroad to U.S. citizens – they are citizens by birth by virtue of federal law. Therefore, they are natural born citizens to the extent that other citizens by birth by virtue of federal law (and not the Constitution) are natural born citizens.
The 'extent' is nil since children of US citizens born abroad owe their citizenship to legislation rather than law under jus soli.


britcom
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

Q. What's the difference between a dead alligator in the road and a dead attorney in the road?

A. There are skid marks in front of the alligator. :)


Anonymous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

Who never was?


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

“You're making a plea to authority again. Stick to the debate.”

I made a plea toward no authority. You were the one who introduced the Pryor article into the debate, not me. So perhaps when you lecture me about making a “plea toward authority” you should look in the mirror first and stop being such a blatant hypocrite.

I reiterate: I'm merely pointing out that even she doesn't agree with the central birther legal argument – and the only one relevant: whether NBC requires two U.S. citizen parents or not.

The fact that you can't even understand why I'm referring to the Pryor article explains a lot about the level of thought that has gone into your argument.


JohnC
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

“Q. What's the difference between a dead alligator in the road and a dead attorney in the road?

A. There are skid marks in front of the alligator. :)”

Any you complain about us digressing from the debate…


ellid
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

What a lovely Christian thought. Pray tell me, o devout one, where in the Gospels does Jesus instruct us to make jokes about the death of our enemies?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:16 am

And again, you make it clear that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, and have no idea how JohnC is making you and your fellow birthers look like ignorant fools.


JohnC
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:39 am

“Legislation conferring citizenship often uses the phrase ‘at birth’ do you agree that this is not identical to the meaning of ‘by birth’?”

I would agree there’s room for argument they don’t mean the same thing. But even so, it is fair to say that, at the very least, “at birth” is a subset of “by birth.”


JohnC
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:44 am

“So you agree then. Indians not taxed, are not natural born citizens even though they are native born. They are naturalized citizens.”

No, I don’t agree, and that’s not what I was saying.

Native Americans are citizens by birth by virtue of federal law. That all but certainly makes them natural born citizens and therefore native-born citizens, exactly as would be the case for persons born abroad who are citizens by birth by virtue of federal law.


JohnC
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:50 am

“The ‘extent’ is nil since children of US citizens born abroad owe their citizenship to legislation rather than law under jus soli.”

That doesn’t mean they’re not natural born citizens. There’s simply no precedent which stands for the proposition that natural born citizenship is strictly a function of jus soli. The Wong Kim Ark case focuses on the jus soli aspect of natural born citizenship, and one can argue that this is implicitly the extent of natural born citizenship, but we just can’t say so for sure.

We know that, through legislation, the English long recognized foreign-born persons as natural born subjects. There is no reason to think that natural born citizenship cannot operate in parallel fashion in the United States.


JohnC
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:53 am

“Again, you make it clear that certain Indians (undoubtedly native born) owe their citizenship to legislation. This makes it clear that native born and natural born do not have identical meanings.”

Just because Native American tribesmen are citizens by legislation does not mean they cannot be natural born citizens.


JohnC
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:58 am

“When one wants to understand the meaning of words used by the framers, it is best to consult a dictionary of the period, or as close to the period as you can get.”

I’ve already done research on the issue. You can look up “natural born citizen” or “natural-born citizen” on Google Books, and restrict hits to before 1850, and you will plenty of uses in terms of born in the territory, but none concerning born to two citizen parents. You will also see that “natural born citizen” was used as the opposite of “naturalized citizen,” which itself was used in the context of “once an alien, and now a citizen.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 4:25 am

The President of the United States of America.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 12:07 am

You might be correct. I am not sure whether is was started with Mr. Keyes himself, as it is consistent with various political arguments he uses. However, I will accept your opinion on the matter.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 5:58 am

“Overturning the ruling would have to wait for a later court.”

So your entire lunacy is based on the fact that you don’t agree with American law.

Four words.

You are a moron.


AlCum
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:10 am

“O on the other hand has yet to release his HI CertificATE of Live Birth that he claims would show that he is eligible for POTUS.”

That’s a lie, of course. Not only has he released his official original state document proving he was born in Hawaii, he is the first and only POTUS **ever** to do so. Thank you, President Obama, for proving these birthers are insane!

“Contrary to popular belief, the image of a document that his people claim proves his eligibility, does not, since it is not a True Birth CertificATE, and not real, it only exists in cyberspace.”

Uh, it’s a scanned image of the real, state-certified and authenticated birth certificate. You might not be aware of this, but real pieces of paper can’t be circulated on the internets thingy. You are guilty of the straw man fallacy.

“No independent party has requested and received an official copy of his alleged HI CertificATE of Live Birth”

So what? Hawaii has said it issued it and it’s real. TWICE. Case is closed. Proof is in, and in fact Obama is the only president in history to do so.

“and O refuses to release it, choosing rather to fight anyone who seeks a court order to release it.”

Sorry but you’re lying again. Obama HAS released it, Hawaii HAS confirmed it, twice, end of story. There is no basis whatsoever for any court order to do anything more. You’ll just have to settle for being wrong.

“What is he so afraid of?”

Nothing. That’s why he released it already.


Palin's Palm Holds the Answers - Page 3
Pingback posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:15 am

[...] [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:21 am

“COLB is NOT a derivative of that document. You need to read the HRS statute 338-18.7 which CLEARLY states a COLB is not a BC.”

You’re lying again.

Find HRS 338-18.7 for us.

Show us where it “clearly” says this.

“It does in fact state that it is issued to FOREIGN born children. THAT is its purpose.”

That is, of course, another blatant lie. COLBs are issued all the time. Foreign births registered in Hawaii are a different category, and that statute was passed in 1982, when Obama was 21 years old. The parents of Obama, being born in 1961, could not have applied for any such thing. And such documents MUST show the actual true location of birth. Hawaii does not issue COLBs to foreign-born children that say they were born in Honolulu.

So here’s my question for you: Why are you so blatantly lying?


RedGraham
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:48 am

This past weekend in Nashville, at the first National Tea Party Convention, the Beltway press ignored Sarah Palin's keynote address, followed a prime-time speech by “birther” Joseph Farah, who over the years has carved out a unique corner of the right-wing blogosphere. Because, yes, at the Tea Party convention, Farah, a proud Muslim-hater and gay-hater, received a standing ovation from the conservative crowd after he presented his birther evidence/theory that Obama is not a naturl-born citizen. Farah bragged in the weeks leading up to the event about his chance to share the stage with Sarah Palin, to associate with her. “Sold out! Palin-Farah ticket rocks tea-party convention,” read the headline at WorldNetDaily.
Worst of all, though, the mainstream press played dumb about the whole thing.
Fact: Virtually nobody in the corporate media said boo about Palin helping to legitimize the birther-movement by sharing the same stage with Farah. She was given a total free ride. Perhaps if the mainstream media continue to ignore likely future President Palin and the birthers they will fade away.


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:13 am

*yawn*

Yet another cut-and-paste without a speck of originality. Typical.


trashthinker
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:16 am

Maybe stories about Farah have been blacklisted.

Farah has espoused the use of politically-based blacklisting:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=…


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:21 am

And this one's a clumsy hack job from Wikipedia, among others. Good job! You know how to use ctr-v!

*STANDING OVATION*


katahdin
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 11:09 am

“Likely future president?” Don't you mean “likely future contestant on 'Dancing With the Stars'?”


Teabaggers admit to becoming a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’ of the GOP - Sahil Kapur - AntiPartisan - True/Slant
Pingback posted February 13, 2010 @ 11:21 am

[...] Tom Tancredo explicitly advocated a return to Jim Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting, and invited WorldNetDaily birther Joseph Farah to marvel over a fantasy world were Obama would be persistently badgered about his birth [...]


britcom
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

I guess you don't read so well. Take a look at the title of the image that O's people posted on the internet. Look at the first word that begins with a 'C' and ends with an 'N”. What word do you see there?

Now look at this image:
http://www.gopmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1…

Look at the first word in the title that begins with a 'C' and ends with an 'E”. What word do you see there?


britcom
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

Here is the image of the document O's people gave to FactCheck.org in case you don't have a copy:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…


AlCum
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

Umm, why do you think that matters? They are the same thing, legally. Obama's COLB proves beyond doubt that he was born in the US, end of story. Nothing else is needed.

Maybe YOU don't read so well, but the Constitution does not require that a president be born in a hospital or delivered by a doctor or be a certain birth weight. You have all the info you're gonna get and it's “case closed.”


AlCum
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

Yes? What about it? Other than proving you're wrong and that Obama is a natural born citizen, what is it about this document that has you so lathered up?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:05 pm

Now it looks like you said that the President is the Antichrist. :)


AlCum
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

“Natural-born citizens are those born in the United States to parents who are CITIZENS (legal definition).”

That is false, of course. Natural born citizens are those whose citizenship exists by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, and it is well established that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen at birth. The child of illegal aliens is a natural born citizen.

“Obama was born a Brit, per the British nationality Act of 1948, regardless of his birthplace,”

And he is a natural born US citizen BECAUSE of his birthplace. End of story.

“he lived as an Indonesian and it is unknown to the general public at this time which citizenship(Brit, Kenyan, or Indonesian?) he carried into adulthood.”

Bzzzzt!! Wrong. Obama could not possibly have lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia. US law does not permit such a thing.

“however that information is in the Occidental College records where he apparently attended as a foreign student.”

He did no such thing, of course. You're making stuff up again.

“On Sunday June 27, 2004 the Kenyan Standard Times through the AP wire printed Obama was “Kenyan-born”.

It was wrong. The AP story said no such thing. Mistakes in African newspapers don't have the power to change reality.

“In the Fall of 2004 Obama debated former-ambassador Alan Keyes for a seat in the US Senate from Illinois. At this debate Keyes faulted Obama for not being a natural born citizen. Obama quickly retorted “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, NOT THE PRESIDENCY” admitting himself that he is not eligible to run for president.”

That is, of course, another of your lies.

“Then there's the statements by Grandma Obama and the Kenyan Ambassador both claiming Obama was born in Kenya and the Kenyan Birth Certificate with the footprint.”

Sarah Obama said the exact opposite; she said Obama was born in Hawaii while SHE was in Kenya. There is no Kenyan birth certificate with his footprint. You are merely lying again.

Why do you hate America?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

Ah, a weaselly reply. Would you say that Indians not taxed and born before 1924, were natural born citizens of the United States?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

So now you agree, there are two schools of thought on the subject.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

And Obama is the FIRST and ONLY president to actually comply. Case closed.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

Yesterday you wrote:
The entire premise of Wong Kim Ark is that such restrictions on citizenship by birth were inconsistent with our common law inheritance (as expressed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and therefore in error. And the Court referred to NBC and NBS to make its point. The story with Native Americans is different. The Court in Elk v. Wilkins determined that Native Americans were part of an independent political community, and thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship to them. That’s why Congress, through its naturalization powers, has extended citizenship to Native American tribesman.

Have you changed your mind? Or are you saying that one can be both a Naturalized Citizen of the US AND a Natural Born Citizen of the US?


britcom
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

I guess it's a roof joke then. (that means its over your head)


britcom
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

Fallacy:
Appeal to authority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal…

Personal attack: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/person…


britcom
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

Simple, the image posted by O's people is not an image of a Birth CertificATE.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:42 pm

Thanks for the tip.


AlCum
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

That is completely immaterial. It is the same thing for all purposes at issue here. It is proof positive that Obama is a natural born citizen. None of your objections to its name or its format make a bit of difference to the FACT that it is a birth certificate,

Case closed.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

The birther queen, Orly taitz's days are numberd as a lawyer.

She has untill Feb 26 to answer to the Cal Bar Assoc. for her actions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26822540/1-2-3-4-5-6-7

Poor Orly.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

Don't read much now do you. First birthers were complaining that he didn't release his long-form. Then birthers were complain that Birth Certificate isn't the same as Certification of live birth. Now, you are complaining that it isn't a real Certification of Live Birth.

See conspiracy nuts like birthers continue to shift their arguments because their is no facts to their position.

From beginning to end your comment is utter nonsense, and you just don't understand why. Drop your silly conspiracy theory and accept that Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth as issued by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. It has damaged your ability to make a comprehensive and logical argument.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

Do you know what contradiction means. Do you what hypocrite means.

You engage in personal attacks with pretense that you have “legitimate authority on the subject.”

The slow hand clap.
Clap Clap Clap.

Now you can take a bow as you have just outed yourself.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

The birth certificate on Obama's website clearly states “This copy serves as prima falce evidence of the fact of birth.” Also, it is the State of Hawaii Department of Health who certified it the document as stated on the top of the document. Thus it makes it a birth certificate.

Really, it isn't that hard of a concept to understand.


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

What was that????? Was it even in English?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 3:06 am

It’s finding humor and joy in someone else’s death. Please explain how you reconcile posting something like this with your professed Christian faith.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 3:10 am

What a wonderful Christian you are! Not only do you make tasteless jokes about death, you’re a liar! Maybe you should reread Matthew 23:27.


Black Helicopters Over Nashville
Pingback posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

[...] of mainstream political movement. Yet with rare exceptions, such as blogger Breitbart, who was reportedly overheard protesting Farah’s birther propaganda, none of them seems to realize how [...]


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:20 am

Legally, it most certainly is, you lying pharisee.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:21 am

Cast out the extremely large beam in your eye before criticizing the mote in anyone else's, you revolting hypocrite.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 5:23 am

There is one school of thought, which is followed by every legal authority in the United States. The “theory” propounded by birthers is not supported by case law, statute, the Constitution, or anything other than their hatred of President Obama and their desire to undo the results of the 2008 election.

Disgusting.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:24 am

So? It's a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. Your point?


Antibirther
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:06 am

translation

http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/0…


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

How do you translate utter nonsense? However, reading the translation it is obvious that she is taking personal attacks on everyone, including the California Bar Association.


britcom
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

So how much are they paying you stooges to keep parroting the same lame lie on these blogs?


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

Honestly there are actual people who feel that it is better to stop people who are lying than ignore them.

Yes, sir we are more interested in disassembling yours another other birthers lies.

However, you wouldn't understand that now would you.


britcom
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Well, it sounds like they got you guys to work for peanuts, but no matter, at the end of the day you'll feel really proud of yourselves for a job well done, right?


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:50 am

Yes, it is cheap to work on a case that has no legal merit.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:22 am

Eleventy billion quatloos and enough germanium to float my own city.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:23 am

I'll have you know that eleventy billion quatloos was enough to buy that Captain Kirk guy for a couple of days!


AlCum
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

Are you insane? Really, serious question here: Are you insane? Paying? That's just delusional.

You are INCAPABLE of naming one thing I have said that is wrong. Yet I have proven your statements to be factually incorrect.

You need to stop listening to the nutbags on the right and get a brain.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

LMFAO ! ! !

Cloris Leachman probably dances better than Caribou Barbie.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

And here is a direct and verifiable (read: non-birfer) quote from Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press: “The AP has never reported that President Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, AP news stories about the state of Hawaii have confirmed that he was born there. The Kenyan paper that you cite rewrote a 2004 AP story, adding the phrase ‘Kenyan-born.’ That wording was not in the AP version of the story.”


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:56 am

Oily Taintz is a seriously disturbed, paranoid nitwit. Her persecution syndrome combined with delusions of grandeur seems to beg for martyrdom which will not end well.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:53 am

They didn't even read either articles. One was about a disgraced politician and the other talked about Obama birth in Hawaii.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

Page 13, Item 19:

” . . . and destroy me as a human being.”

Rather than being destroyed as something else?

A tennis ball, a skyscraper, a clove of garlic, twenty gallons of cheap mascara?


Keep the Fringe on the Fringe, Not at CPAC | NewsReal Blog
Pingback posted February 17, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

[...] Debra Medina, rather than recoil at the stupidity of her proclaimed sympathy to 9/11 Trutherism.  Skirmishes over Barack Obama’s birth certificate still flare up among prominent right-wingers.  Even Sarah [...]


RedGraham
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 4:59 am

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when 'both' countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930. As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian “natural” citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become “naturalized” if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating “naturalized.”
We are informed, believe and thereon allege Obama/Soetoro was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Soetoro/Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Soetoro/Obama’s mother did not return with him. Therefore, it appears that she did not apply for citizenship for Soetoro/Obama in the United States. If citizenship for Soetoro/Obama had been applied for in 1971, Soetoro/Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship. If Soetoro/Obama returned in 1971 to Hawaii without going through U.S. Immigration, today he would be an “illegal alien” — and obviously not able to serve as president, but also his term as a United States Senator from Illinois for nearly four (4) years was illegal.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:27 am

However, America does all dual citizenship. Couldn't you have though of something more intelligent or are you drunk again?


ellid
Comment posted February 23, 2010 @ 7:09 am

Where'd you steal this one from, old sport?


trashthinker
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 8:33 pm

Philip Berg, Esq. Here's his original post:

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=423

Though it has been cut and pasted by many who are incapable of…various things:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=We+are…


trashthinker
Comment posted February 27, 2010 @ 1:33 am

Philip Berg, Esq. Here's his original post:

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=423

Though it has been cut and pasted by many who are incapable of…various things:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=We+are…


Late Night: See Your Monkey Ass Drop | NEWS Gate
Pingback posted March 4, 2010 @ 1:51 am

[...] episodes of the recent CPAC Cavalcade of Kooky was the nut-to-nut confrontation between World Nut Daily’s Joseph Farah and Big Stupid Screechy Andy Breitbart, specifically over the Obama Birther stuff. That all has become even more fascinating — [...]


Stuck in the Middle With You « Eat My Peashoot
Pingback posted March 7, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

[...] What he left out, however, was that it wasn’t necessarily well received by the attendees (http://washingtonindependent.com/75949/birther-speaker-takes-heat-at-tea-party-convention ).  That elements within the Tea Party, or anywhere else for that matter, continue to push [...]


Montana
Comment posted March 28, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

The Republicans need to get right with God! First the Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. Waterloo defeat refers of course to the defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French and was the culminating battle of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. Republicans get right with God or get ready for future losses and Rush Limbaugh I real hope you enjoy your new home Costa Rica!


ObamaBinLyin
Comment posted March 29, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

Joseph Farah is right to keep the Obama citizenship/birthplace issue in the public's face. Heck, all evidence points to the fact that, not only isn't Obama a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution, but he PROBABLY isn't even a US citizen–according to the research of Jerome Corsi…who finds no evidence that Obama went back through immigration on his return back to the states from Indonesia as a child…and also, the fact that he would've had to still have his INDONESIAN passport in order to have traveled to a country off limits to US citizens (as Obama did in 1980.)


What’s So Moderate About These “Centrists”? | NewsReal Blog
Pingback posted April 2, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

[...] firm adherence to a particular ideology?  Andrew Breitbart wasn’t credited as a centrist for taking on Birtherism earlier this year, and despite my objections to Peter Sprigg’s comments about homosexuality, I don’t think I’m [...]


We all birthers now? According Obama we are… | RedState
Pingback posted April 5, 2010 @ 11:28 am

[...] tea party groupings for ignoring “the most important” . Andrew Breitbart made the disconnect as clear as possible. He was speaking for the majority of the tea party movement when he challenged a birther at the [...]


smartman
Comment posted April 8, 2010 @ 1:54 am

indonesian admitted he is an indonesian, just checked your self on http://www.antara.co.id/berita/1268813841/obama…, ut you had to translate this page alone since this one is written in Indonesian language, but in short this page told you that potus is an Indonesian citizen, to prove this one just take his kk ( kartu keluarga/ family card) in his old school, they also has his birth certificate as well. how to get the kk is written so well by jackchow1 on his comment in the puzo1.blogspot.com on http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/atty-mario-ap…, fight now for your country


Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Birther And WorldNutDaily Founder Joseph Farah To Speak At National Tea Party Convention
Pingback posted May 14, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

[...] Try as they might, the Tea Party groups cannot seem to help associating themselves with the crazies: One of the most awkward moments of the National Tea Party Convention in February came when Andrew Breitbart criticized WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah for spending much of his convention speech on the conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s citizenship — a criticism and confrontation I wrote about at the time. [...]


Jackass Spoof: ON THE GOLF CART (EZ-GO) | The Golf Cart Store
Pingback posted May 21, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

[...] Birther Speaker Takes Heat &#1072t Tea Party Convention [...]


usbphoneworld
Comment posted June 1, 2010 @ 11:24 am

The article is very wonderful. You analyse in the round.
I will go on to attention your other wonderful posts. Thank you.


Don Glenn
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

President Barack Obama has played the Tea Party Birthers for fools. The Clinton campaign sure looked into the birth certificate issue and would have used it if the President's claims were not true. President Obama could show the world a legitimate birth certificate is he wanted to. But why? The birthersran with the issue and failed miserably. Many Republicans are not birthers, but all birthers are Republicans.


Darlene Littlejohn
Comment posted June 11, 2010 @ 4:16 am

You know that for sure?? I mean the “all birthers are Republicans” part.


MrComments
Comment posted June 11, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Not, not all are Republicans. Some are Independents with IQ's under 70.


MrComments
Comment posted June 11, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

Yes, you ALWAYS hold your trump card. The Pentagon is holding the video showing a plane going into the Pentagon so they can make fools of the Truthers who think a missile hit it ….even though dozens of witnesses saw a plane, and that a missile would have had to “zigzag” to knock down the light poles that fell. Similar to Birthers…..they all rely on “blogs” an refuse to acknowledge realty.


Sharron Angle heading to next National Tea Party Convention – Washington Post (blog) | REPUBLICAN.GNOM.ES
Pingback posted June 17, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

[...] speech that spent a lot of time discussing theories about Barack Obama’s birthplace, then got into an argument with fellow speaker Andrew Breitbart about the relative merits of bringing that up. No hard [...]


The Media’s Game of “Let’s Pretend” | The Moderate Voice
Pingback posted June 26, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

[...] Weigel. No blogger better, and more routinely, defied the stereotype of simply opining. Dave traveled. Dave worked the phones. And Dave wrote stories. I have no argument to make about the affection [...]


North Capitol Street » Blog Archive » Best of Weigel: A Look Back
Pingback posted June 28, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

[...] heated conversation between Andrew Breitbart and Joseph Farah over the value of “birtherism.” [...]


Osborne Ink || News that's fairly liberal, but never unbalanced. » Blog Archive » Playboy “Tea Party Confessional” Probably Genuine
Pingback posted June 30, 2010 @ 10:02 am

[...] will be a surprise to the attendees of Nashville’s Tea Party Convention who saw Breitbart arguing with the birthers, who were raucous, loud, and definitely not “loved by Tea Partyers in a way Palin can never [...]


The topic that just won’t go away
Pingback posted July 9, 2010 @ 10:42 am

[...] the first national tea party conference in February 2010 the now discredited Dave Weigel reported a kerfuffle between Joseph Farah and Andrew Breitbart – the latter of whom wouldn’t touch Bam’s birth certificate issue with a ten foot [...]


The Thing About Dave | KPLU
Pingback posted July 15, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

[...] No blogger better, and more routinely, defied the stereotype of simply opining. Dave traveled. Dave worked the phones. And Dave wrote stories. And he isn’t alone. Old schoolers [...]


The Thing About Dave | KPCC
Pingback posted July 15, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

[...] No blogger better, and more routinely, defied the stereotype of simply opining. Dave traveled. Dave worked the phones. And Dave wrote stories. And he isn’t alone. Old schoolers [...]


The Thing About Dave | WNYC
Pingback posted July 15, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

[...] No blogger better, and more routinely, defied the stereotype of simply opining. Dave traveled. Dave worked the phones. And Dave wrote stories. And he isn’t alone. Old schoolers [...]


The Thing About Dave | KALW
Pingback posted July 15, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

[...] No blogger better, and more routinely, defied the stereotype of simply opining. Dave traveled. Dave worked the phones. And Dave wrote stories. And he isn’t alone. Old schoolers [...]


Wangxinjiejimmy
Comment posted August 10, 2010 @ 6:23 am

i agree with you


stock kids shoes
Comment posted August 27, 2010 @ 6:59 am

correct,President Barack Obama has played the Tea Party Birthers for fools?i agree with you.


yiwu
Comment posted September 4, 2010 @ 7:25 am

I have been posting here for long, I did find this post really worth of publishing to another forums and share with other friends, well I do it on your permission,


one dollar artificial flora
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 7:59 am

This is my first time comment at your blog.
Good recommended website.


Yiwu Forest Fair
Comment posted September 27, 2010 @ 3:00 am

The article is very wonderful. You analyse in the round.
I will go on to attention your other wonderful posts. Thank you.


laptop battery
Comment posted October 3, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

Not, not all are Republicans. Some are Independents with IQ's under 70.


Dell Latitude E5400 battery
Comment posted October 6, 2010 @ 3:00 am

so nice post,thanls for sharing.


Third Time’s a Charm? NAACP’s Latest Tea Party Smear - Big Journalism
Pingback posted October 20, 2010 @ 11:15 am

[...] Farah got massive heat for it. But see, conservatives are self-policing whereas far left groups like the NAACP are [...]


Third Time’s a Charm? NAACP’s Latest Tea Party Smear « South Capitol Street
Pingback posted October 20, 2010 @ 11:35 am

[...] Farah got massive heat for it. But see, conservatives are self-policing whereas far left groups like the NAACP are [...]


Radicales, extremistas, y las elecciones de noviembre « Sarah Palin en Español
Pingback posted October 26, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

[...] incluye a ciudadanos que probablemente estarían más cómodos en un psiquiátrico: quienes se niegan a creer que el presidente Obama es ciudadano estadounidense, y por lo tanto legítimo presidente; quienes creen que el 11-S fue un complot del gobierno federal; [...]


Birth of the Birthers « RTV2100 Electronic Media Writing Student Blog
Pingback posted November 20, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

[...] movement, there is a growing opposition to its legitimacy. The Washington Independent posted an article[9] consisting mainly of a transcription of an argument between Joseph Farah and conservative [...]


The Ten Worst Christian Media Hacks, #5-1 | Patrol
Pingback posted December 1, 2010 @ 10:50 am

[...] than Barack Obama. Not that we need their word, but when conservative überhack Andrew Breitbart thinks you’re nuts and Ann Coulter calls you a “fake Christian,” you must be a pretty bad [...]


ABC’s Stephanopoulos Paints Tea Party With Birther Brush
Pingback posted March 19, 2011 @ 3:37 am

[...] from the conservative movement. Take BigGovernment.com publisher Andrew Breitbart, who publically condemned World Net Daily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah’s birther-riddled speech last February; and Red [...]


coach replica handbags
Comment posted March 30, 2011 @ 1:20 am

It’s really a very good article,I learn so much thing from it,thanks.


hermes birkin
Comment posted April 23, 2011 @ 6:45 am

my first time comment at your blog.
Good recommended website.


Ben Dan
Comment posted April 27, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

“Heck, all evidence points to the fact that, not only isn’t Obama a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution, but he PROBABLY isn’t even a US citizen”

You’re either delusional or an outright liar. You nutjobs always whine about the truth. What’s the truth? The truth is whatever YOU want it to be, so proving it otherwise is impossible with you nutjobs.


Oakley sunglasses
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 2:10 am

Ray Ban 2140, Ray Ban 3025 and much more Ray Ban Aviator or Ray Ban Wayfarer styles now ON SALE! Cheap
Ray Ban Sunglasses
is committed to supplying the most famous and exclusive Ray Ban designer sunglasses at discounted prices. Whether you are looking for Ray Ban Aviator sunglasses, Armani
Sunglasses
shades or Classic Ray Ban eye wear,?? Oakley
sunglasses
can bring them to you offering a selection of the bestselling Ray Ban sunglasses on sale, including RB 2140, RB 3025, RB 3343, RB 2143, RB 3342 and other classic Cheap
Oakley sunglasses
Oakley
Sunglasses Sale
aviator and Ray Ban wayfarer models from Ray Ban at prices discounted up to as much as 70% off regular retail prices.


375363778
Comment posted May 24, 2011 @ 2:59 am

every stage. We know that most of the players to conquer tSubaru jerseys clothinghe Mount Etna pink jersey in here. If Contador this continues, it will be hard to beat him. “responsibility is on the shoulders of Contador now has two weeks to go. “He has a good cycling jerseysteam”, Nibali and told Processo Allah 
while ensuring public safety officials and the consulting bmc team clothingteam, the Amgen Tour of California 2011, organizers announced that the current and expected weather conditions allow, on the first stage of the game started at 1:15 in the afternoon Pacific South Lake Tahoe in the original starting line. Race officials will continue to monitor and supervise bicycle jerseys men the process and all other conditions. If it is determined to be shimano cycling shortsunsafe to any continuation of the time, the game will be the collapse of the Califonria Amgen Tour organizers discount cycling bibsannounced this morning that they will be shortened from 191 scott cycling shortskm to about cannondale bike jerseys80 km first stage of the delay of several hours, and pushed to the stage after 1:15 pmcinelli usa on South Lake Tahoe seconds. They match the drivers, the risk of snow in the cold team cervelo clothingnight, under the conditions of security decisions based on the combination. AEG cinelli for saleSports president Andrew Massey company told Cyclingnews the morningsantini cycling jerseys wind chill grams is 10 degrees Fahrenheit, and “too cold, the players participate in the competition.” He santini cyclingalso noted that if the conditions had not improved at noon, the race will start on Monday at Squaw Valley, this csc cyclingis the colnago jerseysbeginning of the two original phases.


Eric S Brown Ian Brown
Trackback posted August 21, 2011 @ 1:48 am

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


Rosetta Stone
Trackback posted August 21, 2011 @ 7:04 am

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……


Senior center
Trackback posted August 21, 2011 @ 9:45 am

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


stock trends
Trackback posted August 21, 2011 @ 10:56 am

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


OPPORTUNITY INCOME AFFILIATE PLAN
Trackback posted August 21, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……


Eric S Brown Parking
Trackback posted August 22, 2011 @ 12:16 am

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……


soviet night vision
Trackback posted August 22, 2011 @ 2:32 am

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


Stephen F Molinari MLM
Trackback posted August 22, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


trade in xbox
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 7:40 am

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……


pc18id
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 11:54 am

Interesting, stay in touch……

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……


Mercosur USA
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 2:41 pm

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……


MMJ Daily Deals
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……


Washington DC Earthquake
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

You should check this out…

[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……


concrete cutter
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

Recommended websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


Degenerative Joint Disease
Trackback posted August 24, 2011 @ 4:33 am

You should check this out…

[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……


unlock iphone
Trackback posted August 24, 2011 @ 7:40 am

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


cell phone spying
Trackback posted August 24, 2011 @ 8:07 am

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……


lose weight quickly
Trackback posted August 24, 2011 @ 11:29 am

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……


Find The Latest Here
Trackback posted August 24, 2011 @ 11:51 am

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


washington dc
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 6:23 am

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


call center consultant
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 6:30 am

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……


Offroad
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 7:24 am

Read was interesting, stay in touch……

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……


Teaching career in Asia
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 7:31 am

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……


Room Rate
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 8:51 am

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……


Aspartalone
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 8:58 am

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……


Hotels
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


buy used cell phones
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 5:16 am

Sources…

[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……


Best Online Auction Sites
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 6:12 am

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


Nationwide Car shipping
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 8:38 am

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……


454 magnum
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 9:16 am

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……


Eric S Brown Parking
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 11:06 am

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……


ipad movie
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 11:22 am

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


Mauritius Villas
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


ipad movies
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 2:22 am

Sources…

[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……


movies for ipad
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 3:18 am

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……


marketing mobile
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 7:23 am

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……


apps for ipad
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 9:03 am

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


fat loss diets
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……


Chase Online Logon
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


Snow Removal Bloomington 47401
Trackback posted August 27, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

Websites we think you should visit…

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……


phili dog grooming
Trackback posted August 28, 2011 @ 4:30 am

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……


bsa optics binoculars
Trackback posted August 29, 2011 @ 9:17 am

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……


kyle leon Somanabolic Muscle Maximizer review
Trackback posted August 30, 2011 @ 6:20 am

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


laptop repair las vegas
Trackback posted August 30, 2011 @ 7:02 am

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


toronto vitamins
Trackback posted August 30, 2011 @ 11:00 am

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……


homepage
Trackback posted August 30, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

scharfe hausfrauen im chat…

[...]echt widerlich diese alten weiber[...]…


Best Laptop 2011
Trackback posted August 31, 2011 @ 9:20 am

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……


Best Laptop Consumer Report
Trackback posted August 31, 2011 @ 11:03 am

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……


rifle scopes
Trackback posted September 1, 2011 @ 5:50 am

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……


Free Bets
Trackback posted September 1, 2011 @ 8:46 am

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……


low cost airline
Trackback posted September 1, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Websites we think you should visit…

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……


Check Out The Latest Articles
Trackback posted September 1, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……


dog grooming philadelphia
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 7:38 am

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……


Eric S Brown Parking
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 7:52 am

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……


carpet sacramento
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 8:36 am

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……


Website Hosting for Musicians
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 9:56 am

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……


uk shopping
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 12:22 pm

Websites we think you should visit…

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……


woman
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……


Property Search
Trackback posted September 2, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……


Shayne S
Comment posted September 3, 2011 @ 1:16 am

Nice post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I’m inspired! Very helpful information specially the last part :) I handle such info much. I used to be looking for this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.


Joann Spradling
Comment posted September 3, 2011 @ 2:41 am

Some times its a pain in the ass to read what people wrote but this internet site is really user genial!


forex trading courses
Trackback posted September 3, 2011 @ 7:37 am

Websites we think you should visit…

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……


Eric S Brown Garage
Trackback posted September 3, 2011 @ 12:23 pm

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……


Marlon Buehler
Comment posted September 3, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

Good website! I truly love how it is simple on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I might be notified when a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your RSS which must do the trick! Have a great day!


quick and easy payday loans
Trackback posted September 4, 2011 @ 1:24 am

[...]Where else can you apply for a loan over the Internet within a matter of a few minutes and get feedback in a day? Nowhere[...]…

Checking out their reviews could point you in the right direction…


rifle scopes
Trackback posted September 5, 2011 @ 6:50 am

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……


investor victoria bc
Trackback posted September 5, 2011 @ 9:14 am

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……


1964416
Comment posted September 5, 2011 @ 9:16 pm

1964416 beers on the wall. sck was here


Cheap Jordan shoes,Nike air max shoes,Supra Shoes,UGG Boots,CL pumps,Polo,Lacoste t-shirts,True Religion Jeans,LV,Coach handbags,brand name sunglasses,NFL,NHL,MLB,NBA Jerseys
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:48 am

Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful information particularly the last part I care for such information much. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. I will keep the attention of your blog. Thank you and good luck.


Cheap Jordan shoes,Nike air max shoes,Supra Shoes,UGG Boots,CL pumps,Polo,Lacoste t-shirts,True Religion Jeans,LV,Coach handbags,brand name sunglasses,NFL,NHL,MLB,NBA Jerseys
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:01 am

Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful info specially the last part I care for such info much. I was seeking this particular info for a very long time. I will keep the attention of your blog. Thank you and have a nice day.


Myles Linkous
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:27 am

Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.


InterSnowboarding.co.uk
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:25 am

It’s hard to find knowledgeable individuals on this matter, however you sound like you recognize what you’re talking about! Thanks


hotels in sutton in ashfield
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:36 am

I and also my friends appeared to be looking through the best advice from the blog while immediately came up with a horrible suspicion I had not expressed respect to the website owner for those tips. These guys happened to be so joyful to read through all of them and have now unquestionably been making the most of those things. Thanks for simply being very accommodating and for making a decision on these kinds of remarkable topics most people are really eager to discover. Our own honest apologies for not expressing appreciation to you sooner.


doubles triples
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 5:11 am

I truly wanted to construct a small remark so as to thank you for these marvelous tactics you are giving out at this site. My long internet search has at the end been compensated with extremely good strategies to go over with my family members. I ‘d believe that we readers actually are unquestionably fortunate to live in a remarkable place with very many awesome people with great things. I feel somewhat lucky to have come across your entire web site and look forward to many more awesome times reading here. Thanks once again for a lot of things.


opticians west midlands
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:52 am

Aw, this was a really nice post. In thought I want to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and precise effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way appear to get something done.


Ultras shop
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:55 am

The best hooligans shop


nantwich solicitors
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 9:37 am

Needed to compose you the very small note so as to say thanks a lot again with your pleasing principles you have shown in this article. This has been certainly wonderfully open-handed of people like you to make unreservedly what exactly a lot of people might have distributed for an ebook to generate some cash for their own end, specifically considering the fact that you could have tried it if you ever desired. The techniques likewise acted to become easy way to fully grasp someone else have similar interest the same as mine to figure out more when considering this issue. I’m certain there are thousands of more enjoyable situations ahead for many who look into your blog post.


bsa rifle scopes
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 9:51 am

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……


tinnitus cure
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:06 am

Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates. I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.


picking up girls
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:09 am

Seo wants a very good search engine optimizer plan. Just one in all these strategies can make an enormous distinction in your websites place and company your website brings you.


Top legit auctions
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:10 am

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……


attract women
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:26 am

Now you may have your new website online and you’re keen to begin making some sales! But, how can you make gross sales if you shouldn’t have high volumes of holiday makers to your website?


tinnitus remedies
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:59 am

I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?


cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

I truly wanted to write a brief message in order to thank you for some of the unique ideas you are giving out at this site. My time-consuming internet research has at the end of the day been compensated with good details to exchange with my great friends. I ‘d express that most of us readers are very much lucky to dwell in a fabulous site with very many awesome people with valuable strategies. I feel very much fortunate to have used the website and look forward to so many more pleasurable times reading here. Thanks again for all the details.


Biotin Hair Regrowth
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

bathroom towels really should be maintained with a good fabric conditioner so that they will last longer::


Meeting Girls
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning extra on this topic. If potential, as you acquire expertise, would you thoughts updating your blog with extra data? This can be very useful for me.


www.thepowertoattract.com
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

My neighbor and I have been just debating this specific subject, he’s usually looking for to show me incorrect. Your view on that is great and exactly how I actually feel. I just now mailed him this web page to indicate him your individual view. After wanting over your web site I book marked and will likely be coming again to learn your new posts!


cheap Moncler Vests Women
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

know all of the compelling means you provide very important


Cheap Mbt Shoes
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as a lot as this one. I mean, I know it was my option to learn, but I truly thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you could possibly repair for those who werent too busy looking for attention.


south yorkshire tyre company
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

I am also writing to let you be aware of of the useful discovery my wife’s child obtained studying your webblog. She figured out too many things, most notably how it is like to possess an excellent coaching style to let many people with ease grasp certain specialized topics. You really did more than our expectations. Many thanks for producing the insightful, trusted, revealing not to mention unique guidance on your topic to Gloria.


Lean Camp
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……


Mesa Locksmith
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……


Lasik Surgeon in Colorado Springs
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

I got what you intend, thank you for posting. Woh I am happy to find this website through google.


Auto repair yorba linda
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

I am thankful that I found this site, just the right information that I was looking for!


Auto Repair Irvine
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

Outstanding information it is without doubt. My father has been looking for this tips.


it consulting orange county
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

I keep listening to the rumor talk about getting free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the best site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i find some?


colored wine glasses
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

Thank you for your whole labor on this website. My aunt loves conducting research and it is easy to see why. We all hear all of the dynamic form you present invaluable secrets by means of this web site and even invigorate participation from other people about this topic and our favorite princess has been understanding a lot of things. Enjoy the remaining portion of the year. You are performing a pretty cool job.


Seo Services Denver
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

This is very interesting, You are an excessively professional blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and stay up for in the hunt for extra of your excellent post. Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks!


compro oro
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Hey there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Firefox. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The design and style look great though! Hope you get the problem solved soon. Many thanks


Mae Stottlar
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what they are talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe you are not more popular because you definitely have the gift.


Racheal Rundle
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

I was very pleased to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.


Christian
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

Very interesting information!Perfect just what I was searching for!


Lourdes Kanahele
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a little analysis on this. And he in fact bought me breakfast because I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic. If possible, as you become expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more details? It is highly helpful for me. Big thumb up for this blog post!


Retta Graff
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Thanks!


Kenisha Swensson
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you should write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers


amateur porn tube
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

Hey there! Nice stuff, please keep us posted when you post once again something like that!


Replica Watches
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

In this awesome design of things you’ll get an A+ with regard to effort and hard work. Exactly where you lost us was first on your specifics. As as the maxim goes, the devil is in the details… And that couldn’t be much more accurate here. Having said that, allow me tell you exactly what did deliver the results. The writing is actually really engaging and this is probably the reason why I am taking an effort in order to opine. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. 2nd, while I can easily see the leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am not really convinced of just how you appear to unite the points which in turn make your conclusion. For now I shall yield to your issue however Replica Aigner Watcheswish in the future you actually connect your facts much better.


Pdf to epub
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

of course like your website but you need to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very troublesome to inform the truth however I’ll surely come again again.


sellgold-online.com
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:03 pm

For the past 9years I have been walking to a refiner to sell our dental gold and I never came out with more than $130. Imagine my surprise when I attemped http://www.sellgold-online.com and they wrote me a money order for $360 for the same amount of gold! That’s triple what the refiner sent me!


j brand
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 1:05 am

Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your site is very cool. I’m impressed by the details that you’ve on this site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the info I already searched all over the place and simply couldn’t come across. What an ideal site.


John Cummuta
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 2:56 am

As soon as I discovered this internet site I went on reddit to share some of the love with them.


notAnnota
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 3:56 am

[url=http://www.timberlandestore.com/timberland-knitted-hats-c-184.html]timberland nellie boots[/url]
[url=http://www.timberlandestore.com/timberland-rolltop-boots-c-67.html]timberland duck boots[/url]
[url=http://www.timberlandestore.com/timberland-custom-waterproof-boots-c-73.html]timberland earthkeepers[/url]


Replica Watches
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 5:07 am

The core of your writing while appearing agreeable at first, did not really settle properly with me personally after some time. Someplace throughout the paragraphs you managed to make me a believer unfortunately only for a short while. I still have got a problem with your leaps in logic and one would do well to help fill in those gaps. In the event you actually can accomplish that, I would undoubtedly be fascinated.


karpacz
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 6:07 am

I simply wanted to say thanks all over again. I do not know what I would’ve carried out without these opinions shared by you about such a topic. It had become a frightful concern in my view, nevertheless coming across a new professional avenue you processed that made me to leap with gladness. I’m just thankful for the information and as well , pray you are aware of an amazing job you were undertaking educating the others via a blog. More than likely you’ve never encountered any of us.


caudalimetro precio
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:04 am

I regard something genuinely interesting about your web site so I saved to my bookmarks .


iphone 4 exchange 2003
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:35 am

I reckon something genuinely special in this internet site.


hiv positive dating
Trackback posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:50 am

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……


Buy twitter followers
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

I truly appreciate this post. I’ve been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day! Thx again!


Cheap Mbt Shoes
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

The next time I read a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I imply, I do know it was my option to read, but I truly thought youd have one thing fascinating to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you possibly can repair in case you werent too busy on the lookout for attention.


Sex toys
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

Its superb as your other posts : D, appreciate it for putting up. “Slump I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.” by Yogi Berra.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.