Powered by TypePad

« How Bad A Beat-Down For Democrats? | Main | Sign Of The Times - Law & Order Cancelled »

May 14, 2010

Comments

pops

The REAL issue here is Obamas complete and utter hypocrisy, he cries for openness and transparency while he hides his family records, including his education records.

He denied his Islamic and Socialist roots, he denied his Communist rearing, he denied his radical entanglements, etc. etc.

Some knew he was a con man long before he was elected, sadly, so many had to find out after her was elected.

If you hired a lying con man, too bad you didn't figure out you would get a lying, con man President.

JM Hanes

boris:

"there's no such definition in the Constitution"

"That sort of structural solution to the controversy, no matter how attractive, is nevertheless a stolen base."

I'm not sure whether or not you're suggesting those two statements are at odds with each other. They don't seem to be to me.


Ignatz:

I certainly understand the intention of avoiding divided loyalties, which is why I oppose dual citizenship across the board. I think the jury will always be out on whether natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents, however, because in this case, the plain language of the Constitution, is not, in fact, plain enough for unequivocal Constitutional rulings.

So far, unfortunately, it appears that virtually no one even has the standing to ride the issue into court, and there's not nearly enough public interest to mount a push for the Constitutional amendment which would be required to settle the question once and for all.

boris

"I think the jury will always be out on whether natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents, however, because in this case, the plain language of the Constitution, is not, in fact, plain enough for unequivocal Constitutional rulings."

This sorta indicates to me that you don't get my point.

Born in the US to natural parent citizens married to each other ... NBC?

If you can answer that question then the cases you can't answer don't have to be resolved in order for the Constitutional requirement to have meaning.

Yes, the requirement is being ignored for the reasons you gave. Instead of holding to NBC, we seem to be fudging "as long as some people are excluded our interpretation is presumed Constitutional".

BR

10:04, I burst out laughing! Wasn't there an ex-Communist, with possible Semitic roots who hid his past, too :) The implications are hilarious! Will he try to take over the world?

JMH, yes, what a good idea to find out when and who changed the dual-allegiance law! Especially in light of Hawaii's ex post facto change on releasing birth records. (Reminds me of Soylent's Bald Man Series.)

I had to restrain myself from tracking Cae last night - what if the source came from a WH computer.

Pagar

"it appears that virtually no one even has the standing to ride the issue into court"

That seems to me to be the biggest farce of the entire fiasco. That no American can be identified as having standing to bring the issue into court. How have we possibly have become a nation where no citizen can ask if the person who was elected has met the required standards to hold the office.

boris

Pagar, the people can enforce the requirement by not electing a candidate who won't provide a complete record of the circumstances of their birth.

If they won't do it then expecting some branch of government to do it for them might be in vain. I think it is fair to say government, the MSM, and the people let one get by this time.

nt3g9vw9gcb2f3

The times article says:

"Health Department workers, who have been inundated with so many requests for the president’s birth records that printouts of the e-mail messages they have received on the topic through March stands some 13 inches high. Each one required a response, and many required consultations with state lawyers.

“It became really, really a burden,” said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for the department, who said that handling the hundreds of requests took up huge amounts of the department’s time as it was trying to respond to an H1N1 flu outbreak."

This sounds like a good reason for Obama to have released his long form birth certificate. Why didn't he?

Threadkiller
"what a good idea to find out when and who changed the dual-allegiance law!"

What dual-allegiance law?

Threadkiller
U.S. Policy


The current citizenship and immigration laws of the United States do not specifically address dual nationality. According to the State Department, “the U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.”216 The State Department notes that problems may arise from

• claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens that may conflict with U.S. law;

• conflicts that arise from a dual national’s allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country;

• dual nationals are required to obey the laws of both countries, which may be in conflict; and

• each country having the right to enforce its laws, particularly when the dual national is in that country.

Further, U.S. Government efforts to assist its dual citizens abroad may be limited. In particular, the country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.217

This is from the Department of Homeland Security. If they know of no law, where else should we look?

gfh

The Legislature was reacting to repeated requests that was costing the DOH time and effort to respond to (in this day of budget shortfalls, layoffs and furloughs). From the DOH point of view there is no issue about Obama being being born in Hawaii (so he is therefore a natural-born citizen). The COLB is satisfactory for everything and nobody has presented clear, reliable and verified evidence that would bring into doubt the authenticity of the source documents at DOH.

It might also be noted that anything that President Obama might request, assuming DOH would honor that request, and release would likely be scans (i.e. PDFs) not originals. Blank documents from that long ago are almost certainly not available and any signature on it would be contemporary not historical. Even if the forms were available, it would be a moot point since the birthers want a copy of the original. Therefore any issue a birther has with the COLB would hardly be definitively (i.e. verifiably) answered by anything that President Obama could release.

Ken Mitchell

BHO was born in Hawaii.. End of story.

We can prove this by resorting to the following indirect negative proof. The ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD who had the most to gain by proving Obama wasn't born in the USA was Hillary Clinton. If anybody in the world had been able to produce proof of Obama's foreign birth, it would have made Hillary president. She was unable to do so.

Therefore, Obama was born in the USA, and is eligible to be President.

BR

It used to be that the U.S. did not recognize dual-citizenship. Part of the naturalization oath for new citizens included giving up all former allegiance to any other potentate, king, govt., etc. I remember the lump in my heart as I had to give up mine. JMH wrote earlier that it's been changed.

BR

Twice in the last 24 hours when I've refreshed here at JOM, a "virus-infected site" notice came up. Anyone else experiencing that?

BR

Hm, Ken, Hillary has come up in my thoughts recently. Just because she didn't use it during the first election, doesn't mean she doesn't have it up her sleeve for the next.

BR

I think the "virus" is coming in through one of the ads. The good guys are immune, of course. Just an interesting oddity, in conjunction with the Cae strategy.

Threadkiller
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

I hereby declare, on oath,
that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Ignatz

I love dorks like gfh and Ken who come in at the end of a conversation and make unsupported and uncited assertions regarding the most useless, simplistic points that were either covered ages ago or are not even being discussed and expect them to be conversation ending and dispositive.

Threadkiller

Forgot the link.

Sorry.

persiflage

I, for one, am far more interested in his various college application papers than his birth certificate. I'd love to see how he himself described his race and citizenship in those applications, and I'd love to find out if he recieved any special consideration in admission, or any financial aid under the guise of being an exotic brown foreigner from Indonesia or Kenya. I would also love to read all his admissions essays.

Threadkiller

"I'd love to see how he himself described his race and citizenship in those applications"

Just go to his website, he described himself as Kenyan. And you don't even have to worry about his birth certificate.

“his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

BR

Amazing, isn't it, TK, how high the standards are for naturalization, people who don't even qualify to become the President of the United States. And yet the current one hides his documentation.

Thank you for posting the oath and link.

Oh, yes, Persiflage, all part and parcel of the mystery, hey:) Greater than Nixon's missing 18 minutes. He resigned as impeachment was looming - for the coverup.

Vinny B.

The difference between Obama bombing people that might have been born on American soil and Bush murdering American citizens abroad is that Obama is doing everything he can to protect the country, while Bush was trying to make sure that Haliburton, Blackwater, and Big Oil were able to raise their stock prices and make big profits for him and Dick Cheney to share in once they were away from office.

Plus, I find it really funny that McCain wasn't born in the United States, yet people made easy excuses for him. Hmmm. Obama is black, and McCain is white. I guess we know why excuses were made for McCain while Obama has to deal with this nonsense every single day.

BR

Ha, Vinny, I guess you haven't heard about Obama, Rahm E, Soros, Strong, Gore, et al's profits from pushing fallacious global warming via the carbon trading markets of Chicago. There's more to the story.

You know, VB, that Gulf Oil spill is Halliburton's fault.

VB suggests that one may be natural born and not worth allowing to vote, let alone vote for.
====================

Doubtful

'Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.'

-- from a unanimous decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, Nov. 2009, Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana, a case that specifically addressed the question of Obama's eligibility

And thank you so very much for playing.

Doubtful, we've already noted that the 'guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark' is probably erroneous and should be re-visited.
=================

Doubtful

LOL, I cite a unanimous court decision and you counter it with "we've already noted"?

When whoever "we" is has a level of authority comparable to the Indiana Court of Appeals, I'm sure you'll be taken a lot more seriously.

And thank *you* so much for playing.

Is Indiana out west with the Indians?

Your glorious celebration of authority is noted, Doubtful. 'We' cite legal reasoning, earlier Supreme Court precedence, and the writing of the founders.
=================

Show me.  That's for Missouri.  Even further out west.

And thanks for showing us that Obama got something out west for his million plus dollars of legal defense. What have we, the taxpayers and voters, of this republic gotten for his million plus? Bupkis, buddy. That's a pretty doubtful scenario you've got running for you.
==========

Doubtful

Cite whatever you like. Make your arguments and claim they're valid. But the law is determined by the courts, and until you get a decision you like, the one you don't like stands -- according to currently prevailing law, Obama is a natural born citizen.

By the way, the appeal of Ankeny to the Indiana Supreme Court has been denied. You're still batting zero.

Doubtful

Cite whatever you like. Make your arguments and claim they're valid. But the law is determined by the courts, and until you get a decision you like, the one you don't like stands -- according to currently prevailing law, Obama is a natural born citizen.

By the way, the appeal of Ankeny to the Indiana Supreme Court has been denied. You're still batting zero.

You are in the category noted above of 'late arrivals'.  Ignorant, and dead on arrival; shot through the traces or the parachute lines.

If you'd bother to read the thread, several commenters have made the point that Wong Kim Ark is poor precedence and that the question of definition of 'natural born citizen' should be re-visited.
================

Doubtful

What's your point? You're entitled to your opinion on what the law should be.

But there's no doubt on what the law is, is there? Do you dispute that "according to currently prevailing law, Obama is a natural born citizen"?

But first, show me the birth certificate.

No, Doubtful, I believe the law about 'Natural Born Citizen' is in the Constitution, and should be defined as the founders meant it to be, which would make Obama ineligible because of his father's citizenship. But I agree that the definition is not solid in law and that it should be determined further.
================

Doubtful

But you didn't answer my question.

Rightly or wrongly, the courts have issued decisions stating what a natural born citizen is. And whether you agree with those decisions or not, that's the law until the courts rule otherwise, isn't it?

That means that according to currently prevailing law -- decisions that have not yet been overturned, like Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny -- Obama is a natural born citizen.

Do you agree or not?

boris

If the court says a tail is a leg ... how many legs does a dog have?

Doubtful

Now you're just being silly. Courts are only authoritative on matters of law, not on mammalian anatomy.

I take it you're avoiding the question because you don't have a good answer.

boris

Apparently you don't either.

Courts can determine the legal meaning of words and do determine medical malpractice cases all the time so answer the question.

Doubtful

Huh? You want me to answer a hypothetical question about what would happen if a court made an imaginary decision that no court ever made? Please, you're not fooling anyone.

I cited decisions that actual courts have made, including the Supreme Court, and you have said that those decisions were made in error. Fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs.

But until the decisions are overturned, they stand. That's the way our legal system works.

So I ask you again:

Do you dispute that "according to currently prevailing law, Obama is a natural born citizen"?

boris

No point in answering your hypothetical (I don't live in Indiana) if you won't answer mine. Besides ... I asked you first.

Doubtful

I don't know who you are, but I certainly asked my question first.

And it was not a hypothetical question, it was entirely factual, unlike yours. Mine concerns actual decisions made by actual courts, decisions which have not been overturned and therefore stand as the law in the United States.

Find someone else who wants to talk about parts of a dog -- in fact, if you change "dog" to "calf," it's close to something that Lincoln said.

But I'm trying to have a serious discussion about the state of U.S. law with regard to natural born citizenship, and I asked a serious question about it.

Would you like to answer it?

boris

You first

OldTimer

Our president seems most irritated at the freedom and liberty afforded the citizens under our Constitution and founding documents, seemingly because, these inherent rights are derived from God.

He doesn't act "natural born", nor does he show an inherent love and respect for the United States of America, as one would who was raised traditionally on American soil. He instead exhibits an attitude of disdain against the country the founders were attempting to prevent, by including a clause in the Constitution to reflect a 'natural born' safeguard. They intended to protect the nation from subversive leadership.

The natural born clause should be celebrated for its intention of protection and further studied for its relevancy. As Sarah would say, "It's common sense!"

In the meantime, the president shouldn't be so secretive about personal documentation (not self-biography's)of his past being made public in the tradition of all American presidents. He disrespects and causes alarm among the citizens he represents, with his avoidance of basic presidential obligations.

MJW

Vinnie B.: Plus, I find it really funny that McCain wasn't born in the United States, yet people made easy excuses for him. Hmmm. Obama is black, and McCain is white. I guess we know why excuses were made for McCain while Obama has to deal with this nonsense every single day.

The Washington Post published a fairly lengthy article seriously considering the issue of McCain's eligibility, and McCain provided a copy of his original hospital birth certificate.

Also, nothing in in the circumstances of McCain's birth suggests divided loyalties: he was born to two American citizens serving the country abroad in the U.S. military. On the other hand, Obama's father was a foreign citizen who wasn't even a permanent resident of the United States. His mother married another foreign citizen, and Obama spent his early childhood living in a foreign nation. Provide another example of a president in non-Colonial times with a similar life story and perhaps I'll consider your accusation that it's all due to racism.


Doubtful: ...from a unanimous decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, Nov. 2009, Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana, a case that specifically addressed the question of Obama's eligibility
. . .
That means that according to currently prevailing law -- decisions that have not yet been overturned, like Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny -- Obama is a natural born citizen.

Though federal courts sometimes cite state court decisions, as they cite law review articles, as persuasive authorities, state decisions are not binding on any federal court, or any court of another state. The law established by Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana prevails only in the Indiana court system.

You should wonder; why don't you?

Stymied at every turn, Doubtful, Ellen, whoever. Why not bring it all in to court, documents and arguments, and settle it with the rule of law. Why the need for the defense, and the stonewalling and the useful idiots, and the secrecy?
==============

Threadkiller

Doubtful,

Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana quotes Minor v. Happersett:

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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana quotes:

Wong which quotes:
Minor v. Happersett:

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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.


But, somehow, where the Supreme Court can’t make a decision and has "doubts", the Indiana court can find true meaning using the same court case that the doubts were referenced. Suspicious.

As to your context:

"When whoever "we" is has a level of authority comparable to the Indiana Court of Appeals, I'm sure you'll be taken a lot more seriously."

Your version of "we" is:

Rightly or wrongly, the courts have issued decisions stating what a natural born citizen is. And whether you agree with those decisions or not, that's the law until the courts rule otherwise, isn't it?

Only Indiana has made any sort of ruling. No other court(including the Supreme Court). Even though their source states:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Vinnie b is worried that McCain gets "easy excuses" and cites Obama’s problem as simple as racism. Sounds like an easy excuse.

And to the earlier defender of Obama who said if it were true, Hilary would have exposed it. Vinnie, would that have made her a racist?

The Dems don't eat their own this way. John Edwards’s indiscretions were true, and reported at election time, so why didn't Hilary dispatch him?

Please show me a SCOTUS case that defines "natural born." All I see here is a reason to boycott Indiana due to local laws.

BR

Thank you, TK.

And as I've said before :), where is the money coming from for this million-dollar coverup?

BR

Hm, if he hasn't paid the million-dollar coverup legal fees with his own hard-earned money, then is he receiving it pro bono like Holder's law firm did for terrorists? Or is the DNC paying for it? Americans have the right and duty to know to whom he is beholden. And another thing, govt officials aren't supposed to receive high-value gifts and if they do, they have to declare it, I believe, on a State Dept. gift list. (The movie, "No Way Out" :)

Granite1

You asked: "seemingly obvious question - why doesn't Obama just request the file and then release it? Surely the most transparent Administration in history has nothing to hide?"

There is a very simple answer. Because Hawaii does not send out copies of the original anymore. It does not send them out to anyone. It has not sent out copies of the original since the Certification of Live Birth became the official birth certificate in 2001 (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html0.


That is what Hawaii send to Obama when he asked for a copy of his birth certificate. It is the only document that Hawaii sends out, so even if Obama were to ask for a copy of the original, Hawaii would not send it. The Certification is the official birth certificate, accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military, and the facts on Obama's--that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961---were twice confirmed by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

Re the definition of Natural Born Citizen. All US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. The only kind of a US citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

The Wall Street Journal put it well when it said: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

Also such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)


Ignatz

After TK factually explains the current state of the law with citations and quotes another stone-headed lefty wades in with an assertion apparently meant to dispose of an argument he doesn't even understand.
What a surprise.

Threadkiller

I am glad Orrin is your legal scholar.

Here he is explaining how Obamacare is unconstitutional:

”ObamaCare is(still) Unconstitutional”

Wait until he puts this much research into "natural born."
When you quote someone, you have to live with all their quotes.

As for Lindsey, you would think an expert on citizenship would not walk away for immigration reform:

”Last week [Obama] had a friend” in Lindsey Graham,” Gutierrez said. “He changed his mind and undermined the whole process. … We cannot allow people like Lindsey Graham to unilaterally ... veto a whole movement for justice and for fairness for immigrations in this country.”

Lindsey either acts unilaterally or he speaks for everyone. Credible.

If you would like to write to them for clarification, here is a question they would not answer for me:

How is an individual, who admits he was born subject to British rule, qualify for President of the United States?

Good luck on a response from your cherry picked experts. However. I wouldn't mind hearing your personal answer.

Threadkiller

Repaired link:

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1148 ">Orrin, ObamaCare unconstitutional link

tdiinva

Just a postscript on dual citizenship and the founders.

The first American President was not George Washington but Martin Van Buren. Until the election of Van Buren every President had been born before the treaty of Paris and therefore retained his status as a British subject. It takes an act of Parliment to strip a British subject of his status. No act such act of Parliment was passed after the formal independence of the former colonies. It is the reason why British Captains felt free to impress American Seaman during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Conscientious Captains would ask each sailor aboard a US vessel where and when he was born. If the answer was the US prior to 1783 he was impressed as he remained a British subject.

Threadkiller

"The first American President was not George Washington"

Do you mean the first non "natural born" American President?

"It takes an act of Parliament to strip a British subject of his status.

Would we reason that since Obama's father was not stripped of his status, he was still able to confer it(British citizenship) to his son?

MJW

Granite1: That is what Hawaii send to Obama when he asked for a copy of his birth certificate. It is the only document that Hawaii sends out, so even if Obama were to ask for a copy of the original, Hawaii would not send it.

Yeah, I'm sure if Obama asked Hawaii to release a copy of his original birth certificate, Hawaiian officials would reply, "Sorry Mr. President, but that's against our policies."

MJW

Also, Hawaiian law allows a person to request a certified copy of any certificate or any part of a certificate:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) 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, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

(Sections 338-16 and 338-17 would not limit Obama's access; 338-18 is the section that restricts access to people with a tangible interest in the records.)

The Certification of Live Birth provided by the heath department omits may parts of the original birth certificate, which must by law be provided upon request.

What is it about 'Show me' that you don't understand?

You just got nuttin' and this ain't goin' away until hoi polloi sees sumpin'.
===============

macphisto

threadkiller = anduril. the formatting, tl/dr postings, and craven style are identical.

Similar humor, though.

Mebbe so but the minds behind the opinions differ.
===================

Threadkiller
"craven style"

Main Entry: cra·ven
Pronunciation: \ˈkrā-vən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English cravant
Date: 13th century
1 archaic : defeated, vanquished
2 : lacking the least bit of courage :
contemptibly fainthearted
synonyms see cowardly

— craven noun
— cra·ven·ly adverb
— cra·ven·ness \-vən-nəs\ noun

Do you mean like:

"sometimes i really wish i'd died when i was 40...i can't see any way things aren't going to go from bad to worse, and stay worse for the rest of my days."


Posted by: macphist

Quoth he wath, the ravin' wroth.

Heh, I think he meant 'raven style'.
====================

Threadkiller

I think if he doesn't want to read my posts he should pick on someone else. Glad you see the humor. :-)

MJW

Threadkiller, When using HTML tags, "Preview" is your friend.

Threadkiller

I admit I am new. What did I blow by not using "preview"?
Thanks in advance.

What is Obama hiding behind the green door?

I suspect you left a tag unclosed, leaving the script in italics on some browsers. You don't have to be a newbie in order to make that mistake, called formally, larwyning.

By the way, I very much appreciate your contributions here. Fresh voices are good to hear, and you did some very heavy lifting on this thread.
==============

Ignatz

Threadkiller,

If you scew up some part of the tag closing, in this case < / i >, the tag stays open, ie the italics stay on.
To fix just post a new comment using any text followed by three tag closings just for good measure (ie < i > italiacto < / i > etc, etc ) and the tag will be closed. You can check if your tags are closed by hitting "preview" before hitting "post"
italiacto?

Threadkiller

< i > italiacto < / i > etc, etc

I like this site!

Ignatz

"Italiacto" may have been copyrighted by Boris. If not he should have. Use at your own risk. :)

bunkerbuster

Why would anyone expect anything about Obama's birth circumstances, or college transcripts or applications to have any bearing on his ability to lead the country?
Wake up wingnuts. Rational people don't care who paid for Obama's education or whether he called himself Kenyan or Swahili or Martian on his birth documents.
What matters is how he served in the Illinois Senate and then in the U.S. Senate and underwent the full scrutiny the national Republican party could muster, and won the support of most American voters. That is well more than enough to judge his leadership qualities.
When you purport that Obama's history or documents are somehow secret, even though he's lived in full public view for decades, you only trumpet the fact that paranoia, not reason, is at the center of your worldview.
If the man's birth circumstances are the biggest stick you can find to hit him with, it's a sign he's outperforming bigtime. If you know it's a weak issue, but pursue it anyway, that raises questions about your motives...

bunkerbuster

If your linchpin evidence that Obama's a socialist is that he hung out with Bill Ayers decades ago or called for violent revolution in his application to Harvard, or got Cs in economics, your case is obviously starved for rationale, let alone evidence. Do you really want to call attention to that by dwelling on absurd hypothetical bureaucratic pecadillos?
Why can't some wingnuts figure out how paranoid birtherism and the Ayers obsession makes them look?

I can see November from my back month.

bb, Obama did not survive full scrutiny; he never got it from the MSM. And now that the degree with which he hid his past is coming to light, his habit of lying is becoming understood and recognized by the people. That is why there is a drumbeat of revolt, and not because there isn't anything better to beat him with. The American people are figuring out that they elected a flim flam man, and they are not happy about it. The only way to get rid of that unhappiness is to change the President.

So change Obama or he'll be changed.
====================

I laugh myself sick over 'linchpin evidence that Obama is a Socialist'.

bb, you should examine why all your 'linchpins' turn out to be strawmen.
=================

BR

Hm, I like that, too, TK!
Will it work on vanishing other things, like < > Troll < / >.

But, seriously, I agree with 10:14. (Sounds like code.
Wish I had time to write a funny poem using this code.)

bunkerbuster

``Obama did not survive full scrutiny; he never got it from the MSM.''

The Republican National Committee spent millions of dollars on opposition research and was apparently unable to uncover any wrongdoings related to Obama's birth certificate or his college career. And whatever they did find was communicated directly to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which then gave it maximum play. These clearly right-of-center media have readers, viewers and listeners numbering in the tens of millions.
To suggest that somehow, magically, Americans were denied a thorough anti-Obama news source is absolutely insane as it flies right past the facts.
You can say those media aren't "mainstream," and I can agree with you, since they're ideologically extreme, but you can't say the American people were not exposed to a thorough, unrestrained investigation and negative assessment of Obama.
The WSJ, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has dismissed "birtherism" as beyond eccentric. That, if nothing else, should at least make you stop and think again.

Archives from this site two years ago include a pretty good discussion.  And the PUM

Please, you've demonstrated your blinkerdom before, but this really takes the cake. Many of the things that are just now reaching the public eye about Obama's suspicious origins and political treachery were known and discussed on the blogosphere. They did not reach the public via the MSM. You can believe otherwise, but you are just fooling yourself.
==================

bb, your a moranic hack.

And the PUMAS have long memories.
================

I can see the tombstone from my back November.

And weaseling past the graveyard.
================

Heebie jeebie EPA.

Besides, I think Bill Clinton just jumpstarted Hillary's campaign; he's called CO2 a plant food. And I'm sure Hillary just loves the nuke fuel deal. See what signing on with that fool has done for her?
================

Threadkiller
Rational people don't care who paid for Obama's education or whether he called himself Kenyan or Swahili or Martian on his birth documents."

So the rational people must not care about Bush's army records. A news anchor cerntainly would not get fired over it.

"The WSJ, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has dismissed "birtherism" as beyond eccentric."

Have you read the article that other people have noted?

I can not find anything in that article that can answer these questions:

1) Should a dual citizen qualify for the POTUS?

2) How does someone, who admits that they were born subject to British rule, qualify for POTUS?

These are not trick questions. But you might have to show your homework. Quoting a friend of a friend of a friend who noted something may not be convincing.

And a question for the "rational" people:

Would no one care if he said he was Russian, North Korean, or Iranian?

hit and run

Rational people don't care who paid for Obama's education or whether he called himself Kenyan or Swahili or Martian on his birth documents.

"he called himself...on his birth documents"

Proof of Obama's unparalleled brilliance.

As a newborn in the hospital,Obama had already achieved a level of literacy such that he completed his own birth documents.

bunkerbuster

Threadkiller: Why would it matter if he were born Russian or Korean or Martian??
He's lived in the United States all his adult life, attended university and law school here, worked here and served in both state and national offices.
Why isn't that more than sufficient to demonstrate his loyalty?
It's only reasonable to question the motives of partisans who, despite the boatload of contrary evidence, continue to challenge Obama's legitimacy. Challenge his policies or persona or leadership ability all you like, but when you challenge his legitimacy on absurd, technical grounds, you have to expect people to question your motives.

Show me.

These grounds are not absurd, and what is wrong with a technical argument? The reason 'birtherism' persists is because Obama is lying about something, perhaps many things. This is not going away simply because you trust beyond your knowledge. Trust foolishly, I might add. You can't see that this is a flim flam man? A dangerously foolish one, too?
================

Threadkiller
Why would it matter if he were born Russian or Korean or Martian??

Arnold (the Austrian) took an oath to this country. Wouldn't that make him more qualified?

Challenge his policies or persona or leadership ability all you like, but when you challenge his legitimacy on absurd, technical grounds, you have to expect people to question your motives.

Pretend you wrote that about Arnold. How would you challenge him on non-"technical grounds"?

Threadkiller

I asked three questions, you poorly answered one.

"Would no one care if he said he was Russian, North Korean, or Iranian?"

You answered with a question.

"Why would it matter if he were born Russian or Korean or Martian??"

By your omission I guess even you would have a problem with an Iranian citizen or a North Korean citizen as POTUS.

MJW

Blockbuster: The Republican National Committee spent millions of dollars on opposition research and was apparently unable to uncover any wrongdoings related to Obama's birth certificate or his college career.

Just how would they obtain these records? Unfortunately, they couldn't find a compliant judge to force the records to be made public, the way Obama's supporters in the press did with his senate opponent's divorce records.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame