July 31, 2009
HuffPo: Silence the Birthers, By Releasing The Long-Form Original
As time goes on, I'm starting to adopt this position myself.
I truly believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. All available evidence points to this, and there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else. But as time goes on, I'm increasingly amazed that not only is the call to release Obama's original birth certificate being sustained, the cry actually seems to be gaining momentum. I believe it was wise for the President to ignore the movement when it started because it simply marginalized the Democrats that created the rumor (yes folks, the story originated and was first propagated by Clinton-supporting blogs), and then various Republicans that jumped on board and then took over the fruitless pursuit. But now the controversy—for reasons I simply cannot fathom—has expanded to alarming proportions. I have to think that it reached—or will soon reach—a state where it becomes more of a problem to ignore those calling to see the document than it is to ignore them. Officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the original, long-form paper birth certificate filled out at the time of President Obama's birth exists. The President can easily ask them to release a copy of the document to the media to be photographed at high resolution, where it can be posted on news web sites and blogs around the word and debated and parsed, ultimately shutting down all but the most fringe elements of the debate, those that still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that Ron Paul would have made a good President. It only takes a phone call. Do this, Mr. President.
The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate. The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it. So what's the problem here? Release the original and let's be done with this madness.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:53 AM | Comments (100) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Look, I think Obama is a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii. What has kept some folks like myself and others interested (as opposed to the kooks who will never be satisfied) is why Obama and the Dems would rather spend tons of money fighting off lawsuits than paying $10 to release the thing. More than likely, it will show his birth at the hospital, but, there will be something embarrassing on it. But, fighting lawsuits does make some folks wonder.
Consider, though: the media and the left clamored for every single document of Bush's. They clamored for every single tiny document relating to McCain's health. And, for his BC. Why should Obama be any different?
Consider, though: the media and the left clamored for every single document of Bush's. They clamored for every single tiny document relating to McCain's health. And, for his BC. Why should Obama be any different?
Posted by: William Teach at July 31, 2009 10:16 AM (7yTel)
2
WT, I couldn't agree more. I'm still waiting for John Kerry to come through on his promise to release his full military file.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 31, 2009 10:35 AM (+LRPE)
3
I think he was probably born in HI, but I'm still not sure whether that makes him a Natural Born Citizen.
His (claimed) father was a Kenyan citizen, not American. As a result, Obama had British and Kenyan citizenship at birth. Is someone born in those circumstances a natural born citizen? I don't know, and I doubt if anyone else does. I don't think it has been legally defined.
He was adopted by an Indonesian father and claimed Indonesian citizenship on a school record. Does that effect his US citizenship status? I don't know. It would be nice for the courts to clarify.
Apparently, he has been a citizen of (at least) 4 countries. Talk about divided loyalties... Exactly the situation the natural born requirement was intended to prevent.
Interpretation of the Constitution is the purview of the courts. Right now, I think there is no foundation for anyone to claim that he is or is not a natural born citizen, although in the absence of proof to the contrary, we have to assume he is.
Releasing the birth certificate would be a start, but the courts really need to answer these other questions too. The courts need to put this to bed. The president can't.
His (claimed) father was a Kenyan citizen, not American. As a result, Obama had British and Kenyan citizenship at birth. Is someone born in those circumstances a natural born citizen? I don't know, and I doubt if anyone else does. I don't think it has been legally defined.
He was adopted by an Indonesian father and claimed Indonesian citizenship on a school record. Does that effect his US citizenship status? I don't know. It would be nice for the courts to clarify.
Apparently, he has been a citizen of (at least) 4 countries. Talk about divided loyalties... Exactly the situation the natural born requirement was intended to prevent.
Interpretation of the Constitution is the purview of the courts. Right now, I think there is no foundation for anyone to claim that he is or is not a natural born citizen, although in the absence of proof to the contrary, we have to assume he is.
Releasing the birth certificate would be a start, but the courts really need to answer these other questions too. The courts need to put this to bed. The president can't.
Posted by: scp at July 31, 2009 10:38 AM (KyDET)
4
Look, The constitution makes it very clear. release the document. What has everyone upset is he is trying to hide something that is tied to a constitutional requirement to hold office. The choice is simple release the document or leave office. You can't have it both ways. Even our president is not above the law! Almost every day he is cramming down changes that threaten the continue existence of this nation and he won't even answer to the people for a requirement to hold office! This is above arrogance!
Posted by: ken at July 31, 2009 11:13 AM (u0FmQ)
5
I'd say he's likely born in HI, however the issue is that other Presidents and candidates have been called on to release personal documents and have done so. Obama however has spent almost $1 million and very likely flexed some political muscle to keep his records sealed. This is what captures the attention and curiosity of the average person.
Combine this with ACORN's voter fraud on behalf of Democrats, suspicious campaign contributions, his associations with unrepentant terrorists & Nazis, unconstitutional acts, the Supreme Court and Congress' abdication of responsibility, attacks on his opponents (Palin) & those that make him look bad (Joe the Plumber), and you've got some very worrisome possibilities.
Combine this with ACORN's voter fraud on behalf of Democrats, suspicious campaign contributions, his associations with unrepentant terrorists & Nazis, unconstitutional acts, the Supreme Court and Congress' abdication of responsibility, attacks on his opponents (Palin) & those that make him look bad (Joe the Plumber), and you've got some very worrisome possibilities.
Posted by: Scott at July 31, 2009 11:19 AM (sQmd1)
6
The same "unbiased" liberals that demanded anything and everything about Bush's documents are now appalled and outraged that ordinary Americans have the gall to question the authenticity of THE GREAT ONE!! Remember not too long ago, the liberal creed was "Due to the seriousness of the charge, we must investigate"???? Remember that liberal circus?? What can be more serious than have a Kenya citizen as President of the United States? I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!
Posted by: Henry at July 31, 2009 11:44 AM (/tsN+)
7
Releasing the birth certificate would go a long way to defusing the situation - "See! The BC says he was born in Hawaii. Therefore he is a citizen."
Then accuse detractors of 'moving goalposts' when they question if he is a Natural Born Citizen.
I do not care.
This is elementary civics - if they taught it in the last twenty years that is
Many knew before / during the primaries that neither McCain nor Obama met the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. McCain addressed the grumblings and Congress formally made their opinion known. Obama kept a low profile and his adoring press obliged.
Too late to do anything about it now.
There is little doubt that one born in the US to (both) citizen parents would be 'natural born', and no one seems to argue (right now) that one born in the US to two alien parents in not. The issue is whether one born in the US to one US citizen parent is 'natural born'.
The real problem is that too many pointy-headed types actually believe this issue falls under the 14th Amendment (186
, search the books for related SCOTUS cases, find one, and use a sledge hammer to force this issue comply with that "precedent". Ta-da!
Remembering American history, it was common for the wife and children to derive citizenship from the husband/father - women rarely would be naturalized they would show their marriage license and husband's BC to prove citizenship. This worked both ways - a US woman would loose her citizenship if she married an immigrant.
So, in historical times, neither of Obama's parents would have been US citizens.
However, that history ended with the 19th Amendment (1920) - to track a woman's right to vote as a right independent from her husband's her citizenship had to be tracked independently as well. By about 1922 women were no longer presumed to derive the same citizenship as the husband. (it wasn't until 1940 that a US woman who lost citizenship by marrying an alien could get it back)
Well, 1940 is not that long ago... just long enough for our grandfathers memories to fade.
Then accuse detractors of 'moving goalposts' when they question if he is a Natural Born Citizen.
I do not care.
This is elementary civics - if they taught it in the last twenty years that is
Many knew before / during the primaries that neither McCain nor Obama met the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. McCain addressed the grumblings and Congress formally made their opinion known. Obama kept a low profile and his adoring press obliged.
Too late to do anything about it now.
There is little doubt that one born in the US to (both) citizen parents would be 'natural born', and no one seems to argue (right now) that one born in the US to two alien parents in not. The issue is whether one born in the US to one US citizen parent is 'natural born'.
The real problem is that too many pointy-headed types actually believe this issue falls under the 14th Amendment (186
, search the books for related SCOTUS cases, find one, and use a sledge hammer to force this issue comply with that "precedent". Ta-da!
Remembering American history, it was common for the wife and children to derive citizenship from the husband/father - women rarely would be naturalized they would show their marriage license and husband's BC to prove citizenship. This worked both ways - a US woman would loose her citizenship if she married an immigrant.
So, in historical times, neither of Obama's parents would have been US citizens.
However, that history ended with the 19th Amendment (1920) - to track a woman's right to vote as a right independent from her husband's her citizenship had to be tracked independently as well. By about 1922 women were no longer presumed to derive the same citizenship as the husband. (it wasn't until 1940 that a US woman who lost citizenship by marrying an alien could get it back)
Well, 1940 is not that long ago... just long enough for our grandfathers memories to fade.
Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 11:57 AM (Gct7d)
8
One thing to add, if he was born in Hawaii, everything I have read, case law, law, court rulings, etc, state that he would be a natural born citizen, regardless of his fathers nationality. All that is necessary is to be born in a US State or approved area, such as most US territories. An exeption would be if one or both of the parents were foreign diplomats.
This is why so many illegals cross the border to have the baby in the US. That child, with 2 foreign parents who are breaking US law, is now a natural born US citizen.
This is why so many illegals cross the border to have the baby in the US. That child, with 2 foreign parents who are breaking US law, is now a natural born US citizen.
Posted by: William Teach at July 31, 2009 11:59 AM (7yTel)
9
Yes, I do believe he was born in Hawaii, but I also believe there is something on that certificate that he does not want shown...perhaps the name of his real father, or perhaps his race is listed as "white".
What I'd like to see are his college records and who paid for his Ivy-league education.
He certainly has a paper trail that he keeps very well hidden. My question is why?
What I'd like to see are his college records and who paid for his Ivy-league education.
He certainly has a paper trail that he keeps very well hidden. My question is why?
Posted by: lulu at July 31, 2009 12:10 PM (8kQ8M)
10
"One thing to add, if he was born in Hawaii, everything I have read, case law, law, court rulings, etc, state that he would be a natural born citizen, regardless of his fathers nationality."
Everything you have read? Really???
This has been going on for over a year now and I have yet to see a single cite which uses the exact phrase "natural born citizen" is anyone born in the US - it does not appear in USC, CFR, or State's FAM.
One would think with all these cite's you have that maybe, just maybe, someone could reference / link it?
Everything you have read? Really???
This has been going on for over a year now and I have yet to see a single cite which uses the exact phrase "natural born citizen" is anyone born in the US - it does not appear in USC, CFR, or State's FAM.
One would think with all these cite's you have that maybe, just maybe, someone could reference / link it?
Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 12:13 PM (Gct7d)
11
Hussein won't release the birth record because he is scared for people to see what's on it.
Just ask yourself this question, Would you be ashamed to release your birth record if you were President?
He and his criminal cronies in the rat party are destroying America with corruption.
Just ask yourself this question, Would you be ashamed to release your birth record if you were President?
He and his criminal cronies in the rat party are destroying America with corruption.
Posted by: John Steinbeck at July 31, 2009 12:19 PM (UdYT0)
12
The only way Obama could be a Natural Born Citizen, as defined by the writers of the US Constitution, is if Barack Obama Sr. is not his father. Then, he might be eligible, based on who is father is, but he would also be guilty of a huge fraud and civilly liable - the book, all those campaign contributions. Pretty ugly for a Prez, no?
If what is on the cert. does not fit the narrative they've created, it would be very embarrassing and an outright fraud could lead to impeachment. They'll spend millions fighting it. But he won't be able to run in 2012 without producing it. Make sure your state is one of the states that passes a bill demanding all Presidential candidates prove eligibility.
If what is on the cert. does not fit the narrative they've created, it would be very embarrassing and an outright fraud could lead to impeachment. They'll spend millions fighting it. But he won't be able to run in 2012 without producing it. Make sure your state is one of the states that passes a bill demanding all Presidential candidates prove eligibility.
Posted by: gopmom at July 31, 2009 12:27 PM (/yb/I)
13
Perhaps, as some have hinted at, it is not the question of his citizenship that is causing Obama to hide his birth certificate.
It may be something as simple as the fact that when asked who the father was his mother said "unknown".
It may be something as simple as the fact that when asked who the father was his mother said "unknown".
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 31, 2009 12:36 PM (HFu6X)
14
I am very happy American soldiers are dying again. Afghanistan is a agood place to bury killers of natives.
Posted by: Antonio at July 31, 2009 12:48 PM (LOuod)
15
Actually, there is another possibility why Barry wouldn't want his BC released.
It sets a precedent.
If you stop and think about it, this whole exercise (withholding personal documents) is a self-inflicted wound. What may have seemed like a good idea early in the game, could turn into a major source of distraction, embarrassment, or worse.
Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.
It's almost like grassroots investigative journalism is taking place. All the dots need to line up. If you get stuck at a dot, start asking questions and making information requests. No answers? Just keep asking. There's more people asking questions now (and probably more on the way), than answering.
The fuel for this fire will always be, "Why do you need to hide records that everybody else has to show? What makes you special?"
As the "Squirm" factor starts to climb, this could become rather humorous.
It sets a precedent.
If you stop and think about it, this whole exercise (withholding personal documents) is a self-inflicted wound. What may have seemed like a good idea early in the game, could turn into a major source of distraction, embarrassment, or worse.
Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.
It's almost like grassroots investigative journalism is taking place. All the dots need to line up. If you get stuck at a dot, start asking questions and making information requests. No answers? Just keep asking. There's more people asking questions now (and probably more on the way), than answering.
The fuel for this fire will always be, "Why do you need to hide records that everybody else has to show? What makes you special?"
As the "Squirm" factor starts to climb, this could become rather humorous.
Posted by: Honda at July 31, 2009 01:07 PM (ladck)
16
I have to say I've never been interested in this controversy. Though, now I have some interest because I saw this article at Redstate:
http://www.redstate.com/neokong/2009/07/24/state-of-hawaii-tells-cnn-oopswe-lost-obamas-original-birth-certificate/
OK, that article suggests that the birth certificate is lost. Doesn't that put the lie to all those folks who've told us they've seen it?
I think birthers need to realize there is not a good ending to this. If BHO wasn't born in HI, then we get Biden (oh joy!) and probably an entire pissed off electorate who are mad at conservatives for pointing out they are dimwits for not listening. No one likes to be proven wrong in public. I'm truly curious about the truth here, but I have no illusions about the damage it would do to find it.
http://www.redstate.com/neokong/2009/07/24/state-of-hawaii-tells-cnn-oopswe-lost-obamas-original-birth-certificate/
OK, that article suggests that the birth certificate is lost. Doesn't that put the lie to all those folks who've told us they've seen it?
I think birthers need to realize there is not a good ending to this. If BHO wasn't born in HI, then we get Biden (oh joy!) and probably an entire pissed off electorate who are mad at conservatives for pointing out they are dimwits for not listening. No one likes to be proven wrong in public. I'm truly curious about the truth here, but I have no illusions about the damage it would do to find it.
Posted by: Carolynp at July 31, 2009 01:34 PM (JTH0U)
17
Antonio has serious self hate issues and is projecting them upon America. It is only a matter of time until he kills himself. Sad but true.
Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2009 01:40 PM (uI1Yn)
18
Birther Movement = BOO HOO
The document our President has produced is the same any of would produce to claim licenses and offices. That birthers require "more" exposes the weakness of the argument.
Because 28% of the country would not believe it if jeebus hisself delivered it to them etched in holy golden tablets.
44 presidents come and go no problem. 45 arrives and it's where are your papers, boy? It's why the GOP enjoys
I suggest you get a Grip. There are much bigger fish to fry. The continuence of illegal Bush-era programs, for example...sending MORE troops to Afghanistan for another...
And you want to choke yourselves on a VALID and LEGAL birth certificate? "Mental Illness" is where this is headed.
The document our President has produced is the same any of would produce to claim licenses and offices. That birthers require "more" exposes the weakness of the argument.
Because 28% of the country would not believe it if jeebus hisself delivered it to them etched in holy golden tablets.
44 presidents come and go no problem. 45 arrives and it's where are your papers, boy? It's why the GOP enjoys
I suggest you get a Grip. There are much bigger fish to fry. The continuence of illegal Bush-era programs, for example...sending MORE troops to Afghanistan for another...
And you want to choke yourselves on a VALID and LEGAL birth certificate? "Mental Illness" is where this is headed.
Posted by: James at July 31, 2009 01:43 PM (gS7nN)
19
Malkin? Was she elected to something recently?
Buzz off.
The point about multiple citizenships is valid, including the questions about what sort of passport made it possible for his travels to Pakistan when it was forbidden to US citizens.
Answer the questions, Barry.
Buzz off.
The point about multiple citizenships is valid, including the questions about what sort of passport made it possible for his travels to Pakistan when it was forbidden to US citizens.
Answer the questions, Barry.
Posted by: Cindi at July 31, 2009 01:58 PM (/8Bs3)
20
Antonio...It is only a matter of time until he kills himself. Sad but true.
You say that as if it is a bad thing, Jeff!
Hopefully, it will be sooner than later and he won't take any innocent bystanders with him.
BTW, Antonio, those 77 virgins are all jewish and they are pissed!
You say that as if it is a bad thing, Jeff!
Hopefully, it will be sooner than later and he won't take any innocent bystanders with him.
BTW, Antonio, those 77 virgins are all jewish and they are pissed!
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 31, 2009 02:00 PM (HFu6X)
21
Why release it? Certainly our state-run media would find a way to get a copy of it if a GOP POTUS had done something this opaque. Same with the Columbia records and Obama's health records.
Barry sure likes to hide information that has been demanded of other candidates. It probably is just Barry's nature to hide inconvenient facts that don't jibe with the narrative, since he is so famously thin-skinned. All the more reason to pay people to get that information and release it regardless of Barry's desires.
Time to start paying hardball with these Dim's. It isn't like they are playing under Queensbury rules--more like knife fight rules.
Why release it? Certainly our state-run media would find a way to get a copy of it if a GOP POTUS had done something this opaque. Same with the Columbia records and Obama's health records.
Barry sure likes to hide information that has been demanded of other candidates. It probably is just Barry's nature to hide inconvenient facts that don't jibe with the narrative, since he is so famously thin-skinned. All the more reason to pay people to get that information and release it regardless of Barry's desires.
Time to start paying hardball with these Dim's. It isn't like they are playing under Queensbury rules--more like knife fight rules.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 02:01 PM (kz131)
22
"All available evidence points to this, and there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else."
Not True! Obama's aunt as well as many others in Kenya insist they were there - in Kenya - when he was born.
"The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it."
The state official says she has seen the original certificate and I don't doubt that. I don't believe she said she saw the original Long Form certificate - the one that you HAD to be born in Hawaii to get. Obama's Kenyan born sister has the same certificate that he's trying to pass off as his birth certificate from 1970.
Not True! Obama's aunt as well as many others in Kenya insist they were there - in Kenya - when he was born.
"The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it."
The state official says she has seen the original certificate and I don't doubt that. I don't believe she said she saw the original Long Form certificate - the one that you HAD to be born in Hawaii to get. Obama's Kenyan born sister has the same certificate that he's trying to pass off as his birth certificate from 1970.
Posted by: eliot at July 31, 2009 02:03 PM (9E7HH)
23
ignore the more profane trolls folks.
I'm slapping the ban hammer on them, and their posts will be gone soon enough.
I'm slapping the ban hammer on them, and their posts will be gone soon enough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 31, 2009 02:11 PM (gAi9Z)
24
"The roastchilds out of 'the city' in london. you are a stupid american."
I assume you mean "Rothschilds" who are of German, not British heritage you liberal 'tard. As is typical of your ilk you can't argue the facts (you don't know them) so dust off the typical "Trilateral Commission" nonsense about the Jewish Bankers who are behind it all. If that's the best distraction you can muster against the fact that Obama has now spent $1,000,000 not to release a $10 document then the liberals better send someone else.
I assume you mean "Rothschilds" who are of German, not British heritage you liberal 'tard. As is typical of your ilk you can't argue the facts (you don't know them) so dust off the typical "Trilateral Commission" nonsense about the Jewish Bankers who are behind it all. If that's the best distraction you can muster against the fact that Obama has now spent $1,000,000 not to release a $10 document then the liberals better send someone else.
Posted by: allen99 at July 31, 2009 02:12 PM (9E7HH)
25
Obama has gone to great lengths to sequester most of his past records. That, in addition to falsehoods in his books indicate Obama is a phony, a manufactured person. The mainstream media has gone out of its way to obscure and lay a blanket over Obama’s past. Yet, we know even the most intimate details of Sarah Palin. Does anyone else see anything odd here?
Obama is a manufactured president. Manufactured by the left, sold to the press and adopted by the Democrat party. Obama has lied about who he was and continues to lie about who he is. He states blatant lies about his legislation. One only has to listen to what he says about the current Health Care Bill to realize that.
More and more American people are seeing they have been sold a bill of false goods. There are many things people should know about who this Hope ‘n Change figurine is besides, with certainty, where he was born. Had the Media been doing its job, we would have had an actual informed and open election in 2008.
Obama is a manufactured president. Manufactured by the left, sold to the press and adopted by the Democrat party. Obama has lied about who he was and continues to lie about who he is. He states blatant lies about his legislation. One only has to listen to what he says about the current Health Care Bill to realize that.
More and more American people are seeing they have been sold a bill of false goods. There are many things people should know about who this Hope ‘n Change figurine is besides, with certainty, where he was born. Had the Media been doing its job, we would have had an actual informed and open election in 2008.
Posted by: GrayRider at July 31, 2009 02:21 PM (VRY/o)
26
I just went through this birther thing in a separate thread. I'm posting in this thread in response to Druid who asked for some links that define "natural born citizen". Here ya go Druid. Sit back and get ready to do some serious reading. I'll warn you, it's quite the task to read through all of this. Enjoy!
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
The link below will take you directly to the SCOTUS ruling, called the opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
This ruling set the precedent, which stands to this day, the conditions that have to be met to be a natural born citizen. Though the Constitution uses the term natural born citizen in describing the qualifications for POTUS, it does not define the term. As another poster mentioned, that has been defined by the Courts.
In summary, NEITHER parent has to be a US citizen in order for their child, born on American soil, to be a natural born citizen.
From the above page you will be able to also view separate links to both the Syllabus and the Dissent of the case.
*******************************************
Unfortunately, I can't find the two cases below on the Cornell Law School's website. So, if you wish to read those cases you'll have labor through the task of reading through The Syllabus, The Opinion and the Dissent of each case. The SCOTUS cases below rely, in part, on the precedence of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in reaching their decisions on these cases, also relevant to this discussion since they ruled that a natural born citizen doesn't lose their citizenship involuntarily.
***********************************************
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
In summary, a minor child does not lose their US citizenship when their parents move themselves and the child to a foreign country.
*********************************************
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/253/
SCOTUS ruled that a US citizen's citizenship, even a naturalized citizen, could not be revoked if the citizen held dual citizenship and voted in an election of a foreign country. This decision overruled a previous SCOTUS, Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (195, ruling that did allow Congress to strip a person of their US citizenship if they had voted in the voted in a foreign election.
In summary, this decision rules that under most circumstances Congress does not the right to strip a person of their US citizenship if they have not voluntarily renounced their citizenship. It eventually led the State Department, begrudgingly, to accept dual and multiple citizenship status of US citizens.
One can, of course, voluntarily renounce their citzenship. One way that they can do so is by taking an oath of citizenship in a foreign nation that requires them to renounce their citizenship in their former country. Another way is to serve in the armed forces of a foreign nation. To the best of my knowledge, President Obama has done neither of those.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
The link below will take you directly to the SCOTUS ruling, called the opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
This ruling set the precedent, which stands to this day, the conditions that have to be met to be a natural born citizen. Though the Constitution uses the term natural born citizen in describing the qualifications for POTUS, it does not define the term. As another poster mentioned, that has been defined by the Courts.
In summary, NEITHER parent has to be a US citizen in order for their child, born on American soil, to be a natural born citizen.
From the above page you will be able to also view separate links to both the Syllabus and the Dissent of the case.
*******************************************
Unfortunately, I can't find the two cases below on the Cornell Law School's website. So, if you wish to read those cases you'll have labor through the task of reading through The Syllabus, The Opinion and the Dissent of each case. The SCOTUS cases below rely, in part, on the precedence of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in reaching their decisions on these cases, also relevant to this discussion since they ruled that a natural born citizen doesn't lose their citizenship involuntarily.
***********************************************
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
In summary, a minor child does not lose their US citizenship when their parents move themselves and the child to a foreign country.
*********************************************
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/253/
SCOTUS ruled that a US citizen's citizenship, even a naturalized citizen, could not be revoked if the citizen held dual citizenship and voted in an election of a foreign country. This decision overruled a previous SCOTUS, Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (195
, ruling that did allow Congress to strip a person of their US citizenship if they had voted in the voted in a foreign election.
In summary, this decision rules that under most circumstances Congress does not the right to strip a person of their US citizenship if they have not voluntarily renounced their citizenship. It eventually led the State Department, begrudgingly, to accept dual and multiple citizenship status of US citizens.
One can, of course, voluntarily renounce their citzenship. One way that they can do so is by taking an oath of citizenship in a foreign nation that requires them to renounce their citizenship in their former country. Another way is to serve in the armed forces of a foreign nation. To the best of my knowledge, President Obama has done neither of those.
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 02:36 PM (byA+E)
27
He certainly has a paper trail that he keeps very well hidden. My question is why?
Most legends won't stand up to very close scrutiny
Most legends won't stand up to very close scrutiny
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2009 02:39 PM (1rv3b)
28
Nothing the man could do will satisfy the haters and complainers. The birthing issue is rooted in race. Some folks just can't accept a mixed race President of brown color.
Where was all this phony 'socialist' outrage during Bush's reign, and the creation of DHS, TSA, and wiretapping powers, and a bamboozling of 9/11?
Phony outrage by the right wing, built on phony or no polices...
Like Gibbs said, anyone can buy a 15 buck website and spout lies...this is a great article today..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher31-2009jul31,0,622151.story
Where was all this phony 'socialist' outrage during Bush's reign, and the creation of DHS, TSA, and wiretapping powers, and a bamboozling of 9/11?
Phony outrage by the right wing, built on phony or no polices...
Like Gibbs said, anyone can buy a 15 buck website and spout lies...this is a great article today..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher31-2009jul31,0,622151.story
Posted by: Jonesy at July 31, 2009 02:41 PM (SGlfy)
29
Jonesy - good typical liberal comments.call people names (isn't this profiling?) and blame it on Bush.. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!! Let's be really honest here and point a finger where it should be pointed!! If George Washington had done his job we would never have come to this situation!!! Washington should have gotten this straight. He had 8 years. What was he doing??
Posted by: Henry at July 31, 2009 03:10 PM (/tsN+)
30
And anyone born in this country SHOULD be able to produce their $10 original birth certificate when asked.
What the Director of Health said in Hawaii was that she's "reviewed Obama's original birth records in accordance with Hawaii's regulations" (meaning electronically) and assures us he was born in Hawaii.
Being born in Hawaii to one US Citizen parent and one foreign national parent does NOT make Obama a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of the law. He CANNOT fall under the influence of any foreign power.
What the Director of Health said in Hawaii was that she's "reviewed Obama's original birth records in accordance with Hawaii's regulations" (meaning electronically) and assures us he was born in Hawaii.
Being born in Hawaii to one US Citizen parent and one foreign national parent does NOT make Obama a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of the law. He CANNOT fall under the influence of any foreign power.
Posted by: rotarymunkey at July 31, 2009 03:19 PM (rmPMB)
31
It's not hard to fathom why the increase. People are getting desperate to throw this bum out of office before he permanently damages this country. They are literally seeing this country disappear before their eyes.
Myself, I am a lukewarm birther. If I was to bet a months paycheck, I would bet Obama was born in Hawaii. Still, there is a level of curiosity. A what if...?
I think the reason he is hiding it is that something else on the certificate would be embarrassing and possibly incendiary, diluting his political capital and railroading his agenda.
Myself, I am a lukewarm birther. If I was to bet a months paycheck, I would bet Obama was born in Hawaii. Still, there is a level of curiosity. A what if...?
I think the reason he is hiding it is that something else on the certificate would be embarrassing and possibly incendiary, diluting his political capital and railroading his agenda.
Posted by: Gerald at July 31, 2009 03:30 PM (z7hh2)
32
Say what you will, if he were a NBC, he'd have put it out there by now and it would be over. What else is there to hide, that his real name isn't B.H.O.?
"Every day he allows this circus to continue is another day that he behaves less like the President of the United States facing weird accusations from fringe groups"
Why they're they weird or fringe I have no clue. If had been released a year ago, the whole issue would have been dead a year ago, but he didn't and so it isn't. What else is there to say?
"Every day he allows this circus to continue is another day that he behaves less like the President of the United States facing weird accusations from fringe groups"
Why they're they weird or fringe I have no clue. If had been released a year ago, the whole issue would have been dead a year ago, but he didn't and so it isn't. What else is there to say?
Posted by: xerocky at July 31, 2009 03:30 PM (kX5hh)
33
Henry, In a sense I do agree with you on one thing: I wish that the founders who wrote and the states that ratified the Constitution had indeed defined the term "natural born citizen"! They should have insisted that it be clear. We all know, of course, they they didn't do that, even though they used the term IN the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment made a huge leap in defining the term. Later, SCOTUS opinions have further refined the definition so that now there is no question in the minds of rational, literate people who can read and understand the SCOTUS rulings on the matter.
Still, there's a lot of misinformation and/or deceit on the part of some people. I think that some of it is willful ignorance and some of it is simply good people who don't understand what it means to be a natural born citizen.
For example, many people mistakenly think that one or both parents of a child born on US soil must be US citizens in order for that child to be a natural born citizen. Those folks will still not accept that Obama is a natural born citizen, even if the so called long form BC is released to the public, because they don't understand the definition of the term.
What do you think is the correct definition of the term "natural born citizen"?
Why do you not believe the Republican Governor and the Hawaii Department of Health's public statements that Obama was born in Hawaii?
If this long form BC is released to the public, showing that he was born on August 4, 1961 in the state of Hawaii, will you then accept that President Obama meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen to be POTUS?
The Fourteenth Amendment made a huge leap in defining the term. Later, SCOTUS opinions have further refined the definition so that now there is no question in the minds of rational, literate people who can read and understand the SCOTUS rulings on the matter.
Still, there's a lot of misinformation and/or deceit on the part of some people. I think that some of it is willful ignorance and some of it is simply good people who don't understand what it means to be a natural born citizen.
For example, many people mistakenly think that one or both parents of a child born on US soil must be US citizens in order for that child to be a natural born citizen. Those folks will still not accept that Obama is a natural born citizen, even if the so called long form BC is released to the public, because they don't understand the definition of the term.
What do you think is the correct definition of the term "natural born citizen"?
Why do you not believe the Republican Governor and the Hawaii Department of Health's public statements that Obama was born in Hawaii?
If this long form BC is released to the public, showing that he was born on August 4, 1961 in the state of Hawaii, will you then accept that President Obama meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen to be POTUS?
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 03:45 PM (byA+E)
34
rotarymunkey, you keep saying that both parents have to be citizens in order for the child to be a natural born citizen, though that is not the truth.
Can you please provide us with some support to your false claim? Can you show to me SCOTUS rulings that support your opinion? Can you provide us with even one piece of legal evidence supports your false statement, thus, proving me to be wrong.
Remember, name calling and slurs don't count.
Can you please provide us with some support to your false claim? Can you show to me SCOTUS rulings that support your opinion? Can you provide us with even one piece of legal evidence supports your false statement, thus, proving me to be wrong.
Remember, name calling and slurs don't count.
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 03:54 PM (byA+E)
35
I think the reason he is hiding it is that something else on the certificate would be embarrassing and possibly incendiary, diluting his political capital and railroading his agenda.
Or it is only humiliating to Barry and is something the rest of us would yawn over. Fervently ideological people of all stripes are almost Talmudic in how they obsess over minor details and examples of ideological purity.
In a way, I suspect it is something meaningless. Which would be even more revealing of Barry's personality (not that much more is needed).
Who knows though. Speculating is fun.
Or it is only humiliating to Barry and is something the rest of us would yawn over. Fervently ideological people of all stripes are almost Talmudic in how they obsess over minor details and examples of ideological purity.
In a way, I suspect it is something meaningless. Which would be even more revealing of Barry's personality (not that much more is needed).
Who knows though. Speculating is fun.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 04:04 PM (kz131)
36
Can you please provide us with some support to your false claim? Can you show to me SCOTUS rulings that support your opinion? Can you provide us with even one piece of legal evidence supports your false statement, thus, proving me to be wrong.
facts? you want facts from a conspiracy nut? You dreamer you.
But at least Barry is keeping this alive by refusing to release the long form, so for that I thank rotarymonkey and others of his tribe....
facts? you want facts from a conspiracy nut? You dreamer you.
But at least Barry is keeping this alive by refusing to release the long form, so for that I thank rotarymonkey and others of his tribe....
Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 04:07 PM (kz131)
37
My guess is that his birth certificate lists his religion as "Islam",or "none", and that is the reason for the reluctance.
Posted by: Booster at July 31, 2009 04:33 PM (wArDi)
38
The whole birth certificate thing is puzzling. Presuming he was born in Hawaii, he has nothing to lose by releasing his birth certificate. On the other hand, the birth certificate issue keeps a lot of people distracted from what's going on in Washington. So there is benefit in withholding it. Still, his refusal to release such basic information undercuts his legitimacy as President and certainly gives lie to his promise of openness.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at July 31, 2009 04:45 PM (jDR2C)
39
Didn't read the comments, so I don't know if this has been pointed out:
Check out the National Review Online for a post from yesterday that tackles this issue.
It focuses on how the refusal to give access to the full document relates to Obama's history of telling lies about his past and/or burying it - in part by refusing to release documents.
It is a long, 4 page post with some good nuggets.
In relation to the birth certificate itself, it suggests that one possible reason he won't grant full access is that it might contain later information about his status and dual citizenship(s) in Kenya and Indonesia.
Check out the National Review Online for a post from yesterday that tackles this issue.
It focuses on how the refusal to give access to the full document relates to Obama's history of telling lies about his past and/or burying it - in part by refusing to release documents.
It is a long, 4 page post with some good nuggets.
In relation to the birth certificate itself, it suggests that one possible reason he won't grant full access is that it might contain later information about his status and dual citizenship(s) in Kenya and Indonesia.
Posted by: usinkorea at July 31, 2009 04:46 PM (5Wbqb)
40
Antonio,
It's best that you wrote that post behind the safety of your own monitor. If you had said this in my presence? Let's just say you would have had two new nostrils culminating into an instantaneous meeting with God that I would have personally arranged for you.
It's best that you wrote that post behind the safety of your own monitor. If you had said this in my presence? Let's just say you would have had two new nostrils culminating into an instantaneous meeting with God that I would have personally arranged for you.
Posted by: Badgerbite at July 31, 2009 05:25 PM (vpbdO)
41
Thanks Dude,
but I was afraid that all you had was Wong Kim Ark (other points regarding citizenship & minors doesn't concern me).
I have seen too many claim that Wong Kim Ark define a citizen under the 14th as being the same as a natural-born citizen.
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"
...
"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Interestingly it cites Dred Scott v. Sandford, but left out this one,
"The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
but I was afraid that all you had was Wong Kim Ark (other points regarding citizenship & minors doesn't concern me).
I have seen too many claim that Wong Kim Ark define a citizen under the 14th as being the same as a natural-born citizen.
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"
...
"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Interestingly it cites Dred Scott v. Sandford, but left out this one,
"The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 05:27 PM (Gct7d)
42
He is NOT natural born. The constitutional definition of "natural born" consists of BOTH parents being US citizens not one.
Posted by: Kevin at July 31, 2009 05:35 PM (1y/IE)
43
One other point to note is the document he posted that he claims is his birth certicate is fake. In the period of time it was originally created they would have listed the father's race as negro, not african.
Posted by: Kevin at July 31, 2009 05:37 PM (1y/IE)
44
What would ironic, no, laugh out loud funny, is if he does finally relent and release the 'long form' and it turns out that 'Dad' was a no-show for the delivery, Mom got P.O.'d, and put down father as "unknown"... Mom and Dad made up real good later and had the BC amended to rename him JR and put Dad on it as the father.
Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 05:47 PM (Gct7d)
45
Uh, Kevin, please provide a link to the version of the Constitution that contains the definition of "natural born citizen." Here is all I can find:
"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."
As for why Obama won't release the original form? He wants the birthers running around with their wild theories. He can use them to discredit all opposition.
"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."
As for why Obama won't release the original form? He wants the birthers running around with their wild theories. He can use them to discredit all opposition.
Posted by: George Bruce at July 31, 2009 06:12 PM (v4XVE)
46
Druid,
Thank you. As you correctly quoted the Wong Kim Ark opinion....."The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution," .........
"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Affirmative, in this ruling, means that a person becomes becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth. That means that they ARE a natural born citizen.
Yes, they did quote Dred Scott in their opinion. They said"
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
The clincher in Wong Kim Ark is the portion of the opinion that reads:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
The portion of Dred Scott that you mentioned, and that was not quoted in Wong Kim Ark, was overruled by the 14th Amendment, as the court later ruled in The Slaughter-House cases (1873):
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States."
The other cases that I mentioned, which you said are of no concern to you, further refine the definition of natural born citizen, building upon the Wong Kim Ark case. In doing so they also address other issues that have been put forth by the birthers, such as the false claim that even if Obama were a natural born citizen he lost his citizenship when he moved out of America as a child.
Wong Kim Ark is all that one needs to establish what it means to be a natural born citizen. As you quoted, the Court stated the question before the court and they answered in the affirmative.
Thank you!
Thank you. As you correctly quoted the Wong Kim Ark opinion....."The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution," .........
"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Affirmative, in this ruling, means that a person becomes becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth. That means that they ARE a natural born citizen.
Yes, they did quote Dred Scott in their opinion. They said"
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
The clincher in Wong Kim Ark is the portion of the opinion that reads:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
The portion of Dred Scott that you mentioned, and that was not quoted in Wong Kim Ark, was overruled by the 14th Amendment, as the court later ruled in The Slaughter-House cases (1873):
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States."
The other cases that I mentioned, which you said are of no concern to you, further refine the definition of natural born citizen, building upon the Wong Kim Ark case. In doing so they also address other issues that have been put forth by the birthers, such as the false claim that even if Obama were a natural born citizen he lost his citizenship when he moved out of America as a child.
Wong Kim Ark is all that one needs to establish what it means to be a natural born citizen. As you quoted, the Court stated the question before the court and they answered in the affirmative.
Thank you!
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 06:38 PM (byA+E)
47
George, I'm afraid that Kevin won't be able to find that version of the Constitution to which he refers.
Kevin, you have to remember that Hawaii in 1961, even though a state already, didn't have the racial baggage that the mainland states had at that time. Hawaii had been a multi-racial US Territory for generations prior to its statehood. It would NOT have been uncommon at all for a black man from Africa, who was in Hawaii, to refer to his race as African. Nor would it have been uncommon for the state officials in Hawaii to list a black man's race as African on a birth certificate, especially if that man was, well, African.
Kevin, you have to remember that Hawaii in 1961, even though a state already, didn't have the racial baggage that the mainland states had at that time. Hawaii had been a multi-racial US Territory for generations prior to its statehood. It would NOT have been uncommon at all for a black man from Africa, who was in Hawaii, to refer to his race as African. Nor would it have been uncommon for the state officials in Hawaii to list a black man's race as African on a birth certificate, especially if that man was, well, African.
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 06:57 PM (byA+E)
48
The constitutional definition of "natural born" consists of BOTH parents being US citizens not one.
Are you at liberty to reveal the gate coordinates of this alternate reality to which you refer?
Are you at liberty to reveal the gate coordinates of this alternate reality to which you refer?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2009 07:16 PM (1rv3b)
49
Again,
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"
The question was not if he becomes a "natural born citizen", nor was that question answered.
Another difficulty:
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
is not the same as
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is a natural born citizen"
I have seen arguments such as this dozens of times before, yet no one seems to be able to find where that is implemented (USC, CFR, FAM, whatever) using the phrase "natural born citizen".
Sorry to have bothered you, just hoping to see a cite which does not rely upon reading more into it than what the words say.
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"
The question was not if he becomes a "natural born citizen", nor was that question answered.
Another difficulty:
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
is not the same as
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is a natural born citizen"
I have seen arguments such as this dozens of times before, yet no one seems to be able to find where that is implemented (USC, CFR, FAM, whatever) using the phrase "natural born citizen".
Sorry to have bothered you, just hoping to see a cite which does not rely upon reading more into it than what the words say.
Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 08:51 PM (Gct7d)
50
dude, seriously, you must be anticipating the Oba-messiah going in front of the Supreme Court to defend his "presidency" or you wouldn't be risking all this carpal tunnel damage to yourself.
Its quite laughable really.
...here, read some more interesting tid-bits about your fraters & soeurs on the left-wing:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/07/dems-cant-unring-birther-bell.html
Also, here is another juicy poll on American's perception of the Oba-messiah.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2009/48_say_obama_is_very_liberal
...none of it bodes well for your cause, but hey, you make a living off of all this excitement & I JUST LOVE having Huff Post ON MY SIDE for once.
...cheers & drink up bud, better get used to being a dud....HAH! gotcha! .
..oh lighten up dude...
..."Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest". ~Shakespeare~
cheers & good nite.
Its quite laughable really.
...here, read some more interesting tid-bits about your fraters & soeurs on the left-wing:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/07/dems-cant-unring-birther-bell.html
Also, here is another juicy poll on American's perception of the Oba-messiah.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2009/48_say_obama_is_very_liberal
...none of it bodes well for your cause, but hey, you make a living off of all this excitement & I JUST LOVE having Huff Post ON MY SIDE for once.
...cheers & drink up bud, better get used to being a dud....HAH! gotcha! .
..oh lighten up dude...
..."Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest". ~Shakespeare~
cheers & good nite.
Posted by: lu-ee at July 31, 2009 11:15 PM (a8drf)
51
Druid,
No bother at all. I find this to be a very interesting topic.
I do understand where you're coming from on this. I think we that we need to refine the question.
Are we seeking to define what we, as individuals, think that the legal definition of natural born citizen SHOULD be or, are we seeking to define the legal definition of natural born citizen? Those are two entirely different questions.
So, we still don't have, to my knowledge, a definition that would satisfy you and many others. No offense intended at all.
I'm satisfied that the phrase: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."......infers that the child born to an alien, if born in the country, IS a natural born citizen. To me the words "is as much a citizen" means "the same as".
In reality, what I think or what you think has no legal standing. So, that leaves us to rely on the SCOTUS rulings, how they have been applied over the years and how other rulings build on precedent. That's exactly what our whole legal system does.
Legally, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two types of US citizenship: natural born citizen (some people refer to this as native citizen) and naturalized citizen. Those are the only types of citizens that I know of.
I don't know of a single case of an American born citizen having to go through a naturalization process, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Do you?
All of the court's rulings since Wong Kim Ark, in regards to citizenship, to my knowledge, have supported the view that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen at birth, even though the rulings don't use that very term.
The only other suggestion that I have for people who aren't satisfied with this explanation is for them to hire the services of a competent immigration attorney, pay for an hour of their time and get a legal opinion from a professional in that area of the law.
Best Wishes,
No bother at all. I find this to be a very interesting topic.
I do understand where you're coming from on this. I think we that we need to refine the question.
Are we seeking to define what we, as individuals, think that the legal definition of natural born citizen SHOULD be or, are we seeking to define the legal definition of natural born citizen? Those are two entirely different questions.
So, we still don't have, to my knowledge, a definition that would satisfy you and many others. No offense intended at all.
I'm satisfied that the phrase: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."......infers that the child born to an alien, if born in the country, IS a natural born citizen. To me the words "is as much a citizen" means "the same as".
In reality, what I think or what you think has no legal standing. So, that leaves us to rely on the SCOTUS rulings, how they have been applied over the years and how other rulings build on precedent. That's exactly what our whole legal system does.
Legally, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two types of US citizenship: natural born citizen (some people refer to this as native citizen) and naturalized citizen. Those are the only types of citizens that I know of.
I don't know of a single case of an American born citizen having to go through a naturalization process, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Do you?
All of the court's rulings since Wong Kim Ark, in regards to citizenship, to my knowledge, have supported the view that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen at birth, even though the rulings don't use that very term.
The only other suggestion that I have for people who aren't satisfied with this explanation is for them to hire the services of a competent immigration attorney, pay for an hour of their time and get a legal opinion from a professional in that area of the law.
Best Wishes,
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 11:25 PM (byA+E)
52
Suborned in the U.S.A.
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
Posted by: Georeg at August 01, 2009 12:11 AM (WA19M)
53
Even if he did release his long form BC. The other issues about virtually all of his past he has sealed to prevent access is not gonna go away.
Then there is the bigger issue of his stolen Social Security numbers. In particular the one he used while at Harvard that belonged to a CT man who would be 119 years old now..
Then there is the bigger issue of his stolen Social Security numbers. In particular the one he used while at Harvard that belonged to a CT man who would be 119 years old now..
Posted by: expatMD at August 01, 2009 12:19 AM (+O7wD)
54
OK I say he was born in Hawaii end of story. On the other hand he protesteth too much and has spent oodles of money. Why?
I'll venture there will be some clue on the long form that could reveal that the Kenyan is not his real father. Gee his half brother lives in a hut and his auntie lives in public housing a nearly got deported. So much for family love.
I think a good case has been made at the American Thinker that his books were extensively ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Since his grandparents were Communists and his associates Obama has tried to distance himself from are Communists and/or leftist, his stand in father, Frank Marshall Davis, could very well be his real father. Both the Kenyan and Davis were hanging around Obama's mother. It could be a matter of convenience that the Kenyan was named as the father instead of Davis who would have been very problematic.
As I said from the very beginning we may have just elected a Manchurian Candidate. I'm disgusted with the MSM for not ferreting this out. I know more about Joe the Plummer and Sara Palin than I do about Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry:-)
I'll venture there will be some clue on the long form that could reveal that the Kenyan is not his real father. Gee his half brother lives in a hut and his auntie lives in public housing a nearly got deported. So much for family love.
I think a good case has been made at the American Thinker that his books were extensively ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Since his grandparents were Communists and his associates Obama has tried to distance himself from are Communists and/or leftist, his stand in father, Frank Marshall Davis, could very well be his real father. Both the Kenyan and Davis were hanging around Obama's mother. It could be a matter of convenience that the Kenyan was named as the father instead of Davis who would have been very problematic.
As I said from the very beginning we may have just elected a Manchurian Candidate. I'm disgusted with the MSM for not ferreting this out. I know more about Joe the Plummer and Sara Palin than I do about Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry:-)
Posted by: rocketsbrain at August 01, 2009 01:59 AM (uOIVv)
55
He's never going to release the birth certificate. It costs him nothing and serves as a useful distraction.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at August 01, 2009 07:28 AM (R7LgM)
56
Andy McCarthy has an interesting article in which he notes that Barry/Barack constantly lies about the little things. Is he Muslim? Did he meddle in Kenyan politics for a Marxist? Did he have an Indonesian passport? What is his middle name? Where did he meet Michelle? Where did he work just out of college?
Ultimately, the long form birth record is just another piece of Barry's pathological need to deceive. And Barry needs ALL of those lies to remain hidden; otherwise once the edifice starts to crack who knows what will come out. At the very least, general repugnance toward a man that cannot be trusted to even speak honestly about his own life.
Marvelously entertaining article, well worth reading.
Ultimately, the long form birth record is just another piece of Barry's pathological need to deceive. And Barry needs ALL of those lies to remain hidden; otherwise once the edifice starts to crack who knows what will come out. At the very least, general repugnance toward a man that cannot be trusted to even speak honestly about his own life.
Marvelously entertaining article, well worth reading.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 01, 2009 12:12 PM (BK/bU)
57
It isn't only Obama's birth information that is open to question. Note that documention not yet available for Obama includes: His kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. Where, oh where is that honesty and "transparency" Obama is so fond of demanding from everyone else?
Posted by: Kathy at August 01, 2009 01:58 PM (GgxCk)
58
iconoclast: You're right. That was a very good article. I hardly ever read the National Review. I'm glad that I followed your recommendation. Thanks for sharing.
Kathy: His baptismal record is no one's business. However, if you search on Fox news you should be able to find something. I remember that they reported extensively on that topic during the campaign.
As for all of the other information about President Obama that you state is open to question, could you please provide this forum with all of the records from your private, personal and professional life? Thank you.
Kathy: His baptismal record is no one's business. However, if you search on Fox news you should be able to find something. I remember that they reported extensively on that topic during the campaign.
As for all of the other information about President Obama that you state is open to question, could you please provide this forum with all of the records from your private, personal and professional life? Thank you.
Posted by: Dude at August 01, 2009 06:36 PM (byA+E)
59
Dude
Kathy isn't running for President. If she were, then it would seem odd that those records were hidden.
It is just too weird that Obama is such a cipher. Deplorable that the media allowed it too.
Kathy isn't running for President. If she were, then it would seem odd that those records were hidden.
It is just too weird that Obama is such a cipher. Deplorable that the media allowed it too.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 01, 2009 07:44 PM (BK/bU)
60
Iconoclast,
Here's one that you might find interesting. It was written in 1990, shortly after Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
It too is an interesting read.
I can see where people would have a legitimate interest in his citizenship status. That's fair. In fact, in my opinion, we have a right to know that because it IS a constitutional requirement. That issue has been addressed to the satisfaction to all but a fringe minority.
It also wouldn't be unfair of the American people to ask if his health is sound. A simple statement from a doctor affirming that he is in good health should suffice.
His religion, his passport, his adoption records, (if any) and his scholastic records from kindergarten through all of his college years are not public record. Neither are mine, yours nor any public servant. While it's natural for people to be curious about those records, he has no responsibility to disclose them, even though he's the President of the United States.
As for the public records of his public service years, that information should be available to anyone who's curious and determined enough to pursue it. It's public record.
Dude
Here's one that you might find interesting. It was written in 1990, shortly after Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
It too is an interesting read.
I can see where people would have a legitimate interest in his citizenship status. That's fair. In fact, in my opinion, we have a right to know that because it IS a constitutional requirement. That issue has been addressed to the satisfaction to all but a fringe minority.
It also wouldn't be unfair of the American people to ask if his health is sound. A simple statement from a doctor affirming that he is in good health should suffice.
His religion, his passport, his adoption records, (if any) and his scholastic records from kindergarten through all of his college years are not public record. Neither are mine, yours nor any public servant. While it's natural for people to be curious about those records, he has no responsibility to disclose them, even though he's the President of the United States.
As for the public records of his public service years, that information should be available to anyone who's curious and determined enough to pursue it. It's public record.
Dude
Posted by: Dude at August 01, 2009 10:55 PM (byA+E)
61
Frank Warner has a good poll question for "non-birthers."
Do you believe Obama has released his original 1961 birth certificate?
frankwarner.typepad.com
Do you believe Obama has released his original 1961 birth certificate?
frankwarner.typepad.com
Posted by: George at August 02, 2009 12:48 AM (WA19M)
62
His religion, his passport, his adoption records, (if any) and his scholastic records from kindergarten through all of his college years are not public record. Neither are mine, yours nor any public servant.
It has been quite common, though perhaps regrettable, for presidential candidates to release this sort of documentation to inquiring reporters. When they do not, institutional moles will often do it for them (as was done with the college transcripts of Mr. Kerry, Mr. Gore, and the younger Mr. Bush). Given that Mr. Bush felt compelled to obtain and make public microfiche images of his National Guard pay stubs, the free ride others have been given is somewhat...instructive. BTW, your religion is a public affiliation and indicative to some degree of your understanding of and approach to the world. Questions are perfectly appropriate.
Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.
I had not thought of that, but that is the only explanation of his behavior in this regard that makes much sense. The information on the long form certificate is quite banal and it is difficult to imagine what there might be anything embarrassing there. If his name is 'Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.' (as listed in the newspaper and implicitly confirmed by Hawaii officials) it seems unlikely that there would be any other name but Barack, Sr. in the field on paternity, even if Ann Dunham were genuinely unsure of the father's identity. If the recording standards at Kapiolani Medical Center (or was it Queens Hospital?) were the same as where I once worked, any uncertainty with regard to paternity would have been reflected in a disjunction between the face sheet recording the baby's admission to the hospital at birth (on the one hand) and copies in the file of the certificate or of forms from which the certificate was derived (on the other), not on the certificate itself.
It has been quite common, though perhaps regrettable, for presidential candidates to release this sort of documentation to inquiring reporters. When they do not, institutional moles will often do it for them (as was done with the college transcripts of Mr. Kerry, Mr. Gore, and the younger Mr. Bush). Given that Mr. Bush felt compelled to obtain and make public microfiche images of his National Guard pay stubs, the free ride others have been given is somewhat...instructive. BTW, your religion is a public affiliation and indicative to some degree of your understanding of and approach to the world. Questions are perfectly appropriate.
Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.
I had not thought of that, but that is the only explanation of his behavior in this regard that makes much sense. The information on the long form certificate is quite banal and it is difficult to imagine what there might be anything embarrassing there. If his name is 'Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.' (as listed in the newspaper and implicitly confirmed by Hawaii officials) it seems unlikely that there would be any other name but Barack, Sr. in the field on paternity, even if Ann Dunham were genuinely unsure of the father's identity. If the recording standards at Kapiolani Medical Center (or was it Queens Hospital?) were the same as where I once worked, any uncertainty with regard to paternity would have been reflected in a disjunction between the face sheet recording the baby's admission to the hospital at birth (on the one hand) and copies in the file of the certificate or of forms from which the certificate was derived (on the other), not on the certificate itself.
Posted by: Art Deco at August 02, 2009 03:02 PM (lCK/O)
63
There has been another birth certificate surface. They are going to submit it to court I think next week. I'm hoping that it is not another forgery.
Here is the Link:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105764
Papa Ray
West Texas
Here is the Link:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105764
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at August 02, 2009 04:44 PM (JpVJn)
64
Dude,
While I would be happy to spend a few bucks more on an immigration attorney, already been there which is why I call out the lack of references in USC, CFR, and FAM. Any other significant court cases where critical terminology used in the Constitution fails to appear in a single law, code, or regulation? (rhetorical)
Folks state that Ark calls out two types of citizenship, "born" (not 'natural') and "naturalized", and provides several examples of "naturalized" - including (if I recollect correct) those derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty. Again, oddly, citizenship derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty do not always require active efforts of an individual at "naturalization", just documentation that one meets the criteria of government dictate, not unlike those "born".
Being "native born" establishes ties to the land, historically (2000 years+, your geographic preference may vary), and is the premise behind the 14th A, but is also implicit in citizenship from acts of sovereignty, which SCOTUS in Ark says is "naturalized" - so as I try to map the logic in Ark, SCOTUS is busted - unless all that commentary is just that, and the decision is simply that
EVEN a chinaman is a citizen under the 14th A as the plain language of the 14th A says
and all the rest is hot air.
NONETHELESS, had Obama gone through the mill as McCain did, and got some resolution (ya or nay) through the Legislature, I am sure they would have said, like McCain, Yes. Because, well, this has only come up a couple of score times in US history, at most ...
The issue is whether by "natural born citizen" it did not mean to exclude one that is born in the US to non-citizen parents, maintains several citizenship of other states, hostile to the US (even at war), spends all years outside the US proper, and returns to the US to run for President with foreign interest financing the effort?
Obama is not even close to that scenario, just the predominant opinion supports that this was the Founders intent -
and while I understand a legal perspective, convenient at times, that it is not the intent, but, just my opinion, the words used that matter, an interpretation which leaves the words meaningless or incomprehensible with regard to purpose is probably not rational
- should the definition of 'natural born citizen' for President (and VP) be tightened up a bit, or is that the MAXIMUM requirement that can be required under the Constitution?
While I would be happy to spend a few bucks more on an immigration attorney, already been there which is why I call out the lack of references in USC, CFR, and FAM. Any other significant court cases where critical terminology used in the Constitution fails to appear in a single law, code, or regulation? (rhetorical)
Folks state that Ark calls out two types of citizenship, "born" (not 'natural') and "naturalized", and provides several examples of "naturalized" - including (if I recollect correct) those derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty. Again, oddly, citizenship derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty do not always require active efforts of an individual at "naturalization", just documentation that one meets the criteria of government dictate, not unlike those "born".
Being "native born" establishes ties to the land, historically (2000 years+, your geographic preference may vary), and is the premise behind the 14th A, but is also implicit in citizenship from acts of sovereignty, which SCOTUS in Ark says is "naturalized" - so as I try to map the logic in Ark, SCOTUS is busted - unless all that commentary is just that, and the decision is simply that
EVEN a chinaman is a citizen under the 14th A as the plain language of the 14th A says
and all the rest is hot air.
NONETHELESS, had Obama gone through the mill as McCain did, and got some resolution (ya or nay) through the Legislature, I am sure they would have said, like McCain, Yes. Because, well, this has only come up a couple of score times in US history, at most ...
The issue is whether by "natural born citizen" it did not mean to exclude one that is born in the US to non-citizen parents, maintains several citizenship of other states, hostile to the US (even at war), spends all years outside the US proper, and returns to the US to run for President with foreign interest financing the effort?
Obama is not even close to that scenario, just the predominant opinion supports that this was the Founders intent -
and while I understand a legal perspective, convenient at times, that it is not the intent, but, just my opinion, the words used that matter, an interpretation which leaves the words meaningless or incomprehensible with regard to purpose is probably not rational
- should the definition of 'natural born citizen' for President (and VP) be tightened up a bit, or is that the MAXIMUM requirement that can be required under the Constitution?
Posted by: Druid at August 02, 2009 10:00 PM (Gct7d)
65
Druid,
In short, I wish that the definition of "natural born citizen" would indeed be made absolutely clear enough that even the most uneducated and most uniformed people would have no doubt of the definition.
Regardless of what we think about a SCOTUS decision, agree with it or disagree with it, it IS the law of the land unless and until a future court overrules a decision or a Constitutional Amendment overrules it.
There are several SCOTUS decisions that I personally disagree with and, like you, believe that they are hot air. Nevertheles, under our system, their decisions are the Law of the Land.
I know of no case that has overturned Ark's legally accepted definition of natural born citizen. As mentioned in earlier posts, later rulings have even further refined and enhanced the Ark Opinion.
As I see it there are only two possible avenues to achieve this "perfectly clear" definition that you and I both seek (not that we seek the same definition, rather, that it be perfectly clear).
One would be a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining the term. The other would be yet another SCOTUS decision that even more clearly than Ark defines the term.
My preference would be a Constitutional Amendment. However, I consider that to be highly unlikely.
In short, I wish that the definition of "natural born citizen" would indeed be made absolutely clear enough that even the most uneducated and most uniformed people would have no doubt of the definition.
Regardless of what we think about a SCOTUS decision, agree with it or disagree with it, it IS the law of the land unless and until a future court overrules a decision or a Constitutional Amendment overrules it.
There are several SCOTUS decisions that I personally disagree with and, like you, believe that they are hot air. Nevertheles, under our system, their decisions are the Law of the Land.
I know of no case that has overturned Ark's legally accepted definition of natural born citizen. As mentioned in earlier posts, later rulings have even further refined and enhanced the Ark Opinion.
As I see it there are only two possible avenues to achieve this "perfectly clear" definition that you and I both seek (not that we seek the same definition, rather, that it be perfectly clear).
One would be a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining the term. The other would be yet another SCOTUS decision that even more clearly than Ark defines the term.
My preference would be a Constitutional Amendment. However, I consider that to be highly unlikely.
Posted by: Dude at August 02, 2009 11:56 PM (byA+E)
66
If I may.
Posit, for a moment, what happens if the Birthers are proven correct, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barak Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya.
Ok, what's next? Only the Senate can remove him from office (for a disability to serve, not being a native-born citizen). Takes a two-thirds vote, that is, 67 votes.
Anyone see 27 Democrats willing to vote to remove him from office? Of course, that assumes Susan Collins, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, among others, vote to do so.
And were such lightning to strike, than what?
Joe Biden gets a promotion.
That's an improvement?
Posit, for a moment, what happens if the Birthers are proven correct, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barak Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya.
Ok, what's next? Only the Senate can remove him from office (for a disability to serve, not being a native-born citizen). Takes a two-thirds vote, that is, 67 votes.
Anyone see 27 Democrats willing to vote to remove him from office? Of course, that assumes Susan Collins, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, among others, vote to do so.
And were such lightning to strike, than what?
Joe Biden gets a promotion.
That's an improvement?
Posted by: Wil Golden at August 03, 2009 09:30 AM (6abDK)
67
Good question, Wil. I'm not sure how it would play out if it were proven that Obama was born in Kenya.
We know for a fact that if he was born in Hawaii that he meets the qualification for "natural born citizen". It's also possible that he may meet the qualification even if her were proven to be born in Kenya by virtue of his mother's American citizenship. I don't know that for a fact. There's lots of research yet to be done for me to comment one way or the other on that issue.
You ask a very good question! How WOULD it play it out. You make a very good point about the Congressional 2/3 majority. I don't see that happening even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a natural born citizen, though morally and legally it should.
Two possible scenarios that I can think of:
1. He resigns
2. A suit is filed that makes it way to the Supreme Court and they settle the issue.
I, of course, believe that he was born in Hawaii and therefore is a natural born citizen of the United States.
We know for a fact that if he was born in Hawaii that he meets the qualification for "natural born citizen". It's also possible that he may meet the qualification even if her were proven to be born in Kenya by virtue of his mother's American citizenship. I don't know that for a fact. There's lots of research yet to be done for me to comment one way or the other on that issue.
You ask a very good question! How WOULD it play it out. You make a very good point about the Congressional 2/3 majority. I don't see that happening even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a natural born citizen, though morally and legally it should.
Two possible scenarios that I can think of:
1. He resigns
2. A suit is filed that makes it way to the Supreme Court and they settle the issue.
I, of course, believe that he was born in Hawaii and therefore is a natural born citizen of the United States.
Posted by: Dude at August 03, 2009 10:51 PM (byA+E)
68
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I've made a practice of reading detailed articles on the Moon Landing, 9-11, U.S.S. Liberty, etc. I even have books from Daniel Pipes on the nature of conspiracy theories and their origin.
Now, a conspiracy theory thrive on people with a conspiracy mentality. When a conspiracy theory spreads beyond the usual suspects, then you have something else. The birthers are different - it is not some kind of grand plot, it's more akin to seizing on an inconsistency.
Obama is most likely eligible for president. If that is the case, why hasn't he released a simple document?
1 - The LFBC is embarrassing to him. This would have to be pretty bad to justify the money.
2 - The LFBC matter is something Obama won't release on a mater of principle. It is not right to question the One and all that. This could also be a Saddam issue: he can't allow this shame to come upon him, so he denies the critics to preserve his honor regardless of cost.
3 - The LFBC is a distraction or trap he's using to catch the Birthers with. Alinsky rides again.
Now, a conspiracy theory thrive on people with a conspiracy mentality. When a conspiracy theory spreads beyond the usual suspects, then you have something else. The birthers are different - it is not some kind of grand plot, it's more akin to seizing on an inconsistency.
Obama is most likely eligible for president. If that is the case, why hasn't he released a simple document?
1 - The LFBC is embarrassing to him. This would have to be pretty bad to justify the money.
2 - The LFBC matter is something Obama won't release on a mater of principle. It is not right to question the One and all that. This could also be a Saddam issue: he can't allow this shame to come upon him, so he denies the critics to preserve his honor regardless of cost.
3 - The LFBC is a distraction or trap he's using to catch the Birthers with. Alinsky rides again.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at August 06, 2009 03:36 AM (U/ACJ)
July 30, 2009
I Kill You!
Rusty notes that they've found the Facebook page of one of the Tarheel terrorist-wannabes from Willow Springs. He has the pictures, but I have the video.
Follow along until the end... you'll get a bonus North Carolina tie in, the payoff for martyrdom that perhaps Danial Boyd was really hoping for.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The video is priceless. Thanks... I needed a good laugh today.
Posted by: Kathy at July 30, 2009 03:38 PM (GgxCk)
So That's The Five Hole...Hockey Reporter Arrested, Suspended For Running Prostitution Ring
He also covered racing, so feel free to pile on with jokes about drafting, rubbing, and fifteen-second "pit stops."
Kevin Provencher advertised his prostitution ring's services on Craigslist and other Web sites and rented hotel rooms in Andover, Massachusetts, and in New Hampshire where the women would have sex for money, prosecutors said. The ring may have operated in Canada, they said. Provencher, a sports writer at the New Hampshire Union Leader for more than two decades, was arrested at his Manchester home early Wednesday and was taken to Massachusetts, where he was ordered held on $10,000 cash bail during his arraignment in Lawrence District Court. He pleaded not guilty to two counts of deriving support from prostitution. Provencher, 50, has been suspended from the Union Leader, where he has been its primary motor sports reporter since 1990. He also has been the newspaper's beat reporter covering the Manchester Monarchs since the American Hockey League franchise's 2001 inception.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I won't stoop so low as to make a joke about motor racing.
I will say, though, that I expect him to get the harshest penalty ever heard of for "high sticking".
:-)
I will say, though, that I expect him to get the harshest penalty ever heard of for "high sticking".
:-)
Posted by: Exurbankevin at July 30, 2009 11:29 PM (toqoX)
2
So... we finally have real proof that journalistss really are pimps. Wanna bet that this was also pimping obumbles?
Posted by: emdfl at July 31, 2009 06:08 AM (B+qrE)
3
I don't know. I'm thinking "in the crease" might be an apt description.
BTW, did you see this inspired evil?
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/resistance-is-futile-cash-4-clunkers-website-gives-your-computer-to-the-feds/
BTW, did you see this inspired evil?
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/resistance-is-futile-cash-4-clunkers-website-gives-your-computer-to-the-feds/
Posted by: cbullitt at August 01, 2009 11:06 PM (SuVCK)
July 29, 2009
Obama Booed In Raleigh
Who was the most popular man in Raleigh today? I don't know who it was, but I could tell you who it wasn't, as Barack Obama's motocade was met by a smattering of cheers and an overwhelming chorus of boos:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:21 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You think they could drive faster? Apparently, Obama didn't want to hang around some very upset people.
But then again, it was a bunch of upset "little people" who he thinks really do not get it. Peasants, we are simply peasants to those in power.
But then again, it was a bunch of upset "little people" who he thinks really do not get it. Peasants, we are simply peasants to those in power.
Posted by: rwisher at August 01, 2009 07:31 PM (1oDlb)
2
Notice how fast he is going....
Posted by: Anne at August 01, 2009 10:16 PM (unbcc)
3
I am surprised the secret service or local law enforcement didn't arrest these people. Thank God they had the courage to stand up and speak for what is right.Freedom of speech for all not just the Dems.
Posted by: Tammy at August 02, 2009 10:05 PM (+no6T)
4
See it here - you'll never see it in the Mainstream Media.
Posted by: allen at August 03, 2009 03:16 PM (9E7HH)
NY Times Botches Complaint Against NC Jihadists
Lets see if you can catch the false and repeated refrain from the newspaper of record:
...
The three men, along with four others, are charged with stockpiling automatic weapons and traveling abroad numerous times to participate in jihadist movements. There is no indication in the indictment that they were planning attacks in the United States, though prosecutors said they had practiced military tactics this summer in a rural county close to Virginia.
If you guessed that there weren't any automatic weapons involved in this case, you guessed right. As noted in some detail yesterday, the indictment cites the exact firearms owned by Daniel Boyd, and not a single one of them was an automatic weapon. The weapons cited in the indictment were 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 semi-automatic battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. So much for those multiple layers of fact checkers...
Federal officials in Washington said that the men charged on Monday were not seen as serious terrorist threats to the United States or American interests abroad, and that there were no indications of ties to Al Qaeda or other militant groups. But the officials said there was concern that they were amassing a sizable number of automatic weapons, given Mr. Boyd’s record as a foreign fighter.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:29 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Something really seems strange about this one! For one thing, Boyd the Elder, has possible CIA connections, and is said to have fought against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Second, it is said that he went on "recruiting" trips to the Middle East to find Jihadists, bring them back to the U.S., train them to kill and then send them back to Iraq or whereever? Does this makes sense to anyone?
Anyone... Buehler... Buehler...
Second, it is said that he went on "recruiting" trips to the Middle East to find Jihadists, bring them back to the U.S., train them to kill and then send them back to Iraq or whereever? Does this makes sense to anyone?
Anyone... Buehler... Buehler...
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 29, 2009 05:21 PM (FTE1k)
Posted by: redc1c4 at July 30, 2009 01:18 AM (d1FhN)
3
Typically weapons such as the M1 Garand, the M14, the FN FAL and similar are known as "battle rifles." They are full sized, semi auto weapons firing a medium caliber round - in the first example, .30-06, the other two NATO 7.62x51mm.
The term Battle Rifle was adopted to differentiate from Assault Rifle, which despite whatever bizarre definition the media adopts (generally "guns we don't like") is widely accepted in military circles to be a shorter, select fire weapon chambered in lighter calibers. The two most widely used calibers are NATO 5.56mm and Warsaw Pact 7.62x39mm.
Incidentally, the two latter rounds, typically associated with assault rifles, are obviously less powerful in bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and impact energy. Something to bear in mind when a breathless reporter talks about "high powered" ammunition.
The term Battle Rifle was adopted to differentiate from Assault Rifle, which despite whatever bizarre definition the media adopts (generally "guns we don't like") is widely accepted in military circles to be a shorter, select fire weapon chambered in lighter calibers. The two most widely used calibers are NATO 5.56mm and Warsaw Pact 7.62x39mm.
Incidentally, the two latter rounds, typically associated with assault rifles, are obviously less powerful in bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and impact energy. Something to bear in mind when a breathless reporter talks about "high powered" ammunition.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 30, 2009 05:03 AM (Vcyz0)
4
A Battle Rifle is a full-size rifle designed for military use that fires a full powered round and is used in military service.
An Assault rifle is a select fire rifle that fires a round intermediate in power to a pistol round and a full powered round. It was designed primarily for use in the assault portion of the offense (in military strategy), though is used now during all phases of both the offense and defense. It's lineage starts with the STG-44.
An Assault weapon is a false definition thunked up by politicians to describe rifles that look scary.
An Assault rifle is a select fire rifle that fires a round intermediate in power to a pistol round and a full powered round. It was designed primarily for use in the assault portion of the offense (in military strategy), though is used now during all phases of both the offense and defense. It's lineage starts with the STG-44.
An Assault weapon is a false definition thunked up by politicians to describe rifles that look scary.
Posted by: Matt at August 02, 2009 10:03 AM (54Fjx)
5
Battle rifle? No such thing. I have never heard the term until it came up on this site. So, is a 1903 Springfield a battle rifle? Nonsense. Let's get the terminology correct. They are just semi-automatic rifles.
Posted by: Federale at August 02, 2009 03:50 PM (I6UoW)
6
Federale, the M1903 is not a semi automatic rifle. It is, by U.S. military and NATO verbage classified as a bolt action rifle (though it was at one point classified as a battle rifle). The M14 is a battle rifle, the M1 Garand is a battle rifle, the FN FAL is a battle rifle.
Some countries within NATO only classify a rifle as a battle rifle if it is select fire. The U.S. makes no distinction.
Some countries within NATO only classify a rifle as a battle rifle if it is select fire. The U.S. makes no distinction.
Posted by: Matt at August 02, 2009 04:13 PM (54Fjx)
July 28, 2009
The Guns of the Terrorists Next Door
As you may know, seven men in Willow Springs, NC have been detained on terrorism charges, and an eighth man is still at large.
It's a bit shocking that Islamic terrorists could be hiding in plain sight in a small Southerner town, but that appears to be exactly the case. And for such a small cell of just eight men, they seemed to be working on a sizable cache of weaponry according to the indictment, including 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. I've categorized them by name, type, and date purchased below:| Weapon | Type | Date Purchased |
| Bushmaster M4A3 | AR-type semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 9 2006 |
| Ruger Mini-14 | Semi-automatic rifle | Mar. 13, 2007 |
| Mossberg 100 ATR | Bolt-action rifle | Nov. 3, 2008 |
| Llama Comanche III | .357 Revolver | Nov. 3, 2008 |
| Century Arms AK Sporter | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 6, 2008 |
| Ruger Mini-30 | Semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 11, 2008 |
| Saiga .308 | Battle Rifle, Semi-automatic | Feb. 11, 2009 |
| Century Arms Polish Tantal | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Mar. 2, 2009 |
| Century Arms C91 | Battle Rifle, Semi-automatic | Mar. 31, 2009 |
| Century Arms M70B1 | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
| Ruger Mini-14 | Semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
| S&W M&P15 | AR-type semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:05 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd have to see more evidence personally before I believe these guys were any more than deluded fantasists and wannabes. Hell, if they were that determined to harm America they could have walked into any crowded suburban mall and cut loose with that impressive arsenal. I sure would not take the word of the US Justice Dept.
Posted by: Dr. Feelgood at July 28, 2009 09:14 PM (znAs1)
2
/heh
For 8 men that are supposedly serious about it that collection's a bit weak -- even compared to my (not unusual) casual collection of hunting arms and milsurps.
For 8 men that are supposedly serious about it that collection's a bit weak -- even compared to my (not unusual) casual collection of hunting arms and milsurps.
Posted by: dw at July 28, 2009 10:36 PM (pCIGF)
3
I wondered if the jihadists would try a Mumbai-style attack in the USA. I don't think they (the jihadists) could coordinate such an attack in the USA, but possibly these wannabees were thinking along those lines.
Certainly some of our cities have succeeded in banning personal firearms--cited as one of the reasons for success in Mumbai for the jihadists.
Certainly some of our cities have succeeded in banning personal firearms--cited as one of the reasons for success in Mumbai for the jihadists.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 29, 2009 02:26 AM (xLN0U)
4
For about two weeks after 9/11 I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Had I been in charge of planning I would have placed sleeper cells throughout the US with orders to space out their attacks. A shopping mall in Cleveland, a school in Sacramento, the DMV in Tampa... seemingly random targets intended to maximize panic and uncertainty, carried out by autonomous cells with no contact or knowledge of each other, separated enough that they would not interfere.
Eventually I concluded that al Qaida had used up their first string on 9/11 and just didn't have the resources for a follow up. I also concluded that for all their cleverness these people are irredeemiably stupid and wedded to largely symbolic gestures. Long range planning, strategic thinking, a realistic appreciation of your opponent's strengths and weaknesses - they don't got it. The mass murdering equivalent of a drive-by, accompanied by street dancing and ululating, and they call it a smashing victory.
If we ever see a Mumbai style attack it will likely be the result of a free lance cell, with no official AQ ties - much as these bozos appear to be. What they seem to have lacked was the will to die for Allah. I guess it doesn't look as appealing from within the US as it does from some goat herd in the wastes of Lower Wazootistan.
Eventually I concluded that al Qaida had used up their first string on 9/11 and just didn't have the resources for a follow up. I also concluded that for all their cleverness these people are irredeemiably stupid and wedded to largely symbolic gestures. Long range planning, strategic thinking, a realistic appreciation of your opponent's strengths and weaknesses - they don't got it. The mass murdering equivalent of a drive-by, accompanied by street dancing and ululating, and they call it a smashing victory.
If we ever see a Mumbai style attack it will likely be the result of a free lance cell, with no official AQ ties - much as these bozos appear to be. What they seem to have lacked was the will to die for Allah. I guess it doesn't look as appealing from within the US as it does from some goat herd in the wastes of Lower Wazootistan.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 29, 2009 05:07 AM (Vcyz0)
5
I have always considered the Mini 14 to be an assault rifle, as it was so effectively used by the A Team... though I suppose the guns never did any actual harm- perhaps it's not an assault rifle after all
Posted by: at July 29, 2009 07:28 AM (HQEII)
6
I'm mildly surprised that they didn't try to standardize the arsenal a little bit more. It looks like the guns mostly fire either 5.56 or 7.39 ammo, though, and standardizing parts might not have been an issue if they weren't expecting to have to repair them, like an army would, so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. I wonder if the Mossberg bolt-action was the designated sniper rifle...
Posted by: Grey Fox at July 29, 2009 10:11 AM (t6/zF)
7
What pray tell is a battle rifle and how does it differentiate between any other semi-auto rifle?
Posted by: Federale at July 29, 2009 12:08 PM (QZ/te)
8
Definition of a battle rifle.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 29, 2009 12:29 PM (gAi9Z)
9
Technically AKs are battle rifles but so is my M-1 Garand and '03a3 (which is bolt action).
CY - I'm not sure I really agree with your "sizable cache of weaponry", for 8 people thats not that many rifles. Hell, I have more then that myself, no POS AR or AK clones though.
CY - I'm not sure I really agree with your "sizable cache of weaponry", for 8 people thats not that many rifles. Hell, I have more then that myself, no POS AR or AK clones though.
Posted by: Vivictius at July 29, 2009 12:39 PM (ViRFH)
10
No way in Hell is a standard AK a battle rifle.
By definition, a battle rifle fires a full-power cartridge, and the AK fires--rather inaccurately--the intermediate 7.62x39, or in more modern variants, the intermediate 5.45x39.
By definition, a battle rifle fires a full-power cartridge, and the AK fires--rather inaccurately--the intermediate 7.62x39, or in more modern variants, the intermediate 5.45x39.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 29, 2009 12:44 PM (gAi9Z)
11
"I have always considered the Mini 14 to be an assault rifle"
To be a real assault rifle it must fire a round intermediate to a pistol round and a full powered round, and must be select fire.
I have to admit, I have not read much on these guys. But if you walk into my home right now you will find five times that they found with these guys.
To be a real assault rifle it must fire a round intermediate to a pistol round and a full powered round, and must be select fire.
I have to admit, I have not read much on these guys. But if you walk into my home right now you will find five times that they found with these guys.
Posted by: Matt at July 29, 2009 04:45 PM (54Fjx)
12
I know it's exiting for NYT to make stuff up out of thin air, but perhaps being accurate and boring like CY isn't such a bad thing.
Posted by: brando at July 29, 2009 07:20 PM (kSaG8)
13
"Tell me again how gun control 'works'..."
Can we not use the same reasoning to say that enforcement of laws against heroin use, murder, and traffic violations are not "working," and therefore those laws should be eliminated?
Can we not use the same reasoning to say that enforcement of laws against heroin use, murder, and traffic violations are not "working," and therefore those laws should be eliminated?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 29, 2009 10:09 PM (qSYS8)
14
Doc
Not really, since the proper analogy would be laws that made one color of heroin legal while making another color illegal.
Not really, since the proper analogy would be laws that made one color of heroin legal while making another color illegal.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 30, 2009 02:14 AM (O8ebz)
15
Golly Doc, I was not aware that murder and traffic violations were Constitutionally protected rights. Where did you learn that, in one of Professor Obama's Constitutional Law courses?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 30, 2009 05:06 AM (Vcyz0)
16
Well, Steve, since Constitutionality was not the focus of Bob's comment, but, rather, the efficacy of enforcement, your whip-smart sarcasm was all for naught. Please try to keep up.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 30, 2009 08:29 AM (qSYS8)
17
Ah, Doc, so the Constitutionality of an activity is not relevant to efforts to prohibit it? You must not have gotten to that bit about "shall not be infringed." But don't sweat it, neither apparently has Professor Obama.
Sorry if I wandered off topic, distracted by your equating basic civil rights with criminal activity. Such nuance is obviously beyond me.
Are your goalposts self propelled, or do you have to move them yourslef?
Sorry if I wandered off topic, distracted by your equating basic civil rights with criminal activity. Such nuance is obviously beyond me.
Are your goalposts self propelled, or do you have to move them yourslef?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 30, 2009 10:37 AM (Vcyz0)
18
Again, since you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties (this time with emphasis to increase your chances of understanding):
Well, Steve, since Constitutionality was not the focus of Bob's comment, but, rather, the efficacy of enforcement, your whip-smart sarcasm was all for naught. Please try to keep up.
I'm responding to what Bob actually wrote, Steve. You're responding to what you wish I'd written.
Well, Steve, since Constitutionality was not the focus of Bob's comment, but, rather, the efficacy of enforcement, your whip-smart sarcasm was all for naught. Please try to keep up.
I'm responding to what Bob actually wrote, Steve. You're responding to what you wish I'd written.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 30, 2009 11:15 AM (qSYS8)
19
Get rid of all laws about heroin use, murder, and traffic violations?!
What?!
That's a really bad idea.
What?!
That's a really bad idea.
Posted by: brando at July 30, 2009 12:02 PM (IPGju)
20
Get rid of all laws about heroin use, murder, and traffic violations?!
What?!
That's a really bad idea.
But if enforcement of those laws isn't eliminating all violations...
Tell me again how laws against murder "work"...
Get rid of all laws about heroin use, murder, and traffic violations?!
What?!
That's a really bad idea.
But if enforcement of those laws isn't eliminating all violations...
Tell me again how laws against murder "work"...
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 30, 2009 04:08 PM (qSYS8)
21
If you actually believe that we should murder shouldn't be illegal, then.....jeez.
Wow.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I won't even try to talk you out of it, because if you're willing to say that, you probably won't change your mind.
But it's totally quotable, and a good frame of reference for future comments you make.
Wow. You made my day.
Wow.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I won't even try to talk you out of it, because if you're willing to say that, you probably won't change your mind.
But it's totally quotable, and a good frame of reference for future comments you make.
Wow. You made my day.
Posted by: brando at July 30, 2009 06:08 PM (IPGju)
And the Obama Birth Wars Continue...
While the government of Hawaii has once again gone on record to state that Barack Obama's birth certificate is legitimate and that he is a natural born citizen, a new round of theories will claim that there were five ways for a person to get a birth certificate in Hawaii, and that some of those ways don't require the same standard of proof as others. According to this line of reasoning, Obama could have a birth certificate, but the document might not be worth the paper it is printed on in regards to proving whether or not he qualifies as "natural born."
Have fun!Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:56 PM | Comments (131) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Here is proof that President Obama was not born in the United States.
Here is proof that President Obama was not born in the United States.
Posted by: Neo at July 28, 2009 01:13 PM (5d1ix)
2
Well considering that Constitutional disqualification is the only way to get him out of office short of insurrection I don't blame people for pursuing it. How much of his votes were fraud? I mean look at Franken and MN, people are beginning to doubt the validity of our "free elections".
He's already done several unconstitutional acts in his first 6 months and nary a peep from the Supreme Court about it. Good luck getting Congress to impeach him short of him performing a human sacrifice on the White House lawn in full view of the the public. I think the MSM would even ignore or try to spin such an event to his advantage.
The Federal Government has strayed so far from the vision of the Founding Fathers its scary. There is no more "We the People", at best its "We the Sheeple" at worst its "Hiel Obama!" or maybe "El Presidente."
He's already done several unconstitutional acts in his first 6 months and nary a peep from the Supreme Court about it. Good luck getting Congress to impeach him short of him performing a human sacrifice on the White House lawn in full view of the the public. I think the MSM would even ignore or try to spin such an event to his advantage.
The Federal Government has strayed so far from the vision of the Founding Fathers its scary. There is no more "We the People", at best its "We the Sheeple" at worst its "Hiel Obama!" or maybe "El Presidente."
Posted by: Scott at July 28, 2009 01:19 PM (mqy6N)
3
All God's chirrun need to hit Neo's link.
Ya know, there are only two ways that the Obie response to this makes sense. If the BC is there and unobjectionable then by teasing this out it is a rope-a-dope trying to ensnare much of their opposition in the ensuing pushback when, at an opportune moment, the Mortal Document is produced for a counterstrike! Or they are panicked because they know the document is dubious in some regard. The event with the soldier whose deployment was canceled rather than submit to discovery or HORRORS! someone outside the Bamily be granted standing to view it suggests the latter. Frankly, the prospect of a President Biden makes this less than a joyous event regardless of outcome.
Ya know, there are only two ways that the Obie response to this makes sense. If the BC is there and unobjectionable then by teasing this out it is a rope-a-dope trying to ensnare much of their opposition in the ensuing pushback when, at an opportune moment, the Mortal Document is produced for a counterstrike! Or they are panicked because they know the document is dubious in some regard. The event with the soldier whose deployment was canceled rather than submit to discovery or HORRORS! someone outside the Bamily be granted standing to view it suggests the latter. Frankly, the prospect of a President Biden makes this less than a joyous event regardless of outcome.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 28, 2009 01:27 PM (qhvtO)
4
I agree. Everyone should hit Neo's link.
Personally, I'm betting there's just some i not dotted or some t not crossed that might be a little embarrassing for the Teleprompter In Chief, but that's about it.
You did hit Neo's link, right?
Personally, I'm betting there's just some i not dotted or some t not crossed that might be a little embarrassing for the Teleprompter In Chief, but that's about it.
You did hit Neo's link, right?
Posted by: Robb Allen at July 28, 2009 01:47 PM (MPhK9)
5
Proof? A child could have typed that "fax." It proves nothing. And make no mistake: the burden of proof is FULLY upon the birthers. Type-written unsigned here-say testimony from a blog is NOT evidence. It would be laughed out of court, much as the country is laughing at the birthers today.
If you cannot muster sufficient evidence and standing within our courts to make your claims -- much less win on the merits -- it's time to move on some other pointless cause. Flag burning, for instance. Aren't there other more traditional loony causes than crying your eyes out because HE actually PRESIDENT?
Maybe you could spend this time actually trying to HELP someone rather than wallow in your (perceived) loss?
Clearly, the August recess will require more popcorn than I had expected...
yeesh
If you cannot muster sufficient evidence and standing within our courts to make your claims -- much less win on the merits -- it's time to move on some other pointless cause. Flag burning, for instance. Aren't there other more traditional loony causes than crying your eyes out because HE actually PRESIDENT?
Maybe you could spend this time actually trying to HELP someone rather than wallow in your (perceived) loss?
Clearly, the August recess will require more popcorn than I had expected...
yeesh
Posted by: James at July 28, 2009 02:04 PM (gS7nN)
6
Sigh.
I doubt there is anything to this. But Obama is contributing to this as well. He has spent a lot of money to keep his Birth Certificate and College records secret. He makes himself look like he's hiding something. Probably on purpose, so the fanatics focus there and don't bother looking behind the curtain...
I doubt there is anything to this. But Obama is contributing to this as well. He has spent a lot of money to keep his Birth Certificate and College records secret. He makes himself look like he's hiding something. Probably on purpose, so the fanatics focus there and don't bother looking behind the curtain...
Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2009 02:21 PM (YTe8V)
7
The Chicago Machine is majorly corrupt, but it's not ultra-stupid, so I'm doubting that citizenship is any issue.
What's more likely is that the original birth records are more embarrassing than incriminating, something like the father being listed as "Joe Smith" or "unknown."
On the other hand, given the marketing that was done to create the now rapidly fading illusion of this clown's alleged intellect, I'd really like to see some college transcripts that confirm or deny the growing suspicion that Obama is the empty suit poster child for affirmative action.
What's more likely is that the original birth records are more embarrassing than incriminating, something like the father being listed as "Joe Smith" or "unknown."
On the other hand, given the marketing that was done to create the now rapidly fading illusion of this clown's alleged intellect, I'd really like to see some college transcripts that confirm or deny the growing suspicion that Obama is the empty suit poster child for affirmative action.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at July 28, 2009 02:34 PM (Fnr44)
8
To insist that the Constitution be respected is not being a "tin-foiled hat nut".
With the state of corruption in today's politics and in the news media in particular (the media being about 80% in the tank for BHO), can you blame citizens who are skeptical?
BHO has several inconsistencies and highly questionable aspects to his earlier life - associations with radicals, numerous family members spread around the world, etc. Plus a biological father who was a foreigner (not an immigrant).
How many US presidents have such a background?
Don't blame citizens for being skeptical.
With the state of corruption in today's politics and in the news media in particular (the media being about 80% in the tank for BHO), can you blame citizens who are skeptical?
BHO has several inconsistencies and highly questionable aspects to his earlier life - associations with radicals, numerous family members spread around the world, etc. Plus a biological father who was a foreigner (not an immigrant).
How many US presidents have such a background?
Don't blame citizens for being skeptical.
Posted by: rssg at July 28, 2009 02:35 PM (HH3AB)
9
Thanks for the link Neo. That settles it for me. After all this time, I'm finally convinced. That's the one piece of conclusive evidence that has been missing.
Here's a quote from a news story on Politico, yesterday, relevant to this topic:
"Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.
“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says."
Keep in mind, that's advice from a REPUBLICAN pollster.
Pass the popcorn, please, James!
Here's a quote from a news story on Politico, yesterday, relevant to this topic:
"Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.
“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says."
Keep in mind, that's advice from a REPUBLICAN pollster.
Pass the popcorn, please, James!
Posted by: Dude at July 28, 2009 02:37 PM (byA+E)
10
While I agree the birth certificate is a non issue, I would really appreciate an Obama supporter trying to explain the reasons for hiding his educational records. Why no examples of his writing from the Harvard Law Review days? No grades or official transcripts? What classes did he take? Also no medical records released. Why so secretive? We have been exposed to his two autobiographies but no corroborative evidence. Certainly, he must know that even poor grades and racist rantings in college writing would be overlooked and even praised as proof of his humility by his supporters. What are they so afraid of?
Posted by: Batly at July 28, 2009 02:58 PM (Bh8wk)
11
Unless Oba-messiah produces the long form birth certificate, which lists the date, place, and attending physician I will never believe he is a USA citizen. its that simple. also his thugs have never released any education records, in particular his college records, nor his health records.
...and his kenyan grandmother swore she saw his birth in Africa.
complete sham. this guy is not only lacking in experience as a competent & mature national leader but he is lacking in even being qualified to legally run in our presidential election.
...and people wonder why his is getting into all kinds of trouble since becoming POTUS: He is unqualified in so many ways.
sadly, he is a scary paradox that ANYONE can be president in the USA, even those who are illegal aliens.
...and his kenyan grandmother swore she saw his birth in Africa.
complete sham. this guy is not only lacking in experience as a competent & mature national leader but he is lacking in even being qualified to legally run in our presidential election.
...and people wonder why his is getting into all kinds of trouble since becoming POTUS: He is unqualified in so many ways.
sadly, he is a scary paradox that ANYONE can be president in the USA, even those who are illegal aliens.
Posted by: lu-ee at July 28, 2009 03:55 PM (oogdQ)
12
...oh, and the reason "why" the state of Hawaii is AFRAID to call Obama on this? take a guess?
....because they will be labeled RACISTS!
oh no you say?
....because they will be labeled RACISTS!
oh no you say?
Posted by: lu-ee at July 28, 2009 03:57 PM (oogdQ)
13
Well he has named two separate hospitals as the place of his birth. Was he born twice?
Posted by: Jimmy at July 28, 2009 04:03 PM (wNqnz)
14
The lack of release of his educational records is troubling - he may be born in Hawaii but also became a citizen of Indonesia and thus be a dual citizen to this day. That would bring up issues of divided loyalty/allengiance, etc.
We were told by the MSM that he was very, very intelligent. Well where's the proof?
We were told by the MSM that he was very, very intelligent. Well where's the proof?
Posted by: BTW at July 28, 2009 04:23 PM (HH3AB)
15
It lies within the ability of Obama's political machine to obfuscate and eliminate and/or control dissemination of his records... records that plainly state his claim of foreign birthright. The fact is this: The innocent do not hide. It's human nature.
As for the myth of his intelligence, all you really need to do is listen to him. Even passing attention to his statements will set the bar at which one would be intellectually threatened so low that it need not be much of a concern.
Our responsibility is to exercise individual integrity, focus thoughtfully on the principles (a moral review, if you will) and then step up and let your voice be heard regarding the issues/policies. "Those that want a free society without a moral citizenry want that which never has and never will exist."
As for the myth of his intelligence, all you really need to do is listen to him. Even passing attention to his statements will set the bar at which one would be intellectually threatened so low that it need not be much of a concern.
Our responsibility is to exercise individual integrity, focus thoughtfully on the principles (a moral review, if you will) and then step up and let your voice be heard regarding the issues/policies. "Those that want a free society without a moral citizenry want that which never has and never will exist."
Posted by: iichthus at July 28, 2009 04:53 PM (xVk+T)
16
I hope in the future, someone in the gov't reviews the eligibility of someone to run for President - it would avoid these problems. I also don't understand why he doesnt allow for the release of his long form certificate of an appropriate review panel. What I would like to understand is - is it true he traveled to Pakistan when Americans were not permitted to do so? Did he ever register with the military - things like that...
Posted by: Krystal at July 28, 2009 04:57 PM (D2TAc)
17
James and Dude... as you obviously DON'T know, what Neo has done there is taken the forged TANG memos that indicted Bush as a malingerer and simpleton; remember those? They were a subject on 60 Minutes that was mildly controvertial... and doctored them to fit the Obama BC template. I will explain the point, since you seem ignorant of recent events. These "documents" that were exposed as forgeries within an hour of the piece airing, were the foundation for a full media scrub that included unearthing whatever living witnesses to the events might still be around. I recall the secretary to Staudt was found. If that still doesn't make the point for you, and probably that is the case, it is that old musty shibboleth that Rightwing Retards are constantly pulling out of hock.... Liberal Media Bias. So.... are we clear now? Sure hope so. Jeez.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 28, 2009 04:59 PM (IxWtw)
18
I resent being called a "Birther"
Posted by: tonynoboloney at July 28, 2009 05:21 PM (g+ZuF)
19
Oh and James in particular, it is funny you bring up the courts. Yes, the burden is on the Birthers but once there was any chance a Birther might gain legal standing to view the BC it was Obama and the Obots who beat a retreat, actually rescinding the deployment orders that were claimed to be illegitimate by the petitioner. So this HAS been tested in court and Birthism won. But you already knew that, of course.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 28, 2009 05:32 PM (IxWtw)
20
HR 593 - House of Representatives unanimously pass a bill recognizing Barrack Obama, our 44th President of the United States of America was born in Hawaii and IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! The vote was 378 to ZERO, ZIP, NADA, BUMPKISS, BIRTHER DRY HUMP SQUIRT!!!! Here is a list of Republicans who voted against declaring Obama a legal resident of United States:
Tin foil hat wearing bunch of tea-baggin' birther whack jobs!
Tin foil hat wearing bunch of tea-baggin' birther whack jobs!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 28, 2009 05:46 PM (OX5qU)
21
Now please produce proof that Sarah Baraquitter is smart enough to spell "birther". That should keep you busy for about 5 years
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 28, 2009 05:49 PM (OX5qU)
22
James, why is it up to birthers to prove where he was born? If you can't prove a birth by anything other than a long form b.c. with doctor and hospital named as attesting to the fact, and Obama won't let us at it? You can't prove a negative.
And James, I asked this of Dude who completely imploded - maybe you can do better. Why if the Democrats can ask for and get National Guard paystubs for Bush, (and they weren't satisfied with those according to Dude) why can't we get one long form birth cert. from the president or pretender to be president whatever the case may be?
And James, I asked this of Dude who completely imploded - maybe you can do better. Why if the Democrats can ask for and get National Guard paystubs for Bush, (and they weren't satisfied with those according to Dude) why can't we get one long form birth cert. from the president or pretender to be president whatever the case may be?
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 06:21 PM (dwIL0)
23
Were it true, Biden is not necessarily President. Argument could be made the the deception invalidated the 2008 Presidential election.
Posted by: Brett at July 28, 2009 06:24 PM (25yaZ)
24
megapotamus: The birthers haven't won anything except the well deserved ridicule of the vast majority of Americans. I consider birthers to be in the same category of folks who believe that Bush and Rumsfeld helped plan the 911 attacks: Delusional.
I'm well aware of the TANG memos. In my opinion, that was one of the greatest frauds every pulled off in American History, by the White House. But, that's another story for another time.
lu-ee: I rather doubt that very many people care what you do or don't believe about Obama's place of birth. Your comment referring to The President as an illegal alien doesn't help your case at all.
And to all of you who believe both that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and that he is not intelligent.....think about that. If he isn't a natural born citizen, yet won the presidency in an electoral landslide, well, one would need to be fairly intelligent to pull off what would be the biggest and most successful scam in American political history.
You may not like his politics. I don't like all of them. But, he IS intelligent. When I heard him speak at the 2004 DNC I made the comment," that man will be the first black man to be President of the United States of America.
He's very, very intelligent. That doesn't mean that he's always right. However, it's a big mistake to underestimate his intelligence.
I'm well aware of the TANG memos. In my opinion, that was one of the greatest frauds every pulled off in American History, by the White House. But, that's another story for another time.
lu-ee: I rather doubt that very many people care what you do or don't believe about Obama's place of birth. Your comment referring to The President as an illegal alien doesn't help your case at all.
And to all of you who believe both that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and that he is not intelligent.....think about that. If he isn't a natural born citizen, yet won the presidency in an electoral landslide, well, one would need to be fairly intelligent to pull off what would be the biggest and most successful scam in American political history.
You may not like his politics. I don't like all of them. But, he IS intelligent. When I heard him speak at the 2004 DNC I made the comment," that man will be the first black man to be President of the United States of America.
He's very, very intelligent. That doesn't mean that he's always right. However, it's a big mistake to underestimate his intelligence.
Posted by: Dude at July 28, 2009 06:29 PM (byA+E)
25
hey lipiwitz, why do the democrats think Obama needs a congressional declaration - if they and he is secure in his birth certificate bona fides?
You're not accomplished enough to wipe down Palin's gun - otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid jokes.
Become mayor and the governor and get picked to be V.P. by a well respected long time member of Congress, then you can pop off.
You're not accomplished enough to wipe down Palin's gun - otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid jokes.
Become mayor and the governor and get picked to be V.P. by a well respected long time member of Congress, then you can pop off.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 06:29 PM (dwIL0)
26
dude- Hitler, Stalin, Marx and the Unabomber were intelligent. I'm not convinced Obama is. He has not proven he can do anything other than lead a bunch of democrat voters (uneducated minorities, young immature brains, and old feeble brains - plus the die hard socialists) and liberal, leftwing press corps to back him. Perhaps a bit more common sense and a little less ego would be better than intelligence. He tells us he knows how to fix health care and then talks about a blue pill or a red pill. You are easily duped, dude.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 06:38 PM (dwIL0)
27
WTF is wrong with his birth certificate?
Why does the Obaminable one spend a million dollars in lawyers fees to defend against the release? I believe he was born in Hawaii, but what's on it that he doesn't want us to know?
And why does the magic muslim president refuse to release his university records?
All this stinks to high heaven. Why do we let him get away with it?
Why does the Obaminable one spend a million dollars in lawyers fees to defend against the release? I believe he was born in Hawaii, but what's on it that he doesn't want us to know?
And why does the magic muslim president refuse to release his university records?
All this stinks to high heaven. Why do we let him get away with it?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 28, 2009 06:39 PM (UtIGe)
28
Lipiwitz,
A bill from the House of Representatives isn't worth spit. "Legal Resident" does not equate to "natural born as stated in Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Born the son of a British/Kenyan subject, in the eyes of the law, Barack Hussein Obama Jr cannot ever be considered "natural born". He was a Kenyan citizen, with dual American citizenship (if born on US soil, as an original birth certificate would prove),
and was adopted and was legally made an Indonesian citizen. He traveled to Pakistan AFTER his 18th birthday, when travel by Americans was BANNED, and in fact, would have still been using his "foreign exchange student" status in Law School, well past the age where he was required BY LAW to renounce it. This willful act, after the age of 18, would have CONFIRMED his dual citizenship status, and I believe at that time he was quite proud of it. BO is a prideful man who doesn't think We, the People will ever figure this out.
A "native born citizen", perhaps he might be, depending on what his LONG FORM ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE says, but since, like his school, college, employment, Congressional, et al, records, we've yet to see it.
Now we're left with several conclusions:
1. He has a legitimate long-form birth certificate and simply refuses to release it through sheer obstinence. Why put up all of the legal fees though? Why can't he just say "Gotcha!" and jump out of a box holding it?
2. He doesn't have a long-form birth certificate and is trying his best to bully the system into believing that it doesn't really matter because, hey, he's Barack Obama, Healer of the Waters. This WOULD require him to fight any legal challenge. This would also imply that he is willfully committing fraud everytime he's opened his mouth to say he's a "natural born citizen" because he says he was born in Hawaii. It would also imply that there's a circle of people around him willing to participate in the continuation of this fraud.
3. He doesn't even know if he truly is a native-born (on US soil) citizen because his COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) was actually issued long AFTER his birth as a means for his mom to assert custody when she left his dad. This might actually be closest to the truth; no hospital in Hawaii claims that he was born there. Common sense dictates that at least ONE would have liked to have been known as "the birthplace of the 44th President of the United States". This would also require him to fight tooth and nail over every lawsuit, lest the truth eventually prove that he's NOT even a US CITIZEN BY BIRTH ON US SOIL. Being born to his underaged mother in a foreign country, knocked up by a citizen of that country, where citizenship passes through the father only, Barack Obama Jr would be SCREWED royally, through no fault of his own really.
In any event, the truth will eventually come out once the mainstream media realizes they've been played for dupes and there's a financial profit to be had in the sensationalism of 'taking down' the first black President.
Now, please, Mr Witty Lipiwitz, please tell us WHICH option we're to believe in and we'll all drink your kool-aid together!
A bill from the House of Representatives isn't worth spit. "Legal Resident" does not equate to "natural born as stated in Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Born the son of a British/Kenyan subject, in the eyes of the law, Barack Hussein Obama Jr cannot ever be considered "natural born". He was a Kenyan citizen, with dual American citizenship (if born on US soil, as an original birth certificate would prove),
and was adopted and was legally made an Indonesian citizen. He traveled to Pakistan AFTER his 18th birthday, when travel by Americans was BANNED, and in fact, would have still been using his "foreign exchange student" status in Law School, well past the age where he was required BY LAW to renounce it. This willful act, after the age of 18, would have CONFIRMED his dual citizenship status, and I believe at that time he was quite proud of it. BO is a prideful man who doesn't think We, the People will ever figure this out.
A "native born citizen", perhaps he might be, depending on what his LONG FORM ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE says, but since, like his school, college, employment, Congressional, et al, records, we've yet to see it.
Now we're left with several conclusions:
1. He has a legitimate long-form birth certificate and simply refuses to release it through sheer obstinence. Why put up all of the legal fees though? Why can't he just say "Gotcha!" and jump out of a box holding it?
2. He doesn't have a long-form birth certificate and is trying his best to bully the system into believing that it doesn't really matter because, hey, he's Barack Obama, Healer of the Waters. This WOULD require him to fight any legal challenge. This would also imply that he is willfully committing fraud everytime he's opened his mouth to say he's a "natural born citizen" because he says he was born in Hawaii. It would also imply that there's a circle of people around him willing to participate in the continuation of this fraud.
3. He doesn't even know if he truly is a native-born (on US soil) citizen because his COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) was actually issued long AFTER his birth as a means for his mom to assert custody when she left his dad. This might actually be closest to the truth; no hospital in Hawaii claims that he was born there. Common sense dictates that at least ONE would have liked to have been known as "the birthplace of the 44th President of the United States". This would also require him to fight tooth and nail over every lawsuit, lest the truth eventually prove that he's NOT even a US CITIZEN BY BIRTH ON US SOIL. Being born to his underaged mother in a foreign country, knocked up by a citizen of that country, where citizenship passes through the father only, Barack Obama Jr would be SCREWED royally, through no fault of his own really.
In any event, the truth will eventually come out once the mainstream media realizes they've been played for dupes and there's a financial profit to be had in the sensationalism of 'taking down' the first black President.
Now, please, Mr Witty Lipiwitz, please tell us WHICH option we're to believe in and we'll all drink your kool-aid together!
Posted by: rotarymunkey at July 28, 2009 06:42 PM (rmPMB)
29
Sarah Palin raises money to pay to fight ungrounded, nonsensical allegations of misconduct while in office, and she's labeled a "kook".
Obama raises money (or spends campaign money illegally) to pay to fight proving that he has an original State of Hawaii birth certificate and that he's not simply a US citizen with dual citizenship status in spite of having used said dual citizenship passports to travel overseas and obtain collegiate financial aid, and we're all labeled "kooks" for questioning this?
Obama raises money (or spends campaign money illegally) to pay to fight proving that he has an original State of Hawaii birth certificate and that he's not simply a US citizen with dual citizenship status in spite of having used said dual citizenship passports to travel overseas and obtain collegiate financial aid, and we're all labeled "kooks" for questioning this?
Posted by: rotarymunkey at July 28, 2009 06:46 PM (rmPMB)
30
I'm well aware of the TANG memos. In my opinion, that was one of the greatest frauds every pulled off in American History, by the White House. But, that's another story for another time.
Looks like all of us have an inner kook of one sort or another. The Human Stain I guess.
Me? I still think that it was a alien conspiracy that canceled Firefly...the Grays are prudes and hate Inara.
Looks like all of us have an inner kook of one sort or another. The Human Stain I guess.
Me? I still think that it was a alien conspiracy that canceled Firefly...the Grays are prudes and hate Inara.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 28, 2009 07:08 PM (FGCRY)
31
Jayne,
It's impossible to win the Presidency in America without the support of a large number of independent voters. According to Rasmussen Reports, hardly a bastion of liberalism the current party affiliation in America is appx. as follows:
Democrats: 38.9%
Republicans: 32.2%
Unaffiliated: 28.9%
Obama won the election with 53% of the popular vote vs McCain's 46%. In the electoral college he won 365 vs 173.
Clearly, a lot of people who aren't Democrats voted for Obama.
I may be duped, but those are the facts. The facts, mam, just the facts.
It's impossible to win the Presidency in America without the support of a large number of independent voters. According to Rasmussen Reports, hardly a bastion of liberalism the current party affiliation in America is appx. as follows:
Democrats: 38.9%
Republicans: 32.2%
Unaffiliated: 28.9%
Obama won the election with 53% of the popular vote vs McCain's 46%. In the electoral college he won 365 vs 173.
Clearly, a lot of people who aren't Democrats voted for Obama.
I may be duped, but those are the facts. The facts, mam, just the facts.
Posted by: Dude at July 28, 2009 07:08 PM (byA+E)
32
The issue is not only about Obama's birth certificate, it is about his background, period. No published papers from a constitutional scholar?? No records available from any of the colleges he attended?
When we look at the character and backgrounds of the people and groups with which he was and is associated, those questions are relevant.
In fact, without something more than a statement of life birth, and proof of more than just a statement of live birth, Obama is an usurper in the White House. If, as I suspect, he is not a natural born citizen, his presence in the White House means that The Constitution has been completely nullified.
Most of the commentary about "Birthers' is a complete denial of the objective facts and is also a complete denial of reality. (To see the right using Alinsky tactics is an interesting phenomenon in and of itself.)
When we look at the character and backgrounds of the people and groups with which he was and is associated, those questions are relevant.
In fact, without something more than a statement of life birth, and proof of more than just a statement of live birth, Obama is an usurper in the White House. If, as I suspect, he is not a natural born citizen, his presence in the White House means that The Constitution has been completely nullified.
Most of the commentary about "Birthers' is a complete denial of the objective facts and is also a complete denial of reality. (To see the right using Alinsky tactics is an interesting phenomenon in and of itself.)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at July 28, 2009 07:09 PM (Gwudb)
33
Just an observation never mentioned, afaik, regarding Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth."
The mother's race is listed as "Caucasian" while the father's is noted as "African."
Really?
Recall that this was 1961 and before the widespread use of "African-American." Perhaps Hawai'i was in the vanguard of political correctness, but wasn't the norm of the day to list as "Negro"? Inquiring minds might like to know.
The whole controversy would be easily put to rest with the release of the BC, unless the point of NOT releasing it is to maintain a sideshow that distracts from other equally or more important issues.
The mother's race is listed as "Caucasian" while the father's is noted as "African."
Really?
Recall that this was 1961 and before the widespread use of "African-American." Perhaps Hawai'i was in the vanguard of political correctness, but wasn't the norm of the day to list as "Negro"? Inquiring minds might like to know.
The whole controversy would be easily put to rest with the release of the BC, unless the point of NOT releasing it is to maintain a sideshow that distracts from other equally or more important issues.
Posted by: Tripoditus at July 28, 2009 07:37 PM (f6GlI)
34
Dude,
BEFORE the election, the MSM refused to cover BO's missing birth certificate and records at all. What percentage of Independents and Democrats would vote for the man now that the facts are out.
BO has been forced to run as fast as he can to the LEFT with his agenda because he'll be a one-termer in the White House, if in fact he even makes it 4 years. I highly doubt that he will. that Democrats in both Houses on the Hill are supporting him nearly blindly means they believe he'll be a one-termer too. He's already being asked NOT to campaign for key Democrat seats in close races.
Dude, also the Electoral College members for each state vote for the candidate who won their state overall, thus tilting those results towards "landslide", when in fact there was no landslide at all. Shift New York and California voters from D to R and your "landslide" becomes a rout for the other team.
Numbers have proven that instead of voting for McCain, a great many Rs stayed home. That's hardly "landslide" material either.
Now can we stay focused on the topic of whether or not the dude in the White House actually HAS a Hawaiian birth certificate at all? Or, conversely, we can discuss the merits of "natural born" versus "native born" and "dual citizenship", and the consequences for this country if power were handed to someone determined to undermine everything we've stood for for the last 200-plus years.
BEFORE the election, the MSM refused to cover BO's missing birth certificate and records at all. What percentage of Independents and Democrats would vote for the man now that the facts are out.
BO has been forced to run as fast as he can to the LEFT with his agenda because he'll be a one-termer in the White House, if in fact he even makes it 4 years. I highly doubt that he will. that Democrats in both Houses on the Hill are supporting him nearly blindly means they believe he'll be a one-termer too. He's already being asked NOT to campaign for key Democrat seats in close races.
Dude, also the Electoral College members for each state vote for the candidate who won their state overall, thus tilting those results towards "landslide", when in fact there was no landslide at all. Shift New York and California voters from D to R and your "landslide" becomes a rout for the other team.
Numbers have proven that instead of voting for McCain, a great many Rs stayed home. That's hardly "landslide" material either.
Now can we stay focused on the topic of whether or not the dude in the White House actually HAS a Hawaiian birth certificate at all? Or, conversely, we can discuss the merits of "natural born" versus "native born" and "dual citizenship", and the consequences for this country if power were handed to someone determined to undermine everything we've stood for for the last 200-plus years.
Posted by: rotarymunkey at July 28, 2009 07:40 PM (rmPMB)
35
If you all have a problem with the HR 593, call your Republican Congressman and complain about their declaration of Obama's legal citizenship. It's not hard to find which Republican voted to declare Obama a legal resident of the United States...ALL OF THEM!!!!
Awwwww....are the voices in your head whining now? Is 9/11 an inside job now? When Barrack Obama traveled back in time to 1961 so he can alter his birth announcements in 2 different newspapers, did he stop off to 1963 to be the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll? Does Barrack Obama know that the Royal Family is a secret sect of aliens altering our environment to accommodate the rest of their race arriving here from another planet? Did Barrack Obama perform the alien autopsy at Roswell when he traveled back in time? Did Barrack Obama make Sarah Baraquitter abandon her commitment to her supporters and voters in Alaska using CHEMTRAILS?!?!? Barrack Obama is Elvis!
You're all freakin nuts! Bunch of unhinged looneys!
Awwwww....are the voices in your head whining now? Is 9/11 an inside job now? When Barrack Obama traveled back in time to 1961 so he can alter his birth announcements in 2 different newspapers, did he stop off to 1963 to be the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll? Does Barrack Obama know that the Royal Family is a secret sect of aliens altering our environment to accommodate the rest of their race arriving here from another planet? Did Barrack Obama perform the alien autopsy at Roswell when he traveled back in time? Did Barrack Obama make Sarah Baraquitter abandon her commitment to her supporters and voters in Alaska using CHEMTRAILS?!?!? Barrack Obama is Elvis!
You're all freakin nuts! Bunch of unhinged looneys!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 28, 2009 07:53 PM (OX5qU)
36
Dude, did you miss that I said Obama got the press to back him? Thus, despite Americans self identifying as conservative (see gallup poll 6/15/09) and are the largest group at 40%, moderates at 35% and liberals at 16% - obviously the press refusing to investigate or be critical of Obama while doing the exact opposite to Republican candidates has a decisive impact on elections. How else do you explain that we have the most left leaning pres. speaker and senate leader? Other than voter fraud and campaign finance fraud which were in play also in '09. And the other poster is correct in pointing out that Obama campaigned as a centrist.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 09:11 PM (dwIL0)
37
Lipiwitz, hinging your assurance that Obama was born in Hawaii based on birth notices in the paper is flimsy. birth notices are often put in by people calling into the paper and announcing it, much like engagements. If the roster came from the hospital listing which babies were born that day, then that would be a different think altogether. What is wrong with people wanting a copy or the original of the paper, long form birth certificate? There's a busload of tourists wanting to go to the hospital to pay homage to Obama's birth place - don't leave them hanging.
I think it's entirely possible he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, but he's clearly hiding something. And the pres of the U.S should be the standard bearer of transparency.
I think it's entirely possible he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, but he's clearly hiding something. And the pres of the U.S should be the standard bearer of transparency.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 09:19 PM (dwIL0)
38
Lipi - The only way Obama is a citizen is if he can produce the long form birth certificate. Short form was given for the asking back then and used for identification - but even Hawaii won't accept it for important ID. Clearly, Obama's hiding and if he were a Republican then Congress, the Media, or the Courts would have gotten to the bottom of this. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to stationed military parents and had to go before Congress to prove his elgibility. Obama's now spent over 1$M and counting to avoid producing the proof it looks like he dosen't have.
You're a typical liberal - no facts or arguments, just insults and not very smart or good at that either.
You're a typical liberal - no facts or arguments, just insults and not very smart or good at that either.
Posted by: Allen at July 28, 2009 09:20 PM (9E7HH)
39
Here’s Obama’s dilemma in a nutshell (READ VERY CAREFULLY AND DIGEST):
If BHO shows his original long form birth certificate, indeed showing he was born in Hawaii, it will also show his father was American citizen, Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan/British citizen, Barack Obama Sr. While that would allow Barack Jr. to be POTUS eligible as BOTH a “citizen”/“native born citizen” AND an Article 2 “natural born citizen” — that is, born to two American citizens on American soil — it would simultaneously show he is a fraud hiding his real father — an unacceptable political debacle.
If, on the other hand, BHO keeps hiding his original long form birth certificate — while simply repeating, without showing, he was born in Hawaii — he can still CLAIM BOTH he was born in Hawaii AND his father was the Kenyan/British Barack Obama Sr. This would enable Barack Jr. to claim he’s a “citizen”/“native born citizen” but it would mean (if a federal court would ever get around to declaring and thus far no one has standing to bring the suit) that he’s NOT an Article 2 “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible to be POTUS — a legal/constitutional debacle since all acts under an illegal POTUS are void.
So it seems, BHO has elected option one until forced to go option two because for now it looks like no federal court will ever find a plaintiff with standing. (Of course, there’s the additional issue of BHO losing American citizen status if/when he became an Indonesian citizen — that is, IF he returned and was naturalized he would be a legal citizen, but would lose both native and natural born status, and, IF he returned and was not naturalized, he would be an illegal immigrant unlawfully in this country — but we’ll leave that for another day.)
If BHO shows his original long form birth certificate, indeed showing he was born in Hawaii, it will also show his father was American citizen, Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan/British citizen, Barack Obama Sr. While that would allow Barack Jr. to be POTUS eligible as BOTH a “citizen”/“native born citizen” AND an Article 2 “natural born citizen” — that is, born to two American citizens on American soil — it would simultaneously show he is a fraud hiding his real father — an unacceptable political debacle.
If, on the other hand, BHO keeps hiding his original long form birth certificate — while simply repeating, without showing, he was born in Hawaii — he can still CLAIM BOTH he was born in Hawaii AND his father was the Kenyan/British Barack Obama Sr. This would enable Barack Jr. to claim he’s a “citizen”/“native born citizen” but it would mean (if a federal court would ever get around to declaring and thus far no one has standing to bring the suit) that he’s NOT an Article 2 “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible to be POTUS — a legal/constitutional debacle since all acts under an illegal POTUS are void.
So it seems, BHO has elected option one until forced to go option two because for now it looks like no federal court will ever find a plaintiff with standing. (Of course, there’s the additional issue of BHO losing American citizen status if/when he became an Indonesian citizen — that is, IF he returned and was naturalized he would be a legal citizen, but would lose both native and natural born status, and, IF he returned and was not naturalized, he would be an illegal immigrant unlawfully in this country — but we’ll leave that for another day.)
Posted by: Jack at July 28, 2009 09:24 PM (5MSHI)
40
BHO doesn't have to show you people squat!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 28, 2009 09:57 PM (OX5qU)
41
What about his campaign on transparency, Lip? By the way, you're sounding shrill.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 10:06 PM (dwIL0)
42
BHO's dilemma? Your dilemma is discovering that nobody cares what you unhinged birther looneys think and now you don't have one single Republican that is going to entertain your tin-foil hat, unhinged conspiracy theories. Even Michelle Bachman voted to declare Obama a recognized US citizen. And lets be honest...if the long form was presented, you'd declare it a forgery and keep these paranoid, delusional, unhinged fantasies going.
Obama's dilemma (READ CAREFULLY AND DIGEST)...what the hell is an unhinged birther looney like Jack, Allen, Jayne or anybody else going to do about it? Nobody important is entertaining or taking seriously your tin-foil hat conspiracies.
Obama's dilemma (READ CAREFULLY AND DIGEST)...what the hell is an unhinged birther looney like Jack, Allen, Jayne or anybody else going to do about it? Nobody important is entertaining or taking seriously your tin-foil hat conspiracies.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 28, 2009 10:07 PM (OX5qU)
43
If The Great God Obama was born in Hawaii why has he hired a battery of lawyers to keep people from seeing the original, doctor signed, not a copy but the original. YOu know the answer as well as I do. If that wasn't they case I think any person would be willing to produce the birth certifcate if they were running or elected President. AS I have said a thousand times OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA, EVERY THING HE WANTS DONE LEADS TO A SOCIALIZE NATION OR A DICTATOR NATION RUN BY HIM. THE MAN EGO IS SO HIGH THAT HE THINKS HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN BE A PRESIDENT. YOU LOOK AROUND WHO IS FRIENDS ARE, YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT YOU CAN SIT IN A CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS AND LISTEN TO A PREACHER THAT PREACHES AGAINST AMERICA AND NOT KNOW IT. AGAIN HE WANTS TO DESTROY THIS NATION. AND LOOKS LIKE THE LILLY LIVERED SENATORS AND CONGRESS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LET HIM TO IT. SISTER NANCY SAID HOW HIGH YOU WANT ME TO JUMP WHEN HE SPEAKS TO HER, READ GOT HIS NOSE STUCK SO FAR UP OBAMA BUTT THAT HE CANNOT FIND IT.
Posted by: Wm. Patterson at July 28, 2009 10:20 PM (6k6Xx)
44
Lip, the head of CNN, Joe Klein, told Lou Dobb's staff that there was no story anymore because his researchers told him that all the paper records were destroyed by the Hawiian officials in 2001. But then it was brought up that the Hawaiian gals had said they had the b.c. and since that was 2008 the CNN guy's info must have been wrong. Hawaiian officials then said that no they did not destroy original docs.
This is just one of the inconsistencies that keep coming up with Obama's b.c. So #1 CNN thought it was important enough to check it out and #2 their cover up was blown so #3 now the press story is that it's all a few loonies and #4 Congress passed their resolution in an attempt to end the story. Again, Lip, what's wrong with transparency and honesty. What does it hurt to show the b.c.
This is just one of the inconsistencies that keep coming up with Obama's b.c. So #1 CNN thought it was important enough to check it out and #2 their cover up was blown so #3 now the press story is that it's all a few loonies and #4 Congress passed their resolution in an attempt to end the story. Again, Lip, what's wrong with transparency and honesty. What does it hurt to show the b.c.
Posted by: Jayne at July 28, 2009 10:30 PM (dwIL0)
45
How about this one, OK, lets say BHO was born in Honolulu (no more questions). But, this is not the key element of whether he qualifies ( eligible as natural born) to be potus. Everything else available in factual info (which is very limited), can only lead to the conclusion that BHO surrendered his U.S. citizenship for that of Indonesia's and was never re-naturalized a U.S. citizen. BHO has never even renounced his Indonesian citizenship and, should be immediately arrested for treason and deported (to Indonesia) as an illegal alien (which in fact he is). The shame of all this is (a narcissist is incapable of shame), we the people have been duped from the very beginning of this farce. Our so called leaders ( protectors), have allowed this greatest fraud of all time to occur and apparently plan to do nothing about it. The DNC very well is complicit in this deceit and their future will be destroyed as fitting for those trying so desperately to destroy the GOP's. What a wonderful thought, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 28, 2009 11:42 PM (NJis7)
46
There's a simple solution to the controversy. Under the laws of the State of Hawai'i, any fairly close relative (including aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews) can request a copy of the original long form birth certificate. Access is not limited only to Barack Obama himself.
Consider all the money and time that's been wasted in the past eight months. Why doesn't someone just offer his grandmother, his half-brother, or his illegal alien aunt a free Hawaian vacation and settle the issue once and for all?
Consider all the money and time that's been wasted in the past eight months. Why doesn't someone just offer his grandmother, his half-brother, or his illegal alien aunt a free Hawaian vacation and settle the issue once and for all?
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at July 28, 2009 11:59 PM (61312)
47
If all of you birthers think that you have a case, pool your funds, hire an attorney and file suit in Federal Court. Like the other suits that have been filed in the past, yours, too, will likely be dismissed as groundless.
Lipiwitz is correct. Obama doesn't have a birth certificate dilemma. A small vocal minority have a dilemma.
rotarymunkey: I was very clear in pointing out the difference in the popular vote and the electoral vote. I'm well aware of the difference. In fact, I remember very well the election of 2000 when George Bush garnered a million popular votes fewer than Al Gore, yet, thanks to our electoral college system, Bush became president. Thank you, however, for your insightful post.
Yes, let's do discuss the merits of native born citizen vs. natural born citizen. Please explain the difference in the legal sense, as you understand it.
Legally speaking, if you're born on American Soil, with a few exceptions carved out for the children of diplomats of foreign nations who are "stationed" in the US, or you are a child of certain Indian Nations within the USA (Honestly,I don't know enough about the Indians' situation to discuss it intelligently) you ARE a natural born American citizen.
Born in America = Natural born citizen = qualified for office of POTUS. It doesn't matter if one or even both of your parents are citizens of Kenya, Mars, Jupiter, Mexico or anywhere else in the universe for that matter, assuming of course that they are human beings (exceptions noted above). This issue has been settled law for more than a century.
Should you decide to research this issue further please keep in mind that the only opinions that matter, in a legal sense, are the affirmative rulings of the SCOTUS that settled this issue long ago.
Dissenting opinions don't count nor do blogs to the contrary. They do, however, provide fodder for this silly debate. As CY said in his original post for this thread, Have Fun!
If all of you birthers think that you have a case, pool your funds, hire an attorney and file suit in Federal Court. Like the other suits that have been filed in the past, yours, too, will likely be dismissed as groundless.
Lipiwitz is correct. Obama doesn't have a birth certificate dilemma. A small vocal minority have a dilemma.
rotarymunkey: I was very clear in pointing out the difference in the popular vote and the electoral vote. I'm well aware of the difference. In fact, I remember very well the election of 2000 when George Bush garnered a million popular votes fewer than Al Gore, yet, thanks to our electoral college system, Bush became president. Thank you, however, for your insightful post.
Yes, let's do discuss the merits of native born citizen vs. natural born citizen. Please explain the difference in the legal sense, as you understand it.
Legally speaking, if you're born on American Soil, with a few exceptions carved out for the children of diplomats of foreign nations who are "stationed" in the US, or you are a child of certain Indian Nations within the USA (Honestly,I don't know enough about the Indians' situation to discuss it intelligently) you ARE a natural born American citizen.
Born in America = Natural born citizen = qualified for office of POTUS. It doesn't matter if one or even both of your parents are citizens of Kenya, Mars, Jupiter, Mexico or anywhere else in the universe for that matter, assuming of course that they are human beings (exceptions noted above). This issue has been settled law for more than a century.
Should you decide to research this issue further please keep in mind that the only opinions that matter, in a legal sense, are the affirmative rulings of the SCOTUS that settled this issue long ago.
Dissenting opinions don't count nor do blogs to the contrary. They do, however, provide fodder for this silly debate. As CY said in his original post for this thread, Have Fun!
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 12:14 AM (byA+E)
48
Exactly Dude! Barrack Obama doesn't have to prove squat! What he proved was he had enough of a majority support from Americans to win an election and since my pension and 401K levels are starting to get back to pre-Bush screwed it all up beyond repair levels, he's proving to me that he's doing a pretty good job. The small minority of conspiracy theorists now have the burden of proving their case that he is not a legal citizen. Obama has provided a certificate of live birth with the certificate number and state seal, the hospital officials have confirmed the birth, the state clerks office has confirmed the birth, the Republican governor has confirmed the birth. All the proof has been given to satisfy legal requirements as a citizen of the United States. The certificate of live birth is what the state department requires to declare your citizenship and get a passport. Now the birthers need to prove differently and provide the evidence to support their looney claims. It's your accusation...PROVE IT!!!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 29, 2009 12:29 AM (bhNGz)
49
BHO and is closest followers/handlers, want this matter to only concentrate on the legitimacy of Hawaiian birth. They know it will never amount to the ultimate damming evidence that his association with Indonesia would produce. If they can only keep it a matter of birth and not go into other matters, their chances of continuing to perpetuate this ( constitutional) fraud are greater. You may have noticed that all legal cases requiring BHO to produce his past records have been summarily dismissed. It's as if there is no longer any honesty in any branch of our government. We are entitled to know these details of the POTUS. With what BHO has produced in regards to his historical documentation so far, he couldn't get a security clearance to guard military latrines. What a comfort to know that our leader (and leader of the free world), cannot produce sufficient credentials to even obtain the lowest security clearance (in our nation).
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 29, 2009 12:35 AM (NJis7)
50
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Posted by: Burnt Offering at July 29, 2009 01:14 AM (X3y1i)
51
Still won't be good enough for the Birthers!!! They're going to continue to ambush officials in public about this looneyness just like the 9/11 Truthers do. I just can't wait until one of these birther looneys ambush Palin at a town hall meeting and force her to go on record with this crazy tin-foil hat nonsense. Then the rest of the country can look at her and say "She's just as whacked as the rest of them!"
joseph loughery...the black helicopters above your house are being piloted by aliens that traveled back in time to eat your gerbils. Lucky for them, they brought their birth certificates. lol
joseph loughery...the black helicopters above your house are being piloted by aliens that traveled back in time to eat your gerbils. Lucky for them, they brought their birth certificates. lol
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 29, 2009 02:21 AM (bhNGz)
52
Dude, there of course has been a lawsuit and petitioner prevailed as you know. It must be nice to erase distasteful facts from one's head as we go along. Genius. Your claim that the TANG memoes was..... a fraud perpetrated by the White House? The Bush White House? Scooter Libby was actually Lucy Ramirez and slipped the faxed/copied memoes produced on MS Word defaults to Dan Rather? Hmmm. Like Barack neither reality or even the simplest sort of consistency restrains the content of your oral diarhea. Who was it that said of the Left, They forget nothing and they learn nothing? Oh well, that is half right. And you assert Obama's intelligence is demonstrated by his ability to get votes from stupid pukes like yourself? Do we have to factor in his current collapse among Independents, the late sign of his genius? I guess anyone who is elected President is therefore a genius... GO BUSH! Although that excludes Clinton as he never did get a majority. Maybe you are onto something here! Pathetic. The more you witless anti-american commie doofs rally around the Kenyan dumbass the more you share in his disgrace, his failure and his frauds.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 29, 2009 07:53 AM (8hy60)
53
megapotamus, I commend you for your intimate knowledge and use of the many types of fallacies in argumentation, and the fact that you able to so eloquently weave them into your discourse: ad hominem, weak analogy, red herrings, straw man,the slippery slope, etc., etc. The list goes on and on.
In fact, your posts in general are a case study in the use of fallacy arguments. Credit where credit is due!
In fact, your posts in general are a case study in the use of fallacy arguments. Credit where credit is due!
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 09:37 AM (byA+E)
54
Dude, Which SCOTUS case settled this issue?
Posted by: Jayne at July 29, 2009 11:00 AM (dwIL0)
55
Here's my take on the birth certificate issue:
http://viewfromarockingchair.blogspot.com/2009/07/about-that-birth-certificate.html
http://viewfromarockingchair.blogspot.com/2009/07/about-that-birth-certificate.html
Posted by: Kathy at July 29, 2009 11:36 AM (GgxCk)
56
Re: "he may be born in Hawaii but also became a citizen of Indonesia and thus be a dual citizen to this day.'
Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia. Both Indonesia and the US State Department have said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.
Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia. Both Indonesia and the US State Department have said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.
Posted by: smrstrauss at July 29, 2009 01:07 PM (2SDaf)
57
Re: "is it true he traveled to Pakistan when Americans were not permitted to do so?'
No he did not. In 1981, when Obama went to Pakistan, Pakistan was relatively peaceful, so peaceful that newspapers ran travel articles recommending visiting "scenic Lahore." Pakistan encouraged visits with such things as an office of Pakistan International Airlines on Fifth Avenue in New York City, and it granted 30-day visas when US citizens arrived at Pakistan's airports. Pakistan did not bar US citizens from visiting, and it was not on a US State Department no-travel list.
No he did not. In 1981, when Obama went to Pakistan, Pakistan was relatively peaceful, so peaceful that newspapers ran travel articles recommending visiting "scenic Lahore." Pakistan encouraged visits with such things as an office of Pakistan International Airlines on Fifth Avenue in New York City, and it granted 30-day visas when US citizens arrived at Pakistan's airports. Pakistan did not bar US citizens from visiting, and it was not on a US State Department no-travel list.
Posted by: smrstrauss at July 29, 2009 01:10 PM (2SDaf)
58
"Dude, Which SCOTUS case settled this issue?
Posted by Jayne at July 29, 2009 11:00 AM"
Hey Jayne, The case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark (189. The SCOTUS ruled in a 6-2 decision that US citizenship was conferred upon Wong Kim Ark at birth, having been born on US soil, even though his parents were not citizens and even though they left the US with their child.
It's worth noting that Chief Justice Melville Fuller offered a dissenting opinion. However, along with all other dissenting opinions from justices who voted in the minority, on any SCOTUS case, they carry no weight in law. But, it is interesting reading.
This decision was used as precedent in subsequent SCOTUS rulings dealing with the same issue:
Perkins v. Elg (1939)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967
Unless or until there's a SCOTUS ruling in the future to the contrary, or a new amendment to the Constitution, with very few exceptions as discussed earlier, people born on US soil are in fact US citizens at birth irregardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Google United States v. Wong Kim Ark and you'll find lots of information.
Posted by Jayne at July 29, 2009 11:00 AM"
Hey Jayne, The case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark (189
. The SCOTUS ruled in a 6-2 decision that US citizenship was conferred upon Wong Kim Ark at birth, having been born on US soil, even though his parents were not citizens and even though they left the US with their child.
It's worth noting that Chief Justice Melville Fuller offered a dissenting opinion. However, along with all other dissenting opinions from justices who voted in the minority, on any SCOTUS case, they carry no weight in law. But, it is interesting reading.
This decision was used as precedent in subsequent SCOTUS rulings dealing with the same issue:
Perkins v. Elg (1939)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967
Unless or until there's a SCOTUS ruling in the future to the contrary, or a new amendment to the Constitution, with very few exceptions as discussed earlier, people born on US soil are in fact US citizens at birth irregardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Google United States v. Wong Kim Ark and you'll find lots of information.
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 01:37 PM (byA+E)
59
If the Bush WH ran the TANG documents scam, they knew something.
They knew some network, probably CBS, would be happy to run forged documents to throw an election in war time.
They KNEW CBS was dirty. They DEPENDED on it.
You think CBS or any other media want to go there.?
They knew some network, probably CBS, would be happy to run forged documents to throw an election in war time.
They KNEW CBS was dirty. They DEPENDED on it.
You think CBS or any other media want to go there.?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 29, 2009 02:44 PM (d0ih6)
60
Richard Aubrey, I'll preface this comment with the caveat that this is strictly my "opinion". Since I don't have any evidence it is merely an opinion, much like the birthers' opinion that Obama isn't a natural born citizen of the US. In other words, my opinion "proves" nothing. Nevertheless, it is my opinion and belief.
I agree with you 100% that the Bush WH knew something. They knew that CBS, and Dan Rather in particular, didn't buy Bush's so called honorable military record, and for good reason. To this day there are still many unanswered questions about his record of service.
I think that the Bush WH pulled off a brilliant political move by forging the documents and then slipping them to CBS, knowing full well that CBS would run with the story without making SURE that the documents were real. That, of course, was sloppy journalism and the rest is history. Dan Rather was discredited, as he should have been under the circumstances.
Jayne: I overlooked one of your previous posts. Yes, I understand the Gallop poll of 6/15/09. Just goes to show, yet again, that the terms liberal and conservative are pretty much meaningless.
Here are the facts. American political power is cyclical, as history proves. The majority of people, regardless of party affiliation, are moderates. The reason that the Republicans are out of power now is because they allowed the extremists to control the party. Right now, the Democrats run the same risk if they allow the extreme "left" wing of their party to completely control their agenda.
Of course, most people who work in the MSM, meaning the Big Three networks and CNN, are more apt to support Democrats than Republicans. That doesn't mean that they don't or won't air dirty laundry by Democrats. I'm certain that most employees of the MSM were elated that Obama won the election.
I'm equally certain that most employees of Fox news and the employees of the many right wing talk radio shows were disappointed that he won.
That's why it's important for we the people to get as much information as possible from as many different sources as possible in order to try to glean the elusive truth from all the gibberish.
To say that any of the media "influences" the outcome of an election, though it may very well be true, doesn't say very many good things about the intelligence of the average voter.
When the Dems are in power, the Pubs blame the MSM. When the Pubs are in power, the Dems blame Fox News and Talk Radio. That's just the way it goes in American politics. I'm not saying that this bodes well for our country. I'm saying that's reality.
If I were a Republican I wouldn't worry too much. Your team will be back in power sooner or later. As a moderate, so called Blue Dog Democrat, I am worried that my party will allow the extremists in our party to run the show, thus setting us up for the historically proven loss of seats in the mid-term elections following the election of a popular president who is not in the party of the preceding president.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens, won't we?!
I agree with you 100% that the Bush WH knew something. They knew that CBS, and Dan Rather in particular, didn't buy Bush's so called honorable military record, and for good reason. To this day there are still many unanswered questions about his record of service.
I think that the Bush WH pulled off a brilliant political move by forging the documents and then slipping them to CBS, knowing full well that CBS would run with the story without making SURE that the documents were real. That, of course, was sloppy journalism and the rest is history. Dan Rather was discredited, as he should have been under the circumstances.
Jayne: I overlooked one of your previous posts. Yes, I understand the Gallop poll of 6/15/09. Just goes to show, yet again, that the terms liberal and conservative are pretty much meaningless.
Here are the facts. American political power is cyclical, as history proves. The majority of people, regardless of party affiliation, are moderates. The reason that the Republicans are out of power now is because they allowed the extremists to control the party. Right now, the Democrats run the same risk if they allow the extreme "left" wing of their party to completely control their agenda.
Of course, most people who work in the MSM, meaning the Big Three networks and CNN, are more apt to support Democrats than Republicans. That doesn't mean that they don't or won't air dirty laundry by Democrats. I'm certain that most employees of the MSM were elated that Obama won the election.
I'm equally certain that most employees of Fox news and the employees of the many right wing talk radio shows were disappointed that he won.
That's why it's important for we the people to get as much information as possible from as many different sources as possible in order to try to glean the elusive truth from all the gibberish.
To say that any of the media "influences" the outcome of an election, though it may very well be true, doesn't say very many good things about the intelligence of the average voter.
When the Dems are in power, the Pubs blame the MSM. When the Pubs are in power, the Dems blame Fox News and Talk Radio. That's just the way it goes in American politics. I'm not saying that this bodes well for our country. I'm saying that's reality.
If I were a Republican I wouldn't worry too much. Your team will be back in power sooner or later. As a moderate, so called Blue Dog Democrat, I am worried that my party will allow the extremists in our party to run the show, thus setting us up for the historically proven loss of seats in the mid-term elections following the election of a popular president who is not in the party of the preceding president.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens, won't we?!
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 04:10 PM (byA+E)
61
Im sorry if this has already been talked about. I really do not have time to read everything.
As Lou Dobbs said yesterday.
A Hawaiian official said. "In my opinion the president is,,,,,,,,,,"
OPINION.
I say it again. In her opinion,,,,, OPINION.
No facts, no proof. Just a statement voicing an official's OPINION!
As Lou Dobbs said yesterday.
A Hawaiian official said. "In my opinion the president is,,,,,,,,,,"
OPINION.
I say it again. In her opinion,,,,, OPINION.
No facts, no proof. Just a statement voicing an official's OPINION!
Posted by: Matt at July 29, 2009 04:24 PM (54Fjx)
62
Interesting statement from GOP Chairman Michael Steele today:
“Chairman Steele believes that this is an unnecessary distraction and believes that the president is a U.S. citizen. Chairman Steele wants to move beyond this conversation and continue discussing the real and immediate concerns that face American families like the economy and health care. Americans are concerned with President Obama’s health care plan, a failed stimulus package and a ballooning deficit. Chairman Steele has many other issues to take up with the president that have to do with policy, not a birth certificate.”
“Chairman Steele believes that this is an unnecessary distraction and believes that the president is a U.S. citizen. Chairman Steele wants to move beyond this conversation and continue discussing the real and immediate concerns that face American families like the economy and health care. Americans are concerned with President Obama’s health care plan, a failed stimulus package and a ballooning deficit. Chairman Steele has many other issues to take up with the president that have to do with policy, not a birth certificate.”
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 29, 2009 07:23 PM (OX5qU)
63
Perhaps Lou Dobbs misquoted the good Doctor. ALL of the news reports that I've read quoting the Doctor's statement, made on Monday, report that she said:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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...."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
********************************
"State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.
They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate
***********************************************
In none of the reports quoting the Health Director for the state of Hawaii have I seen the word "opinion".
If you have evidence that Dobbs attributed use of the word "opinion" to the doctor, in reporting Dr. Fukino's statement that she made this past Monday, please provide a link.
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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...."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
********************************
"State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.
They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate
***********************************************
In none of the reports quoting the Health Director for the state of Hawaii have I seen the word "opinion".
If you have evidence that Dobbs attributed use of the word "opinion" to the doctor, in reporting Dr. Fukino's statement that she made this past Monday, please provide a link.
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 07:33 PM (byA+E)
64
I'm still looking for verification that Obama's team of legal eagles have spent millions of dollars on this issue. Can't find it anywhere except right-wing birther blogs but nothing credible and non-tin foil hat sources. People must lose a lot of sleep making this stuff up.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 29, 2009 09:14 PM (OX5qU)
65
Dude, if more Americans identify as conservative than liberal, and you say that means labels are meaningless. That's your opinion, you are saying people do not know what is meant by liberal or conservative. Yet you say most Americans are moderate, even though given that choice they do not opt for that in the majority. That's your opinion, again placing your own belief above that of what people state. I guess you think you are more aware of individuals in the mass than they are themselves. Your ego exceeds your intellect, no wonder you identify with Obama.
The Supreme Court case you mention does not settle the Obama b.c. matter because it is agreed that the person in that case was born in America, which is the point of contention. In addition the qualification of a president would require a more serious consideration of what constitutes natural born, and relying on an 1800 case is laughable. So scratch that. We are back to square 1. Was Obama born in America?
You are relying on a health director who discusses a document she says she has in a vault. And she will not release it nor take questions. It is possible that she has been paid off, or threatened. CNN's Joe Klein says he was told paper docs. were destroyed. But then how could that square with the health director? Obama's short form electronic version could easily have been manipulated and be a forgery. The newspaper announcements are no proof. It is common practice for family members to place announcements of life events in their hometown papers about people who used to live in that area. So it comes down to this again, why doesn't Obama release any information on his life? From beginning to now any paper trail is unavailable.
In the former America, that would not pass the smell test.
The Supreme Court case you mention does not settle the Obama b.c. matter because it is agreed that the person in that case was born in America, which is the point of contention. In addition the qualification of a president would require a more serious consideration of what constitutes natural born, and relying on an 1800 case is laughable. So scratch that. We are back to square 1. Was Obama born in America?
You are relying on a health director who discusses a document she says she has in a vault. And she will not release it nor take questions. It is possible that she has been paid off, or threatened. CNN's Joe Klein says he was told paper docs. were destroyed. But then how could that square with the health director? Obama's short form electronic version could easily have been manipulated and be a forgery. The newspaper announcements are no proof. It is common practice for family members to place announcements of life events in their hometown papers about people who used to live in that area. So it comes down to this again, why doesn't Obama release any information on his life? From beginning to now any paper trail is unavailable.
In the former America, that would not pass the smell test.
Posted by: Jayne at July 29, 2009 09:31 PM (dwIL0)
66
"please provide a link."
It was on his show last night. I only caught it because my flight out of Atlanta was delayed.
Do you know how to get a hold of a transcript?
It was on his show last night. I only caught it because my flight out of Atlanta was delayed.
Do you know how to get a hold of a transcript?
Posted by: Matt at July 29, 2009 09:52 PM (54Fjx)
67
Dude, You said "it's important that we the people get as much information as possible from as many sources as possible"... how about original source documents? I don't need a bunch of people giving me an interpretation, just the facts,,,,,where did I read that before? You apparently rely on others to help you decide what is right, what is truth.
Republicans did not lose power because the extremists held sway. Bush was a "compassionate" conservative. His bill with Ted, his attempted deal with the illegals, his expansion of medicare before reigning in ss and medicare doomed his conservative credentials. (I still thank Bush for tax cuts, supreme picks, and defense.) The moderates also held sway in the congress. Then the moderate McCain got the nomination and even moderate Powell would not back him.
We do not go back and forth from lib to conservative. Since the Marxists took hold of journalism and education it's been a steady leftward tilt, with a glorious Reagan 8 years of sanity in one branch, and a Gingrich stop to Clinton excess.
You are an obamobot, you started off here with ridiculous, easily refuted comments, then when you were challenged, you got your obama paid back up and your arguments are more sophisticated, but not more cogent nor more persuasive.
Republicans did not lose power because the extremists held sway. Bush was a "compassionate" conservative. His bill with Ted, his attempted deal with the illegals, his expansion of medicare before reigning in ss and medicare doomed his conservative credentials. (I still thank Bush for tax cuts, supreme picks, and defense.) The moderates also held sway in the congress. Then the moderate McCain got the nomination and even moderate Powell would not back him.
We do not go back and forth from lib to conservative. Since the Marxists took hold of journalism and education it's been a steady leftward tilt, with a glorious Reagan 8 years of sanity in one branch, and a Gingrich stop to Clinton excess.
You are an obamobot, you started off here with ridiculous, easily refuted comments, then when you were challenged, you got your obama paid back up and your arguments are more sophisticated, but not more cogent nor more persuasive.
Posted by: Jayne at July 29, 2009 11:12 PM (dwIL0)
68
Matt,
I'll try to find a transcript. Thanks for the suggestion. I did look around just a wee bit for the video but couldn't find it.
Jayne,
Other polls, as you well know, prove my point that most people are moderates. Just because someone says that they are a Republican doesn't mean that they are on the far right fringes of the party who identify with people such as Rush, Colter, etc. The same is true of Democrats. I'm a Democrat and I don't identify with many of the positions of the far left wing of my party. There are millions of Americans of both parties who feel that way.
Case in point: Though most of you birthers are Republicans, you are a vocal minority mostly within the Republican party. Many "conservative republicans do not identify with you. They think that you're nuts.
It seems pointless to further discuss the citizenship issue with you because of your ignorance of the law. It most certainly is not laughable to refer to an 1898 case as relevant to this topic. That case IS the precedent of what constitutes natural born. As I mentioned above, it has been reaffirmed in two subsequent cases. There may be more but those are the two that I'm aware of, the most recent being Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
It is patently false, in the legal world, to say that "In addition the qualification of a president would require a more serious consideration of what constitutes natural born." That's absurd. A person either is or is not a natural born citizen. There's no gray area. That is settled case law, even if you don't like it or agree with it. It's the law of the land. Period.
Don't take my word for it. Hire two, three or more immigration attorneys to explain it to you.
YOU and your fellow birthers are back to square one. For the rest of us it's a settled matter. BHO is a natural born citizen of the USA. He was born in America. If you need more proof, by all means feel free to spend as much time and money as you feel is necessary to be satisfied with his status as a natural born citizen.
If you find proof that he isn't a natural born citizen, file a suit. Obama has done all that he needs to do to establish his status as a natural born citizen, even though you don't like it.
As for all of the "if" scenarios that you mention, you "could be" from mars", you "might be" a secret agent of some kind. It's "possible" that this is all an illusion. Get the point?
Have a nice evening.............
Dude
I'll try to find a transcript. Thanks for the suggestion. I did look around just a wee bit for the video but couldn't find it.
Jayne,
Other polls, as you well know, prove my point that most people are moderates. Just because someone says that they are a Republican doesn't mean that they are on the far right fringes of the party who identify with people such as Rush, Colter, etc. The same is true of Democrats. I'm a Democrat and I don't identify with many of the positions of the far left wing of my party. There are millions of Americans of both parties who feel that way.
Case in point: Though most of you birthers are Republicans, you are a vocal minority mostly within the Republican party. Many "conservative republicans do not identify with you. They think that you're nuts.
It seems pointless to further discuss the citizenship issue with you because of your ignorance of the law. It most certainly is not laughable to refer to an 1898 case as relevant to this topic. That case IS the precedent of what constitutes natural born. As I mentioned above, it has been reaffirmed in two subsequent cases. There may be more but those are the two that I'm aware of, the most recent being Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
It is patently false, in the legal world, to say that "In addition the qualification of a president would require a more serious consideration of what constitutes natural born." That's absurd. A person either is or is not a natural born citizen. There's no gray area. That is settled case law, even if you don't like it or agree with it. It's the law of the land. Period.
Don't take my word for it. Hire two, three or more immigration attorneys to explain it to you.
YOU and your fellow birthers are back to square one. For the rest of us it's a settled matter. BHO is a natural born citizen of the USA. He was born in America. If you need more proof, by all means feel free to spend as much time and money as you feel is necessary to be satisfied with his status as a natural born citizen.
If you find proof that he isn't a natural born citizen, file a suit. Obama has done all that he needs to do to establish his status as a natural born citizen, even though you don't like it.
As for all of the "if" scenarios that you mention, you "could be" from mars", you "might be" a secret agent of some kind. It's "possible" that this is all an illusion. Get the point?
Have a nice evening.............
Dude
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 11:14 PM (byA+E)
69
Jayne, I just read your comment about my "Obama paid back up". I wish! Sophisticated? Me? You don't have a clue, lady. I'm as country as dirt, a hillbilly, to be sure. Please, why don't you send me a check for replying to you?
Sorry, no paid back up, though that is flattering. I suppose I am learning a thing or two about debating with people who use every trick in the book to persuade others to ignore reality. Thanks for the compliment. Now, if you'd just send me a check, please.........
Sorry, no paid back up, though that is flattering. I suppose I am learning a thing or two about debating with people who use every trick in the book to persuade others to ignore reality. Thanks for the compliment. Now, if you'd just send me a check, please.........
Posted by: Dude at July 29, 2009 11:25 PM (byA+E)
70
Dude, you are not paid, the Obama folks pay some people to troll the boards - find out what's hot and then post debate points at the usual spots that dems go to. You can tell because their is a similar pattern. People who have gotten on that myobabma list get their talking points. They think they can do verbal battle and start off all proud but silly - like you did with the Bush's National Guard records were not nearly good enough post. Remember that? Then they find out they are dealing with people who are more adept and they go back for help. During the campaign I ran into a couple of shills who did the exact same thing as you did here.
Posted by: Jayne at July 30, 2009 12:01 AM (dwIL0)
71
Dude, the Gallup poll did not ask people to identify as Republican. It was conservative, moderate, liberal. Stop twisting facts to prop up your previous invalid argument.
I did not propose "if" scenarios. I stated it was possible a person could be compromised, and refuted the proof of newspaper announcements, and brought up the odd CNN part of the document tale. One health director making a statement with no independent verifiable proof, and refusing to take questions is not reliable - Just ask Max Cleland. Or yourself - you would not have accepted that from a spokesman on the Bush Nat'l Guard paystubs, now would you?
What do you say about getting facts from all the original source documents that Obama has kept from view - since you say you think we should get as much information as possible.
Since the presidential requirement is to be a natural born citizen, the facts would bear more scrutiny than your 1800s precedent. Precedent of that old doesn't mean much anymore if you hadn't noticed. The facts being in question are the place of birth and what constitutes proof, the mother's age, whether or not the citizen relinquished citizenship and what affect that has on the requirement.
I'm not a birther, I think Obama very well could have been born in Hawaii. I'm a truther, I'm more interested in what he is hiding with his b.c. and the other docs he won't let the republic in on. I believe in transparency in our government - complete, cards on the table, untenable as it may be, transparency.
I did not propose "if" scenarios. I stated it was possible a person could be compromised, and refuted the proof of newspaper announcements, and brought up the odd CNN part of the document tale. One health director making a statement with no independent verifiable proof, and refusing to take questions is not reliable - Just ask Max Cleland. Or yourself - you would not have accepted that from a spokesman on the Bush Nat'l Guard paystubs, now would you?
What do you say about getting facts from all the original source documents that Obama has kept from view - since you say you think we should get as much information as possible.
Since the presidential requirement is to be a natural born citizen, the facts would bear more scrutiny than your 1800s precedent. Precedent of that old doesn't mean much anymore if you hadn't noticed. The facts being in question are the place of birth and what constitutes proof, the mother's age, whether or not the citizen relinquished citizenship and what affect that has on the requirement.
I'm not a birther, I think Obama very well could have been born in Hawaii. I'm a truther, I'm more interested in what he is hiding with his b.c. and the other docs he won't let the republic in on. I believe in transparency in our government - complete, cards on the table, untenable as it may be, transparency.
Posted by: Jayne at July 30, 2009 12:23 AM (dwIL0)
72
What he can be hiding in his b.c. and other docs? I've seen it! We've all seen it! There is nothing to hide! Lets face it Jayne, it doesn't matter what you are shown, you won't believe it. You can never bring yourself to believe it. If the long form was produced and it showed nothing sinister, you would claim it to be a Liberal forgery so why should he waste his time and effort on people who are a waste of time and effort. Especially when it may contain personal information that quite frankly, is none of your damn business. Exactly who do you people think you are? Its not like you voted for him so he owes you nothing. Did Liberals demand to intrude in McCain's personal information by seeing his long form and he actually wasn't born in America? He was born in Panama.
If there was an issue with Obama's birth certificate, don't you think the Clinton machine would've capitalized on that? The Clinton's and their connections would've exploited it skillfully without making themselves out to be a bunch of tin-foil hat loonies? Obama produced documents that are required under our law and acceptable as statements of citizenship as per our State Department. What is shown is what is required and anything more than that is none of our business. For people who claim they want less government intrusion, you're awfully intrusive.
I also saw the poll that shows majority of Conservatives. A good portion of that majority still voted for Obama. You have to remember that you people religiously hawked support for the previous administration. The previous administration that was responsible for the largest government expansion in our country's history, the largest debt in our country's history (to date) and borrowed more money than all previous 43 presidents combined. Rated as the worst president ever by any standards (to date) and not one single tea party in eight years. You are not Conservative. There is absolutely nothing Conservative about you. You just hijacked the name.
If there was an issue with Obama's birth certificate, don't you think the Clinton machine would've capitalized on that? The Clinton's and their connections would've exploited it skillfully without making themselves out to be a bunch of tin-foil hat loonies? Obama produced documents that are required under our law and acceptable as statements of citizenship as per our State Department. What is shown is what is required and anything more than that is none of our business. For people who claim they want less government intrusion, you're awfully intrusive.
I also saw the poll that shows majority of Conservatives. A good portion of that majority still voted for Obama. You have to remember that you people religiously hawked support for the previous administration. The previous administration that was responsible for the largest government expansion in our country's history, the largest debt in our country's history (to date) and borrowed more money than all previous 43 presidents combined. Rated as the worst president ever by any standards (to date) and not one single tea party in eight years. You are not Conservative. There is absolutely nothing Conservative about you. You just hijacked the name.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 30, 2009 02:37 AM (bhNGz)
73
Here is a sample of a long form birth certificate. If you take a close look, you will notice that it does involve personal information concerning the Mother and Father that Obama probably considers none of our business. Personal information that he is not required by law to provide anyone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Weird.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Weird.gif
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 30, 2009 03:40 AM (bhNGz)
74
Jayne,
If it looks like a birther, acts like a birther, smells like a birther, it probably is a birther. You're a birther, Jayne. No question about it.
Lipiwitz is correct on the BC issue. Whatever personal information that may be on the "long form" about Obama's parents is irrelevant and quite frankly none of your business.
Lipiwitz also makes a good point in regards to the Clinton machine. If there were even a hint of a question of his status as a natural born citizen, thus qualified for POTUS, they would have been on that like white on rice.
There is not one shred of evidence that Obama has ever relinquished his American citizenship. None. And, none of the other issues that you raise; his mother's age, the absurd notion that somehow the system in place in Hawaii for birth records is corrupted, with no evidence to support it, have any bearing on this discussion. If you have proof that Hawaii's Department of Health is corrupt, by all means, bring it to the light of day.
Had you taken the time to read the SCOTUS rulings that I mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps you'd have a better understanding of this citizenship issue. Then again, perhaps not. Transcripts of all of the SCOTUS rulings that I've posted in a previous post in this thread are available online, for free.
My earlier point in regards to Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, whatever, is that you would like to be able to put everyone in a little box with a label on it. It doesn't work that way in reality. More specifically, there are many shades of conservatism and liberalism. The Gallop poll that you mentioned earlier, showing percentages of liberal, conservative, moderate....compared with the Rasmussen Reports polls that shows percentages of party affiliation proves my point that the terms are meaningless in any real sense.
Let me give you a personal example from my own life. I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. My interpretation of that amendment is the same as that of most "conservatives". If we discussed that issue only, most people would say, "Hey, Dude's a conservative!".
On the other hand, if we discussed Roe v. Wade, only, which I support (even though I personally would not choose for my wife to have an abortion), most folks would conclude that Dude is a liberal.
You can't put us all in a labeled box, much to your dismay.
In response to your absurd accusation that an Obama paid person is helping me with my posts, I'm nearly speechless. Simply put, I can't imagine that the Obama team would be wasting their time and resources to even consider spending any money to respond to silly posts from birthers on these blogs. They don't need to. No one is helping me compose my posts. What HAS helped me is a personal study of the different types of fallacies used by folks such as yourself in debates.
As for my previous posts in regards to Bush's record of service in the National Guard, no one has easily refuted me. I simply don't have any proof to support my beliefs, much to my disappointment. Therefore, I'm not going to foolishly insist that what I believe is fact, without proof.
We have proof, all the proof required by any legal standard, that Obama is a natural born citizen of the state of Hawaii and the United States of America. I realize that that proof doesn't satisfy you. That's your problem.
If it looks like a birther, acts like a birther, smells like a birther, it probably is a birther. You're a birther, Jayne. No question about it.
Lipiwitz is correct on the BC issue. Whatever personal information that may be on the "long form" about Obama's parents is irrelevant and quite frankly none of your business.
Lipiwitz also makes a good point in regards to the Clinton machine. If there were even a hint of a question of his status as a natural born citizen, thus qualified for POTUS, they would have been on that like white on rice.
There is not one shred of evidence that Obama has ever relinquished his American citizenship. None. And, none of the other issues that you raise; his mother's age, the absurd notion that somehow the system in place in Hawaii for birth records is corrupted, with no evidence to support it, have any bearing on this discussion. If you have proof that Hawaii's Department of Health is corrupt, by all means, bring it to the light of day.
Had you taken the time to read the SCOTUS rulings that I mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps you'd have a better understanding of this citizenship issue. Then again, perhaps not. Transcripts of all of the SCOTUS rulings that I've posted in a previous post in this thread are available online, for free.
My earlier point in regards to Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, whatever, is that you would like to be able to put everyone in a little box with a label on it. It doesn't work that way in reality. More specifically, there are many shades of conservatism and liberalism. The Gallop poll that you mentioned earlier, showing percentages of liberal, conservative, moderate....compared with the Rasmussen Reports polls that shows percentages of party affiliation proves my point that the terms are meaningless in any real sense.
Let me give you a personal example from my own life. I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. My interpretation of that amendment is the same as that of most "conservatives". If we discussed that issue only, most people would say, "Hey, Dude's a conservative!".
On the other hand, if we discussed Roe v. Wade, only, which I support (even though I personally would not choose for my wife to have an abortion), most folks would conclude that Dude is a liberal.
You can't put us all in a labeled box, much to your dismay.
In response to your absurd accusation that an Obama paid person is helping me with my posts, I'm nearly speechless. Simply put, I can't imagine that the Obama team would be wasting their time and resources to even consider spending any money to respond to silly posts from birthers on these blogs. They don't need to. No one is helping me compose my posts. What HAS helped me is a personal study of the different types of fallacies used by folks such as yourself in debates.
As for my previous posts in regards to Bush's record of service in the National Guard, no one has easily refuted me. I simply don't have any proof to support my beliefs, much to my disappointment. Therefore, I'm not going to foolishly insist that what I believe is fact, without proof.
We have proof, all the proof required by any legal standard, that Obama is a natural born citizen of the state of Hawaii and the United States of America. I realize that that proof doesn't satisfy you. That's your problem.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 08:42 AM (byA+E)
75
Guys, forget about the birth certificate. According to Obama, his father was not a citizen. The Constitution requires the President to be a "natural born citizen". A "natural born citizen" is one whose parents were also citizens.
Background on the origin of the term "natural born citizen" and the Founders at these links:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Background on the origin of the term "natural born citizen" and the Founders at these links:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Posted by: Jack Okie at July 30, 2009 09:56 AM (a+Q5X)
76
posted by dude, "lu-ee:I rather doubt that very many people care what you do or don't believe about Obama's place of birth. Your comment referring to The President as an illegal alien doesn't help your case at all."
hey "dude" if you don't care what i say, then why comment on what "i said" AT ALL? hmmm pal?
oh and your qualified statement shows your real worry. "I rather doubt that very many people care..." BUT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE "MANY PEOPLE" WHO DO CARE? dont you? in your mind you are trying to paint them as NOT very many, but there are MANY. And that worries you.
here "dude" posted below is a link to what a real long form, REAL birth certificate, looks like.
the Oba-messiah, the illegal alien, has NOT PRODUCED THIS FORM. ONCE HE PRODUCES IT, THEN HE WILL BECOME MY PREZ. until then he is an illegal alien, fraud & an usurper. And it is very easy to be a fraud with a large part of the MSM in your pocket covering up for you as well as other journalists & op-eders, whether conservatives & liberals, who are too scared to take this all the way.
Here is a link to a copy of an actual birth certificate for twins born at the same hospital within a couple days of Obama’s supposed birth.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/assets/gif/M1139416728.GIF
Once again, why can’t the original LONG FORM birth certificate be produced?
SO WHATS YOUR PROOF dude?? hmmm? a computer-print out? oh really?
...before insulting someone why not provid some FACTS FIRST?
...and to those left-wingers who wish to throw birther crap at McCain, fellow liberals already started that accusation LAST YEAR. In fact it was the left wing who started this whole birther mess in the first place.
..well...HOW DOES THE LEFT LIKE IT NOW? You thought your Oba-messiah was so pure & perfect, but sadly he is as corrupt as shit on snow. Your side threw the first birther bombs now its our turn....and we aint going away. not eva.
It also looks like when you left-wing zealots cant win the birther argument, you decide to dstract from it, and you now compare Palin's poll numbers to Obama's?!???!
Well, in case you liberals havent notice...PALIN ISNT RUNNING!!! SHE ISNT EVEN IN OFFICE ANYMORE. Why are you SO AFRAID OF SOMEONE WHO ISNT EVEN IN OFFICE OR WHO ISNT EVEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?
I see that Palin's family, children and lord knows who & what else, isnt off-limits to you left-wing socialist thugs. And yet, WE SHOULD ALL GIVE THE OBA-MESSIAH A PASS ON HIS PHONEY BIRTH CERTIFICATE. not likely.
This issue will hound Obama until he is removed from office.
also, the left-wing zealots mention poll numbers...well when the big 3 networks plus 3 more networks on cable, plus every big-city newspaper, are ALL in Obama's back pocket sure a person's poll numbers will take some hits.
GUESS WHAT? OBAMA'S ARE GOING DOWN ACROSS ALL THE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS. The internet is bringing this jerk, THIS IMPOSTER, of a president DOWN.
For Palin to be doing as good as she is, is quite remarkable and must scare the democrat commies to their bones. Just think if Palin does get popular...boy will the left-wingers throw crap at her & try to bring her down. and by doing so, Obama's numbers will also suffer. what comes around goes around.
so whine all you want commies and libs, but its inevitale that Obama will be a tragedy for the USA. I just hope he doesnt cause too much damage to the American Way of Life, before his fraudulent presidency is over.
The emperor has no birth certificate, and he has never had a REAL CAREER in politics either.
Obama is the Puppet Wizard of Chicago, backed and supported by A HAND, made up of the following:
...Chicago thug politicians,
...60s commie radicals,
...eugenic late-term abortionists,
...liberation theology racist and
...scam artists.
With a corrupt support team like that, of course Obama can easily get away with a little old-fashioned & timeless lying. Obama even comes off as a vrituous guy when he lies. Thats how corrupt he really is. Lying is a virtue in his and his backers minds. scary.
cheers and I will enjoy this discussion as it plays out on the internet & in the streets. As you left-wing zealots have realized, none of this HELPS OBAMA. DOES IT?
hey "dude" if you don't care what i say, then why comment on what "i said" AT ALL? hmmm pal?
oh and your qualified statement shows your real worry. "I rather doubt that very many people care..." BUT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE "MANY PEOPLE" WHO DO CARE? dont you? in your mind you are trying to paint them as NOT very many, but there are MANY. And that worries you.
here "dude" posted below is a link to what a real long form, REAL birth certificate, looks like.
the Oba-messiah, the illegal alien, has NOT PRODUCED THIS FORM. ONCE HE PRODUCES IT, THEN HE WILL BECOME MY PREZ. until then he is an illegal alien, fraud & an usurper. And it is very easy to be a fraud with a large part of the MSM in your pocket covering up for you as well as other journalists & op-eders, whether conservatives & liberals, who are too scared to take this all the way.
Here is a link to a copy of an actual birth certificate for twins born at the same hospital within a couple days of Obama’s supposed birth.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/assets/gif/M1139416728.GIF
Once again, why can’t the original LONG FORM birth certificate be produced?
SO WHATS YOUR PROOF dude?? hmmm? a computer-print out? oh really?
...before insulting someone why not provid some FACTS FIRST?
...and to those left-wingers who wish to throw birther crap at McCain, fellow liberals already started that accusation LAST YEAR. In fact it was the left wing who started this whole birther mess in the first place.
..well...HOW DOES THE LEFT LIKE IT NOW? You thought your Oba-messiah was so pure & perfect, but sadly he is as corrupt as shit on snow. Your side threw the first birther bombs now its our turn....and we aint going away. not eva.
It also looks like when you left-wing zealots cant win the birther argument, you decide to dstract from it, and you now compare Palin's poll numbers to Obama's?!???!
Well, in case you liberals havent notice...PALIN ISNT RUNNING!!! SHE ISNT EVEN IN OFFICE ANYMORE. Why are you SO AFRAID OF SOMEONE WHO ISNT EVEN IN OFFICE OR WHO ISNT EVEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?
I see that Palin's family, children and lord knows who & what else, isnt off-limits to you left-wing socialist thugs. And yet, WE SHOULD ALL GIVE THE OBA-MESSIAH A PASS ON HIS PHONEY BIRTH CERTIFICATE. not likely.
This issue will hound Obama until he is removed from office.
also, the left-wing zealots mention poll numbers...well when the big 3 networks plus 3 more networks on cable, plus every big-city newspaper, are ALL in Obama's back pocket sure a person's poll numbers will take some hits.
GUESS WHAT? OBAMA'S ARE GOING DOWN ACROSS ALL THE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS. The internet is bringing this jerk, THIS IMPOSTER, of a president DOWN.
For Palin to be doing as good as she is, is quite remarkable and must scare the democrat commies to their bones. Just think if Palin does get popular...boy will the left-wingers throw crap at her & try to bring her down. and by doing so, Obama's numbers will also suffer. what comes around goes around.
so whine all you want commies and libs, but its inevitale that Obama will be a tragedy for the USA. I just hope he doesnt cause too much damage to the American Way of Life, before his fraudulent presidency is over.
The emperor has no birth certificate, and he has never had a REAL CAREER in politics either.
Obama is the Puppet Wizard of Chicago, backed and supported by A HAND, made up of the following:
...Chicago thug politicians,
...60s commie radicals,
...eugenic late-term abortionists,
...liberation theology racist and
...scam artists.
With a corrupt support team like that, of course Obama can easily get away with a little old-fashioned & timeless lying. Obama even comes off as a vrituous guy when he lies. Thats how corrupt he really is. Lying is a virtue in his and his backers minds. scary.
cheers and I will enjoy this discussion as it plays out on the internet & in the streets. As you left-wing zealots have realized, none of this HELPS OBAMA. DOES IT?
Posted by: lu-ee at July 30, 2009 10:00 AM (oogdQ)
77
Jack, your links are meaningless. Why don't you take the time to read the SCOTUS rulings that I've posted that clearly define "natural born citizen". Their rulings are the only opinions that count. It doesn't matter if you or I do or don't agree with them. SCOTUS rulings are the law of the land.
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=elk+v+wilkins&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
I'll give you a heads up, though. It's a long and tedious read. You'll have to concentrate to grasp the ruling. Just remember, the key words are the bottom of the opinion: Order affirmed.
Whatever the founders may have thought about citizenship, this ruling is the current law of the land.
Lu-Le: I comment because it's FUN! No, I'm not worried at all about you birthers. I'm amused and astonished at the ignorance of you folks. Worried? Not in the least bit. In fact, the more you beat this dead horse, the more harm you do to the Republican party. Go for it! Rant on.
Oh, check out the recent poll on Palin's popularity within the Republican Party. You can cool believe that we Democrats are HOPING that she'll be the Republican nominee in 2012. PLEASE!
You have a nice day, now. Be sure to take your meds.
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=elk+v+wilkins&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
I'll give you a heads up, though. It's a long and tedious read. You'll have to concentrate to grasp the ruling. Just remember, the key words are the bottom of the opinion: Order affirmed.
Whatever the founders may have thought about citizenship, this ruling is the current law of the land.
Lu-Le: I comment because it's FUN! No, I'm not worried at all about you birthers. I'm amused and astonished at the ignorance of you folks. Worried? Not in the least bit. In fact, the more you beat this dead horse, the more harm you do to the Republican party. Go for it! Rant on.
Oh, check out the recent poll on Palin's popularity within the Republican Party. You can cool believe that we Democrats are HOPING that she'll be the Republican nominee in 2012. PLEASE!
You have a nice day, now. Be sure to take your meds.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 10:46 AM (byA+E)
78
Jack, I took the time to read your first link. That whole piece leaks like an onion bag. They use a number of fallacies in presenting their case.
They rightly refer to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case but completely ignore "meat" of the ruling.
I quote from the 6-2 majority opinion of Wong Kim Ark:
"P. 20. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
What is about that that you birthers don't understand?
They also imply, in bright red letters no less, that a state on the mainland USA is somehow more of a state than Alaska or Hawaii, though they don't actually use the names of those two states.
Whomever put this information together either isn't a lawyer or is a very incompetent lawyer. I'm betting on the former.
They rightly refer to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case but completely ignore "meat" of the ruling.
I quote from the 6-2 majority opinion of Wong Kim Ark:
"P. 20. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
What is about that that you birthers don't understand?
They also imply, in bright red letters no less, that a state on the mainland USA is somehow more of a state than Alaska or Hawaii, though they don't actually use the names of those two states.
Whomever put this information together either isn't a lawyer or is a very incompetent lawyer. I'm betting on the former.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 11:27 AM (byA+E)
79
AH yes dud, I mean, "dude", i see you only type insults and nothing to prove your case. Therefore, you have no proof that the Oba-messiah is a natural born US citizen and therefor not president.
DUD, YOUR ARE TYPICAL of the commies, thugs, abortionists, eugenists, racists and liberals who make up the democrat party & those who cover up for the Oba-messiah.
For someone to prove they are a natural born US citizen, they need show where & when they were born, and give the doctor's name who was present for the birth. Has the Oba-messiah done that?
NO!!!
Therefore he is a fraud, and you are A FRAUD as well.
Oh and pal, if I were you, I would be very careful what you wish for, cause while you call those you disagree with names & spread your lies, your wonderful Oba-messiah skids on his chinny chin chin. It seems the Oba-messiah is falling all down, due to his racist & socialist actions these past 2 weeks. He goes further down to the bottom of the political trash heap. WHAT A CLOWN. NOT PRESIDENT...BUT CLOWN.
here, read em and weep dud (oops! i mean..."DUDE"):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
....Palin would kick you & this CLOWN's fraudulent opinions( i am being so kind right now) ANYDAY OF THE WEEK.
you know what dude? i think the best way to stay healthy is to kick liberal opinions all day long.
dont you?
and here you are dude, just in time for my workout...and one and two...and one and two....
see ya dud!
DUD, YOUR ARE TYPICAL of the commies, thugs, abortionists, eugenists, racists and liberals who make up the democrat party & those who cover up for the Oba-messiah.
For someone to prove they are a natural born US citizen, they need show where & when they were born, and give the doctor's name who was present for the birth. Has the Oba-messiah done that?
NO!!!
Therefore he is a fraud, and you are A FRAUD as well.
Oh and pal, if I were you, I would be very careful what you wish for, cause while you call those you disagree with names & spread your lies, your wonderful Oba-messiah skids on his chinny chin chin. It seems the Oba-messiah is falling all down, due to his racist & socialist actions these past 2 weeks. He goes further down to the bottom of the political trash heap. WHAT A CLOWN. NOT PRESIDENT...BUT CLOWN.
here, read em and weep dud (oops! i mean..."DUDE"):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
....Palin would kick you & this CLOWN's fraudulent opinions( i am being so kind right now) ANYDAY OF THE WEEK.
you know what dude? i think the best way to stay healthy is to kick liberal opinions all day long.
dont you?
and here you are dude, just in time for my workout...and one and two...and one and two....
see ya dud!
Posted by: lu-ee at July 30, 2009 12:21 PM (oogdQ)
80
Dear lu-ee, thanks. You are correct (and hilarious). It gets tiring disputing the obvious with the likes of your workout buddy (either a total mental deficient or paid to detract from truthers comments)). Am inclined to side with the latter, although ample evidence of the former. One and two and one and two (hahahaha).
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 30, 2009 01:15 PM (NJis7)
81
Hey Looney Lu-ee,
I'm so sorry. I've just received word from the CCCC (Central Committee for Concentration Camps) that you have, unfortunately, been deemed to be beyond rehabilitation. Don't worry, though. It's not what you might think. You'll still get three square meals a day (crackers and water) AND you'll get the opportunity to spend lots of time with other delusional folks, too!
The difficult part will be the daily routine of having to write, 500 times per day, "President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States". I bet your hand will be tired at the end of each day!
Who knows? Perhaps you'll be able to accept the Truth after a few years. I hope so.
Take care, now...........get that writing hand in shape!
I'm so sorry. I've just received word from the CCCC (Central Committee for Concentration Camps) that you have, unfortunately, been deemed to be beyond rehabilitation. Don't worry, though. It's not what you might think. You'll still get three square meals a day (crackers and water) AND you'll get the opportunity to spend lots of time with other delusional folks, too!
The difficult part will be the daily routine of having to write, 500 times per day, "President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States". I bet your hand will be tired at the end of each day!
Who knows? Perhaps you'll be able to accept the Truth after a few years. I hope so.
Take care, now...........get that writing hand in shape!
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 01:39 PM (byA+E)
82
dud, oops, there i go again, i am sorry, I meant "dude," I am not surprised you recommend for those you disagree with, to be sent to concentration camps. A freudian slip of what you really think USA society should be for those you deem undesirable (as well as abortion & euthanasia).
Since YOUR PREZ IS A COMMIE AND ANTI-ISRAEL, I AM NOT SURPRISED IN THE LEAST THAT YOU ADOPT THE NAZIS M.O. After all, both forms of government were united at the beginning of WW2. And liberals are closet eugenists, so there you have it. You have come full circle.
glad my morals & values are much better than yours pal. Also, I am sure glad you tried to change the subject.
It FURTHER PROVES that you STILL HAVE NOT SHOW ANY PROOF THAT THE OBA-MESSIAH IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA.
therefor your side is STILL FRAUDULENT AS WELL AS FLATULENT, AND WILL BE DEFEATED.
cheers dud. want a tums? ;
Since YOUR PREZ IS A COMMIE AND ANTI-ISRAEL, I AM NOT SURPRISED IN THE LEAST THAT YOU ADOPT THE NAZIS M.O. After all, both forms of government were united at the beginning of WW2. And liberals are closet eugenists, so there you have it. You have come full circle.
glad my morals & values are much better than yours pal. Also, I am sure glad you tried to change the subject.
It FURTHER PROVES that you STILL HAVE NOT SHOW ANY PROOF THAT THE OBA-MESSIAH IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA.
therefor your side is STILL FRAUDULENT AS WELL AS FLATULENT, AND WILL BE DEFEATED.
cheers dud. want a tums? ;
Posted by: lu-ee at July 30, 2009 03:38 PM (oogdQ)
83
Lu-Lee, Thanks for the tums. It helps with the indigestion brought on by our conversation. It's fun though isn't it?!
I'm not changing the subject about proof of natural born citizenship. That subject has been covered at length, and to the satisfaction of all reasonable people. Obviously, that doesn't include you.
I'll certainly miss you while you're away at camp. Drats, there's no internet connections there for the "campers".
Back to work now......There's a new shipment of birthers coming in this afternoon. I have to prepare for their orientation and get them settled into their pens.
I'm not changing the subject about proof of natural born citizenship. That subject has been covered at length, and to the satisfaction of all reasonable people. Obviously, that doesn't include you.
I'll certainly miss you while you're away at camp. Drats, there's no internet connections there for the "campers".
Back to work now......There's a new shipment of birthers coming in this afternoon. I have to prepare for their orientation and get them settled into their pens.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 04:00 PM (byA+E)
84
dud, oops, dude, I see you still have NOT shown any proof than the Oba-messiah is a natural born citizen of the USA.
So who was the attending doctor?
...what country did the birth happen in? the hospital? the doctor?
...right now the only person to admit where the Oba-messiah was born, is his grandmother & she said it was Kenya. is she supposedly some kind of neo-conservative?
Who has given testimony that they EVER saw the Oba-messiah born in Hawaii?
All you have is a computer printed birth certificate that ANYONE CAN GET.
You and your Nazis are going down to the bottom of the political sewer. between birthers & those who already fed up with this usurper & fraud, the liberals are DONE.
...here, your fraud is going down in flames as you bite & type.
http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide
enjoy the ride down the toilet with the tums, dude oops I mean dud.
...what I will love is to see how the liberals will react, as the birther movement gets more folks asking for proof. And if you dont think the Oba-messiah's thugs are not discussing it, then you need to stop taking your meds.
...what a great two weeks of complete failure from this supposed adminstration. from this coup of the phony. from this coup of liars.
...the world thumbs its nose at you, douchebag, and your Oba-messiah. The devil will fool with even the best of laid plans and this moronic fraud's plan is no exception.
cheers chump.
So who was the attending doctor?
...what country did the birth happen in? the hospital? the doctor?
...right now the only person to admit where the Oba-messiah was born, is his grandmother & she said it was Kenya. is she supposedly some kind of neo-conservative?
Who has given testimony that they EVER saw the Oba-messiah born in Hawaii?
All you have is a computer printed birth certificate that ANYONE CAN GET.
You and your Nazis are going down to the bottom of the political sewer. between birthers & those who already fed up with this usurper & fraud, the liberals are DONE.
...here, your fraud is going down in flames as you bite & type.
http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide
enjoy the ride down the toilet with the tums, dude oops I mean dud.
...what I will love is to see how the liberals will react, as the birther movement gets more folks asking for proof. And if you dont think the Oba-messiah's thugs are not discussing it, then you need to stop taking your meds.
...what a great two weeks of complete failure from this supposed adminstration. from this coup of the phony. from this coup of liars.
...the world thumbs its nose at you, douchebag, and your Oba-messiah. The devil will fool with even the best of laid plans and this moronic fraud's plan is no exception.
cheers chump.
Posted by: lu-ee at July 30, 2009 04:21 PM (oogdQ)
85
Loopy Lu-Leeeeeeeeee,
You're not apt to believe it but here are sources that I trust in regards to THE birth certificate:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Proof? If you read the real news instead of relying on whakozoid internet tabloids, the electronic versions of such respected rag mags as the National Enquirer, etc., you would realize by now that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on August 4, 1961. But, of course, you're not going to believe that.
Since you doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen, why don't you do a bit of simple research and find the PROOF that he's a naturalized citizen rather than natural born? If he's a naturalized citizen, not natural born, there will be a record of that.
Let's look at who IS satisfied with his status as a natural born citizen:
The US State Department (The folks who issue passports)
The US Congress
The US Senate
The US Supreme Court (thus far)
The US Federal District Courts (this far)
The leadership of the Republican Party
The leadership of the Democrat Party
The vast majority of we the people, the citizens of the United States of America
You're never going to find the proof that you seek. In truth, you want proof the our president is NOT a natural born citizen. You have chosen to ignore the proof that he IS a natural born citizen.
The most convincing piece of evidence establishing his status as a natural born citizen, in addition to the official birth records of the state of Hawaii, is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama IS the 44th President of the United States. You don't like it. But, it's the Truth. I bet it hurts in the deepest, darkest places of your inner being to even think that President Obama is your president, also.
Neither the president, nor I, nor anyone else has any further obligation to offer any more proof of his citizenship status to you and your ilk. If you have legitimate proof to the contrary, bring it forward.
You're not apt to believe it but here are sources that I trust in regards to THE birth certificate:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Proof? If you read the real news instead of relying on whakozoid internet tabloids, the electronic versions of such respected rag mags as the National Enquirer, etc., you would realize by now that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on August 4, 1961. But, of course, you're not going to believe that.
Since you doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen, why don't you do a bit of simple research and find the PROOF that he's a naturalized citizen rather than natural born? If he's a naturalized citizen, not natural born, there will be a record of that.
Let's look at who IS satisfied with his status as a natural born citizen:
The US State Department (The folks who issue passports)
The US Congress
The US Senate
The US Supreme Court (thus far)
The US Federal District Courts (this far)
The leadership of the Republican Party
The leadership of the Democrat Party
The vast majority of we the people, the citizens of the United States of America
You're never going to find the proof that you seek. In truth, you want proof the our president is NOT a natural born citizen. You have chosen to ignore the proof that he IS a natural born citizen.
The most convincing piece of evidence establishing his status as a natural born citizen, in addition to the official birth records of the state of Hawaii, is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama IS the 44th President of the United States. You don't like it. But, it's the Truth. I bet it hurts in the deepest, darkest places of your inner being to even think that President Obama is your president, also.
Neither the president, nor I, nor anyone else has any further obligation to offer any more proof of his citizenship status to you and your ilk. If you have legitimate proof to the contrary, bring it forward.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 08:24 PM (byA+E)
86
Now it's easy to see what these Birthers are doing to give their looney conspiracy theories credibility. Here is what is already known about Obama:
His Father was a resident of Kenya.
His Mother was a resident of America.
His Mother and Father were never married.
His Father had no custodial rights to Obama and never pursued custodial rights to Obama.
Obama was the sole custody and raised by his single Mother here in America (as if you haven't alienated yourselves from enough people, now single Moms are the enemy).
Obama never maintained dual citizenship in any other country since there was never anybody in any other country that had custodial rights to him.
So the next step in the tin-foil hat conspiracy smear campaign is to take what we already know and spin it to look like because his Father was a resident of Kenya, Obama is not a legal resident of the United States despite the fact that his parents were never married and his Father never had legal custody of him. This pretty much is a pathetic attempt to give themselves a small level of dignified significance since not one single Republican on a local, state or federal level will sign their name onto this juvenile embarrassment from whats left of their base.
But lawyers! Take it court! Stop talking and put your money where your mouth is! Good luck with it!
On a lighter note, the people who do your thinking for you have moved onto a different subject with different talking points and by this time tomorrow, the right wing blogs will be regurgitating these talking points and by Saturday, all the birthers will be regurgitating the new talking points. Hopefully if all goes well, this tin-foil hat embarrassing looney-tune nonsense will be forgotten by this time next week. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and all the rest have already dropped it.
His Father was a resident of Kenya.
His Mother was a resident of America.
His Mother and Father were never married.
His Father had no custodial rights to Obama and never pursued custodial rights to Obama.
Obama was the sole custody and raised by his single Mother here in America (as if you haven't alienated yourselves from enough people, now single Moms are the enemy).
Obama never maintained dual citizenship in any other country since there was never anybody in any other country that had custodial rights to him.
So the next step in the tin-foil hat conspiracy smear campaign is to take what we already know and spin it to look like because his Father was a resident of Kenya, Obama is not a legal resident of the United States despite the fact that his parents were never married and his Father never had legal custody of him. This pretty much is a pathetic attempt to give themselves a small level of dignified significance since not one single Republican on a local, state or federal level will sign their name onto this juvenile embarrassment from whats left of their base.
But lawyers! Take it court! Stop talking and put your money where your mouth is! Good luck with it!
On a lighter note, the people who do your thinking for you have moved onto a different subject with different talking points and by this time tomorrow, the right wing blogs will be regurgitating these talking points and by Saturday, all the birthers will be regurgitating the new talking points. Hopefully if all goes well, this tin-foil hat embarrassing looney-tune nonsense will be forgotten by this time next week. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and all the rest have already dropped it.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 30, 2009 08:44 PM (OX5qU)
87
Ahhhhhhh,Lipiwitz, You're a breath of fresh air, a welcomed break from all of the hot air and the dearth of intellect that I've endured during this delightful thread!
I couldn't agree more in regards to the lawyers. The few who have put their money where their mouth is have come up empty handed, better yet, emptied wallet.
Of course, you're correct in your analysis of the upcoming demise of the whole birther issue. Like the flatulence that it is, this too, shall pass.
I couldn't agree more in regards to the lawyers. The few who have put their money where their mouth is have come up empty handed, better yet, emptied wallet.
Of course, you're correct in your analysis of the upcoming demise of the whole birther issue. Like the flatulence that it is, this too, shall pass.
Posted by: Dude at July 30, 2009 09:06 PM (byA+E)
88
Dear lu-ee, fyi, in the past, was blogging like this and after a some time considered that the paid detractors of the truth, worked in teams (backing each other and making sure that one was always available to jump on any relevant comment against their agenda). It was also also discovered that some have more than one email address and thus can use different names but actually be the same person. Hello dud and lipshitz.
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 30, 2009 11:43 PM (NJis7)
89
Joseph Laughedat......And, once upon a time there were three little pigs, and three bears, and a big bad wolf and all kinds of myths.
Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 12:49 AM (byA+E)
90
Yes, Joseph's brothers laughed at him and sold him into slavery. But who had the last (best) laugh. Why don't you get a real job with a mans name.
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 31, 2009 12:59 AM (NJis7)
91
On to new talking points from those who think for you. Bye birthers!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 31, 2009 01:24 AM (bhNGz)
92
I find it interesting that, despite DUDE'S passionate rants, no SCOTUS decision has refined the definition of 'natural born citizen', nor has any amendment - though a lot of folks tend to think that there was a SCOTUS "definition of 'naturalized', and one other"... therefore all who were not 'naturalized' are 'natural born'...
What is interesting is that The One was born of UK and US citizenship, not much unlike many of the Founders, who grandfathered themselves and anyone else born by time the Constitution was ratified.
So what if Obama is over two hundred years old.
What is interesting is that The One was born of UK and US citizenship, not much unlike many of the Founders, who grandfathered themselves and anyone else born by time the Constitution was ratified.
So what if Obama is over two hundred years old.
Posted by: 8th Grade Drop-Out at July 31, 2009 02:19 AM (Gct7d)
93
Sorry, guess you can't get find another shovel ready job so you'll just have to keep shoveling your leaders crap on the internet. As to the subject of slavery now that he has economically enslaved us for generations to pay his porkulus. Bye and good riddance for now dud/lipshitz. As to your names, keep them they are quite fitting.
Posted by: joseph loughery at July 31, 2009 02:21 AM (NJis7)
94
loopy? say what? get a clue dud. I mean "dude".
well dude, looks like all your legalise bull has just been flushed down the toilette.
even Huff Post agrees SHOW THE LONG FORM!
hah. i said it once i will say it AGAIN. dude you are a DUD.
cheers & dont let your carpal tunnel bother ya on the way out of the out-house.
well dude, looks like all your legalise bull has just been flushed down the toilette.
even Huff Post agrees SHOW THE LONG FORM!
hah. i said it once i will say it AGAIN. dude you are a DUD.
cheers & dont let your carpal tunnel bother ya on the way out of the out-house.
Posted by: lu-ee at July 31, 2009 02:56 PM (a8drf)
95
I never thought birth of Obama will become such a big discussion topic. I am following this closely to see where this conspiracy ends. Meanwhile I have collected some good articles and sites related to Barack Obama (more than 200 sites or articles). If you are interested take a look at the below link http://bit.ly/TbblS
Posted by: srini at August 03, 2009 07:54 PM (f6rEV)
July 25, 2009
Is Henry Gates A Crook?
Dan Riehl discovered a possible reason why Harvard professor Henry Gates famously acted like such a arrogant jerk when approached by a police officer investigating a breaking and entering call last week.
Gates has been running an charity that seems to bank most of its donations, and may have thought the cops were coming to arrest him for that. It's too soon to know for sure if Gates has done anything illegal with the funds that his charity hasn't properly accounted for, but I was Gates, I wouldn't worry. If Obama Justice Department will cover for the New Black Panthers, I'm sure they'll cover for a personal friend, even if he acted "stupidly."Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:57 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 25, 2009 10:39 AM (R99J5)
2
I heard a theory yesterday that makes perfect sense to me, having interacted with Massachusett's liberal elites most of my life. Prof. perpetual outrage flew off the handle because Sgt Crowley didn't know who he was. Indignant professor has people kissing his butt and groveling to him all day long, and how dare this knave not recognize him and bow before his Ivy League better?
Posted by: Steve R. at July 25, 2009 11:34 AM (XRiu8)
3
My take is that after showing his ID, and as the Sgt. was leaving, Gates had an "I coulda had a V-8!" moment. News exposure, book deal, street cred for being held down by The Man... I'm sure the opportunity was too good to pass up.
So he pursued the cop out of the house and harangued him until the officer had no choice but to arrest him.
Watch for Gates' mug shot to be on the book cover. Just as Rodney Kings parlayed a career as two bit street crook into civil rights icon, so has Gates parlayed a career as a two bit Harvard prima donna (a far less reputable and honest line of work) into - what? We haven't seen the end of it. Appearances on Oprah and The View, Larry King, fawning from Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann, public invitations to the White House, standing ovations at Lincoln Center - Gates has made himself into the pretentious lefty's Mick Jagger.
In the meantime, Sgt, Crowley can expect the Joe the Plumber treatment.
So he pursued the cop out of the house and harangued him until the officer had no choice but to arrest him.
Watch for Gates' mug shot to be on the book cover. Just as Rodney Kings parlayed a career as two bit street crook into civil rights icon, so has Gates parlayed a career as a two bit Harvard prima donna (a far less reputable and honest line of work) into - what? We haven't seen the end of it. Appearances on Oprah and The View, Larry King, fawning from Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann, public invitations to the White House, standing ovations at Lincoln Center - Gates has made himself into the pretentious lefty's Mick Jagger.
In the meantime, Sgt, Crowley can expect the Joe the Plumber treatment.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 25, 2009 01:56 PM (Vcyz0)
4
"The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of men." ayn rand-"the fountainhead"(1943)
Posted by: chris at July 25, 2009 02:55 PM (8UgjA)
5
I've looked at the 990 and it's a typical small private family foundation. There is absolutely nothing unusual about it including the art work donated to the charity as an asset of the charity or bought with funds from the charity. The art work is probably displayed in Gate's home or office to. Again that's normal with these small private family charities. As for the giving for a charity of this size it's not unusual to build up the assets and only give out small amounts and retain the principal. They often only give out the amount they accrue in interest during the previous year.
It's the charities choice about who to give the money to as long as it's within the charities mission. In this case research on African American issues. The charity couldn't give away the $ to support a hospital since that's not part of what the charity was set up to do. Giving $10k to his assistant is a little shaky but if it was separate research down outside of the scope of her job (probably paid for by Harvard)there isn't a problem with that either.
I doubt he could use it to pay for a trip to China to research Yo Yo Ma's genology. I forget where I saw that claim this morning. It wouldn't fit within the parameters of what the charity was set up to do.
As for late filing of paperwork again that's all to common with small private family charities. Go to Guidestar.org and look at any number of them.
It's the charities choice about who to give the money to as long as it's within the charities mission. In this case research on African American issues. The charity couldn't give away the $ to support a hospital since that's not part of what the charity was set up to do. Giving $10k to his assistant is a little shaky but if it was separate research down outside of the scope of her job (probably paid for by Harvard)there isn't a problem with that either.
I doubt he could use it to pay for a trip to China to research Yo Yo Ma's genology. I forget where I saw that claim this morning. It wouldn't fit within the parameters of what the charity was set up to do.
As for late filing of paperwork again that's all to common with small private family charities. Go to Guidestar.org and look at any number of them.
Posted by: Airedale at July 25, 2009 03:30 PM (3V4HI)
6
Interesting. What or who is your source? I did a Google search on this and found absolutely nothing. It would be egregious of the man but I'm interested in who or what is currently investigating this. Who provided you with this information and what is the current status of the investigation?
I'm a Libertarian and the fact that a born and raised American citizen was taken from his own home in hand cuffs and arrested for disorderly conduct, disorderly conduct in his OWN HOME is the most blatant violation of our Constitution imaginable. I don't care what color his skin is, it's a socialist police state when an American citizen is not able to be free in his own home. A man's home is his castle. Last I checked, disorderly conduct was permitted in a man's home as long as it did not effect another man's home or another's peaceful existence within his own home. Wasn't there just a series of tea parties to protest this sort of behavior?
I'm a Libertarian and the fact that a born and raised American citizen was taken from his own home in hand cuffs and arrested for disorderly conduct, disorderly conduct in his OWN HOME is the most blatant violation of our Constitution imaginable. I don't care what color his skin is, it's a socialist police state when an American citizen is not able to be free in his own home. A man's home is his castle. Last I checked, disorderly conduct was permitted in a man's home as long as it did not effect another man's home or another's peaceful existence within his own home. Wasn't there just a series of tea parties to protest this sort of behavior?
Posted by: Syntax at July 25, 2009 05:35 PM (OX5qU)
7
Syntax,
Gates wasn't arrested because he was disorderly in his home. It was his behavior outside the home that got him arrested. Really, the arrest report is ready available. Is there some reason you feel compelled to post prior to reading the arrest report?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
Please, read it before posting any further nonsense. You're sounding an awful lot like BO.
Gates wasn't arrested because he was disorderly in his home. It was his behavior outside the home that got him arrested. Really, the arrest report is ready available. Is there some reason you feel compelled to post prior to reading the arrest report?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
Please, read it before posting any further nonsense. You're sounding an awful lot like BO.
Posted by: Lisa at July 25, 2009 05:59 PM (g0WRk)
8
Good thing the following exchange was edited out of Gates' tirade; otherwise, Obama would really be in trouble:
POLICEMAN: Please show me your I.D., sir.
GATES: DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I'M MOE GREEN! I MADE MY BONES WHEN YOU WERE GOING OUT WITH CHEERLEADERS!
POLICEMAN: Please show me your I.D., sir.
GATES: DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I'M MOE GREEN! I MADE MY BONES WHEN YOU WERE GOING OUT WITH CHEERLEADERS!
Posted by: MarkJ at July 25, 2009 06:31 PM (FZ1EI)
9
Lisa, Gates was asked to step outside his home where he was subsequently arrested. It was still on his property and there is a picture where the man is being escorted out the front door of his home in cuffs. It was still the man's property and splitting hairs over a living room or front porch is no concern to me. I'm not that anal.
What's next? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for having a dissenting point of view from government? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for wearing a tee-shirt calling the President a Socialist or Nazi? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for having hand guns or rifles? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for posting a blog like this one? Are we the Soviet Union here? If Gates was a white guy and Obama didn't throw his two cents in on this, you'd be throwing a tea party on this guy's front yard screaming "Socialism"! Not saying your racists, just hypocrites. It's times like these that separate the TRUE Americans from the Conservative mouth pieces.
What's next? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for having a dissenting point of view from government? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for wearing a tee-shirt calling the President a Socialist or Nazi? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for having hand guns or rifles? You can be arrested for disorderly conduct in your own home for posting a blog like this one? Are we the Soviet Union here? If Gates was a white guy and Obama didn't throw his two cents in on this, you'd be throwing a tea party on this guy's front yard screaming "Socialism"! Not saying your racists, just hypocrites. It's times like these that separate the TRUE Americans from the Conservative mouth pieces.
Posted by: Syntax at July 26, 2009 12:40 AM (bhNGz)
10
I don't know why syntax continues to lie. Maybe if she repeats the same lie she'll think others will start believing it. As we all know the cop was leaving, LEAVING, when Gates went after the cop like a madman.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 26, 2009 08:26 AM (MxQFN)
11
Hey Capitalist Infidel...I'm a "he" and a straight "he" at that...no gay tea parties for me. And what's the lie? Have you read the Constitution? Too many syllables for you to input into Google? Can you even spell Google? Gates went after the cop while he was leaving?
Unless a law enforcement agent has a warrant signed and dated by a judge, it's my Constitutional right as an American citizen to tell that law enforcement agent to "get the f**k of my property!" Constitutional right! Not disorderly conduct! Maybe Communist Infidel is a more appropriate name for you.
Unless a law enforcement agent has a warrant signed and dated by a judge, it's my Constitutional right as an American citizen to tell that law enforcement agent to "get the f**k of my property!" Constitutional right! Not disorderly conduct! Maybe Communist Infidel is a more appropriate name for you.
Posted by: Syntax at July 26, 2009 08:51 AM (OX5qU)
12
And I'm still trying to find out where this "investigation" of Gates is originating from. Who and/or what is investigating him and for what? What is the name of the charity? Does anybody have any information to substantiate the claim made in this blog? I Googled, Yahoo'd, Lexus Nexus'd it and have found nothing about this investigation.
Posted by: Syntax at July 26, 2009 08:56 AM (OX5qU)
13
Syntax, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you are allowed to commit the crime of disorderly conduct, regardless of who you are or where you are. In this case the officer was investigating a possible burglary reported to the police and was obligated by law to enter the home. Do you believe you can commit a crime, run into your house, maybe cry, "Oly Oly Ocean Free" and the police can't come and get you? Obviously you've made up your mind based on false beliefs and, well, no one agrees with you.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 26, 2009 10:54 AM (I9qGK)
Posted by: scituate_tgr at July 26, 2009 04:25 PM (CnAVc)
15
False beliefs? The Constitution of the United States of America is false beliefs? The Revolutionary War was false beliefs? The Bill Of Rights is false beliefs? The Constitutional Amendments is false beliefs? The concept of freedom in one man's home is false beliefs?
You're Socialists!
You're Socialists!
Posted by: Syntax at July 26, 2009 07:34 PM (OX5qU)
16
syntax
you aren't a very good moby. I think even a paulbot has more sense than you are displaying.
you aren't a very good moby. I think even a paulbot has more sense than you are displaying.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 27, 2009 02:15 AM (O8ebz)
17
I wonder what color the sky is in Miss Syntax's universe?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 27, 2009 07:33 AM (MxQFN)
18
""The precedent-setting site is the only company in the field of genetic genealogy that will provide African Americans with family tree research in addition to DNA testing," its initial press release declared, adding that "a percentage of all profits will be donated to the Inkwell Foundation, dedicated to reforming the teaching of science and history in inner city schools using genetic and genealogical ancestry tracing.""
Am I the only one having the hairs on the back of his neck stand up while reading this????
This is what Harvard is supporting these days?
Damnnnnnnn
Am I the only one having the hairs on the back of his neck stand up while reading this????
This is what Harvard is supporting these days?
Damnnnnnnn
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 06:42 PM (qD510)
19
Airedale,
The common charities you mention whose core strategy is to hand out money through interest would have to have very large account. There is no way Gates' charity, with the money it has, could function as a charity based on bank or investment interest...
Everybody,
Syntax is displaying the ignorance of the law and common police procedures I'm seeing at other sites, and the information to recognize it as crap isn't hard to come by. Just watching the show Cops for awhile should educate you on the basics of law and practice.
Look up "probable cause" then explain to me how it is "unconstitutional" - which it must be - considering how the left is trying to work this Gates fiasco.
If you are stopped at the scene of a possible crime, you do not have the "right" to go berserk just because it is your property.
You also do not have the right to refuse to answer basic questions or offer an idea.
The police dispatch gives the police officer who arrives on the scene the probable cause to investigate if a crime has taken place or not.
If a person on the scene refuses to give a name or ID or explain why he/she is on the scene, the police are within their rights to hold that person until they can figure out who he/she is, whether a crime has been committed, and whether or not the person might be connected to a crime.
You don't even have to give the person a reading of Miranda rights if all you are asking are basic, common sense questions: What's your name? Do you have an ID on you? What are you doing here?
If you go berserk screaming about your rights and a citizen and property owner and refuse to answer these basic questions, there is a good chance you'll wind up cuffed, and if that will not calm you down, you've got a good chance of being charged with obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct or the likes.
The left's stuff about how the prof was inside his home or on his property is crap...
The common charities you mention whose core strategy is to hand out money through interest would have to have very large account. There is no way Gates' charity, with the money it has, could function as a charity based on bank or investment interest...
Everybody,
Syntax is displaying the ignorance of the law and common police procedures I'm seeing at other sites, and the information to recognize it as crap isn't hard to come by. Just watching the show Cops for awhile should educate you on the basics of law and practice.
Look up "probable cause" then explain to me how it is "unconstitutional" - which it must be - considering how the left is trying to work this Gates fiasco.
If you are stopped at the scene of a possible crime, you do not have the "right" to go berserk just because it is your property.
You also do not have the right to refuse to answer basic questions or offer an idea.
The police dispatch gives the police officer who arrives on the scene the probable cause to investigate if a crime has taken place or not.
If a person on the scene refuses to give a name or ID or explain why he/she is on the scene, the police are within their rights to hold that person until they can figure out who he/she is, whether a crime has been committed, and whether or not the person might be connected to a crime.
You don't even have to give the person a reading of Miranda rights if all you are asking are basic, common sense questions: What's your name? Do you have an ID on you? What are you doing here?
If you go berserk screaming about your rights and a citizen and property owner and refuse to answer these basic questions, there is a good chance you'll wind up cuffed, and if that will not calm you down, you've got a good chance of being charged with obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct or the likes.
The left's stuff about how the prof was inside his home or on his property is crap...
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 09:09 PM (P/FFh)
20
splitting hairs over a living room or front porch is no concern to me
Don't ever wind up in court then. Such distinctions are a huge deal in the law.
Don't ever wind up in court then. Such distinctions are a huge deal in the law.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 27, 2009 10:41 PM (1rv3b)
July 24, 2009
At What Point, Revolt?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic allies in the House of Representatives rammed through a massive, $787 billion dollar stimulus bill, without one Representative reading it. Majority Leader Harry Reid forced it through the Senate, and President Obama signed the massive spending bill into law. To date it has had no positive effect on the economy, and many economists suggest it may be causing damage over the long run.
Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic allied in the House rammed through cap-and-trade legislation based upon heavily disputed "climate change" junk science that will send energy prices soaring and cost the nation billions of dollars. Again, not one Representative read the bill before it was voted upon. The Senate has not yet voted on the bill, though if they do, the President is eager to sign it into law. And now we find that Pelosi and her allies, dutifully bowing and scraping to our neophyte President's every uninformed ideological whim, once again intend to ram thorough another bill, sight unseen. This time Pelosi and her cabal of liberal Democrats are attempting to force through a massive bill to socialize American healthcare before their August vacation. When has it ever been best to force through life-altering decisions at a breakneck pace? Why are this Congress, this Speaker, this Majority Leader, and this President utterly unwilling to study, debate, and review legislation that will change the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans for decades into the future? Do they care about what is best for Americans, at all? The actions of the far left "progressive" leaders of our nation's federal government an the antithesis of how the Founding Fathers wanted our country to run. Speaker Pelosi presents us with irrational and rushed mob rule. Harry Reid is only slightly less radical in the Senate. And in the White House, we have a neophyte, a sepia-toned Dorian Gray high on his adoring press, who uses his eloquence to paper over the fetid core of ideological beliefs that rotted nations and generations in the past century. Barack Obama, adored by the press and dismissed by the world's leaders, presides over the largest debt in our nation's history and plans to spend even more as our nation enters a full-fledged economic depression, a depression made only worse by his poor decision-making and not assuaged by his empty platitudes. How much more will we take—how much more should we take—before we declare they've done enough harm? Will coming elections rectify such gross incompetence? Can we wait for 2012 or 2016 to remove those that will tear this nation apart? These are the questions lurking in the hearts of many Americans as we speak. If reason cannot find a way to reimpose itself in the House, the Senate, and the White House, I fear we may soon find out after some have reached their breaking point.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:49 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Brian L. at July 24, 2009 03:10 PM (u26li)
2
I feel that the 2010 Electioins will be the "tipping point" one way or another. We should prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best.
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 24, 2009 03:39 PM (R99J5)
3
When in the course of human events...
If they think their phone lines, and T1s were burning up during the Great Immigration Skedaddle, I think we may see entire states simply stop doing business with Washington. The heartland can survive a lot longer without whatever it is they do in those white buildings in Washington than the other way around., and it's high time both sides found that out.
If they think their phone lines, and T1s were burning up during the Great Immigration Skedaddle, I think we may see entire states simply stop doing business with Washington. The heartland can survive a lot longer without whatever it is they do in those white buildings in Washington than the other way around., and it's high time both sides found that out.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 24, 2009 04:03 PM (mGjVF)
4
SUPP0RT THE 10TH AMENDMENT!
Posted by: zhombre at July 24, 2009 05:11 PM (n/lU+)
5
Just wow!
Some of us crazed "Right-Wing Extremists" have been wondering about things like this for a while, but to just come out and say it like that?
I just started buying ammo and keeping my mouth pretty much shut a good while ago. I'd recommend both courses of action for a little while yet, at least.
I don't plan on getting insane until after the next Congressional elections, at least. Once embarked upon, such a course is fairly well irrevocable, and could get a lot of folks dead, win or lose.
If, however, Acorn manages to steal the 2010 elections, I'll be equipped.
And that's all I'm going to say about it.
Some of us crazed "Right-Wing Extremists" have been wondering about things like this for a while, but to just come out and say it like that?
I just started buying ammo and keeping my mouth pretty much shut a good while ago. I'd recommend both courses of action for a little while yet, at least.
I don't plan on getting insane until after the next Congressional elections, at least. Once embarked upon, such a course is fairly well irrevocable, and could get a lot of folks dead, win or lose.
If, however, Acorn manages to steal the 2010 elections, I'll be equipped.
And that's all I'm going to say about it.
Posted by: jefferson101 at July 24, 2009 07:45 PM (hym18)
6
The guy won an election. That's the way America works. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Poland, Israel, Central America and most of the middle east would be a great place for you gun-toting, small government types. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Posted by: Moriarity at July 24, 2009 07:51 PM (znAs1)
7
Let me remind you of the reason FOR the 2A. "When in the course of human events...". The specific reason, and the statements of the Founding Fathers, was in case the government got to be the way the one they'd just booted got. And that's why the Dems have tried for 80 years to destroy it.
Posted by: cmblake6 at July 24, 2009 08:53 PM (i174V)
8
Heard a great comment about Pelosi the other night: "One more face-lift, and she's going to have a beard".
Posted by: jim at July 24, 2009 11:27 PM (ichmB)
9
Moriarity, if you want marxism move. I don't and if you try to force it upon me I will remove the threat to my freedom anyway I can. Don 't take this wrong, but I have popped a few caps, thanks to Uncle Sam, in the general direction of communists in the past. I do not need a community organizer telling me what kind of car I should buy, what gases I can produce or what kind of car I can drive. If I have to go to DC there will be hell to pay.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 25, 2009 12:15 AM (TNueP)
10
"Heard a great comment about Pelosi the other night: "One more face-lift, and she's going to have a beard".
OMG!
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "I'm dyyyyinnn'!"
OMG!
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "I'm dyyyyinnn'!"
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 25, 2009 01:10 AM (R99J5)
11
Palin 2011 that is all I have to say to that!
Posted by: Seasaw at July 25, 2009 01:27 AM (QCCm7)
12
The Debtocraps are creating a Depression that exceeds their first foray into monopoly politics. This time, they have the added benefits of wholly owned unions, ACORN, and the urban welfare Democrat machines. They are planning on a multi-decade control of all the levers of government. But first they need to kill the economy. Once you're on their breadlines, your opposition will quite reasonably fade. Not to mind though, there's a ready job for you in Americorps.
Unless you're old, that is. For you, there's a eugenics counselor.
Unless you're old, that is. For you, there's a eugenics counselor.
Posted by: Before Gore Kneel at July 25, 2009 04:42 AM (wREmy)
13
You guys crack me up. A couple days ago I learned here that I need to be sure to not shout at the police in my house because I must respect authority. Today it's all about what to do if the "wrong" side keeps winning elections, In that case it will be time to start shooting up the place because citizens rights must surely trump any kind of governmental interference with their lives. It must be dizzying to have your heads spin like that on a daily basis.
And this is all because the Democrats in the White House *may* try and give you the same health care plan they have while taxing you at the same rate, or lower, than you were taxed under Reagan. The British were just *slightly* more oppressive than that in 1776.
And this is all because the Democrats in the White House *may* try and give you the same health care plan they have while taxing you at the same rate, or lower, than you were taxed under Reagan. The British were just *slightly* more oppressive than that in 1776.
Posted by: Jim at July 25, 2009 12:21 PM (YGGU4)
14
Great Article!
Jefferson 101 stated exactly what I and many of my friends are doing. We hope for the best, but we'll be prepared for the worst.
Jim at July 25, 200902:57pm - Can I borrow your crack pipe, I need a break from reality too.
Jefferson 101 stated exactly what I and many of my friends are doing. We hope for the best, but we'll be prepared for the worst.
Jim at July 25, 200902:57pm - Can I borrow your crack pipe, I need a break from reality too.
Posted by: Fleagle at July 25, 2009 03:17 PM (/BVUj)
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 25, 2009 03:58 PM (R99J5)
16
@Moriarity: "The guy won an election. That's the way America works. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Poland, Israel, Central America and most of the middle east would be a great place for you gun-toting, small government types. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!"
So you're perfectly willing to toss that pesky ol' First Amendment, huh? I don't know, if you don't like the First Amendment, why don't YOU leave?
Liberals never throw up their hands in resignation and declare, "love it or leave it" during Republican administrations, but conservatives are supposed to STFU and GTFO? Ha!
So you're perfectly willing to toss that pesky ol' First Amendment, huh? I don't know, if you don't like the First Amendment, why don't YOU leave?
Liberals never throw up their hands in resignation and declare, "love it or leave it" during Republican administrations, but conservatives are supposed to STFU and GTFO? Ha!
Posted by: DoorHold at July 26, 2009 11:03 AM (I9qGK)
17
At what point revolt? Interesting question. When a majority of Americans reject you, your ideology and your elected officials on a local, state and federal level in massive losses for two election cycles in a row, the revolt has already happened buddy. You were on the losing end of the revolt and when the brightest star in your political future is Sarah Baraquitter with a dismal 40% approval waiting, the revolt is sticking. You may want to get a clue. By a program at least.
You're really not smart to revolt but you can try. We look forward to arresting you in your own home for disorderly conduct.
You're really not smart to revolt but you can try. We look forward to arresting you in your own home for disorderly conduct.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at July 26, 2009 07:41 PM (OX5qU)
18
CY
Agreed. Further, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Feds to apply either Cap & Trade or Obamacare. That the SCOTUS will back up yet more federal government power grabs is a given. The complete evisceration of the 10th Amendment, making the states merely district managers for the Federal government just punctuates the ongoing centralization of power and the loss of individual liberty. Even Alexander Hamilton would have been horrified.
As a result, government is becoming less legitimate by the week. "Progressive" democrats (welfare state socialists in reality) see an opportunity to take over yet more of our economy and personal freedoms (and no, jimmy, personal freedom does not mean we can cause a public disturbance whenever we wish) and intrude upon more and more of our private life (federal drug laws are a good example of that).
Finally, gerrymandering of congressional districts and biased media have conspired to create an entitled class of politicians whose only attribute is a willingness to pander to every special interest group inside the Beltway while lying to their constituents back home. Refusal to enforce election laws and even encourage vote fraud through fraudulent registrations and refusal to properly identify voters just makes it worse.
The ultimate result is a condition where there exists constant erosion of individual liberty and the aggrandizement of power and privilege to those whose only virtue is either an ability to be elected or an ability to corrupt someone who is elected.
And through all of this, our economy is being destroyed (TARP money that can be committed from all of the associated agencies now equals 24 TRILLION dollars) in order to create a failed top-down economic system that benefits the elite in government while impoverishing everyone else.
So how much longer will people allow this to continue? It isn't enough to have personal firearms (though that helps enormously). Massive civil disobedience on the scale of millions may be required to accomplish what is needed to be done: reduce government, limit the power of the Federal government to pick, adhere to the Constitution.
Agreed. Further, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Feds to apply either Cap & Trade or Obamacare. That the SCOTUS will back up yet more federal government power grabs is a given. The complete evisceration of the 10th Amendment, making the states merely district managers for the Federal government just punctuates the ongoing centralization of power and the loss of individual liberty. Even Alexander Hamilton would have been horrified.
As a result, government is becoming less legitimate by the week. "Progressive" democrats (welfare state socialists in reality) see an opportunity to take over yet more of our economy and personal freedoms (and no, jimmy, personal freedom does not mean we can cause a public disturbance whenever we wish) and intrude upon more and more of our private life (federal drug laws are a good example of that).
Finally, gerrymandering of congressional districts and biased media have conspired to create an entitled class of politicians whose only attribute is a willingness to pander to every special interest group inside the Beltway while lying to their constituents back home. Refusal to enforce election laws and even encourage vote fraud through fraudulent registrations and refusal to properly identify voters just makes it worse.
The ultimate result is a condition where there exists constant erosion of individual liberty and the aggrandizement of power and privilege to those whose only virtue is either an ability to be elected or an ability to corrupt someone who is elected.
And through all of this, our economy is being destroyed (TARP money that can be committed from all of the associated agencies now equals 24 TRILLION dollars) in order to create a failed top-down economic system that benefits the elite in government while impoverishing everyone else.
So how much longer will people allow this to continue? It isn't enough to have personal firearms (though that helps enormously). Massive civil disobedience on the scale of millions may be required to accomplish what is needed to be done: reduce government, limit the power of the Federal government to pick, adhere to the Constitution.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 26, 2009 07:43 PM (O8ebz)
19
Any congressman or senator who votes on a bill which he or she has not read, is not representing the voters. That is reason enough to remove that politician from office as soon as possible.
Posted by: Patrick Jensen at July 27, 2009 02:01 AM (or6B8)
20
Glad to see some dissenting views, but they seem to lack substance. No real defense for their position. The new president's inexperience is showing and badly. The Congress (which has been in Dem majority for the last 3 yrs) has continued to spend like the proverbial drunken sailor. Oh yes, Republican controlled Congress did the same...just not as fast. With a $1 trillion+ deficit already this year and an $11.6 trillion dollar debt, the problem speaks for itself. There is no money....none. We are in hock to several foreign nations. There is no justification for this....no new spending can be implemented. Why can't people grasp this concept? Look at California and NY if you want to see the impact of mass social programs on government budgets (plus highest taxes in the country). Wait until the end of 3 rd qtr...I believe we will see 11-15% unemployment. Without a massive turn around in policy by winter, we may indeed see rioting in the streets...this would be the beginning.
Posted by: Papa Swamp at July 27, 2009 08:11 AM (FCq18)
21
So, what's the answer to our problems? Do you have any logical reasons to think that our problems would disappear if the Republicans were in control, now?
What, specifically, would be different, right now, if we had Republican control of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch? Would "our house" be in better financial shape? Would we have less problems? If so, how would they have accomplished this?
What, specifically, would be different, right now, if we had Republican control of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch? Would "our house" be in better financial shape? Would we have less problems? If so, how would they have accomplished this?
Posted by: Dude at July 27, 2009 02:03 PM (byA+E)
22
@Dude
We wouldn't even need Republican control of congress. If John McCain had won last November, we would not have had Porkulus, TARP would have been dramatically smaller, there would have been no theft of GM and Chrysler from the bondholders as a sop to the unions.
In addition, the Congress wouldn't have dared try Cap & Trade, there'd be no discussion of a federal seizure of 1/7 of the U.S Economy (health care).
Other policy differences - we wouldn't have an AG actively contemplating political prosecution of past officials, we wouldn't have a bumbling SoS making a fool of us everywhere, and we wouldn't have had the Presidential Embarrassment that Obama has caused with foreign dignitaries too numerous to count.
But other than that, nothing would be different at all.
We wouldn't even need Republican control of congress. If John McCain had won last November, we would not have had Porkulus, TARP would have been dramatically smaller, there would have been no theft of GM and Chrysler from the bondholders as a sop to the unions.
In addition, the Congress wouldn't have dared try Cap & Trade, there'd be no discussion of a federal seizure of 1/7 of the U.S Economy (health care).
Other policy differences - we wouldn't have an AG actively contemplating political prosecution of past officials, we wouldn't have a bumbling SoS making a fool of us everywhere, and we wouldn't have had the Presidential Embarrassment that Obama has caused with foreign dignitaries too numerous to count.
But other than that, nothing would be different at all.
Posted by: brian at July 27, 2009 08:43 PM (S2j/V)
23
Brian,
Though your post does aptly express your political views, it doesn't address my specific questions, other than to name a few things that wouldn't be happening, in your opinion.
Again, would we have less problems? If so, how so? Using logic, how would we be in better shape had McCain won the presidency?
I think it's debatable that McCain would not have done many of the same things in regards to the economy that Obama has done.
Health care........I don't know. I honestly don't know what's the best thing for our country in regards to health care. I do want to see a new system. I want all Americans to have guaranteed health care. BUT, I don't want us to rush into this blindly and fast. I want to hear real discussions from real people. The democrats are making a big mistake to rush these changes. It needs to be done right.
Personally, I like the idea of a govt. run health insurance company that is in direct competition with the private sector. I think that's something to seriously consider, the pros and cons.
Though your post does aptly express your political views, it doesn't address my specific questions, other than to name a few things that wouldn't be happening, in your opinion.
Again, would we have less problems? If so, how so? Using logic, how would we be in better shape had McCain won the presidency?
I think it's debatable that McCain would not have done many of the same things in regards to the economy that Obama has done.
Health care........I don't know. I honestly don't know what's the best thing for our country in regards to health care. I do want to see a new system. I want all Americans to have guaranteed health care. BUT, I don't want us to rush into this blindly and fast. I want to hear real discussions from real people. The democrats are making a big mistake to rush these changes. It needs to be done right.
Personally, I like the idea of a govt. run health insurance company that is in direct competition with the private sector. I think that's something to seriously consider, the pros and cons.
Posted by: Dude at July 27, 2009 10:34 PM (byA+E)
24
Do you have any logical reasons to think that our problems would disappear if the Republicans were in control, now?
Not really. The current generation of GOP leaders have lost much of their credibility. While a good start was made back in 2001 with the tax-cut approach to stimulating the economy and a radical approach was taken to deal with the problem of Iraq and Afghanistan, that pretty much ended their run of classically liberal solutions. The GOP then turned into self-interested timeservers whose only virtue were that they were not quite as nuts as Waxman, Pelosi, & co.
Not much to recommend them.
I often wondered why the GOP did not take advantage of many of the smaller government, classic liberal issues that were everywhere. I presume that the seduction of power works on everyone regardless of political label.
wrt healthcare, I wonder if we want to end up with a two-tier system similar to the current Medicare. To get decent treatment while on Medicare, seniors purchase MediGap insurance. So there is a safety net for everyone, but the care is sub-standard, slow, and highly restricted.
With the Medicaid approach, a gap appears between the top of Medicaid and the bottom of affordable health insurance. That gap is larger because of state regulatory overreaching that limits competition (along with the lack of limits on malpractice suits), but it will probably always exist to some extent.
Not really. The current generation of GOP leaders have lost much of their credibility. While a good start was made back in 2001 with the tax-cut approach to stimulating the economy and a radical approach was taken to deal with the problem of Iraq and Afghanistan, that pretty much ended their run of classically liberal solutions. The GOP then turned into self-interested timeservers whose only virtue were that they were not quite as nuts as Waxman, Pelosi, & co.
Not much to recommend them.
I often wondered why the GOP did not take advantage of many of the smaller government, classic liberal issues that were everywhere. I presume that the seduction of power works on everyone regardless of political label.
wrt healthcare, I wonder if we want to end up with a two-tier system similar to the current Medicare. To get decent treatment while on Medicare, seniors purchase MediGap insurance. So there is a safety net for everyone, but the care is sub-standard, slow, and highly restricted.
With the Medicaid approach, a gap appears between the top of Medicaid and the bottom of affordable health insurance. That gap is larger because of state regulatory overreaching that limits competition (along with the lack of limits on malpractice suits), but it will probably always exist to some extent.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 28, 2009 12:13 PM (O8ebz)
July 23, 2009
Racist-in-Chief
A woman sees a man she thinks is attempting to break into a neighbor's home, and calls the police.
An officer arrives, and finds a man in the foyer of the home, and begins to question him. The man acts belligerently, and initially refuses to provide identification, while screaming the cop was prejudiced. The man inside the home was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct, even though he later provided identification showing he he was and proving that it was his home. People get arrested all the time for acting like an ass and refusing to work with police responding to a call, and the officer could have just as easily charged the suspect with obstruction of justice and he would have been well justified. But because the man who was arrested is a prominent African-American professor crying racism, and the officer is white, the cries immediately began that the arrest was racist, when it very plainly was not. Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr was non-compliant with a police officer merely doing his job of trying to protect Gates' home. In fact, he was abusive towards the officer. And the officer's the bad guy? Give me an effin' break. Gates could have easily diffused this situation at the very beginning by showing Sgt. James Crowley his identification as requested. Crowley would have seen that the home was indeed Gates', would have wished him a good day, and been on his way. A normal person may have even thanked the officer for responding to the call (which was, after all, to protect his property), and the neighbor who was trying to looking out for him. But Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr is more than a scholar. He's also an asshole... and more than likely a racist himself. By his own admission he immediately escalated a simple matter of identification into a confrontation, and then had the temerity to play the victim. Further—and amazingly—a hopelessly lockstep and well-conditioned liberal media immediately joined in echoing the hue and cry, though all the evidence points towards a good cop simply attempting to do his job and a self-important jerk acting belligerently, thinking that he is above the law. Sgt. Crowley is no racist. He's done his best to serve his community, and did everything in his power to attempt to save the life of another famous African-American. But Gates and his supporters can't see that, blinded by knee-jerk rage and hobbled by minds firmly rooted in the past. Likewise, our President, Barack Obama, showed his character and intellect to be paper thin, accusing Sgt. Crowley of acting "stupidly," even as he admitted that he didn't know the facts of the case. Here are the facts, provided by another officer in the arrest report:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (67) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's truly sad when an American president validates the modern premise that if you are black, you are automatically right.
Posted by: Kathy at July 23, 2009 11:50 AM (GgxCk)
2
Not only is Gates less likely to ever get police help at his home in the future - Gates just reduced the odds that any black may get police help in their home because which cop is going to take the chance to subject himself to such Gates-like nonsense
Posted by: DBD at July 23, 2009 11:53 AM (K47SS)
3
Of course, Obama is a racist!
Read his books, look at his mentors, Jeremiah Wright and his Black KKK "church".
This episode only highlights a known fact, but since the MSM is entirely leftist and believe that no leftist could ever be racist, this will not be reported.
Read his books, look at his mentors, Jeremiah Wright and his Black KKK "church".
This episode only highlights a known fact, but since the MSM is entirely leftist and believe that no leftist could ever be racist, this will not be reported.
Posted by: SClanding at July 23, 2009 11:59 AM (92KrJ)
4
Professor Henry Louis Gates assumes that because 1) he is a black man, and 2) because he's a Harvard professor that he is above the law. The officers did nothing wrong. If any white man did what he did, they would be arrested for disorderly conduct or even obstruction of justice which carriers a weightier burden of proof and a bigger fine or even a jail sentence. Almost fifty years ago the NACP came to the zenith of its power when Congress passed Affirmative Action, making it possible for black men and women to believe that they are now equal in rights with whites. The truth is that many activate blacks know they are above the law in many respects and an inconsiderate president doesn't make life as a police officer easier when he, without knowing the facts, sides with his black brother. In reality, he is more white than black by far and even more Arab than black. But that's beside the point. He chose to be a "Black man" to help him get elected. Now in everything he is proving to be champion of minorities, even when they're in the wrong. It doesn't make him a bigger man to come out like he did in a Health Care Press Conference and make this point. It was a setup. Reporter Lynn (something) from the Chicago Sun Tribune is a friend of Obama's. He wanted to weigh in so he specifically asked her to ask this question near the end of the conference. What some "black men" won't do for press attention. I don't blame the other black men, just one black man, Barak Obama, who is so far the worst president this country has ever seen. Yes, he is a racist president.
Don White
Don White
Posted by: Don White at July 23, 2009 12:00 PM (LTCQj)
5
Obama should not waste his time commenting on this topic and is a huge racist.
Posted by: megan at July 23, 2009 12:22 PM (Y9XVQ)
6
If the police acted stupidly I do not know-I was not there nor was the President-However I did see the President on TV and he surely acted STUPIDLY!!
Posted by: lh at July 23, 2009 12:26 PM (BA7Z0)
7
Obama is a RACIST and probably the antiChrist or his forerunner
Posted by: lilbit at July 23, 2009 12:39 PM (Ih9k8)
8
maybe obama and gates should talk to reggie lewis's widow,, and see how a racist operates.. i thik obama true self is starting to come out,, and it's only been 6 months.. who's relly the racis mr POTUS..
Posted by: greg bgardner at July 23, 2009 01:17 PM (wFCqt)
9
i am sorry but Obama is too effin stupid to be the anti-christ. rock dumb in fact.
I cant believe the knuckle-head we have as a president. complete 99-ring circus act.
just think the reigns of the most powerful nation in history are in this moron's hands.
I cant believe the knuckle-head we have as a president. complete 99-ring circus act.
just think the reigns of the most powerful nation in history are in this moron's hands.
Posted by: lu-ee at July 23, 2009 01:33 PM (oogdQ)
10
Recall, how it took at least several days of watching demonstrators beaten and gunned down in Iran before Obama would utter a word out of concern, and even then stressing a reluctance to 'meddle'.
Yet the moment this story breaks, and before the full reports become known, a minor police arrest for disorderly conduct merits a press conference statement and presidential condemnation.
Truly this president is unbalanced and immature.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Yet the moment this story breaks, and before the full reports become known, a minor police arrest for disorderly conduct merits a press conference statement and presidential condemnation.
Truly this president is unbalanced and immature.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Posted by: Peter Warner at July 23, 2009 02:04 PM (KFS8k)
11
Hope this shows up on COPS some night.
But I'm sure Professor Wankers class will hear a full play by play of his brush with da man for years to come.
But I'm sure Professor Wankers class will hear a full play by play of his brush with da man for years to come.
Posted by: sanjuro at July 23, 2009 02:23 PM (Mn2mV)
12
The most hilarious bit of this is that, even by his own statement of the events, Gates is obviously in the wrong. But no one should expect anything different from this race hustler who is better dressed than Al Sharpton but otherwise indistinguishible. This puke has made grillions fanning every parking ticket, every job application and foremost every academic event into a race riot. People are obviously losing patience with this claptrap. Finally.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 23, 2009 02:33 PM (J+P3V)
13
Mouth off to a cop, get busted. It's that simple. Whether you're black, white, yellow, purple, or green makes no difference. Like it or not, the police have tremendous power in America. Insolence to those who have such power is stupid. Some black men know this, for example, Chris Rock.
Posted by: Gringo Malo at July 23, 2009 02:54 PM (5npD/)
14
I have had the alarm go off at my house and the first thing you are expected to do is show some identification. It is only logical. This professor is clearly prejudiced and above us all.
Posted by: David at July 23, 2009 03:18 PM (g4NE/)
15
So, the Boston news has stated a contradiction between the story told earlier and what is being told now.
The relevant bit:
"Friends of Gates said he was already in his home when police arrived. He showed his driver’s license and Harvard identification card, but was handcuffed and taken into police custody for several hours last Thursday, they said."
Now, it say's "Friends of Gates", which seems to imply to me that someone's telling a story to cover his butt. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.
The article can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html
The relevant bit:
"Friends of Gates said he was already in his home when police arrived. He showed his driver’s license and Harvard identification card, but was handcuffed and taken into police custody for several hours last Thursday, they said."
Now, it say's "Friends of Gates", which seems to imply to me that someone's telling a story to cover his butt. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.
The article can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html
Posted by: Eric G. at July 23, 2009 03:26 PM (+GD1J)
16
Obama is an idiot for shooting off his mouth about something of which he admits he doesn't have all the facts.
When Skippy "Do you know who I am?" Gates isn't raising a pint in Dublin, Ireland and flapping his gums about how his DNA is "56% White" he's ginning up race relations in Boston, which have never been al that good.
Skippy is such a great guy and neighbor, he was immediately recognized and vouched for by the reporting party and bystanders... oh wait, I guess no one outside his house knew who he was.
Around Boston, no one is surprised that this arrogant, race baiting, "victim" comes straight out of the mean streets of harvard and moonbat Cambridge.
When Skippy "Do you know who I am?" Gates isn't raising a pint in Dublin, Ireland and flapping his gums about how his DNA is "56% White" he's ginning up race relations in Boston, which have never been al that good.
Skippy is such a great guy and neighbor, he was immediately recognized and vouched for by the reporting party and bystanders... oh wait, I guess no one outside his house knew who he was.
Around Boston, no one is surprised that this arrogant, race baiting, "victim" comes straight out of the mean streets of harvard and moonbat Cambridge.
Posted by: Steve R at July 23, 2009 04:23 PM (ut/+s)
17
In Obama's speech he said Gates was jiggering the door. I looked up jigger in Wikipedia. Turns out it's a slur for a black person.
Posted by: Brian W at July 23, 2009 04:54 PM (hRF1f)
18
...and while the President feels the need to comment on yet another case of bad, bad white people, I just wonder how many more men and women cannot support their families because they lost their jobs and how many unfortunate children will again go hungry tonight because we as a Nation are so completely ignorant in our morales and values! Wow, so much for the Great USA. We'd better put some people in office next time that will get us off of this path of complete destruction,or soon, we won't be able to recover. Wait a minute, let's say a prayer because we're in dire need of a higher help. Oh, hold on, are we asking for help today or are we yet again finding ways and allowing people to chisel him out of our lives and Country?! Sorry for this, I'm just so sick and tired of this crap!
Posted by: grasshopper at July 23, 2009 05:05 PM (FraXf)
19
Not only is Gates less likely to ever get police help at his home in the future - Gates just reduced the odds that any black may get police help in their home because which cop is going to take the chance to subject himself to such Gates-like nonsense.
I totally disagree with this statement! Most cops are consumate professionals, they won't stoop to Gates' level and try to return "tit for tat".
Gates is a prime example of what is wrong with the black community. The have combined an entitlement mentality with a chip on their shoulder (a boulder really!) about things, which for the most part, just don't exist in America any more - or they wouldn't, if people like Professor Gates, Al Sharpeton, Jesse Jackson, and, yes, especially Barrak Hussein Obama keep bringing them up!
Professor Gates! Give it a rest and just grow the f**k up!
I totally disagree with this statement! Most cops are consumate professionals, they won't stoop to Gates' level and try to return "tit for tat".
Gates is a prime example of what is wrong with the black community. The have combined an entitlement mentality with a chip on their shoulder (a boulder really!) about things, which for the most part, just don't exist in America any more - or they wouldn't, if people like Professor Gates, Al Sharpeton, Jesse Jackson, and, yes, especially Barrak Hussein Obama keep bringing them up!
Professor Gates! Give it a rest and just grow the f**k up!
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 23, 2009 05:16 PM (kE0Cc)
20
Obama appears to be a shallow and bitter man. If my impression is correct we are in for a nasty 4 years.
Posted by: Rick at July 23, 2009 05:18 PM (FWmwx)
21
You know its kind of sad you all want to side with a Person who only saw a black man she thought didn't belong in the neighborhood. That’s one. And two is the fact that after showing not only his State ID, but also his SCHOOL ID, he got arrested. I guess it was a way of saying we’re sorry but because you didn't cower in fear of the police we are taking you in. Even though you have a chest infection and have to walk with a cane we still think you are a threat. Here is a question, does the fact that the president is black, give not only the police but the neighbor that made the call to act like racist and even worse asses? That’s person who made that call need to answer for what he or she did? Until then it sad to be a white person in this country
Posted by: Joe Krash at July 23, 2009 05:33 PM (4mXL9)
22
Obama, you're a disgrace to all Americans.
Posted by: John Eden at July 23, 2009 05:49 PM (bOrzM)
23
But had already shown both a Harvard ID and a drivers license to show that it was his house. Yankee do you think you should be arrested in your own home after showing proper identification? This is America last time I checked.
Posted by: Just the facts at July 23, 2009 05:50 PM (QCCm7)
24
Go and read the arrest report. The man was having to pri open his door. He had been out of town for a while. All she saw was 2 black men breaking into the house. What she is not suppose to call because it might be racial??? I think not. He should appreciate that fact considering that he told the arresting officer the door could not be secured due to a 'previous break in attemt'.
Posted by: Jennifer at July 23, 2009 05:56 PM (jn9LJ)
25
Joe:
If she had called and said two white men were forcing the door and the Cops showed up and Gates answered the door, likely the same questions would have been asked. Black in this case was a descriptor.
Two Black Males attempting to force a door, is going to help the responding officer more than two people of indeterminate description.
Where it fell apart was an ass showing his to the responding officer, refusing to cooperate, and even after complying, continuing to accost the officer.
Broke into my own home once. Late at night. Cops came, I gave them my ID, explained I managed to lock myself out, and the only set of keys was inside, or in Michigan on vacation with the other that lived in the house. One officer offered a friend's service to repair the door, and after I pointed out the abundance of carpentry tools he laughed, bid me good night, and left quietly.
Yes, I am white, but all the break ins in my 'hood were a youngish white male. The caller was the older lady across the street who thought I too was out of town. I thanked her for keeping an eye out, and was polite with the officers. Works wonders, that. As any cop will tell ya, even if you are caught breaking the law, being polite goes a long way in your benefit.
By all accounts at the time of the arrest, Gates was not anywhere near polite, and followed the officer outside and Cambridge has laws agi'n that, being the upscale liberal bastion it is.
If she had called and said two white men were forcing the door and the Cops showed up and Gates answered the door, likely the same questions would have been asked. Black in this case was a descriptor.
Two Black Males attempting to force a door, is going to help the responding officer more than two people of indeterminate description.
Where it fell apart was an ass showing his to the responding officer, refusing to cooperate, and even after complying, continuing to accost the officer.
Broke into my own home once. Late at night. Cops came, I gave them my ID, explained I managed to lock myself out, and the only set of keys was inside, or in Michigan on vacation with the other that lived in the house. One officer offered a friend's service to repair the door, and after I pointed out the abundance of carpentry tools he laughed, bid me good night, and left quietly.
Yes, I am white, but all the break ins in my 'hood were a youngish white male. The caller was the older lady across the street who thought I too was out of town. I thanked her for keeping an eye out, and was polite with the officers. Works wonders, that. As any cop will tell ya, even if you are caught breaking the law, being polite goes a long way in your benefit.
By all accounts at the time of the arrest, Gates was not anywhere near polite, and followed the officer outside and Cambridge has laws agi'n that, being the upscale liberal bastion it is.
Posted by: JP at July 23, 2009 05:58 PM (VxiFL)
26
Joe,
What kind of knee-jerk are you ? The stated arrest report says the "she saw a man wedging his shoulder into the front door." No mention of race. . .
The second officer attested that he heard Crowley ask for identification and heard "no I will not."
No evidence of racism there. No matter what your color may be, when a cop says "I need to see some ID" if you start yelling and causing a ruckus in public (and your porch can be considered such for this purpose) you have met the textbook definition of disorderly conduct.
Imagine your neighbor sets up a 3,000 watt stereo on his porch and begins blasting [insert the type of music you hate most here]. Does he have a "right" to disturb and alarm everyone else because it's "his property ?" Fortunately, the law disagrees.
What kind of knee-jerk are you ? The stated arrest report says the "she saw a man wedging his shoulder into the front door." No mention of race. . .
The second officer attested that he heard Crowley ask for identification and heard "no I will not."
No evidence of racism there. No matter what your color may be, when a cop says "I need to see some ID" if you start yelling and causing a ruckus in public (and your porch can be considered such for this purpose) you have met the textbook definition of disorderly conduct.
Imagine your neighbor sets up a 3,000 watt stereo on his porch and begins blasting [insert the type of music you hate most here]. Does he have a "right" to disturb and alarm everyone else because it's "his property ?" Fortunately, the law disagrees.
Posted by: 1charlie2 at July 23, 2009 06:30 PM (MpqDv)
27
After how many months of this nonsense I still can't look at Obama and think "President", and I doubt I ever will. I expect someone that leads my country to act a little more dignified and to even possibly represent all Americans. The arrogance is mind blowing to me that he would even mention an incident that trivial. The thing that gets me is that he thinks he can say anything at any time and his opinion is the only one that counts.Its going to be a long three years.
Posted by: Bill at July 23, 2009 07:47 PM (ip9xv)
28
This was truly disappointing. If nothing else good comes of Obama pretending to be president, I thought maybe, just maybe, we could get past the race stuff. But, it's not to be. In fact, I think it's much worse because every chance he gets he makes race an issue. His wife does, his supporters in the media do - especially Leonard Pitts and Cynthia McKinney. And blacks are so wrapped up in this guys success that they won't help get him on the right track. They just dig in and support everything he does as if their life depends on it. I have a feeling we are going to have race riots again soon.
Posted by: Jayne at July 23, 2009 08:25 PM (dwIL0)
29
A racist president.... who has set progress in race relations back at least 40 years. No doubt if he gets his healthcare reform, the first casualties will be not only elderly, but white.
Posted by: Kathy at July 23, 2009 09:06 PM (GgxCk)
30
I've learned a good lesson from this. As a white male I'm simply racist if I interact with African Americans. The way to avoid that is to have nothing to do with them.
Posted by: Brooks at July 23, 2009 09:43 PM (HDv4n)
31
This dumb cop should have known better. Now he's going to get Joe The Plumber'ed. Bet you ACORN, ACLU, and the NAACP are already digging through his personnel file. Bet the networks have their ace dumpster divers going through his trash and talking to his kids' classmates. Bet the police union is frantically working on stategy to throw him under the bus without pissing off the rest of their membership.
He may as well turn in his badge and gun, move to Montana and start over. Not that the media will let him.
He may as well turn in his badge and gun, move to Montana and start over. Not that the media will let him.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 23, 2009 10:11 PM (Vcyz0)
32
Steve S ... This policeman is not a "dumb cop," according to the fuller details of this story. He is a police officer with an admirable record who has conducted courses for the Cambridge police on how to avoid charges of "racial profiling."
The politically correct leftists in this country are determined to charge anyone, police or civilian, with racism if any criticism of certain selected groups is offered by the rest of us who do not belong to those groups. Thus our President, who is a 'newbie' to say the least, [that's a computer word for a beginner and has nothing to do with his race] cannot be criticized by his constituents without said constituents being accused of racism. He, however, feels free to criticize us, without full knowledge of the facts.
As far as Professor Gates goes, his common sense and courtesy appear to have gone down the drain when he broke into his own house. You don't speak to the police that way. They are charged with protecting you and your valuables from predators and crazies who want to hurt you. It's a tough job, and the great majority of them do a conscientious and efficient and courteous job of it.
Surely, it is our responsibility to be courteous to them too. Professor Gates Mom should be ashamed of him. I'm sure she taught him better.
Marianne Matthews
The politically correct leftists in this country are determined to charge anyone, police or civilian, with racism if any criticism of certain selected groups is offered by the rest of us who do not belong to those groups. Thus our President, who is a 'newbie' to say the least, [that's a computer word for a beginner and has nothing to do with his race] cannot be criticized by his constituents without said constituents being accused of racism. He, however, feels free to criticize us, without full knowledge of the facts.
As far as Professor Gates goes, his common sense and courtesy appear to have gone down the drain when he broke into his own house. You don't speak to the police that way. They are charged with protecting you and your valuables from predators and crazies who want to hurt you. It's a tough job, and the great majority of them do a conscientious and efficient and courteous job of it.
Surely, it is our responsibility to be courteous to them too. Professor Gates Mom should be ashamed of him. I'm sure she taught him better.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at July 23, 2009 11:27 PM (3S3+J)
33
"An officer arrives, and finds a man in the foyer of the home"
Wow. That is a pretty quick arrival. I wish the cops would show up that quickly where I live. Think about it. The call went in, and by the time he broke into his home, and made it to the foyer, the cop arrived. That is really fast.
Reaction time where I live is about 10 minutes, and compaired to some states and towns, 10 minutes is considered fast.
Wow. That is a pretty quick arrival. I wish the cops would show up that quickly where I live. Think about it. The call went in, and by the time he broke into his home, and made it to the foyer, the cop arrived. That is really fast.
Reaction time where I live is about 10 minutes, and compaired to some states and towns, 10 minutes is considered fast.
Posted by: Matt at July 24, 2009 01:38 AM (XKpp2)
34
Marianne, I was of course being sarcastic. But I will elaborate, and say that anyone in the US today starting in law enforcement is dumb. This shows what we can expect in the post racial age. The President is a long time associate of Bill Ayers, for crying out loud.
As soon as the officer noted a disparity in skin color he should have turned around and left.
As soon as the officer noted a disparity in skin color he should have turned around and left.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 24, 2009 12:03 PM (Vcyz0)
35
We have three observations about the Harvard professor incident:
1. We find it interesting that the fact that this was the professor's home was evidently not established early on way before the dispute escalated;
2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view.
3. Finally, considering that the reading and viewing public were not present at the scene (and thus have no first hand knowledge), and that there is no video tape to our knowledge of the sequence of events and what was said, how so many have formed conclusions, and made assumptions, about who did what and who was wrong.
There are some things which Professor Gates might have considered upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been.
1. We find it interesting that the fact that this was the professor's home was evidently not established early on way before the dispute escalated;
2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view.
3. Finally, considering that the reading and viewing public were not present at the scene (and thus have no first hand knowledge), and that there is no video tape to our knowledge of the sequence of events and what was said, how so many have formed conclusions, and made assumptions, about who did what and who was wrong.
There are some things which Professor Gates might have considered upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been.
Posted by: Reggie Greene / The Logistician at July 24, 2009 02:41 PM (mlcYN)
36
You know I have to ask this question:
With all the inherent ignorance and outright stupidity demonstrated by Barak Obama, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, and G.W. Bush (though I don't think he was as dumb as people claim) as alumni and a Professor like Henry Louis Gates shouldn't Harvard be worried about tarnishing their "brand" as a top rate school?
Or does "Ivy League" just mean "where the rich kids go to hang out and party"?
With all the inherent ignorance and outright stupidity demonstrated by Barak Obama, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, and G.W. Bush (though I don't think he was as dumb as people claim) as alumni and a Professor like Henry Louis Gates shouldn't Harvard be worried about tarnishing their "brand" as a top rate school?
Or does "Ivy League" just mean "where the rich kids go to hang out and party"?
Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2009 03:25 PM (sQmd1)
37
2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view.
I get viewing the cop as a responsible and honest citizen (or at least the benefit of doubt), but a Harvard professor?
I get viewing the cop as a responsible and honest citizen (or at least the benefit of doubt), but a Harvard professor?
Posted by: iconoclast at July 27, 2009 02:20 AM (O8ebz)
38
I think that Gates over reacted, to say the least. I had never heard of the man before this event. From what I've read, he sounds like a jerk to me.
I'm not an attorney. Even so, without a warrant, unless I'm mistaken, Gates had no legal responsibility to answer any questions nor to show any form of ID on his own property.
If the cops come onto your property without a warrant, knock on your door and you come to the door, you have no responsibility to tell them anything. Of course, common sense would dictate that you answer the door and speak in a civil manner.
If I were in his situation I would have answered the door. I would have asked for ID from the cop. I would then have informed him of the events that lead the neighbor to call. If he asked for my ID, I may or may not have shown it to him. I probably would have.
I would then ask him to leave my property and politely tell him that if he needs to search the house to please come back with a search warrant.
I'm not an attorney. Even so, without a warrant, unless I'm mistaken, Gates had no legal responsibility to answer any questions nor to show any form of ID on his own property.
If the cops come onto your property without a warrant, knock on your door and you come to the door, you have no responsibility to tell them anything. Of course, common sense would dictate that you answer the door and speak in a civil manner.
If I were in his situation I would have answered the door. I would have asked for ID from the cop. I would then have informed him of the events that lead the neighbor to call. If he asked for my ID, I may or may not have shown it to him. I probably would have.
I would then ask him to leave my property and politely tell him that if he needs to search the house to please come back with a search warrant.
Posted by: Dude at July 27, 2009 02:21 PM (byA+E)
39
I've been going around about this with a couple on the left at Hannity's forums...
...we keep talking past each other:
Because Obama's mouth got him into trouble, they are busy trying to find ways to shield him. The point they have chosen is the idea that nobody in Mass. gets arrested like that and the charges were dropped so it is plain as day the cop made an unlawful arrest that should never have happened.
And I've been saying repeatedly -- the cop did exactly what police are trained to do these days, and whether or not the case sees a light of day in a court of law doesn't matter.
Police are trained in the Use of Force Continuum with the specific idea that the police on a scene should remain one rung above the suspect or other person on the scene:
You start with verbal commands, if they take it up a notch to being verbally abusive and you can't get them to calm down, you cuff em. If they lay hands on, you go to your weapons - pepper spray, nightstick, tazzer - and if they go to weapons - you go to your gun.
The whole focus of the training is on --- keeping the scene under control for the safety of all involved.
Why? Because even the most average of citizens - regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation ---- will sometimes make very stupid decisions in the heat of passion.
So, when you see someone starting to get worked up - getting themselves worked up and perhaps people in the area too ---- you get control of the situation as quickly as possible ---- which means calling in backup and putting the person acting ludicrous in cuffs and if need be in your patrol car and if they still won't calm down - you take them into custody and book em.
And the point is not to try to make some arrest stick or make sure the person gets fined or even spend the night in jail --- the whole purpose is officer safety and safety on the scene.
9 times out of 10, the situation might not have spiraled out of control into a physical confrontation or street riot or whatever in the first place, but that 1 time out of 10 can see people get killed.
...So you don't take chances.
Reading the police report, the cop did what he was trained to do...
...we keep talking past each other:
Because Obama's mouth got him into trouble, they are busy trying to find ways to shield him. The point they have chosen is the idea that nobody in Mass. gets arrested like that and the charges were dropped so it is plain as day the cop made an unlawful arrest that should never have happened.
And I've been saying repeatedly -- the cop did exactly what police are trained to do these days, and whether or not the case sees a light of day in a court of law doesn't matter.
Police are trained in the Use of Force Continuum with the specific idea that the police on a scene should remain one rung above the suspect or other person on the scene:
You start with verbal commands, if they take it up a notch to being verbally abusive and you can't get them to calm down, you cuff em. If they lay hands on, you go to your weapons - pepper spray, nightstick, tazzer - and if they go to weapons - you go to your gun.
The whole focus of the training is on --- keeping the scene under control for the safety of all involved.
Why? Because even the most average of citizens - regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation ---- will sometimes make very stupid decisions in the heat of passion.
So, when you see someone starting to get worked up - getting themselves worked up and perhaps people in the area too ---- you get control of the situation as quickly as possible ---- which means calling in backup and putting the person acting ludicrous in cuffs and if need be in your patrol car and if they still won't calm down - you take them into custody and book em.
And the point is not to try to make some arrest stick or make sure the person gets fined or even spend the night in jail --- the whole purpose is officer safety and safety on the scene.
9 times out of 10, the situation might not have spiraled out of control into a physical confrontation or street riot or whatever in the first place, but that 1 time out of 10 can see people get killed.
...So you don't take chances.
Reading the police report, the cop did what he was trained to do...
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 05:40 PM (qD510)
40
Dude,
"Even so, without a warrant, unless I'm mistaken, Gates had no legal responsibility to answer any questions nor to show any form of ID on his own property."
Dead wrong. It might vary state to state, but in general, this is the exact opposite of the law:
If the police officer is on the scene due to a legitimate call, people on that scene have certain basic, minimal obligations -- like showing identification and giving their name.
Refusing to comply can --- I stress "can" --- be considered obstruction of justice and grounds for arrest. It usually isn't, because why waste your time on such a small charge if no bigger crime has been committed?
And such general questioning also falls outside the rules of Miranda rights too. A citizen does not simply have the right to remain silent and refuse to produce identification and block the execution of a legitimate investigation into a police call.
And once person on a scene begins to throw a tirade and get himself - and sometimes his family members and/or others on the scene -- cops are trained to get the situation under control before someone does something stupid that ends up getting someone hurt.
This case with the professor is the type that goes on every day across the country with people of all races and genders and whatever...
The only thing that made this case unusual was that the President of the United States decided to speak up about it and claim it was based on racism.
Since the cop in question was falling guidelines that are pretty standard in police academies across the nation - I believe - I bet cops all over the land would like to tell Obama to stick his head up his bum...
Do a search for the term "Use of Force Continuum".
"Even so, without a warrant, unless I'm mistaken, Gates had no legal responsibility to answer any questions nor to show any form of ID on his own property."
Dead wrong. It might vary state to state, but in general, this is the exact opposite of the law:
If the police officer is on the scene due to a legitimate call, people on that scene have certain basic, minimal obligations -- like showing identification and giving their name.
Refusing to comply can --- I stress "can" --- be considered obstruction of justice and grounds for arrest. It usually isn't, because why waste your time on such a small charge if no bigger crime has been committed?
And such general questioning also falls outside the rules of Miranda rights too. A citizen does not simply have the right to remain silent and refuse to produce identification and block the execution of a legitimate investigation into a police call.
And once person on a scene begins to throw a tirade and get himself - and sometimes his family members and/or others on the scene -- cops are trained to get the situation under control before someone does something stupid that ends up getting someone hurt.
This case with the professor is the type that goes on every day across the country with people of all races and genders and whatever...
The only thing that made this case unusual was that the President of the United States decided to speak up about it and claim it was based on racism.
Since the cop in question was falling guidelines that are pretty standard in police academies across the nation - I believe - I bet cops all over the land would like to tell Obama to stick his head up his bum...
Do a search for the term "Use of Force Continuum".
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 05:54 PM (qD510)
41
On Dude's point again,
Let's imagine if the prof had not worked himself into a lather and simply refused to speak or show identification. What probably would have happened?
The police would have detained him - at the scene - until they could work out why he was in a house with a jimmied door that someone had called to say might be the scene of an ongoing break in.
If the prof had refused to answer any questions at all, I would bet the police would have been within their lawful duties to pat him down looking for a wallet that might have an ID in it.
Or maybe they would have simply asked a neighbor if they knew who the man was and upon finding out he was the homeowner - that would have been it.
But the prof would still have been obstructing justice.
And lets say the crime were a bigger one - say a murder - and the police came up on the scene due to a call - say someone phoned in hearing gunshots - and the prof had been on the scene and refused to speak or show identification:
The police would clearly be within their rights and the law to detain the person and removing him from the house until his identity and why he was at the scene could be established.
Just because nobody had actually broken into the prof's home doesn't change what the duty and responsibilities are for the police and a citizen found at that scene.
Let's imagine if the prof had not worked himself into a lather and simply refused to speak or show identification. What probably would have happened?
The police would have detained him - at the scene - until they could work out why he was in a house with a jimmied door that someone had called to say might be the scene of an ongoing break in.
If the prof had refused to answer any questions at all, I would bet the police would have been within their lawful duties to pat him down looking for a wallet that might have an ID in it.
Or maybe they would have simply asked a neighbor if they knew who the man was and upon finding out he was the homeowner - that would have been it.
But the prof would still have been obstructing justice.
And lets say the crime were a bigger one - say a murder - and the police came up on the scene due to a call - say someone phoned in hearing gunshots - and the prof had been on the scene and refused to speak or show identification:
The police would clearly be within their rights and the law to detain the person and removing him from the house until his identity and why he was at the scene could be established.
Just because nobody had actually broken into the prof's home doesn't change what the duty and responsibilities are for the police and a citizen found at that scene.
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 06:06 PM (qD510)
42
"If I were in his situation I would have answered the door. I would have asked for ID from the cop. I would then have informed him of the events that lead the neighbor to call. If he asked for my ID, I may or may not have shown it to him. I probably would have.
I would then ask him to leave my property and politely tell him that if he needs to search the house to please come back with a search warrant."
And if it were not your house, after the police left to get a search warrant, you could have cleaned the place out and headed for the nearest pawn shop...
In responding to a call like that, the police do not need a search warrant to do a cursory search to make sure a crime has not been committed --- especially if the door of the house showed signs of having been jimmied.
If you had refused to let the officers in the house or told them to get out of the house, they might ask a neighbor to verify that you are the homeowner, but whatever the case, they would have the right to keep you on the scene and continue the investigation into whether the house was being burglarized or not. If you tried to actively stop them, you would be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The cops would not need a search warrant in this case.
--- They certainly couldn't have started going through your draws or looking under seat cushions and whatnot - but they would be justified in taking a walk through each room to check for any signs of a crime having taken place and to make sure other potential suspects were not hiding waiting for you to con the police into thinking it was your home and convincing them to leave...
I would then ask him to leave my property and politely tell him that if he needs to search the house to please come back with a search warrant."
And if it were not your house, after the police left to get a search warrant, you could have cleaned the place out and headed for the nearest pawn shop...
In responding to a call like that, the police do not need a search warrant to do a cursory search to make sure a crime has not been committed --- especially if the door of the house showed signs of having been jimmied.
If you had refused to let the officers in the house or told them to get out of the house, they might ask a neighbor to verify that you are the homeowner, but whatever the case, they would have the right to keep you on the scene and continue the investigation into whether the house was being burglarized or not. If you tried to actively stop them, you would be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The cops would not need a search warrant in this case.
--- They certainly couldn't have started going through your draws or looking under seat cushions and whatnot - but they would be justified in taking a walk through each room to check for any signs of a crime having taken place and to make sure other potential suspects were not hiding waiting for you to con the police into thinking it was your home and convincing them to leave...
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 06:27 PM (qD510)
43
I guess I could have cut these series of posts should by simply saying "probable cause."
You don't have to have a search warrant to justify each and every search under the law...
You don't have to have a search warrant to justify each and every search under the law...
Posted by: usinkorea at July 27, 2009 06:30 PM (qD510)
44
I'm not suggesting that the guy should have tried to "actively stop them". I am saying that on his own property, in his own house, he is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with the police, especially if he didn't call them and if they didn't have a warrant. Even if they have a warrant, the only thing that he has to tell them is his name.
Obviously, Gates has a huge chip on his shoulder. He certainly didn't handle this situation very well. In my opinion, he's an idiot. If he had good sense he would not have screamed at the cop. He would have stepped out onto the porch, shown him his ID and thanked him for checking his house for him. Then, if the cop asked to come into the house it would be Gates decision to give him permission or not. If the cop insists on coming in, against Gates's will, Gates most certainly should not physically try to stop the cop. He could later sue the cop for unlawful entry, perhaps, and let that issue be worked out in a court of law.
Probable cause is generally used to obtain a search warrant, not to perform a search without a warrant. Granted, there are exceptions and gray areas of the law. And, as you pointed out, I'm sure that it varies from state to state.
If a cop comes to your door and you open the door and the cop sees clear evidence of a crime in progress or that a crime has been committed he certainly doesn't need a warrant to make an arrest. For example, if the cop sees a body on the floor or if he sees illegal drugs in plain view, he doesn't need a warrant to act.
On the other hand, if cops come to your door without a warrant and say to you: "Mr usainkorea, we'd like to ask you a few questions. May we come in and talk with you?" You're under no obligation to talk with them or to give them permission to come into your home. In fact, you have the legal right to tell them that you don't want to talk with them and to tell them to get off of your property.
Finally, I don't think that a person's front porch constitutes public property in the sense of being required to show ID to a police officer. But again, I'm not attorney. I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing with my brother who is a criminal defense attorney, mostly in federal cases. It may also be worth noting that I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night! That should count for something!
Obviously, Gates has a huge chip on his shoulder. He certainly didn't handle this situation very well. In my opinion, he's an idiot. If he had good sense he would not have screamed at the cop. He would have stepped out onto the porch, shown him his ID and thanked him for checking his house for him. Then, if the cop asked to come into the house it would be Gates decision to give him permission or not. If the cop insists on coming in, against Gates's will, Gates most certainly should not physically try to stop the cop. He could later sue the cop for unlawful entry, perhaps, and let that issue be worked out in a court of law.
Probable cause is generally used to obtain a search warrant, not to perform a search without a warrant. Granted, there are exceptions and gray areas of the law. And, as you pointed out, I'm sure that it varies from state to state.
If a cop comes to your door and you open the door and the cop sees clear evidence of a crime in progress or that a crime has been committed he certainly doesn't need a warrant to make an arrest. For example, if the cop sees a body on the floor or if he sees illegal drugs in plain view, he doesn't need a warrant to act.
On the other hand, if cops come to your door without a warrant and say to you: "Mr usainkorea, we'd like to ask you a few questions. May we come in and talk with you?" You're under no obligation to talk with them or to give them permission to come into your home. In fact, you have the legal right to tell them that you don't want to talk with them and to tell them to get off of your property.
Finally, I don't think that a person's front porch constitutes public property in the sense of being required to show ID to a police officer. But again, I'm not attorney. I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing with my brother who is a criminal defense attorney, mostly in federal cases. It may also be worth noting that I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night! That should count for something!
Posted by: Dude at July 27, 2009 10:08 PM (byA+E)
45
"I am saying that on his own property, in his own house, he is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with the police .... "Mr usainkorea, we'd like to ask you a few questions. May we come in and talk with you?" You're under no obligation to talk with them or to give them permission to come into your home."
That's not what the law says. And if the police came to my house due to a citizen reporting a possible crime in progress, I would not have had the legal option of withholding my name or refusing to show ID.
And it doesn't matter if it is public property or not. As far as it concerns the officers, it is a crime scene -- until they can tell through a routine investigation whether or not the crime reported actually happened or not.
If you are found at the scene of a police dispatch call of a potential crime, you can't refuse to identify yourself or produce ID or even stop a cursory search.
You can refuse to give your name and ID, but you are then obstructive a legitimate investigation, and you can be detained for it and in all likelihood in most states be subject to a basic pat down and having your wallet removed from your pocket and checked for ID.
Of course, people refusing to give their name or ID are not arrested all the time for obstruction. The charge isn't worth the paperwork or court costs (if the DA would press it anyway), and you can usually find out the info you want to know in other ways --- but still -- the person on the scene has the obligation to answer those basic questions.
The probable cause of the dispatch and you being on the scene grants that.
And simply showing ID and saying, "This is my house" isn't good enough - unless the cop isn't too bright. He'd have to verify that somehow.
And probable cause is routinely used on a scene to search even the body of the person --- the pat down...
It could also certainly be used as justification for a quick walk through the house to see if anyone else where there or if there were signs of a break in if the person on the scene could not or would not offer proof that the house was his.
This is all pretty standard stuff, I believe. It goes on every day across the land.
That's not what the law says. And if the police came to my house due to a citizen reporting a possible crime in progress, I would not have had the legal option of withholding my name or refusing to show ID.
And it doesn't matter if it is public property or not. As far as it concerns the officers, it is a crime scene -- until they can tell through a routine investigation whether or not the crime reported actually happened or not.
If you are found at the scene of a police dispatch call of a potential crime, you can't refuse to identify yourself or produce ID or even stop a cursory search.
You can refuse to give your name and ID, but you are then obstructive a legitimate investigation, and you can be detained for it and in all likelihood in most states be subject to a basic pat down and having your wallet removed from your pocket and checked for ID.
Of course, people refusing to give their name or ID are not arrested all the time for obstruction. The charge isn't worth the paperwork or court costs (if the DA would press it anyway), and you can usually find out the info you want to know in other ways --- but still -- the person on the scene has the obligation to answer those basic questions.
The probable cause of the dispatch and you being on the scene grants that.
And simply showing ID and saying, "This is my house" isn't good enough - unless the cop isn't too bright. He'd have to verify that somehow.
And probable cause is routinely used on a scene to search even the body of the person --- the pat down...
It could also certainly be used as justification for a quick walk through the house to see if anyone else where there or if there were signs of a break in if the person on the scene could not or would not offer proof that the house was his.
This is all pretty standard stuff, I believe. It goes on every day across the land.
Posted by: usinkorea at July 28, 2009 06:00 AM (xJDYT)
46
""Mr usainkorea, we'd like to ask you a few questions. May we come in and talk with you?" You're under no obligation to talk with them or to give them permission to come into your home.""
For clarification of my last comment:
If the police came to my house to investigate a crime that took place the day before, I could politely tell them to kiss my @ss, refuse to give them my name, and tell them to get the heck off my property...and I'd be within my rights and they'd need to obey.
----But, the same people located on the same piece of property concerning a possible crime happening now or just before the cops showed up is a completely different matter...
The same goes for identifications by witnesses, and this is one I don't actually feel comfortable with, and for all I know, the Supreme Court my have reversed itself on this issue --- but as far as I know, it still stands:
Say the police are responding to a shooting. Dispatch gives out a typical general description of the suspect, and you vaguely match that description and are not far from the scene of the crime in terms of both geography and time:
The police have the legal right to detain you, get your name and ID, and if there are witnessed to the crime, they can even produce you for that witness to identify or not.
This would seem to fly in the face of the laws about police lineups, but at least in the past, the Supreme Court has, as I understand it, ruled that such a 1-on-1 identification is legal if the crime just happened and you were taken near the scene.
The further you get in time and location from the crime itself, the less chance you have for such an identification to stand up in court....
For clarification of my last comment:
If the police came to my house to investigate a crime that took place the day before, I could politely tell them to kiss my @ss, refuse to give them my name, and tell them to get the heck off my property...and I'd be within my rights and they'd need to obey.
----But, the same people located on the same piece of property concerning a possible crime happening now or just before the cops showed up is a completely different matter...
The same goes for identifications by witnesses, and this is one I don't actually feel comfortable with, and for all I know, the Supreme Court my have reversed itself on this issue --- but as far as I know, it still stands:
Say the police are responding to a shooting. Dispatch gives out a typical general description of the suspect, and you vaguely match that description and are not far from the scene of the crime in terms of both geography and time:
The police have the legal right to detain you, get your name and ID, and if there are witnessed to the crime, they can even produce you for that witness to identify or not.
This would seem to fly in the face of the laws about police lineups, but at least in the past, the Supreme Court has, as I understand it, ruled that such a 1-on-1 identification is legal if the crime just happened and you were taken near the scene.
The further you get in time and location from the crime itself, the less chance you have for such an identification to stand up in court....
Posted by: usinkorea at July 28, 2009 06:08 AM (xJDYT)
47
Here is one from my own past, when I was in college and before going to the police academy:
I was walking around 2 or 3 AM on a dark street in a residential neighborhood. I was heading down to the local supermarket to get some food for late night studying - so I was carrying my bookbag to put the grocery bag in for the walk home.
And the police stopped me...
...and I am white.
I didn't particularly like being stopped. They asked me my name, for an ID, and why I was in that neighborhood at that time of night.
I wasn't particularly thrilled to be interrogated for what I considered just walking down the street.
They didn't ask to look in my bag - which would have probably pissed me off - at that time in my life.
But, even then, given the situation, I could endure it (as Koreans would say) because they were just doing their jobs. It was an odd time to be walking the streets. It was nearly pitch black in a residential neighborhood. I could easily have been a cat burglary.
Several years later, when I went to the police academy, I found out the bookbag was key too -- that cat burglars are known to carry a breakin kit in such bags and items they've stolen from the place.
I also learned that whether or not the cops had the right to stop me, even when no crime had been called in and they were just on patrol, had been tested in court.
I do think that if they had demanded to inspect my bag and done so against my refusal, the search might not have stood up in court, but at least from what I remember, that had held up in some cases before.
Anyway, after asking me basic questions, and even after I answered in a way that should have raised doubts ----- (I had just recently moved into a garage apartment in the neighborhood and couldn't remember the homeowner's name or my street address) ---- they let me go. I did notice as I got to the supermarket that was several blocks away that they came cruising through the parking lot to make sure I did what I claimed.
I didn't particular like having my honesty tested ---- but again, another part of me understood they were just doing their job, and if I had a home in that area, I'd want them to do their job.
I was walking around 2 or 3 AM on a dark street in a residential neighborhood. I was heading down to the local supermarket to get some food for late night studying - so I was carrying my bookbag to put the grocery bag in for the walk home.
And the police stopped me...
...and I am white.
I didn't particularly like being stopped. They asked me my name, for an ID, and why I was in that neighborhood at that time of night.
I wasn't particularly thrilled to be interrogated for what I considered just walking down the street.
They didn't ask to look in my bag - which would have probably pissed me off - at that time in my life.
But, even then, given the situation, I could endure it (as Koreans would say) because they were just doing their jobs. It was an odd time to be walking the streets. It was nearly pitch black in a residential neighborhood. I could easily have been a cat burglary.
Several years later, when I went to the police academy, I found out the bookbag was key too -- that cat burglars are known to carry a breakin kit in such bags and items they've stolen from the place.
I also learned that whether or not the cops had the right to stop me, even when no crime had been called in and they were just on patrol, had been tested in court.
I do think that if they had demanded to inspect my bag and done so against my refusal, the search might not have stood up in court, but at least from what I remember, that had held up in some cases before.
Anyway, after asking me basic questions, and even after I answered in a way that should have raised doubts ----- (I had just recently moved into a garage apartment in the neighborhood and couldn't remember the homeowner's name or my street address) ---- they let me go. I did notice as I got to the supermarket that was several blocks away that they came cruising through the parking lot to make sure I did what I claimed.
I didn't particular like having my honesty tested ---- but again, another part of me understood they were just doing their job, and if I had a home in that area, I'd want them to do their job.
Posted by: usinkorea at July 28, 2009 06:34 AM (xJDYT)
48
To Dude and the other jailhouse lawyers:
You don't know what you're talking about when you say 'Gates don't got to tell the man sh!t.' A police officer investigating a suspicious person call is absolutely permitted to verify identity. By Gates escalating the incident into an active confrontation, he screwed the pooch.
Gates refused to provide any form of identification before Sgt. Crowley knew Gates was inside his own home. By later going outside onto his porch, yelling and acting like a fool, Gates was being disturbing the peace of the community. The police report indicates that there was a small crowd of civilians gathering around to watch the show. After refusing to comply with a warning to desist, Gates was arrested.
It was a good arrest for Disorderly. The fact that the charges were dropped the next day merely indicates that the Cambridge PD Commissioner has all of the testicular fortitude of a small rodent.
You don't know what you're talking about when you say 'Gates don't got to tell the man sh!t.' A police officer investigating a suspicious person call is absolutely permitted to verify identity. By Gates escalating the incident into an active confrontation, he screwed the pooch.
Gates refused to provide any form of identification before Sgt. Crowley knew Gates was inside his own home. By later going outside onto his porch, yelling and acting like a fool, Gates was being disturbing the peace of the community. The police report indicates that there was a small crowd of civilians gathering around to watch the show. After refusing to comply with a warning to desist, Gates was arrested.
It was a good arrest for Disorderly. The fact that the charges were dropped the next day merely indicates that the Cambridge PD Commissioner has all of the testicular fortitude of a small rodent.
Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at July 30, 2009 03:10 PM (bCQG3)
ATF Refutes Obama's "90-Percent Lie" About the U.S. Being the Source of Mexican Cartel Guns
What... you expected honesty?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:25 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He lied during his campaign, he lied when he was elected, he has continued to lie, and I don't see him changing his spots (although he may try to APPEAR to change at moments when it's clearly politically convenient).
Posted by: Kathy at July 23, 2009 10:13 AM (GgxCk)
2
Doesn't matter. The lie has become embedded and will be recited again and again as Truth (in the Pravda sense). Same as the damnable lie I heard odious Dodd utter this A.M. on the morning TV show, that 62 percent of consumer bankruptcies are driven by medical bills.
Posted by: zhombre at July 23, 2009 01:25 PM (n/lU+)
3
The ATF has been refuting this claim for months now, and he keeps spewing the same lie.
Posted by: Matt at July 24, 2009 01:54 AM (XKpp2)
4
Reminds me of the old FidoNet tag line: "66.87% of all statistics are made up on the spot".
Posted by: jim at July 24, 2009 11:26 PM (ichmB)
5
There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" - Mark Twain
Posted by: theGman at July 28, 2009 10:09 PM (BP5k/)
July 22, 2009
Addled Critics Unable to Form Logical Opposition to Thune's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment
The so-called "Thune Amendment" to provide co-equal reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders traveling across state lines will come to a vote today.
The Amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their guns in the 48 states that allow some form of concealed carry (Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow for concealed carry in any form). Permit holders would still be responsible for knowing and following all applicable laws of the individual states they visit regarding concealed carry. Opponents of the amendment have gone for the usual hysteria, insisting that such a bill would mean blood flowing in the streets. That sort of hyperbole and fear-mongering is of course unfounded. There are legitimate reasons one could cite to oppose the bill, such as concerns over how Alaska and Vermont residents—which are allowed to carry concealed weapons without any sort of a permit—would be accommodated. There are legitimate reasons to question the public safety of allowing people who come from states that provide permits without any training to travel anywhere. There are also questions about whether such a bill tramples on states' rights. Those questions need to be answered, and I suspect they reasonably can be. By the protests sounded by many of those opposing this bill aren't based upon any sort of logical thought process. They trumpet only unreasoning fear:Shumer is dishonest. If someone is carrying a gun in New York City, they are either a criminal or politically connected, with very, very few exceptions, and it is only slightly less difficult to carry upstate. Being a well-trained, responsible, law-abiding citizen isn't enough to get a carry permit in New York City, you need political connections, or if you are a normal citizen, you have to demonstrate need—as if a citizen can foretell in advance when someone might attempt to carjack, rob, or rape them. Even then, permitting is an altogether arbitrary process subject to whim as much as process. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was no more logical:
"If you walk down the street in New York ... you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them they've gone through a rigorous police background check. After this bill, you can have no such comfort," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.
As Bloomberg should know, carrying a firearm in New York City would still be prohibited even when the Thune Amendment passes; it only apply to state laws, and local prohibitive ordinances such as NYC's would presumably still apply. As for the Wild West hyperbole of shootouts on every street corner over the slightest offenses, well, that bit of dark fantasy has been debunked no less than 36 times. The same fear-mongering has been made in response to every state that implemented a concealed carry law, and the claims have always fallen flat. Concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and though there are millions of concealed carry permit holders in the United States—there are more than 1.4 million in Florida alone—the best that the anti-gun Violence Policy Center could do to suggest that concealed carry was dangerous was to point out 31 instances where concealed carry permit holders have been accused of violent crimes. The VPC was so desperate to get even this scant amount of evidence that they were forced to include allegations of wrong-doing in cases that had not been adjudicated, cases that concealed weapons played little or no part in, and at least on case were no weapons at all were used. Far from showcasing gun violence caused by concealed carry permit holders, the VPC report instead serves to show that carry permit holders as a group are far less violent that those citizens that are not licensed to carry firearms. 38 states allow concealed carry. 28 of them already have reciprocity laws that allow permit holders to carry in various states. Thune's amendment is an attempt to add some consistency to an often confusing hodgepodge of state-mandated and constantly changing reciprocity agreements, while keeping every individual state restriction and concern in place about how and where guns can be carried within those states. It seeks nothing more or less than extending to law-abiding citizens the opportunity to follow the laws of another jurisdiction. That hardly sounds like a situation that should earn the shrill hyperbole we're hearing from some politicians and media elitists. But then, we aren't dealing with rational people. Update: Why am I surprised that irrational fear wins in a Democrat-controlled Senate? The vote fell two votes shy (58-39) of the 60 needed. And the victorious dolt speaks:
It could be drunks stumbling out of saloons packing heat that leads to another OK Corral. Or a bump on the subway that turns into a quick-draw shootout. And the cops can't do anything about it until it's too late. Those are some of the nightmare scenarios an agitated Mayor Bloomberg said could unfold on city streets if the Senate doesn't kill a "terrible piece of legislation." The controversial measure says that as long as you're legal to pack heat in one state, you're A-OK to carry a concealed gun anywhere you travel in the U.S. The proposal, an amendment coming up for a vote today, "is just an out-and-out trampling of historic states' rights," Bloomberg said in a reference to New York's tough laws against concealed guns. "This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill. This is going to put a lot more guns on the street," Bloomberg said on a conference call with several other mayors who warned their streets could also become war zones.
The ten year (1994-2004) "assault weapons" ban did not save one single life. While 19 guns were banned by name, every single domestic manufacturer had variants of pre-ban guns on the street the day after the "ban" took effect, with no decrease in accurate, power, or rate of fire. Many manufacturers of assault weapons expanded their domestic sales during the ban due to high demand, and there were always plenty of these firearms legally available for sale on gun shop shelves. The "ban" can fairly be credited with the creation of a new class of handguns, subcompact semi-automatics that packed duty-grade calibers (9mm, ..40S&W, .357 SIG, .45 ACP) into ever-smaller frames, so that far more powerful bullets can be launched from guns not appreciably larger that the low-powered and often ineffective &qout;mousegun" calibers of previous generations. If anything, a good case can be made that by making guns ever smaller and more powerful, the assault weapons ban encouraged people—both law-abiding citizens and violent criminals—to carry firearms more frequently. How many homicides associated with this new class of weapon do you want credit for, Chuck?
"Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement. "The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If my TX CCW permit isn't entitled to apply to other states via "Full faith and credit" then neither is a Massachusetts gay marraige license.
Posted by: SDN at July 22, 2009 01:14 PM (OgrkI)
2
It's amazing. The same Senate that can muster 58 votes for gun rights is about to confirm a gun grabber for the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 22, 2009 02:02 PM (zErCt)
3
Alaska and Vermont should just have to show a valid DL.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at July 22, 2009 03:57 PM (8kQ8M)
4
Well, after all, it's not like someone with a Florida driver's license is entitled to drive in New York or Illinois. I mean, just because a state issues a license of some sort, why should any other state recognize it? Since we're not following the Constitution any longer, why should we pay any attention to that "full faith and credit" nonsense?
Oh, and those badges and identification that New York issues to their law enforcement officers? Don't bring that stuff to my state. You're just another citizen when you're away from home, and that means NO WEAPONS. You'll have to be just as defenseless as the rest of us.
After all Mayor Bloomberg and Chuck Schumer have spoken. And they should know, because their bodyguards are armed, which proves just how much people can't be trusted with guns.
Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Oh, and those badges and identification that New York issues to their law enforcement officers? Don't bring that stuff to my state. You're just another citizen when you're away from home, and that means NO WEAPONS. You'll have to be just as defenseless as the rest of us.
After all Mayor Bloomberg and Chuck Schumer have spoken. And they should know, because their bodyguards are armed, which proves just how much people can't be trusted with guns.
Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Posted by: Just Sayin' at July 22, 2009 07:39 PM (o2bVb)
5
If someone is carrying a gun in New York City, they are either a criminal or politically connected, with very, very few exceptions,....
But you repeat yourself!
But you repeat yourself!
Posted by: Don Meaker at July 22, 2009 08:59 PM (y2oBR)
6
I don't know. The laws concerning concealed carry in the states are so disparate, I don't think I'd want them to all be recognized via federal law. After all, there's a similar debate raging over marriage licenses.
IMHO, the Thune amendment would have been a violation of the 10th Amendment.
I am open to be persuaded otherwise...
Later,
IMHO, the Thune amendment would have been a violation of the 10th Amendment.
I am open to be persuaded otherwise...
Later,
Posted by: Cicero at July 22, 2009 09:12 PM (XPyuy)
7
Schumer is a bought and paid for asset of Sarah Brady and the rest of the anti-Constitution crowd, so don't expect any rational statements from him on the subject.
Even in Alaska and Vermont, it takes more than just showing a valid DL to obtain a handgun. By the Brady Act, an attempt at a background check is required. As soon as the check is complete, the sale can be completed. If Vermont and Alaska have an instant check system (like credit card companies do), there should be no delay. Even if the background check is not completed, the sales goes through at the end of three days.
That is one of the details of the Brady Act that the gun grabbers tend to gloss over, there is no requirement that a background check be passed. Just that the attempt is made. In states that have rigorous licensing requirements, such as Massachusetts or New York, a POS background check isn't required, since the background check done at the time of the licencing fulfills the requirements of the Brady Act.
Even in Alaska and Vermont, it takes more than just showing a valid DL to obtain a handgun. By the Brady Act, an attempt at a background check is required. As soon as the check is complete, the sale can be completed. If Vermont and Alaska have an instant check system (like credit card companies do), there should be no delay. Even if the background check is not completed, the sales goes through at the end of three days.
That is one of the details of the Brady Act that the gun grabbers tend to gloss over, there is no requirement that a background check be passed. Just that the attempt is made. In states that have rigorous licensing requirements, such as Massachusetts or New York, a POS background check isn't required, since the background check done at the time of the licencing fulfills the requirements of the Brady Act.
Posted by: Mark at July 22, 2009 09:56 PM (BNHRX)
8
FL doesn't allow you to carry in a bar.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 23, 2009 04:37 AM (oe8Xg)
9
How did NC Sen. Kay Hagan vote?
Posted by: Joe Hooker at July 23, 2009 08:48 AM (VyJ6s)
10
Check the Wikipedia article on the NYC Sullivan Act. Among those listed as concealed carry license holders is ... Chuck Schumer!
"In New York City, the licensing authority is the police department, which rarely issues carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. In addition, New Yorkers who have political influence, wealth, or celebrity appear to be issued licenses more liberally.[1] The New York Post, the New York Sun, and other newspapers have obtained the list of licensees through Freedom of Information Law requests and have published several articles showing that the wealthy, famous, and politically connected have been issued carry licenses by the city police department."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Law
"In New York City, the licensing authority is the police department, which rarely issues carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. In addition, New Yorkers who have political influence, wealth, or celebrity appear to be issued licenses more liberally.[1] The New York Post, the New York Sun, and other newspapers have obtained the list of licensees through Freedom of Information Law requests and have published several articles showing that the wealthy, famous, and politically connected have been issued carry licenses by the city police department."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Law
Posted by: Joe Hooker at July 23, 2009 10:54 AM (VyJ6s)
11
I'd rather not visit any state that allows a brain-dead leftist such as Chuckie Schumer or Diane Fineswine to carry firearms. Texas has CHL reciprocity with 26 other states, and two others allow carry without a permit. That covers all the places I might care to go.
Posted by: Gringo Malo at July 23, 2009 03:45 PM (5npD/)
12
"How did NC Sen. Kay Hagan vote?"
She voted Yea.
A breakdown of the vote.
YEAs ---58
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO0 Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Voinovich (R-OH) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Byrd (D-WV) Kennedy (D-MA) Mikulski (D-MD)
She voted Yea.
A breakdown of the vote.
YEAs ---58
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO0 Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---39
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Voinovich (R-OH) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Byrd (D-WV) Kennedy (D-MA) Mikulski (D-MD)
Posted by: Matt at July 24, 2009 01:49 AM (XKpp2)
13
The VPC was so desperate to get even this scant amount of evidence that they were forced to include allegations of wrong-doing in cases that had not been adjudicated, cases that concealed weapons played little or no part in, and at least on case were no weapons at all were used.
They also include at least one case where the only evidence the shooter had a CCW was a second-hand unconfirmed say-so of a friend of the shooters. And they include several cases where it's obvious no CCW should have ever been issued, that the screening authority had clearly failed in their job of background check.
They also include at least one case where the only evidence the shooter had a CCW was a second-hand unconfirmed say-so of a friend of the shooters. And they include several cases where it's obvious no CCW should have ever been issued, that the screening authority had clearly failed in their job of background check.
Posted by: Tully at July 28, 2009 12:13 PM (tUyDE)
But Father, I Want Attention!
I'm not the kind of person to force my faith on others, and I'm fine with other people practicing their faiths as long as that doesn't entail suicide bombings and beheadings.
That said, I saw this item today about atheists getting "de-baptisms" and it struck me as an "eye-roll" event. If atheists don't want to believe in God that is their right, but the mocking practice of de-baptism is very much the act of a spoiled, petulant child flopping angrily on the floor at Walmart, demanding attention because he wasn't allowed a candy bar at check-out. It seems a desperate act hoping to provoke a response for God. Sorry, kids. It doesn't work that way.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As an atheist...
I think I'm just going to have to agree with you.
If I don't believe in any gods, then any baptisms I've had are irrelevant. They don't need to be "undone". In fact, I think that, logically, the only reason to have an unbaptism would be to disassociate yourself from a god that you believe to exist (whether to be "non-aligned", or to align yourself with a different god).
You're quite right. These are the sort of atheists that I don't like, either; they are the ones that treat their atheism as a religion (including evangelizing and proselytizing). I can never tell whether they are trying to "prove their superiority", prove something to themselves, or are just outright jerks (or, perhaps, as you said - attention-seeking whiny babies).
The only time the OTHER kind of atheist (my kind) will get in your face about it is if you're trying to shove your faith - or its rules - down my throat (by fair means or foul). I am more than willing to have (civil!) discussions about it, and I like learning about, well, any religion I've come across (so far). Just don't try to convert me (I usually give "one free attempt" before I get annoyed), and definitely don't try to force me.
If someone tells me that they Know the Truth, I will find them to be not generally worth listening to.
If someone tells me that they Believe Certain Things, THAT I can usually respect.
If someone tells me I have to? We have a fight.
I think I'm just going to have to agree with you.
If I don't believe in any gods, then any baptisms I've had are irrelevant. They don't need to be "undone". In fact, I think that, logically, the only reason to have an unbaptism would be to disassociate yourself from a god that you believe to exist (whether to be "non-aligned", or to align yourself with a different god).
You're quite right. These are the sort of atheists that I don't like, either; they are the ones that treat their atheism as a religion (including evangelizing and proselytizing). I can never tell whether they are trying to "prove their superiority", prove something to themselves, or are just outright jerks (or, perhaps, as you said - attention-seeking whiny babies).
The only time the OTHER kind of atheist (my kind) will get in your face about it is if you're trying to shove your faith - or its rules - down my throat (by fair means or foul). I am more than willing to have (civil!) discussions about it, and I like learning about, well, any religion I've come across (so far). Just don't try to convert me (I usually give "one free attempt" before I get annoyed), and definitely don't try to force me.
If someone tells me that they Know the Truth, I will find them to be not generally worth listening to.
If someone tells me that they Believe Certain Things, THAT I can usually respect.
If someone tells me I have to? We have a fight.
Posted by: Atheist in Arizona at July 22, 2009 10:36 AM (xXRUp)
2
Being baptized is a community proclamation, be debaptized is the same. How is that so hard to understand?
Posted by: Damien at July 22, 2009 11:41 AM (YGqbu)
3
"Being baptized is a community proclamation, be debaptized is the same. How is that so hard to understand?"
But who cares? This is one of those things that doesn't need to receive less attention, it needs to be completely ignored. Fine you don't think that there is a god. What does that have to do with the community?
Do I have to tell the community that I no longer believe in the tooth fairy?
But who cares? This is one of those things that doesn't need to receive less attention, it needs to be completely ignored. Fine you don't think that there is a god. What does that have to do with the community?
Do I have to tell the community that I no longer believe in the tooth fairy?
Posted by: xerocky at July 22, 2009 11:57 AM (kX5hh)
4
When will we see "debamizations" in public? They are already the hot trend in private; and since Obama hopeNchangers made their adoration a public issue, I sure hope the victims will recant in public too. After all, as Damien notes, its a community proclamation.
I'll bring the beer.
I'll bring the beer.
Posted by: AskMom at July 22, 2009 12:56 PM (iO8qU)
5
I rarely comment, but Az Atheist, I have to say that I'm a Christian and one of my best friends in the world is an atheist. We're close friends, and though I worry for her and she worries for me, we've always been a bit confused at people who come to blows over this stuff. I think some people just like to fight. So you find believers looking to create a challenge as well as atheists. I guess I'm saying, I vote for "they're jerks".
Posted by: Carolynp at July 22, 2009 02:17 PM (JTH0U)
6
This reminds me of a practice that was short lived a few years back. Some folks who had given up their virginity went through some ritual process; I honestly don't remember the details. Nevertheless, once completing the process they were then able to claim that they had acquired a state of being known as "secondary virginity". Poof! They were virgins again. Go figure.
Posted by: Dude at July 22, 2009 02:22 PM (byA+E)
7
"What does that have to do with the community?"
The fact that you even need to ask the question shows the answer. Like it or not atheists in America are often a shunned, if not persecuted, minority. They band together because it's human instinct to do so, not because of any sort of religious motivation.
Rituals such as debaptism may seem like pointless attention grabbing to you, but they're a bonding experience for those involved. The fact that USA Today decided to write an article about it is irrelevant, and if it bothers theists so much they can ignore the article.
The fact that you even need to ask the question shows the answer. Like it or not atheists in America are often a shunned, if not persecuted, minority. They band together because it's human instinct to do so, not because of any sort of religious motivation.
Rituals such as debaptism may seem like pointless attention grabbing to you, but they're a bonding experience for those involved. The fact that USA Today decided to write an article about it is irrelevant, and if it bothers theists so much they can ignore the article.
Posted by: Damien at July 22, 2009 02:38 PM (YGqbu)
8
"The fact that USA Today decided to write an article about it is irrelevant, and if it bothers theists so much they can ignore the article."
Yet it's the atheists who insist on public displays mocking religion, such as these 'ceremonies' and the billboard ads that were in the news recently. So, ask yourself, "If religion bothers atheists so much, then why can't you/they just ignore it?"
Yet it's the atheists who insist on public displays mocking religion, such as these 'ceremonies' and the billboard ads that were in the news recently. So, ask yourself, "If religion bothers atheists so much, then why can't you/they just ignore it?"
Posted by: Ted at July 22, 2009 03:30 PM (jtNG+)
9
What about us agnostics? We're damned if we do and and damned if we don't.
What about Scientolgists? That crap was dreamed up by a science FICTION writer. Hello?
What about Scientolgists? That crap was dreamed up by a science FICTION writer. Hello?
Posted by: Joseph Brown at July 22, 2009 04:41 PM (btNwt)
10
I'm with A in Az. I too am an atheist(small a).
I was born and raised Catholic, but I don't ever remember really believing in god. The very idea of a "debaptism" is stupid to me.
Atheists (capitol A) are a bunch of Evangelical fools as annoying to me as Benny Hinn or Jim Baker, et al.
Their hatred of theological religions has become their own religion and they've become as one with much of that which they ridicule.
I was born and raised Catholic, but I don't ever remember really believing in god. The very idea of a "debaptism" is stupid to me.
Atheists (capitol A) are a bunch of Evangelical fools as annoying to me as Benny Hinn or Jim Baker, et al.
Their hatred of theological religions has become their own religion and they've become as one with much of that which they ridicule.
Posted by: JP at July 22, 2009 05:01 PM (VxiFL)
11
Oh, an my take on someone like Hitchens and Maher, who claim Religion is to blame for every thing (like Marx never caused any problems. . .) is basically that the problem is not religion, it is People.
Can't have a dispute without the people to dispute with.
Can't have a dispute without the people to dispute with.
Posted by: JP at July 22, 2009 05:08 PM (VxiFL)
12
"Rituals such as debaptism may seem like pointless attention grabbing to you, but they're a bonding experience for those involved."
Pathetic way to get laid if you ask me.
Pathetic way to get laid if you ask me.
Posted by: Xerocky at July 22, 2009 07:39 PM (Ue3lr)
13
So you only get together with friends or likeminded individuals to get laid Xerocky?
Posted by: Damien at July 22, 2009 08:31 PM (YGqbu)
14
This particular sort of god-fearing atheist really annoys me. Their compulsion to elevate their non-belief to the status of a religion for which they proselytize is nothing more than an visible symptom of their own neurotic self-doubt.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 22, 2009 11:08 PM (R7LgM)
15
There is no evangelical quite like an evangelical atheist.
I once asked one annoying me and some friends if he put down "evangelical atheist" on the Census.
My friends ( one an atheist, one a born-again Christian ) were very amused. Both understood the reference immediately.
I once asked one annoying me and some friends if he put down "evangelical atheist" on the Census.
My friends ( one an atheist, one a born-again Christian ) were very amused. Both understood the reference immediately.
Posted by: 1charlie2 at July 23, 2009 06:35 PM (MpqDv)
July 21, 2009
Is Truthout on the Way Out?
Once upon a time, truthout.org was a leading site for left wing activist politics. A little kooky, and prone to publishing authors of dubious credibility, it seemed to hold some influence until Jason Leopold repeatedly cried wolf that Karl Rove was going to be indicted and sent to prison for Plamegate, which of course never happened.
Since then, the site seems to have lost much of it's luster, and if a recent fundraising plea is any guide, quite a bit of it's reader support.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:07 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I guess it is no fun exposing "corrupt politicians" when you are the ones responsible for putting them in office!
Posted by: GEJ at July 21, 2009 04:54 PM (t39d0)
2
I will mourn their passing...like I mourned the passing of Disco.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 22, 2009 03:47 AM (oe8Xg)
3
You want a real scoop? How about investigating Truthout director Marc Ash. He pays himself nearly $250,000 and cries poverty in fundraising letters like this. His salary is available publicly b/c they are a nonprofit and you should be able to find it on guidestar. Wonder how truthout's readers would feel if they knew their money was going to pay Ash's salary. And while you're at it why don't you look at how Ash has staffers that he pays high five figures who don't work. And maybe you should take a look at all the people Ash has fired for unexplainable reasons. And then all the stories they are stealing claiming fair use. The list goes on. You're onto a bigger story than you even realize
Posted by: carrie at July 22, 2009 01:48 PM (+EZWD)
July 20, 2009
Carry Reciprocity Agreement Brings Out The Bedwetters
If Chuck Shumer and the New York-based media are against it, it must be good for America:
This may come as a shock to the uninformed, but most states with concealed carry permits already have some sort of reciprocity agreement with other states. For example, my North Carolina concealed carry permit is honored in 31 other states. New York concealed carry permits have considerably less clout, being honored in only 13 other states. Critics that insist this amendment would lead to violence are all predicted on the absurd illogic that a person who is licensed to carry a firearm in his home state would be overcome with a murderous desire urge to commit a violent felony the moment they cross the border into another state where they did not previously have reciprocity. It's a laughably foolish premise that an educated, rational person would ignore, and yet the apparent de facto position in a number of editorials in northeastern news organizations. The echo is so harmonious that almost makes me wonder if news organizations have been orchestrated in some manner—perhaps by a panicky senior Senator from New York? On second thought, I'm sure I don't want to know.
A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," he said. ...
Thune's bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried. It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states — Wisconsin and Illinois — that do not allow the practice. Gun control advocate Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans." He said in a statement that "to gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:50 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY.....well said, Man! I'm with you 100% on this one. Actually, maybe 101%.
You see, if I were the chief potentate in charge I would rule that we already have a national carry permit, concealed or open carry. It's called the Second Amendment.
You see, if I were the chief potentate in charge I would rule that we already have a national carry permit, concealed or open carry. It's called the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Dude at July 21, 2009 12:23 AM (byA+E)
2
Chuck just wants every American to be as safe from violent crime as are New Yorkers.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 21, 2009 11:31 AM (Vcyz0)
3
Surely, you're not suggesting that a duly elected offical of the United States Government would attempt to manipulate the 4th Estate in a manner which is not in the best interest of The People?
(sarcasm alert!)
(sarcasm alert!)
Posted by: GEJ at July 21, 2009 04:01 PM (t39d0)
4
Imagine if we treated the Driver's License the same way we treat the CCW permit.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 21, 2009 04:03 PM (V0OyX)
5
I live in Nevada, Missouri and we have an unusual open carry law. You can openly carry; however, it has to be unloaded. I suppose you could use it to club someone with but what good it is otherwise I don't know.
As for Schumer, he and the editors in question all hail from the "guns are evil" school of thought. Guns just go out on rampages and there's nothing law abiding citizens can do about it. No thought is given to WHO has guns, the guns themselves cause the problems.
I have to admit I'm baffled by the people who can, with a straight face, say that "a woman's right to an abortion should never be restricted" even though such a right is not in the Constitution and at the same time argue that the Second Amendment - set down in black and white - doesn't mean what it says and gun owners should face all sorts of restrictions.
I'm not an anti-abortion absolutist. I can see where there would be reasons a woman would need one, in exceptional circumstances. I just can't see why such exceptions should mean no restrictions at all on them.
I have a feeling the gun-control advocates aren't so much worried about controlling guns as controlling people and they'll never be happy as long as Americans insist on their Constitutional rights, including the ones the lefties don't like.
As for Schumer, he and the editors in question all hail from the "guns are evil" school of thought. Guns just go out on rampages and there's nothing law abiding citizens can do about it. No thought is given to WHO has guns, the guns themselves cause the problems.
I have to admit I'm baffled by the people who can, with a straight face, say that "a woman's right to an abortion should never be restricted" even though such a right is not in the Constitution and at the same time argue that the Second Amendment - set down in black and white - doesn't mean what it says and gun owners should face all sorts of restrictions.
I'm not an anti-abortion absolutist. I can see where there would be reasons a woman would need one, in exceptional circumstances. I just can't see why such exceptions should mean no restrictions at all on them.
I have a feeling the gun-control advocates aren't so much worried about controlling guns as controlling people and they'll never be happy as long as Americans insist on their Constitutional rights, including the ones the lefties don't like.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at July 21, 2009 04:12 PM (+xi30)
6
Actually true to the long standing liberal democrat tradition: that of marked mental illness and warped daily delusions, in addition to their bedwetting personal terror which reveals itself to their embarrassment when the concept of arming ALL law abiding American citizenry as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is on the table, one such as our glorious Sen. Schumer, speaks on behalf of all his Senate and House cronies.
Chuck just wants every American criminal to be as safe as possible from armed citizen's lethal and legal counter-attacks, thwarting these criminal thugs, possibly ruining their whole day , possibly their criminal careers, with a body bag.
Indeed , these career politicians, like career criminals, do fear the armed citizen patriot of 1775 and of 2009.
I wholeheartedly agree: If Chuck Schumer and the New York-based media are against it, then it IS good for America
Chuck just wants every American criminal to be as safe as possible from armed citizen's lethal and legal counter-attacks, thwarting these criminal thugs, possibly ruining their whole day , possibly their criminal careers, with a body bag.
Indeed , these career politicians, like career criminals, do fear the armed citizen patriot of 1775 and of 2009.
I wholeheartedly agree: If Chuck Schumer and the New York-based media are against it, then it IS good for America
Posted by: TheSaveASealClub-A-LiberalFoundation-Patriot at July 21, 2009 08:00 PM (BP5k/)
7
Chuck Schumer has a permit to carry. Apparently he feels his life is more important than yours.
His comment on todays news was comical.He said if this is passed people will go to New Hampshire and buy back pack full of guns and sell them. ???
What the hell is wrong with that man? It made no sense.
His comment on todays news was comical.He said if this is passed people will go to New Hampshire and buy back pack full of guns and sell them. ???
What the hell is wrong with that man? It made no sense.
Posted by: Joe at July 21, 2009 08:51 PM (eXdIs)
Almost Under the Radar: FBI Agent Arrested After Guns He Sold Were Tied to Mexican Cartels
When the Attorney General and President told us that Americans were responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence, I guess we should have pressed them on just how close to the issue they were.
An FBI agent was arrested in early July for illegally selling Barret M82 .50 caliber rifles that made their way into the hands of the cartels, including one confiscated in a raid in March of last year. The agent John T. Shipley, purchased at least 54 firearms from a variety of sources, and sold at 51 of them illegally for a profit, according to his indictment. The agent sold three .50-caliber semi-automatic sniper rifles, several Remington 700 rifles in .308, and two DPMS LR-308 .308 rifles, all which would be very suitable for the assassination of Mexican police officers and military personnel from hundreds of yards away. Shipley was apparently comfortable with turning a profit even if it meant fellow officers could end up in the sights of the rifles he sold. You would think such a story of a cop supplying criminals with the weapons to kill other cops would be prime-time news fodder, but the first I heard of this story was an accidental link I stumbled across while researching another story. Funny, that.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And at the first link, an El Paso Deputy Sheriff was the one funneling the guns HOME. Dang.
Posted by: Paul Mitchell at July 20, 2009 02:36 PM (nAtuj)
2
You mean to say that there are already laws on the books to deal with these gun sales ...
Posted by: Neo at July 20, 2009 03:52 PM (5d1ix)
3
Maybe we should start doing background checks on FBI agents.
Posted by: Tim at July 20, 2009 04:33 PM (3Wewy)
4
Now, that IS truly amazing that the MSM hasn't picked up on that story. Most of the MSM seems to favor more gun control and doesn't seem to support the 2nd Amendment. I'm really surprised that they haven't covered this news story to support their views.
I've been hoping that a topic like this one would appear. Why, you might ask? Ahhhhhh, that brings us to the heart of the matter.
As many of you know who are regulars at this forum, I'm what many would consider to be a "Liberal", politically speaking. Many of my positions on topics of the day would be referred to as "the liberal point of view". In fact, I've been called every name in the book because of my positions on many issues.
You see, I interpret the Second Amendment from a very liberal point of view. What does that mean? It means that I interpret the Second liberally, in the TRUE sense of the definition of the word liberal, politics aside.
It means that, from my point of view, the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the individual right to keep and bear arms and that our Constitutional Right to do so is not contingent upon our being a part of a militia. Gasp! Now, I'm beginning to sound like a "conservative", huh?
A conservative interpretation of the Second, again, politics aside, talking about the dictionary meaning of the terms liberal and conservative, would mean that our right to keep and bear arms WOULD be contingent upon our being a part of a militia.
Our political nomenclature is all so very confusing!! Here I am, a Liberal on many political issues, liberally interpreting the Second Amendment from a non political point of view, and I come off sounding like a political Conservative because I do interpret the Second Amendment "liberally", in the true sense of the word.
Yes, one would think that the "liberal" MSM would be all over this story like a hog on slop or white on rice to further their agenda of more gun control laws. If an FBI agent, a trusted officer of the law, can allegedly be corrupted and compromised to illegally sell guns on the black market for a profit, then surely normal every day citizens can't be trusted to "keep and bear arms" responsibly. That, of course, would be a politically liberal point of view.
Just goes to show, a perfect example, of how meaningless the terms conservative and liberal really are in reality when applied to politics!
As for the FBI agent, if guilty as charged and convicted, off with is head! Wait! Would that be liberal or conservative punishment?
HELP! I'm confused!
I've been hoping that a topic like this one would appear. Why, you might ask? Ahhhhhh, that brings us to the heart of the matter.
As many of you know who are regulars at this forum, I'm what many would consider to be a "Liberal", politically speaking. Many of my positions on topics of the day would be referred to as "the liberal point of view". In fact, I've been called every name in the book because of my positions on many issues.
You see, I interpret the Second Amendment from a very liberal point of view. What does that mean? It means that I interpret the Second liberally, in the TRUE sense of the definition of the word liberal, politics aside.
It means that, from my point of view, the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the individual right to keep and bear arms and that our Constitutional Right to do so is not contingent upon our being a part of a militia. Gasp! Now, I'm beginning to sound like a "conservative", huh?
A conservative interpretation of the Second, again, politics aside, talking about the dictionary meaning of the terms liberal and conservative, would mean that our right to keep and bear arms WOULD be contingent upon our being a part of a militia.
Our political nomenclature is all so very confusing!! Here I am, a Liberal on many political issues, liberally interpreting the Second Amendment from a non political point of view, and I come off sounding like a political Conservative because I do interpret the Second Amendment "liberally", in the true sense of the word.
Yes, one would think that the "liberal" MSM would be all over this story like a hog on slop or white on rice to further their agenda of more gun control laws. If an FBI agent, a trusted officer of the law, can allegedly be corrupted and compromised to illegally sell guns on the black market for a profit, then surely normal every day citizens can't be trusted to "keep and bear arms" responsibly. That, of course, would be a politically liberal point of view.
Just goes to show, a perfect example, of how meaningless the terms conservative and liberal really are in reality when applied to politics!
As for the FBI agent, if guilty as charged and convicted, off with is head! Wait! Would that be liberal or conservative punishment?
HELP! I'm confused!
Posted by: Dude at July 20, 2009 04:49 PM (byA+E)
5
Dude
Your point highlights perfectly what today's "liberals" are all about: more government with greater control over more of our life. Even Alexander Hamilton would have been shocked at this level of intrusion.
Of course, they aren't liberal--they are statists. Mostly fuzzy-headed statists, but statists nonetheless. Even a hard-headed socialist like Christopher Hitchens has more in common with todays "conservatives" than with the current batch of so-called liberals.
All of this reminds me of how the debased our political language has become with regard to "left" and "right". What the left likes to characterize as "right" is really just a slight variation in leftism--fascism vs socialism. And somehow, in some warped view of politics, anarchists and classic liberals are midway on that scale. And yet this insane notion has become an accepted definition in our political discourse!
Your point highlights perfectly what today's "liberals" are all about: more government with greater control over more of our life. Even Alexander Hamilton would have been shocked at this level of intrusion.
Of course, they aren't liberal--they are statists. Mostly fuzzy-headed statists, but statists nonetheless. Even a hard-headed socialist like Christopher Hitchens has more in common with todays "conservatives" than with the current batch of so-called liberals.
All of this reminds me of how the debased our political language has become with regard to "left" and "right". What the left likes to characterize as "right" is really just a slight variation in leftism--fascism vs socialism. And somehow, in some warped view of politics, anarchists and classic liberals are midway on that scale. And yet this insane notion has become an accepted definition in our political discourse!
Posted by: iconoclast at July 20, 2009 05:09 PM (uijWl)
6
Iconoclast says,in part, and I agree 100%: All of this reminds me of how debased our political language has become with regard to "left" and "right". And yet this insane notion has become an accepted definition in our political discourse!
Well said!! I'll tell you why I think that this foolishly simplistic debasement of political language in regards to honest political discourse has come to be accepted: It's a very successful and profitable marketing ploy. Keep it simple.
Right versus Left, Conservative versus Liberal is a very profitable business, not that I have anything against profit, mind you. Let's face it, so called "Conservative" talk radio and Television is a very profitable business, much more so than their "Liberal" counterparts. There's basically no market for "Liberal talk radio". It doesn't sell well. Fine with me. Neither conservative nor liberal pundits have much effect on my beliefs.
For the most part, it's entertainment. The vast majority of talk radio's contribution to real and honest political discourse is akin to the contribution of so called "Professional" Wrestling to real Professional Sports, no offense intended to wrestling. At least most people know that's staged entertainment.
Oh well, to each their own. Today's blue ribbon for newsworthy commentary goes to CY for bringing to our attention an event that is truly newsworthy but will likely get very little or any coverage from any MSM outlet, Fox included, though I normally don't consider them to be MSM.
Well said!! I'll tell you why I think that this foolishly simplistic debasement of political language in regards to honest political discourse has come to be accepted: It's a very successful and profitable marketing ploy. Keep it simple.
Right versus Left, Conservative versus Liberal is a very profitable business, not that I have anything against profit, mind you. Let's face it, so called "Conservative" talk radio and Television is a very profitable business, much more so than their "Liberal" counterparts. There's basically no market for "Liberal talk radio". It doesn't sell well. Fine with me. Neither conservative nor liberal pundits have much effect on my beliefs.
For the most part, it's entertainment. The vast majority of talk radio's contribution to real and honest political discourse is akin to the contribution of so called "Professional" Wrestling to real Professional Sports, no offense intended to wrestling. At least most people know that's staged entertainment.
Oh well, to each their own. Today's blue ribbon for newsworthy commentary goes to CY for bringing to our attention an event that is truly newsworthy but will likely get very little or any coverage from any MSM outlet, Fox included, though I normally don't consider them to be MSM.
Posted by: Dude at July 20, 2009 06:16 PM (byA+E)
7
I'm not buying it, Dude.
"Liberal", huh?
"Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different." - Orwell
It's clear to anyone who cares to pay attention what a modern Liberal is, and it's not good. You use a concept from 150 years ago and claim that it applies today. You're a Liberal alright. You're smart enough to know better too.
As for selling Barrets to gangs so they can kill cops?
I'm against it, but that's just me.
"Liberal", huh?
"Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different." - Orwell
It's clear to anyone who cares to pay attention what a modern Liberal is, and it's not good. You use a concept from 150 years ago and claim that it applies today. You're a Liberal alright. You're smart enough to know better too.
As for selling Barrets to gangs so they can kill cops?
I'm against it, but that's just me.
Posted by: brando at July 20, 2009 09:15 PM (kSaG8)
8
You only partially nailed it, brando, with his use of the 'dictionar definitions' of "liberal" and "conservative". His argument in this case is a non sequitur by this technique.
Iconoclast gets the other half by noting 'modern liberal' versus 'modern conservative' (though he does not explicitly say it.
Dictionary shorts:
Liberal = construe broadly
Conservative = construe narrowly
Political shorts:
'Classic liberal' = wanting the maximum liberty for the individual. (The signers of the Declaration of Independence fall here.)
'Classic conservative' = more control of the individual by the state. (King George III falls here.)
'Modern liberal' = 'classic conservative - as demonstrated by their actions and opinions.
'Modern conservative' = 'classic liberal' - as demonstrated by their actions and opinions.
(RINOs fall closer to 'Modern liberal')
(Ain't the English language fun?
)
QED
Iconoclast gets the other half by noting 'modern liberal' versus 'modern conservative' (though he does not explicitly say it.
Dictionary shorts:
Liberal = construe broadly
Conservative = construe narrowly
Political shorts:
'Classic liberal' = wanting the maximum liberty for the individual. (The signers of the Declaration of Independence fall here.)
'Classic conservative' = more control of the individual by the state. (King George III falls here.)
'Modern liberal' = 'classic conservative - as demonstrated by their actions and opinions.
'Modern conservative' = 'classic liberal' - as demonstrated by their actions and opinions.
(RINOs fall closer to 'Modern liberal')
(Ain't the English language fun?
)
QED
Posted by: PhyCon at July 20, 2009 10:58 PM (VZ8LU)
9
Brando, Finally! We agree on something. I, too, am against selling guns to gangs so that they can kill cops. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if the gangs kill each other. Of course, that ain't a liberal or conservative issue.........That's just common sense.
Dr. Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, several of which would make make the whole issue of gangs and gangs killing cops disappear for the most part, if implemented. That ain't likely to happen, though. There's way too much money being made fighting "the war on drugs", for example, to allow it to end.
There's no doubt that I'm a more of a liberal than a conservative, in the political sense of the words. As usual, you miss my point, man.
There's not a thing dishonest in my previous posts. Furthermore, my examples of the words liberal and conservative, with no political connotations attached, are right on the money. PhyCon nailed with his dictionary shorts. My definitions aren't "private definitions". What you don't like is that I refuse to let OTHER people define me according to their narrow and simplistic terminology. As I've said before, I'm both a conservative liberal and a liberal conservative, politically speaking. I don't think that you can grasp that concept. I think that in your world a person is either one or the other. Sorry, there's millions of us right here in America that don't fit into the box that the pundits have created. Guess what? We're patriots, too!
PhyCon: YES!! The English language is FUN!
Dr. Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, several of which would make make the whole issue of gangs and gangs killing cops disappear for the most part, if implemented. That ain't likely to happen, though. There's way too much money being made fighting "the war on drugs", for example, to allow it to end.
There's no doubt that I'm a more of a liberal than a conservative, in the political sense of the words. As usual, you miss my point, man.
There's not a thing dishonest in my previous posts. Furthermore, my examples of the words liberal and conservative, with no political connotations attached, are right on the money. PhyCon nailed with his dictionary shorts. My definitions aren't "private definitions". What you don't like is that I refuse to let OTHER people define me according to their narrow and simplistic terminology. As I've said before, I'm both a conservative liberal and a liberal conservative, politically speaking. I don't think that you can grasp that concept. I think that in your world a person is either one or the other. Sorry, there's millions of us right here in America that don't fit into the box that the pundits have created. Guess what? We're patriots, too!
PhyCon: YES!! The English language is FUN!
Posted by: Dude at July 21, 2009 12:05 AM (byA+E)
10
"You would think such a story of a cop supplying criminals with the weapons to kill other cops would be prime-time news fodder, but the first I heard of this story was an accidental link I stumbled across while researching another story."
Oh, it would - if there was a Republican in the White House!
Oh, it would - if there was a Republican in the White House!
Posted by: GEJ at July 21, 2009 04:49 PM (t39d0)
11
It seems to me the FBI Agent has committed at least Two federal Crimes.
First the Straw Man Purchase, in that he purchased the Firearms in order to resell them.
And of course each Firearm would count as a separate offense.
Second would be, Engaging in the Business of Dealing in Arms.
Anything over a certain number in a one year period would require that you obtain an FFL.
Not sure where the threshold is on that.
First the Straw Man Purchase, in that he purchased the Firearms in order to resell them.
And of course each Firearm would count as a separate offense.
Second would be, Engaging in the Business of Dealing in Arms.
Anything over a certain number in a one year period would require that you obtain an FFL.
Not sure where the threshold is on that.
Posted by: SwedeBoy at July 23, 2009 10:22 PM (jdXw+)
July 17, 2009
NAACP Head/Felon Arrested for Child Sex & Firearms Charges
I'm not sure what I find most offensive about this: the fact that the local media chose to try to sweep this under the rug as much as possible without completely being derelict in their duties, or that the NAACP would allow a convicted felon—one convicted of multiple homicides and an apparent attempt to cause a third— to hold office.
So much for standards and accountability:If the there is any evidence at all that Lash used the influence and prestige of his position to carry out his assaults, I hope that the families of the victims sue the state and local organizations into bankruptcy as a warning that no organization is above the law, and especially one chartered to fight for equality. In this day and age where you have to submit to a criminal background check for everything from applying for loans, to applying for jobs, to volunteering in many organizations, there is no excuse at all for the NAACP not vetting their officers on every level, including Lash. The other possibily—that the NAACP knew Lash was an convicted killer, and allowed him to serve anyway—is even more dangerously negligent, and I hope is far from the truth.
Stokes County sheriff's deputies arrested the president of the local NAACP chapter on child sex and firearms charges Monday. CBS affiliate WFMY reports that Larry Lash, 54, of Walnut Cove, was charged with six counts of statutory rape and two counts of sex offense and first-degree sex offense, among other sex charges. Sheriff Mike Joyce told WFMY that there were three victims, including two under 16-years-old and that the alleged sex acts took place at Lash's home over a period of time. Investigators found five guns and ammunition at Lash's house when they arrested him, leading to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. According to state Department of Correction records, Lash was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1974 and assault by pointing a gun and discharging a firearm into property in 1978.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He can always get a job with ACORN.
Posted by: zhombre at July 17, 2009 05:01 PM (6NjdK)
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 18, 2009 12:04 AM (Vcyz0)
3
At least in days of yore these nutcases like Bobby Seale, while immune to the law were held at arms length. You can't get much more mainstream than NAACP. How much of this sort of thing is beneath the surface? If there is sexual exploitation and violence going on behind the smokescreen you can be certain the victims are black. Affirmative action sentiments in regard to crime are a disaster and an abandonment of civilizational norms. Those who are abandoned are mostly black. Wake up, morons.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 18, 2009 02:25 PM (gpLUv)
4
Sounds like a fine candidate to run for Congressman or Senator
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 19, 2009 01:46 PM (oe8Xg)
5
It's terrible, sure, but no organization is "safe" from pedophiles. You don't have to be a previously convicted felon to be one, either.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 19, 2009 02:55 PM (I9qGK)
6
... and yeah, the burying of the story is a fine example of discrimatory reporting by the MMM. Minorities and liberals just never do anything wrong any more, right? But a white Christian Republican? They're just ee-e-e-vil!
Posted by: DoorHold at July 19, 2009 03:00 PM (I9qGK)
July 16, 2009
Two Generals Joined Cook Case On Obama Citizenship... Just Before It Was Dismissed.
Oh, how they make things interesting:
Cook has now been fired from his employer over the suit, which was dismissed this morning by a federal judge, on the grounds that his canceled deployment orders rendered the case moot. It is not known if Cook, his lawyer, and the generals will file another case, but I rather suspect they will.
A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel. Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. However, before the issue got to court, Cook's orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked. Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday that Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty. Cook, who claims he is now the victim of retaliation due to his suit, received his mobilization orders to report for active duty at MacDill on Wednesday. From there, he was to go to Fort Benning on Saturday for deployment to Afghanistan.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | Comments (103) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are a few reports on the 'net that Maj. Cook volunteered for Afghanistan and then filed his lawsuit (a Google search provides several sites, I specifically used this one: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/cook-v-good-interesting-timeline/ ) It certainly appears that his only motive for "volunteering" was to create the opportunity to file his suit. If I were a commander and believed that one of my officers was volunteering for a combat zone primarily for the purpose of creating grounds for a lawsuit, then most certainly I would not want that person in combat. Viewed from the Army's legitimate primary concerns for commitment and preparedness, NOT sending Major Cook overseas makes perfect sense. Obama's citizenship is still open to question and Major Cook has provided only a time and money wasting diversion.
Posted by: Clayton in Mississippi at July 16, 2009 01:39 PM (Yge2U)
2
Re: "Obama's citizenship is still open to question."
No it isn't. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. (the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii.) http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
This was confirmed by the two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it, and this statement was confirmed to be a declaration that Obama was born in Hawaii by the public relations spokeswoman for the Department of Health of Hawaii.http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
Obama was not born in Kenya. There is absolutely no proof that he was born in Kenya. It is as unlikely as his being born on Mars. His mother would have had to go to Kenya while she was pregnant at a time when there were no direct flights and when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa (very bad during pregnancy).
Then, if she gave birth in Kenya, there would be a record of her arriving in Kenya (no such record), a record of her giving birth in Kenya (nothing), and a record of the child being given a US visa to go from Kenya to Hawaii (nothing) or that his mother's passport was amended in Kenya to include him (nothing). There are no documents showing that Obama's mother went to Kenya or gave birth in Kenya.
The Kenyan grandmother of Obama DID NOT say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, particularly to the answer to the question "Whereabouts was he born?" Here is the complete tape on Bert's website. http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3
If that is too difficult to listen to, here is a transcript. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
There are Hawaii government records showing that Obama was born in Hawaii and they have been confirmed by the two officials who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it, and a spokewoman for the Department of Health then said that the finding of an original birth certificate means that Obama was born in Hawaii. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
And there is a woman who remembers Obama's birth in Hawaii. http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
No it isn't. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. (the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii.) http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
This was confirmed by the two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it, and this statement was confirmed to be a declaration that Obama was born in Hawaii by the public relations spokeswoman for the Department of Health of Hawaii.http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
Obama was not born in Kenya. There is absolutely no proof that he was born in Kenya. It is as unlikely as his being born on Mars. His mother would have had to go to Kenya while she was pregnant at a time when there were no direct flights and when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa (very bad during pregnancy).
Then, if she gave birth in Kenya, there would be a record of her arriving in Kenya (no such record), a record of her giving birth in Kenya (nothing), and a record of the child being given a US visa to go from Kenya to Hawaii (nothing) or that his mother's passport was amended in Kenya to include him (nothing). There are no documents showing that Obama's mother went to Kenya or gave birth in Kenya.
The Kenyan grandmother of Obama DID NOT say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, particularly to the answer to the question "Whereabouts was he born?" Here is the complete tape on Bert's website. http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3
If that is too difficult to listen to, here is a transcript. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
There are Hawaii government records showing that Obama was born in Hawaii and they have been confirmed by the two officials who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it, and a spokewoman for the Department of Health then said that the finding of an original birth certificate means that Obama was born in Hawaii. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
And there is a woman who remembers Obama's birth in Hawaii. http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
Posted by: smrstrauss at July 16, 2009 01:48 PM (2SDaf)
3
No it isn't. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. (the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii.) http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
The simple way to put all this to rest is to release the original birth certificate. Why has BHO spent $millions to prevent that?
The simple way to put all this to rest is to release the original birth certificate. Why has BHO spent $millions to prevent that?
Posted by: diogenes online at July 16, 2009 02:13 PM (2MrBP)
4
To diogenes online: Because BO DOES NOT LIKE TO BE TOLD What to do. For him there are 2 sets of rules. His and His. That's what liars do!
Posted by: terri at July 16, 2009 03:01 PM (IoOoM)
5
We are not interested in other people who have gone to great length to fabricate excuses for BO's failure to provide documentation of his birth! It's time for BO to man up, his boss, the US Citizens, demand he provides this simple document!
Posted by: WestWright at July 16, 2009 03:11 PM (cJRPh)
6
Interesting that the nativeborncitizen website only sprung up in February and appears to be entirely devoted to opposing question about Obama's birth status.
It's probably a good thing there's no smell-o-vision on the intartubz because that site looks rank.
It's probably a good thing there's no smell-o-vision on the intartubz because that site looks rank.
Posted by: ThomasD at July 16, 2009 03:54 PM (21H5U)
7
two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it
Wonderful, so all Obama has to do is request Hawaii release a certified copy of the original document and all this goes away. B
But he won't do that, wonder why?
Wonderful, so all Obama has to do is request Hawaii release a certified copy of the original document and all this goes away. B
But he won't do that, wonder why?
Posted by: Notyou at July 16, 2009 03:57 PM (21H5U)
8
Obama doesn't want the true certificate released because it shows who his real father is and that would be an embarrassment to himself & his mothers memory.
Posted by: answers at July 16, 2009 04:28 PM (sj3KL)
9
smrstrauss, I read your link. The 2 Hawaiian officials who say they have seen the b.c. only said they have a birth certificate, they did not say what the birth certificate shows. The author of your link and some other person who has not herself seen the b.c. extrapolated that what the 2 Hawaii officials saw was the proof of him being born in Hawaii. If that's what the 2 officials have, then why didn't they say so themselves? And again, why didn't Obama release the original long form birth cert. himself. Saying there are no docs re: his mother and Kenya is proof of nothing. There may be docs. there may not be. If the country was not good a record keeping or if Obama, his relatives, his friend Odinga decided to get rid of docs. Maybe there are no docs. because no one is really interested in finding them - kind of like there is no original birth certificate released to the public either.
Posted by: Jayne at July 16, 2009 04:51 PM (dwIL0)
10
While I have my doubts that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii I think it is past time to hammer on him (and the Democrats) to release his Birth Certificate AND his health records.
Obama has a track record of hiding much of his personal information. Voters have a right to know that information, particularly in light of past demands by the Dhimmis to release all Republican candidate records.
So, as far as I am concerned, Obama is an illegitimate POTUS until he releases that original birth certificate.
While I have my doubts that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii I think it is past time to hammer on him (and the Democrats) to release his Birth Certificate AND his health records.
Obama has a track record of hiding much of his personal information. Voters have a right to know that information, particularly in light of past demands by the Dhimmis to release all Republican candidate records.
So, as far as I am concerned, Obama is an illegitimate POTUS until he releases that original birth certificate.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 16, 2009 04:55 PM (eEaHR)
11
Stange behavior for his weird man, B. Hussein Obama. He certainly uses legal shenanigans to avoid showing this very simple document.
There was speculation yesterday that this was the EXACT MOTIVE for the order relieving this Major from deploying. Revoking his orders so that he would have no standing to question Obama.
The MSM can travel to Kinko parking lots for late night meetings with known Democrat loons for fraudulent documents about a non-issue like whether President Bush went to all his Guard meetings but is uninterested in this strange behavior.
For the lazy ObaMO-ORN, if you are going to argue this issue with these people, do try NOT to use documents like the fake certificate which Obama released thru Daily Kos and has been show as a forgery for over a year ago. It makes you look like a imbecile.
I do not know where Obama was born, but at this date it appears that Obama needs to man up and show the requested certificate because a lot of people are confused including:
Every hopital in Hawaii
People of Kenya and Ghana
Obama's step-sister and grandmother
and apparently Obama himself as he has told different audiences that he was born in multiple hospitals in Hawaii.
But I do not think that at this point the certificate will see the light of day for multiple reasons:
1) Obama was born in Hawaii, only it shows that his bat-crazy mother had no idea who his father really was or that the father is someone which would cast an ugly shadow on either Obama's story or his family? I am not going to speculate but his mentor Frank Marshall Davis was convicted as a pedophile.
2) Obama was born in Kenya, in which case the results are very ugly because it would destroy not only Obama but the entire Democratic party because they knowingly perpetuated a fraud on the American public. Also going down would be the entire MSM media complex because they either have been aware of the fraud and covered it up, or they FAILED miserably in their supposed duty. All their privilege and status is supposedly because they are to protect the American public from just such an occurrence. And it would nearly kill the entire government because NONE of them stood up for the Constitution or the American people.
The certificate will NEVER be seen.
I personally think it is #1. We know that Obama's mother was a loon plus Obama has his life story he has created and nothing can upset that story. A good clue is why is he so devoted to a miserable man like B. Hussein Obama, Sr. whom he never met until he was 12 and very seldom interacted with. It is like his "community organizing" nonsense. He quit that 20 years ago, but he acted like that had been his life work. Hardly, he is really a nut.
There was speculation yesterday that this was the EXACT MOTIVE for the order relieving this Major from deploying. Revoking his orders so that he would have no standing to question Obama.
The MSM can travel to Kinko parking lots for late night meetings with known Democrat loons for fraudulent documents about a non-issue like whether President Bush went to all his Guard meetings but is uninterested in this strange behavior.
For the lazy ObaMO-ORN, if you are going to argue this issue with these people, do try NOT to use documents like the fake certificate which Obama released thru Daily Kos and has been show as a forgery for over a year ago. It makes you look like a imbecile.
I do not know where Obama was born, but at this date it appears that Obama needs to man up and show the requested certificate because a lot of people are confused including:
Every hopital in Hawaii
People of Kenya and Ghana
Obama's step-sister and grandmother
and apparently Obama himself as he has told different audiences that he was born in multiple hospitals in Hawaii.
But I do not think that at this point the certificate will see the light of day for multiple reasons:
1) Obama was born in Hawaii, only it shows that his bat-crazy mother had no idea who his father really was or that the father is someone which would cast an ugly shadow on either Obama's story or his family? I am not going to speculate but his mentor Frank Marshall Davis was convicted as a pedophile.
2) Obama was born in Kenya, in which case the results are very ugly because it would destroy not only Obama but the entire Democratic party because they knowingly perpetuated a fraud on the American public. Also going down would be the entire MSM media complex because they either have been aware of the fraud and covered it up, or they FAILED miserably in their supposed duty. All their privilege and status is supposedly because they are to protect the American public from just such an occurrence. And it would nearly kill the entire government because NONE of them stood up for the Constitution or the American people.
The certificate will NEVER be seen.
I personally think it is #1. We know that Obama's mother was a loon plus Obama has his life story he has created and nothing can upset that story. A good clue is why is he so devoted to a miserable man like B. Hussein Obama, Sr. whom he never met until he was 12 and very seldom interacted with. It is like his "community organizing" nonsense. He quit that 20 years ago, but he acted like that had been his life work. Hardly, he is really a nut.
Posted by: LogicalSC at July 16, 2009 04:57 PM (92KrJ)
12
"...two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it, and this statement was confirmed to be a declaration that Obama was born in Hawaii..."
So if I file a copy of my California birth certificate in Hawaii's vault, and two guys look and say "yes it is there", their statement is a declaration that I was born in Hawaii?
So if I file a copy of my California birth certificate in Hawaii's vault, and two guys look and say "yes it is there", their statement is a declaration that I was born in Hawaii?
Posted by: Why the rigamarole? at July 16, 2009 05:13 PM (LKkZ7)
13
"Obama doesn't want the true certificate released because it shows who his real father is and that would be an embarrassment to himself & his mothers memory."
Given the verifiable whoppers Obama tells to the American public (and, especially, to his own supporters) each and every day, I'd say His Obamian Radiance is waaaaaaaaaay past any residual sense of "embarrassment."
Given the verifiable whoppers Obama tells to the American public (and, especially, to his own supporters) each and every day, I'd say His Obamian Radiance is waaaaaaaaaay past any residual sense of "embarrassment."
Posted by: MarkJ at July 16, 2009 05:20 PM (ZFVlP)
14
So if he has a legitimate COLB why spend $800,000 on attorneys fighting having to release the original? If Bush were the one doing this the left would be screaming from the housetops and every State run media outlet would be demanding the original. What an amazing double standard coming out of the left now that their guy is in the White House. Real Americans are not fooled by this subterfuge.
Posted by: Dave at July 16, 2009 05:32 PM (S3Rd3)
15
I think there is reasonable skepticism over the issue here, whether or not Barry al Hussein is a NBC. He probably is but it's not in any way certain.
At the time of his birth, Hawaii had only been a state for two years and in a sort of "grandfathering" way, Hawaii allowed babies not actually born in Hawaii to have Hawaiian births registered in............. Hawaii. I know it's a bit strange but true.
At the time of his birth, Hawaii had only been a state for two years and in a sort of "grandfathering" way, Hawaii allowed babies not actually born in Hawaii to have Hawaiian births registered in............. Hawaii. I know it's a bit strange but true.
Posted by: bet at July 16, 2009 05:34 PM (HH3AB)
16
Obama was born in Hawaii. How do you explain the TWO birth notices in the newspapers days after he was born?
One in the Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and one in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day. They both said the same thing: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."
But here's the thing. Newspaper officials confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.
As one write points out:
"That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'"
Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers - on the off chance this unnamed [minority] child might want to one day be president of the United States.
You have to be nuts to think there was this kind of conspiracy going on.
One in the Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and one in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day. They both said the same thing: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."
But here's the thing. Newspaper officials confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.
As one write points out:
"That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'"
Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers - on the off chance this unnamed [minority] child might want to one day be president of the United States.
You have to be nuts to think there was this kind of conspiracy going on.
Posted by: Moderate at July 16, 2009 05:34 PM (0be2X)
17
The document released by Obama was not a " Birth certificate". It was a certification of live birth which could have been obtained by simply reporting the birth to local officials. Many babies were born at home with midwives and in many cases these births went unreported for months. Kenya doesn't have records of Obama's mom arriving in 1959? Shock. I suppose whoever posted that does not know anything about 1959 Africa and the "methodical" record keeping. Obama could have ended every lawsuit last August by simply submitting a valid birth certificate and asking for dismisal. Instead he has spent millions fighting 13 suits with legalese and technicality.
Posted by: Dennis D at July 16, 2009 05:44 PM (EbvWp)
18
Moderate:
Very strange person you voted in to the most powerful office in the world. He can't recall where he was born exactly and likes to spend millions of dollars to hide this very simple document? Why? Any guesses?
See my earlier post, I think it because it shows that his mentally ill mother either was uncertain of the father or it contained a very unpleasant fact about his father.
Can be solved with $15? Let's see $800K or $15 dollars? How much charity could that 800K have paid for in some of the horrible areas which Obama has represented for the past 10 years? Why waste in on such shenanigans when real "poor" people could be helped with $800K? I thought Obama was the "One" we have been waiting on? He was going to lower the seas and freeze the
icebergs? Hell he could have sent it to his destitute half-brother in Kenya?
Like I said, a real winner YOU voted for there.
Very strange person you voted in to the most powerful office in the world. He can't recall where he was born exactly and likes to spend millions of dollars to hide this very simple document? Why? Any guesses?
See my earlier post, I think it because it shows that his mentally ill mother either was uncertain of the father or it contained a very unpleasant fact about his father.
Can be solved with $15? Let's see $800K or $15 dollars? How much charity could that 800K have paid for in some of the horrible areas which Obama has represented for the past 10 years? Why waste in on such shenanigans when real "poor" people could be helped with $800K? I thought Obama was the "One" we have been waiting on? He was going to lower the seas and freeze the
icebergs? Hell he could have sent it to his destitute half-brother in Kenya?
Like I said, a real winner YOU voted for there.
Posted by: SClanding at July 16, 2009 05:45 PM (92KrJ)
19
Moderate-
It's pretty telling that nobody's been able to give an explanation for why BO spent bookoo bucks to avoid showing a certified copy of his orginal birth certificate. A certified copy-- not the "certification of live birth" which has a list as long as my arm of reasons it can be edited, including adoption, born elsewhere to a HA resident and sex change-- of his actual birth certificate would be ten bucks. Line out a few things if ya must, and BOOM-- problem solved.
Also telling is that the only folks brining up Kenya are the ones saying it's silly. There ARE other ways his citizenship could be screwed by this other than being born in Kenya....
Oh, and you might want to look into the varying stories on which hospital BO was born in. ^.^
It's pretty telling that nobody's been able to give an explanation for why BO spent bookoo bucks to avoid showing a certified copy of his orginal birth certificate. A certified copy-- not the "certification of live birth" which has a list as long as my arm of reasons it can be edited, including adoption, born elsewhere to a HA resident and sex change-- of his actual birth certificate would be ten bucks. Line out a few things if ya must, and BOOM-- problem solved.
Also telling is that the only folks brining up Kenya are the ones saying it's silly. There ARE other ways his citizenship could be screwed by this other than being born in Kenya....
Oh, and you might want to look into the varying stories on which hospital BO was born in. ^.^
Posted by: Foxfier at July 16, 2009 05:49 PM (Y1xbZ)
20
"Re: "Obama's citizenship is still open to question."
No it isn't. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. (the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii.) http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html"
His citizenship is not what’s in question.
What is in question is his Eligibility/ Qualifications to be POTUS based on the “Founding Fathers” original intent for POTUS.
This was the guild line chosen by the left to go after McCain’s Eligibility/ Qualifications to be POTUS. Should no problem for anyone on the left, yes?
So what were the “Founding Fathers” original intent for POTUS.
The person must be “natural-born citizen."
A natural-born citizen." Was someone born in the USA to American parents. This was modified in 1790 to include children born of American parents who may be overseas or in territories that are not part of the USA circa 1790.
It is clear that the “Founding Fathers” wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country.
This is why the BOTH parents, mother AND father MUST be American citizens.
Only Obama’s mother was an American citizen, his FATHER was a citizen of Kenya.
Thank god Obama who’s father was a citizen of Kenya hasn’t said something stupid like “I’m a citizen of the world, not just America”
Cuz if he had it could make this whole 'natural born' issue go badly for Obama.
He would have proven the “Founding Fathers” correct.
No it isn't. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. (the Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii.) http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html"
His citizenship is not what’s in question.
What is in question is his Eligibility/ Qualifications to be POTUS based on the “Founding Fathers” original intent for POTUS.
This was the guild line chosen by the left to go after McCain’s Eligibility/ Qualifications to be POTUS. Should no problem for anyone on the left, yes?
So what were the “Founding Fathers” original intent for POTUS.
The person must be “natural-born citizen."
A natural-born citizen." Was someone born in the USA to American parents. This was modified in 1790 to include children born of American parents who may be overseas or in territories that are not part of the USA circa 1790.
It is clear that the “Founding Fathers” wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country.
This is why the BOTH parents, mother AND father MUST be American citizens.
Only Obama’s mother was an American citizen, his FATHER was a citizen of Kenya.
Thank god Obama who’s father was a citizen of Kenya hasn’t said something stupid like “I’m a citizen of the world, not just America”
Cuz if he had it could make this whole 'natural born' issue go badly for Obama.
He would have proven the “Founding Fathers” correct.
Posted by: Dschoen at July 16, 2009 09:04 PM (KaDfM)
21
"It certainly appears that his only motive for "volunteering" was to create the opportunity to file his suit."
Ah yes the nutcase conspiracy
Lets see, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook
Army Major (O-4)? Hum so he completed 4 years of collage, at lest 10 years of active duty military experience just to embarrass Obama.
Really? How did he know before 1995 that Obama would be POTUS?
“his only motive for "volunteering"”
"In fact, one thing that I have noticed. . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid."
Brian Moore
Ah yes the nutcase conspiracy
Lets see, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook
Army Major (O-4)? Hum so he completed 4 years of collage, at lest 10 years of active duty military experience just to embarrass Obama.
Really? How did he know before 1995 that Obama would be POTUS?
“his only motive for "volunteering"”
"In fact, one thing that I have noticed. . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid."
Brian Moore
Posted by: Dschoen at July 16, 2009 09:34 PM (KaDfM)
22
Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen?
Neither was McCain. McCain was born outside the US.
Obama was born in the US, and is a citizen under the 14th (which did not redefine "natural-born citizen") and is a citizen, but he is/was (?) a duel national, therefore not a "natural-born citizen".
Neither was McCain. McCain was born outside the US.
Obama was born in the US, and is a citizen under the 14th (which did not redefine "natural-born citizen") and is a citizen, but he is/was (?) a duel national, therefore not a "natural-born citizen".
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 09:48 PM (L0xB8)
23
I see now that 'Dschoen' hit it already.
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 09:52 PM (L0xB8)
24
"two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it"
"Wonderful, so all Obama has to do is request Hawaii release a certified copy of the original document and all this goes away. B
But he won't do that, wonder why?"
Because his birth certificate will list his father as a citizen of Kenya.
The birth certificate is a LEGAL document.
Without that LEGAL document you can’t PROVE Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, even though Obama claims that his father was a citizen of Kenya.
This is the legal area of what the “meaning of “is” is”.
And if it were proven his father was not a US citizen WHEN Obama was born, then Obama is not Eligible /Qualified to be POTUS.
It is clear that the “Founding Fathers” wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country.
This is why the BOTH parents, mother AND father MUST be American citizens.
Don’t be sidelined by the “is/was Hawaii a state” when Obama was born, that has NOTHING to do with it.
Notice: "two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it"
Great there was/is a original birth certificate, what all does it list as per Obama’s father?
"Wonderful, so all Obama has to do is request Hawaii release a certified copy of the original document and all this goes away. B
But he won't do that, wonder why?"
Because his birth certificate will list his father as a citizen of Kenya.
The birth certificate is a LEGAL document.
Without that LEGAL document you can’t PROVE Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, even though Obama claims that his father was a citizen of Kenya.
This is the legal area of what the “meaning of “is” is”.
And if it were proven his father was not a US citizen WHEN Obama was born, then Obama is not Eligible /Qualified to be POTUS.
It is clear that the “Founding Fathers” wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country.
This is why the BOTH parents, mother AND father MUST be American citizens.
Don’t be sidelined by the “is/was Hawaii a state” when Obama was born, that has NOTHING to do with it.
Notice: "two officials of the state who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in it"
Great there was/is a original birth certificate, what all does it list as per Obama’s father?
Posted by: Dschoen at July 16, 2009 10:06 PM (KaDfM)
25
This is one of the stories that you want to look away from but can't.
Posted by: Mark E at July 16, 2009 10:30 PM (uG3yt)
26
Dschoen,
Where did you get your definition of 'natural born citizen'?
I got mine from 8th grade civics class about 25+ years ago.
Where did you get your definition of 'natural born citizen'?
I got mine from 8th grade civics class about 25+ years ago.
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 10:34 PM (L0xB8)
27
"Neither was McCain. McCain was born outside the US."
McCain was born to two American citizens (and they were married to each other) stationed in a US territory (on behave of the USA Government).
There was a correction in 1790 (by the ORIGINAL Founding Fathers) to add children who’s parents (Note: plural as in BOTH parents) were American citizens were natural-born citizen.
Further clarification dealing specifically with Panama was passed in 1936 to make it absolutely clear that any child born of American citizens were natural-born citizen from 1904 to 1999 when we left Panama.
What was not address by the Founding Fathers was if a bastard could be POTUS.
Bastard in the legal sense, as in the parents were not married or married to other people, both would be the case with Obama.
His Mother was not married to his father and his father was, at the time Obama was conceived and born, married to someone else.
McCain was born to two American citizens (and they were married to each other) stationed in a US territory (on behave of the USA Government).
There was a correction in 1790 (by the ORIGINAL Founding Fathers) to add children who’s parents (Note: plural as in BOTH parents) were American citizens were natural-born citizen.
Further clarification dealing specifically with Panama was passed in 1936 to make it absolutely clear that any child born of American citizens were natural-born citizen from 1904 to 1999 when we left Panama.
What was not address by the Founding Fathers was if a bastard could be POTUS.
Bastard in the legal sense, as in the parents were not married or married to other people, both would be the case with Obama.
His Mother was not married to his father and his father was, at the time Obama was conceived and born, married to someone else.
Posted by: Dschoen at July 16, 2009 10:35 PM (KaDfM)
28
"Where did you get your definition of 'natural born citizen'?
I got mine from 8th grade civics class about 25+ years ago.
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 10:34 PM"
Mainly from what the left chose to use against McCain. The EXACT wording of the Founding Fathers.
And by simply looking it up, I got access to the internet ya know.
If you want an eye opener search on “McCain is not a 'natural born citizen'
You will find the NYT, NBC CNN going into excruciating detail as to the EXACT definition of 'natural born citizen' excluding anything that makes their claim false. like the 1790 law i mentioned.
McCain's eligibility is disputed by professor - The New York Times
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain's eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that ...
www.nytimes.com/2008/.../11iht-11mccain.14411311.html
Is McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"?
McCain's Eligibility to Be President Is Disputed by Professor, we learn of a serious argument against McCain's eligibility. The analysis, by Prof. ...
www.uslaw.com/law_blogs/?item=190304
PDF]
THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY: MAY COURTS DECIDE WHO CAN BE ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Sep 30, 2008 ... Three cases have challenged McCain's eligibility on the ground that he ..... Yet none of the Justices disputed that state ...
www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.pdf
Oh that 1790 law reads something like this
Notably, in 1790, Congress felt it was necessary to pass a law that defined naturalized citizens. The First Congress passed An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, providing:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been residents in the United States … .
I got mine from 8th grade civics class about 25+ years ago.
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 10:34 PM"
Mainly from what the left chose to use against McCain. The EXACT wording of the Founding Fathers.
And by simply looking it up, I got access to the internet ya know.
If you want an eye opener search on “McCain is not a 'natural born citizen'
You will find the NYT, NBC CNN going into excruciating detail as to the EXACT definition of 'natural born citizen' excluding anything that makes their claim false. like the 1790 law i mentioned.
McCain's eligibility is disputed by professor - The New York Times
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain's eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that ...
www.nytimes.com/2008/.../11iht-11mccain.14411311.html
Is McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"?
McCain's Eligibility to Be President Is Disputed by Professor, we learn of a serious argument against McCain's eligibility. The analysis, by Prof. ...
www.uslaw.com/law_blogs/?item=190304
PDF]
THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY: MAY COURTS DECIDE WHO CAN BE ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
Sep 30, 2008 ... Three cases have challenged McCain's eligibility on the ground that he ..... Yet none of the Justices disputed that state ...
www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.pdf
Oh that 1790 law reads something like this
Notably, in 1790, Congress felt it was necessary to pass a law that defined naturalized citizens. The First Congress passed An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, providing:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been residents in the United States … .
Posted by: Dschoen at July 16, 2009 10:58 PM (KaDfM)
29
Dschoen,
I have seen that 1790 cite before. It used to be posted at the State Dept.
I doubt the Founding Fathers thought 'natural born' included duel nationals, especially British-US, when they had to give themselves a grandfather clause.
I have seen that 1790 cite before. It used to be posted at the State Dept.
I doubt the Founding Fathers thought 'natural born' included duel nationals, especially British-US, when they had to give themselves a grandfather clause.
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 11:31 PM (L0xB8)
30
Posted by: Druid at July 16, 2009 09:48 PM
By long-standing legal tradition, the children of diplomats and soldiers are always citizens of their home country. As both of McCain's parents were US citizens, there at the Gov'ts request, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen. There's a great big paper on it out there somewhere, I managed to lose the page last time I crashed.
By long-standing legal tradition, the children of diplomats and soldiers are always citizens of their home country. As both of McCain's parents were US citizens, there at the Gov'ts request, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen. There's a great big paper on it out there somewhere, I managed to lose the page last time I crashed.
Posted by: Foxfier at July 17, 2009 12:37 AM (Y1xbZ)
31
I'm curious about the transition between Barry Soetero and Barak Obama.
My wife was adopted by her mom's second husband. When my wife got divorced from her first husband she wanted to change her name back to match with her real dad's. She ended up having to do a legal name change with the court.
So, is there a newspaper record of Barry Soetoro wishing to change his name to Barak Obama?
My wife was adopted by her mom's second husband. When my wife got divorced from her first husband she wanted to change her name back to match with her real dad's. She ended up having to do a legal name change with the court.
So, is there a newspaper record of Barry Soetoro wishing to change his name to Barak Obama?
Posted by: Pinandpuller at July 17, 2009 01:30 AM (VU8PU)
32
It's not because he's embarrassed to show who his real father is. He could request from Hawaii right now a COLB which verifies ONLY his name and his birth place.
He posted a forgery, with a seal that doesn't bend when the paper it's on folds, on a paper which loses only one line of print when photographed sideways, and a raised surface shown in relief which wouldn't show up with edge detection when posted elsewhere.
The fact that Factcheck used a document other than Obama's to show the relief of the seal shows that they didn't have ANY authentic COLB of Obama's, or they would have just used his authentic image of the seal.
I'd bet good money that he has never requested a COLB from Hawaii because he doesn't want to give anybody there an excuse to look at anything.
He posted a forgery, with a seal that doesn't bend when the paper it's on folds, on a paper which loses only one line of print when photographed sideways, and a raised surface shown in relief which wouldn't show up with edge detection when posted elsewhere.
The fact that Factcheck used a document other than Obama's to show the relief of the seal shows that they didn't have ANY authentic COLB of Obama's, or they would have just used his authentic image of the seal.
I'd bet good money that he has never requested a COLB from Hawaii because he doesn't want to give anybody there an excuse to look at anything.
Posted by: Nellie at July 17, 2009 08:14 AM (KZZsN)
33
BHO does not want to release the original birth certificate because it might put his life in danger. At least, that is my theory.
Obama has been a practicing Christian for many years -- in a church where you have to profess faith to belong, not one that you are there because your parents were Christian. My bet is that his Muslim daddy listed "Islam" as BHO's religion on the long-form birth certificate.
Someone born a Christian or Jew is an infidel in the eyes of Islam. They are People of the Book, who while they can be treated as second-class citizens, have certain rights.
Someone who *was* Muslim who changes to another faith does not -- even those of the Book -- however do not. THey are apostates. Fair game for any devout Muslim to kill. Gets you extra raisins in paradise.
While BHO is naive, he ain't stupid. Dissing Christians about being bitter clingers is safe. Getting Muslim crazies chasing you ain't. So the long form stays hid.
Obama has been a practicing Christian for many years -- in a church where you have to profess faith to belong, not one that you are there because your parents were Christian. My bet is that his Muslim daddy listed "Islam" as BHO's religion on the long-form birth certificate.
Someone born a Christian or Jew is an infidel in the eyes of Islam. They are People of the Book, who while they can be treated as second-class citizens, have certain rights.
Someone who *was* Muslim who changes to another faith does not -- even those of the Book -- however do not. THey are apostates. Fair game for any devout Muslim to kill. Gets you extra raisins in paradise.
While BHO is naive, he ain't stupid. Dissing Christians about being bitter clingers is safe. Getting Muslim crazies chasing you ain't. So the long form stays hid.
Posted by: Mark L at July 17, 2009 09:08 AM (bWB5j)
34
Dschoen, it is largely for fairness' sake that I originally gave any credence to this tack, given the examination of McCain which you have summarized so completely. Yes, we all got a bit of an education there especially as I was praying that McCain would be technically disqualified. But with events it seems things factually are moving the Birthers' way. The birth announcements mentioned above seem to be more suspicious in themselves than dispositive of Barry's case. "Mr and Mrs Barak Obama"? As others mention, there was no marriage, right? Then the birth announcements are, we know, erroneous at least in that. Of course we could understand some polite fictions being applied in that era and the announcements in the local paper may be a fit place for such fictions but the courthouse is not. Vital records are called that because they are vital. And we would hope that gub officials would take that seriously but what are the odds, as we know HI was just recently a state and had some creative, we might say "progressive" approaches to governing, what are the odds that there was some effort made in some cases to extend the benefits of citizenship to those who might not, technically qualify? Does this ever happen? Is the INS ever, today, a bit remiss here and there explicitly to help people who might "fall through the cracks" into US citizenship? It does have its benefits. And if such a thing were done it was not done once so officials who made these under-the-desk maneuvers are now in a pickle. No one incident of record doctoring can be exposed without bringing down the whole edifice with firings, deportations, disposessions and perhaps even criminal charges being the result of this deluge. So those who dismiss this as absurdist conspiracy theories should recognize that there is no need for a cultish society with secret handshakes for large numbers of people to act in concert and nefariously. Especially when their actions were, as they say, well intentioned.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 17, 2009 09:35 AM (UVkVE)
35
Interesting take, Mark L. Only thing is, it's okay for a Muslim to practice taqiyya - to only pretend to have left Islam for the sake of furthering Islam, for instance. In fact, one of the terror leaders has outright said that they will use people who've been sitting in Christian churches for years and years to perform their next attack.
Jeremiah Wright's church, with its Black Liberation Theology and very friendly relations with Louis Farrakhan, Black Panthers, etc is about as close as a person come to being Muslim while sitting in a "Christian" church.
And abroad, Muslims say that Obama is a Muslim. I've read that his connections when he visited Pakistan right before he came back with new purpose as Barack Obama instead of Barry Soetoro were with people connected to radical Islam. The fact that these people have NOT called for his death suggests to me that they believe he is practicing taqiyya.
Food for thought. Who knows if we'll ever know.
Jeremiah Wright's church, with its Black Liberation Theology and very friendly relations with Louis Farrakhan, Black Panthers, etc is about as close as a person come to being Muslim while sitting in a "Christian" church.
And abroad, Muslims say that Obama is a Muslim. I've read that his connections when he visited Pakistan right before he came back with new purpose as Barack Obama instead of Barry Soetoro were with people connected to radical Islam. The fact that these people have NOT called for his death suggests to me that they believe he is practicing taqiyya.
Food for thought. Who knows if we'll ever know.
Posted by: Nellie at July 17, 2009 10:05 AM (KZZsN)
36
Couple of points:
1. A Full birth certificate from Hawaii from that era does not contain any information about religious affiliation. So it doesn't show Obama a s a muslim or anything.
2. The newspaper announcement only indicates that the govt. had some type of paperwork issued which triggered the newspaper announcement.
3. In Hawaii of that era, you could be born elsewhere and get a certificate of live birth based on sworn statement. ie. you didn't HAVE to be born there, just claim that you were.
4. Barry was adopted and moved to Indonesia. If he had dual citizenship (US/UK) then he would have had to give it up to be in Indonesia. Thus he was no longer a US citizen.
5. He never applied for us citizenship when he returned to the US...
6. He obtained school scholarships as a foreign student in the late 70's early 80s.
7. Doubt exists, he needs to clear it up but won't. And it will NEVER be released because there are too many interested parties that need to cover their asses.
1. A Full birth certificate from Hawaii from that era does not contain any information about religious affiliation. So it doesn't show Obama a s a muslim or anything.
2. The newspaper announcement only indicates that the govt. had some type of paperwork issued which triggered the newspaper announcement.
3. In Hawaii of that era, you could be born elsewhere and get a certificate of live birth based on sworn statement. ie. you didn't HAVE to be born there, just claim that you were.
4. Barry was adopted and moved to Indonesia. If he had dual citizenship (US/UK) then he would have had to give it up to be in Indonesia. Thus he was no longer a US citizen.
5. He never applied for us citizenship when he returned to the US...
6. He obtained school scholarships as a foreign student in the late 70's early 80s.
7. Doubt exists, he needs to clear it up but won't. And it will NEVER be released because there are too many interested parties that need to cover their asses.
Posted by: Cro at July 17, 2009 10:18 AM (q6MO3)
37
CYA is going to kill this nation unless we find a way to make the law matter. Every time I look at John Murtha I want to barf. He's got a mighty big ass to cover, but Pelosi manages to do it.
Posted by: Nellie at July 17, 2009 10:56 AM (KZZsN)
38
Bob, if you're reading this - it had been a while since I'd been here. Do you have a little one now? I was so happy when you first announced the pregnancy. I've lost a child to miscarriage and to full-term stillbirth so I'm a little afraid to ask because I know it can be painful if something happened. Hopefully everything is fine. =)
Posted by: Nellie at July 17, 2009 02:22 PM (KZZsN)
39
LogicalSC wrote "I am not going to speculate but his mentor Frank Marshall Davis was convicted as a pedophile."
This is worse than speculation. It is an outright lie. Davis was never arrested, much less convicted, as a pedophile. Nor was he Obama's "mentor." It appears that you swallow Kincaid's Konservative Kool-Aid propaganda regarding the Davis-Obama relationship. "Dreams From My Father" belies that claim.
Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama's book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?
It is unfortunate that estates of the deceased cannot sue for slander in the United States.
"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." - Abraham Lincoln
This is worse than speculation. It is an outright lie. Davis was never arrested, much less convicted, as a pedophile. Nor was he Obama's "mentor." It appears that you swallow Kincaid's Konservative Kool-Aid propaganda regarding the Davis-Obama relationship. "Dreams From My Father" belies that claim.
Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Obama did not even visit Davis for three years before going to college. Obama's book, itself, proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?
It is unfortunate that estates of the deceased cannot sue for slander in the United States.
"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." - Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: Kaleokualoha at July 17, 2009 03:07 PM (X2knc)
40
KALEOKUALOHA...The mentor, Frank Davis, definitely was a pornographer and a sexual deviant. See U K Telegraph story link below for the disgusting details of this man so influential in Obama's life. (Although it does not indicate that Davis was in trouble with the law over his pornography).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html
Posted by: Jayne at July 17, 2009 04:24 PM (dwIL0)
41
While I am as disturbed as anyone to learn that there is no system in place to ensure that only those eligible to be president are sworn in as president (and there's plenty of time to do it between the election and the inauguration), it can't possibly be the case that a president has to satisfy each and every objecting person to their own satisfaction.
If the State of Hawaii is satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the federal government should be satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Nothing else makes sense.
If the State of Hawaii is satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the federal government should be satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Nothing else makes sense.
Posted by: tim maguire at July 17, 2009 04:32 PM (ISLWX)
42
Also, Kaleokualoha, this is from the UK Telegraph article. "In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel"
So Obama sought his counsel, that would qualify as mentoring.
So Obama sought his counsel, that would qualify as mentoring.
Posted by: Jayne at July 17, 2009 04:32 PM (dwIL0)
43
Tim McGuire, shall we just look to the somebody in Hawaii to speak for all Constitutional issues?
Posted by: Jayne at July 17, 2009 04:34 PM (dwIL0)
44
Jayne, you're being absurd. Do you really think that follows from my comment?
Posted by: tim maguire at July 17, 2009 04:47 PM (ISLWX)
45
JAYNE WROTE: "So Obama sought his counsel, that would qualify as mentoring."
RESPONSE: Sorry, Jayne, not all counseling is mentoring. Many people counsel, but few are mentors. A mentor is a TRUSTED counselor. If the counsel is not trusted, it is not mentoring, by definition.
JAYNE WROTE: "The mentor, Frank Davis, definitely was a pornographer and a sexual deviant."
RESPONSE: He was a pornographer, but there is no evidence that he was a sexual deviant, much less a convicted pedophile as claimed by LogicalSC. If you examine primary source evidence, rather than disinformation from sources such as Kincaid and the Telegraph, you will find that such accusations are without merit.
Calling Davis a pedophile based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke. Both lies are widespread in the right-wing blogosphere, and reflect the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Both deliberately misrepresent the core values of artists by spreading falsehoods that gullible readers (i.e., "useful idiots") accept as truth, and who then propagate further in good faith.
The pornography disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis is just as heinous as the political disinformation. At a minimum, it indicates a cognitive disorder manifested by an inability to distinguish fact from fiction, in the manner of soap opera fans who blame actors for their characters' misdeeds. Further, it suggests that those making such false accusations may be projecting their own libidinous psychological disorders onto Davis.
RESPONSE: Sorry, Jayne, not all counseling is mentoring. Many people counsel, but few are mentors. A mentor is a TRUSTED counselor. If the counsel is not trusted, it is not mentoring, by definition.
JAYNE WROTE: "The mentor, Frank Davis, definitely was a pornographer and a sexual deviant."
RESPONSE: He was a pornographer, but there is no evidence that he was a sexual deviant, much less a convicted pedophile as claimed by LogicalSC. If you examine primary source evidence, rather than disinformation from sources such as Kincaid and the Telegraph, you will find that such accusations are without merit.
Calling Davis a pedophile based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke. Both lies are widespread in the right-wing blogosphere, and reflect the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Both deliberately misrepresent the core values of artists by spreading falsehoods that gullible readers (i.e., "useful idiots") accept as truth, and who then propagate further in good faith.
The pornography disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis is just as heinous as the political disinformation. At a minimum, it indicates a cognitive disorder manifested by an inability to distinguish fact from fiction, in the manner of soap opera fans who blame actors for their characters' misdeeds. Further, it suggests that those making such false accusations may be projecting their own libidinous psychological disorders onto Davis.
Posted by: Kaleokualoha at July 17, 2009 05:10 PM (X2knc)
46
Good thing this cowardly clown was fired and his case dismissed.
Any soldier who refuses to follow orders based on a dumb conspiracy theory is not fit to serve in our military.
America needs soldiers who actually care about the United States and not about hiding behind some bizarre theory that serves no one except fringe groups.
Any soldier who refuses to follow orders based on a dumb conspiracy theory is not fit to serve in our military.
America needs soldiers who actually care about the United States and not about hiding behind some bizarre theory that serves no one except fringe groups.
Posted by: MD at July 17, 2009 05:53 PM (0be2X)
47
Kaleokualoha, David authored an autobiography--not a novel--called "Sex Rebel: Black," first published in 1968, where he admits the seduction of a 13 year of girl:
One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20.
"But there are exceptions. I didn't want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life."
He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. "Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.
"She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual."
Those quotes are from Frank Marshall Davis, acknowledging multiple statutory rapes of one girl barely out of her teens, dozens of times.
You own the board an apology, but as an apologist for a known pedophile, I suspect you lack the integrity.
One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20.
"But there are exceptions. I didn't want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life."
He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. "Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.
"She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual."
Those quotes are from Frank Marshall Davis, acknowledging multiple statutory rapes of one girl barely out of her teens, dozens of times.
You own the board an apology, but as an apologist for a known pedophile, I suspect you lack the integrity.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2009 07:44 PM (WjpSC)
48
Apparently, this is his "thing":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/Kaleokualoha?action=comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/Kaleokualoha?action=comments
Posted by: Foxfier at July 17, 2009 09:25 PM (Y1xbZ)
49
My "thing" is the truth, but you cannot handle the truth. It's a pity that estates of the deceased cannot sue for slander in the United States.
You believe that Gulliver actually met the Lilliputians? He claimed it was true.
You believe that Gulliver actually met the Lilliputians? He claimed it was true.
Posted by: Kaleokualoha at July 17, 2009 09:55 PM (X2knc)
Posted by: Foxfier at July 17, 2009 10:41 PM (Y1xbZ)
51
Tim McGuire, if you are willing to go with someone in Hawaii deciding who meets the qualifications for President without providing any evidence, then why would you draw the line anywhere else? The absurdity is your giving such authority to make that call to a low level government employee.
Posted by: Jayne at July 17, 2009 10:50 PM (dwIL0)
52
Kaleokualoha, you posted a question asking by what "creative definition" can Davis be considered Obama's mentor. And in that same post you define mentor as a wise and trusted counselor. The Telegraph article as well as Obamas's own book tells us that not only did Davis talk at length with Obama about racial relationships and politics, Obama went to him seeking his counsel. It doesn't take creativity to consider that mentoring according to your definition. If Obama did not trust Davis, nor consider him wise, he would not have sought him out without sick old grandpappy around. Your "thing" is not truth - far from it.
Posted by: Jayne at July 17, 2009 11:07 PM (dwIL0)
53
Dschoen, In your post you make the comment: "This is why the BOTH parents, mother AND father MUST be American citizens."
Could you please provide us with even one piece of evidence to support your claim? Is there anything in the Constitution to support this claim? Is there any US Supreme court ruling to support this claim? Can you name a US Federal law that says that both parents of a natural born US citizen must also be US citizens in order for that person to qualify for the office of POTUS?
I'm skeptical of your claim. Please provide evidence. Thank you.
Could you please provide us with even one piece of evidence to support your claim? Is there anything in the Constitution to support this claim? Is there any US Supreme court ruling to support this claim? Can you name a US Federal law that says that both parents of a natural born US citizen must also be US citizens in order for that person to qualify for the office of POTUS?
I'm skeptical of your claim. Please provide evidence. Thank you.
Posted by: Dude at July 17, 2009 11:09 PM (byA+E)
54
I wonder why Michelle did not go with obama to visit a "very ill" grandmother who was near death just before the election. Nah, I don't buy conspiracy theories.
Posted by: JC at July 17, 2009 11:33 PM (JzeiS)
55
Jayne: Obama certainly sought his advice, but decided that his ethnic views were "incurable" and that he "fell short." Perhaps that is why he did not even visit Davis for three years before going off to college: He did not trust his advice.
Confederate Yankee: You mentioned "integrity." If intellectual engagement and sincere substantive discussions are the goals of your blog, I welcome the opportunity to pursue the truth through cordial debate with you and your readers. If, on the other hand, your blog is designed to squelch dissent through ad hominem attacks and moderator censorship, then I understand your familiar position. Thanks!
Confederate Yankee: You mentioned "integrity." If intellectual engagement and sincere substantive discussions are the goals of your blog, I welcome the opportunity to pursue the truth through cordial debate with you and your readers. If, on the other hand, your blog is designed to squelch dissent through ad hominem attacks and moderator censorship, then I understand your familiar position. Thanks!
Posted by: Kaleokualoha at July 17, 2009 11:37 PM (X2knc)
56
...seduction of a 13 year of girl...
Mind you that until a couple of years ago the age of consent in Hawaii was 14. Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and rather revolting
In the time frame in question 13 might have been quite legal. And, in either case, she might have looked, easily, 14 and a day.
Mind you that until a couple of years ago the age of consent in Hawaii was 14. Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and rather revolting
In the time frame in question 13 might have been quite legal. And, in either case, she might have looked, easily, 14 and a day.
Posted by: Druid at July 18, 2009 01:34 AM (L0xB8)
57
Kaleokualoha, your misreading of and attempt to cover for Davis and his pornography/sexual deviancy renders you an untrustworthy source with regard to interpreting the Davis and Obama relationship. Since I could only get to page 60 of Obama's race obsessed, me-fest, I'll stick with what has been reported by the Telegraph and many other news outlets: that Davis was a mentor to Obama. Maybe he outgrew aspects of his mentoring, but clearly Davis was a strong influence on Obama. And Obama, in choosing a new mentor in the Rev. Wright did not veer from Davis's teachings.
But we've gotten far off point. Why won't he release his original birth certificate?
But we've gotten far off point. Why won't he release his original birth certificate?
Posted by: Jayne at July 18, 2009 02:20 AM (dwIL0)
58
Druid:
There is what is legal, and there is what is moral and/or acceptable or appropriate behavior.
While it may well be that 14 was the age of consent at one time in Hawaii, does that mean that seducing a girl of such an age is acceptable?
Note, too, the use of the term seduction. This means persuading the girl to have sex---again, casting the whole thing in even more questionable light.
One wonders if Davis (or even you) would consider sex w/ prepubescent girls acceptable, so long as the law said it was alright.
There is what is legal, and there is what is moral and/or acceptable or appropriate behavior.
While it may well be that 14 was the age of consent at one time in Hawaii, does that mean that seducing a girl of such an age is acceptable?
Note, too, the use of the term seduction. This means persuading the girl to have sex---again, casting the whole thing in even more questionable light.
One wonders if Davis (or even you) would consider sex w/ prepubescent girls acceptable, so long as the law said it was alright.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 18, 2009 04:16 PM (8gQRx)
59
One wonders if Davis (or even you) would consider sex w/ prepubescent girls acceptable, so long as the law said it was alright.
You almost got where I said,
"Mind you that until a couple of years ago the age of consent in Hawaii was 14. Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and rather revolting"
Let me me re-emphasize, "Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and RATHER REVOLTING."
You and I agree on the rather revolting aspect I am sure. Davis's apologists, not so sure 'bout them.
You almost got where I said,
"Mind you that until a couple of years ago the age of consent in Hawaii was 14. Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and rather revolting"
Let me me re-emphasize, "Opposition to raising it was quite vigorous, and RATHER REVOLTING."
You and I agree on the rather revolting aspect I am sure. Davis's apologists, not so sure 'bout them.
Posted by: Druid at July 18, 2009 10:34 PM (L0xB8)
60
This "discussion" could be considered a good thing, as Martha would put it...except for a couple of real facts. No amount of truth or facts will dissuade the left to let go of or bad mouth Obama because he and the democrat Congress are getting the democrat agenda fulfilled..and more.
Why destroy the vehicle that is carrying the progressive dream forward?
Also consider this: Many in the left and even some moderates believe that the U.S. of A is nothing special and needs to be brought down to where it is just another nation state and should fall into line under a worldwide authority, such as the U.N.
This is of course the end product of forty plus years of liberal progressive education in our American Educational System.
Helped along by commies and fascists such as those who are the mentors and friends of Obama.
So, don't dispare that Obama's lack of records from his birth up to his employment in the office of the President of the United States will make any difference at all. It will be ignored by the media and by those in power.
Simply because power corrupts and the middle America, the poor white trash in the south and the blue collar (non-union) Americans are not to even be considered let alone have any influence over our government or have a word in saying what the real truth is.
It...(the time of decision making) is fast approaching. After the American public sees the voter fraud and illegal re-election of many democrats in a year or so, they will be very, very upset, but after they see how Obama was reelected to his second term (with an election that will be even less honest than the last Iranian election was) they won't just be upset. They will be angry and determined to throw out Obama and most every other elected official and even those long embedded government workers that have aided and abetted the destruction of our Nation.
By the force of the American people, just as our Founders told us might be necessary.
Mark my words...
Buy More Ammo.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Why destroy the vehicle that is carrying the progressive dream forward?
Also consider this: Many in the left and even some moderates believe that the U.S. of A is nothing special and needs to be brought down to where it is just another nation state and should fall into line under a worldwide authority, such as the U.N.
This is of course the end product of forty plus years of liberal progressive education in our American Educational System.
Helped along by commies and fascists such as those who are the mentors and friends of Obama.
So, don't dispare that Obama's lack of records from his birth up to his employment in the office of the President of the United States will make any difference at all. It will be ignored by the media and by those in power.
Simply because power corrupts and the middle America, the poor white trash in the south and the blue collar (non-union) Americans are not to even be considered let alone have any influence over our government or have a word in saying what the real truth is.
It...(the time of decision making) is fast approaching. After the American public sees the voter fraud and illegal re-election of many democrats in a year or so, they will be very, very upset, but after they see how Obama was reelected to his second term (with an election that will be even less honest than the last Iranian election was) they won't just be upset. They will be angry and determined to throw out Obama and most every other elected official and even those long embedded government workers that have aided and abetted the destruction of our Nation.
By the force of the American people, just as our Founders told us might be necessary.
Mark my words...
Buy More Ammo.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at July 19, 2009 11:57 AM (JpVJn)
61
"Could you please provide us with even one piece of evidence to support your claim? "
Did you miss where he posted it earlier in the thread? I would suggest that you read it over again.
Did you miss where he posted it earlier in the thread? I would suggest that you read it over again.
Posted by: Matt at July 19, 2009 02:58 PM (XKpp2)
62
CANCELLED ORDERS ARE STILL "ORDERS" IN THAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. OBAMA HAS TO ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING, WHETHER IT'S TO GO SOMEWHERE OR STAY PUT. DISMISSING THE SUIT BECAUSE OF A SLIGHT OF HAND IS DISGUSTING.
Posted by: yonason at July 19, 2009 05:10 PM (H2eqb)
63
even if Obama was born in Hawaii, it's still possible that he was not born as a US citizen, depends on who his father really was and that person's citizenship status.
just show the orginal and all conjecture goes away.
just show the orginal and all conjecture goes away.
Posted by: shoey at July 19, 2009 06:50 PM (RxUMK)
64
Quite frankly folks, Papa Ray of Texas's post is completely and absolutly on target. Anyone who dares questions BO's legitimacy, conduct, or his directives will either be crushed mysteriously by "other forces" or circumstances, fired, or otherwise destroyed, and no one will hear of it, as the media will CERTAINLY NEVER report it. They have too much to gain by keeping him in power and pushing the messianic status they've given him, as they try to ride out this left wing supremacy they temporarily have until 2010. The same fascist control of government that BO now enjoys has been this way ever since Lincoln crushed the constitution 150 years ago, and enjoyed his own myths ever since to justify it, which the media's tried to do for BO already. The constitution has meant nothing since 1865, no wonder BO compares himself to Lincoln, constantly spewing rhetoric about freedom while taking power for himself.
Believe it folks, this is NOT a free country. The gov't doesnt care what you think, as has been made very clear, and the BO apologists and supporters will still claim "well, its for the good of the country"...which is always a dictators defense.
I completely believe Obama when he warns "Count me out and you'll be sorry..." shocking to hear a President so openly threaten the people.
And yes, buy more ammo.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson.
Believe it folks, this is NOT a free country. The gov't doesnt care what you think, as has been made very clear, and the BO apologists and supporters will still claim "well, its for the good of the country"...which is always a dictators defense.
I completely believe Obama when he warns "Count me out and you'll be sorry..." shocking to hear a President so openly threaten the people.
And yes, buy more ammo.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: christoph at July 20, 2009 02:15 PM (8gIDE)
65
"Army Major (O-4)? Hum so he completed 4 years of collage, at lest 10 years of active duty military experience just to embarrass Obama.
Really? How did he know before 1995 that Obama would be POTUS?
“his only motive for "volunteering"”
Dscheon, the point is that MAJ Cook appears to have volunteered for an Afghanistan tour, just so he could file the lawsuit. Has nothing to do with when he joined the military.
Really? How did he know before 1995 that Obama would be POTUS?
“his only motive for "volunteering"”
Dscheon, the point is that MAJ Cook appears to have volunteered for an Afghanistan tour, just so he could file the lawsuit. Has nothing to do with when he joined the military.
Posted by: MAJ Arkay at July 20, 2009 02:19 PM (ct0pr)
66
christoph: What do you mean when you say "The constitution has meant nothing since 1865"?
You've lost me there.......please explain. Thank you.
You've lost me there.......please explain. Thank you.
Posted by: Dude at July 20, 2009 09:14 PM (byA+E)
67
One last bit of ammo on this birth certificate thing. If the Democrats can demand, and get, George Bush's 30+ year old pay stubs for National Guard service, why can't Obama produce one original, hospital issued, hard copy, birth certificate?
Posted by: Jayne at July 20, 2009 11:02 PM (dwIL0)
68
George Bush's pay stubs were about ALL we could get. The only thing that the pay stubs proved was that he got paid! We ran into a solid brick wall when we tried to find out where he was and what he was doing during the time time period of May 1972-May 1973, his final year of "service" before receiving his "honorable" discharge.
You folks might as well get over this Birth Certificate conspiracy theory. If you think that Obama is not a NBC, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
You folks might as well get over this Birth Certificate conspiracy theory. If you think that Obama is not a NBC, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
Posted by: Dude at July 21, 2009 12:25 PM (byA+E)
69
http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
That is Not an actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE it's a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. When John McCain was challenged on his COLB he produced his original Birth Certicifate within hours!
Why must Obama leave this question unanswered? The same one the news made such an issue about with John McCain?
Home > The Border Line > Archives > 2008 > July > 11 > Entry
New look at whether McCain is a “natural-born” citizen
By Eunice Moscoso | Friday, July 11, 2008, 02:07 PM
"A new analysis by a University of Arizona law professor raises questions about whether Sen. John McCain is a “natural-born” citizen, a Constitutional requirement for the presidency. "
And the news was all over this for a full day until his actual birth certificate shut them all up. Where are they questioning Obama on the EXACT same issue?
That is Not an actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE it's a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. When John McCain was challenged on his COLB he produced his original Birth Certicifate within hours!
Why must Obama leave this question unanswered? The same one the news made such an issue about with John McCain?
Home > The Border Line > Archives > 2008 > July > 11 > Entry
New look at whether McCain is a “natural-born” citizen
By Eunice Moscoso | Friday, July 11, 2008, 02:07 PM
"A new analysis by a University of Arizona law professor raises questions about whether Sen. John McCain is a “natural-born” citizen, a Constitutional requirement for the presidency. "
And the news was all over this for a full day until his actual birth certificate shut them all up. Where are they questioning Obama on the EXACT same issue?
Posted by: Joe at July 21, 2009 12:44 PM (wt/AH)
70
Dude, the Bush pay stubs showed he was paid by the National Guard for service during the time period in question, and that was the issue that Max Cleland was demanding proof of. We are asking for proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. the Bush Nat'l Guard service is of less importance than Obama's place of birth which is a constitutional requirement for POTUS. In addition, you are complaining that you did not get more info from Bush and his National Guard record. Do you see how ridiculous you sound? You want more from Bush for an insignificant thing, yet you defend Obama's stonewalling on something of the utmost importance. The burden of proof is on Obama, as you can't prove were someone wasn't born - idiot.
Posted by: Jayne at July 21, 2009 09:35 PM (dwIL0)
71
This whole thing is really interesting. BHO could put the whole thing could be put to bed quite easily, if he in fact had a legitimate birth certificate. Personally, I believe that he was most likely born in Hawaii, but Hawaii does not have an official record of his birth, thus making it impossible for him to prove his citizenship, especially with a father that is a foreign national. Occam's Razor is a principle based upon logic. Generally speaking, the simplest explanation is the correct explanation. Given the fact that Obama has spent 800K to stave off the release of an original birth certificate, given the fact(or at least in my eyes) that freerepublic.com has had a computer forensics expert identify the released certificate a fraud, given the fact that Obama has identified multiple hospitals as the location of his birth, given the fact that his father was a citizen of Kenya, given the fact that the announcement incorrectly identifies his parents as married, given the fact there are countless more inconsistencies, I would draw the conclusion that Obama cannot produce a legitimate birth certificate satifying the requirements/qualifications to be POTUS. Seriously, when has candidate for public office, without anything to hide, put up such as vehement defense to the release of a public record?
CPT G
CPT G
Posted by: CPT G at July 21, 2009 11:02 PM (H/etJ)
72
Jayne the Brain, He HAS proven his place of birth to the satisfaction of a super majority of the American public, both houses of Congress, the leadership of both major parties in our nation and every other significant institution in America.
The folks who continue to really believe that this man is not a NBC, after all of the evidence that has been presented, will never believe it. He had done all that he needs to do, madame.
You "birthers" would likely be welcomed into the such groups as The Flat Earth Society, those who don't believe that the USA didn't put a man on the moon, etc.
Look in the mirror lady when you call someone else an idiot.
The folks who continue to really believe that this man is not a NBC, after all of the evidence that has been presented, will never believe it. He had done all that he needs to do, madame.
You "birthers" would likely be welcomed into the such groups as The Flat Earth Society, those who don't believe that the USA didn't put a man on the moon, etc.
Look in the mirror lady when you call someone else an idiot.
Posted by: Dude at July 22, 2009 12:54 AM (byA+E)
73
No, he has not proven anything to anyone. Many of those who voted for him were so ignorant of the facts that they are now facepalming. Like has been said, he could put this to rest very easily, but refuses to do so.
Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2009 10:53 AM (XKpp2)
74
I don't know if he is or is not a NBC and neither do you. What I do know is that his electronic version of a Certification of Birth is not proof. It is possibly itself even a forgery. What is also known is that no hard copy original Certificate of Birth has been given to anyone. The gals in Hawaii say they have one, and that's all they say. So if it's there, why doesn't he make all the "birthers" go away by showing it? What is he hiding? Why spend money to keep people from seeing it? You can't deny that the press was on his side so they are certainly not interested in pursuing the matter. And since you are still hung up on additional Bush National Guard records, but you accept the forged electronic version of Obama's supposed Hawaiian birth, you are still the idiot.
Posted by: Jayne at July 23, 2009 08:22 PM (dwIL0)
July 15, 2009
Yahoo Sports: Taped Bush Address got More Applause At MLB All-Star Game Than Obama Appearance
I didn't watch the game myself—I've been disgusted with Major league game for years, though I have Durham Bulls tickets—but according to Yahoo! Sports, a taped address by Dubya apparently outshown the man who is determined to undo America:
It is also worth noting that Obama's pitch, like his Administration, came up short.
Though Obama was roundly cheered by the All-Star fans, his live presence still didn't attract the applause that George W. Bush did during a taped announcement by the four previous Presidents before the game and some boos could even be heard among the cheers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:31 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yahoo tried to spin the "boos" as being directed at the Prez's White Sox jacket.
Nice try... but Cardinals fans hate on the Cubs, not the ChiSox. Cardinals/Cubs is an ancient NL rivalry that runs very, very deep. My XGF was a rabid Cardinals fan - she loathed the Cubs, but didn't give a flying rip about the White Sox.
Nice try... but Cardinals fans hate on the Cubs, not the ChiSox. Cardinals/Cubs is an ancient NL rivalry that runs very, very deep. My XGF was a rabid Cardinals fan - she loathed the Cubs, but didn't give a flying rip about the White Sox.
Posted by: Trouble at July 15, 2009 11:09 AM (WED4p)
2
Trouble is right. We Cardinals fans don't care a bit about the Sox. Yahoo is wrong. The boos were for Obama.
Posted by: martineStL at July 15, 2009 11:59 AM (rqNVs)
3
TROUBLE -- The guys here on local Detroit Sports talk radio -- Doug Karsh and Scott 'gator' Anderson on 97.1 The Ticket -- are doing the same spinning, saying that Obama was booed because St. Louis hates Chicago, not because of his politics. Whatever.
Someone wrote in to the show and said that St. Louis-Chicago was like Michigan-Ohio State. Not quite. Cardinals-Cubs is like that, not Cardinals-White Sox.
Someone asked that if the fans were booing the White Sox, why didn't they boo Mark Buerhle. So the DJs researched it and said, 'oh that's because Buerhle is from Missouri, so they cheer him'.
Just sad how people spin for this fraud.
Someone wrote in to the show and said that St. Louis-Chicago was like Michigan-Ohio State. Not quite. Cardinals-Cubs is like that, not Cardinals-White Sox.
Someone asked that if the fans were booing the White Sox, why didn't they boo Mark Buerhle. So the DJs researched it and said, 'oh that's because Buerhle is from Missouri, so they cheer him'.
Just sad how people spin for this fraud.
Posted by: Michael in MI at July 15, 2009 12:01 PM (ObTcs)
4
I don't know. I don't care for the guy. I didn't vote the guy. But this all seems kinda' silly. I thought it was cool that he wore a Sox jacket. I could really care less that he throws like a seven year old chick. I did think it was nice hearing some hearty boos. But the crowd did cheer him pretty strongly (which surprised and disappointed me a little as I expected him to get absolutely blasted by boos). But going over this like it's the Zapruder film just makes us look unserious and dumb, finding ire with Obama even for the most innocuous things. This sort of thing hurts our credibility when calling him out for serious sh*t. Hell, the dude threw with a freakin' flak (sic) jacket on. Who practices that!? I'll give our athletically feminine President a pass on this one and give thanks to my BoSox having home field advantage in the Series.
Posted by: JDW at July 15, 2009 12:36 PM (uw+0A)
5
I take it you didn't see the 2001 Bush pitch JDW? Bush wore a flak jacket and made a strike compared to this sissy throw that fell short of the home plate.
Posted by: Kaitian at July 15, 2009 12:48 PM (rRaJR)
6
Kaitian - I watched it again just this morning when it was posted at Ace of SpadesHQ. Bush throwing a nasty Uncle Charly with extra sauce and Obama throwing a fluttering wimpy ball doesn't mean this is something we should be hammering. Our reaction to the toss is exactly the sort of thing Jon Stewart and those passive-aggressive a**holes use to make us look idiotic. Why give them the ammunition? It's a pitch for Christ's sake.
Posted by: JDW at July 15, 2009 12:54 PM (uw+0A)
7
Correction: "Uncle Charlie" - a looping breaking pitch or nasty curveball.
Posted by: JDW at July 15, 2009 12:57 PM (uw+0A)
8
Actually, JDW, Jon Stewart would be spending a lot of time goofing on Bush if he had thrown a pitch that came up short. The Leftists' double-standard doesn't mean we can't enjoy a good laugh. You're welcome to keep pretending otherwise, though.
Posted by: Thrown at July 15, 2009 01:40 PM (8kQ8M)
9
I could care less about an effete man having an effete pitching style. I'd almost expect it. This, though, is more troubling: Obama, talking about his beloved White Sox mentions how they played in “Cominsky Field”. Any White Sox fan knows it’s “Comiskey Park.” Whereas his pitch demonstrates a lack of physical aptitude, his statement shows a genuine disingenuousness.
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-sox-fan-obama-botches-name-of-commiskey-field-during-all-star-game-interview/
A guy who can’t throw I can tolerate. I guy who talks out of his ass? Not so much. THIS is the sort of reason why I don’t care for Obama. Not his limp throwing style.
http://www.breitbart.tv/white-sox-fan-obama-botches-name-of-commiskey-field-during-all-star-game-interview/
A guy who can’t throw I can tolerate. I guy who talks out of his ass? Not so much. THIS is the sort of reason why I don’t care for Obama. Not his limp throwing style.
Posted by: JDW at July 15, 2009 01:46 PM (uw+0A)
Posted by: JDW at July 15, 2009 01:56 PM (uw+0A)
11
No love for Obama here- he is gunning to be the worst president ever. As a sox fan, I will say he does have one redeeming quality- that he is a sox fan, and not afraid to say it, unlike most pols who try to act like they are fans of every team.
That said, who cares about his pitch- you might not do any better under those circumstances.
Also, much as it pains me to say it, he certainly isn't the first sox fan to say cominskey park. I don't like it, but i've heard it many times from fellow sox fans.
That said, who cares about his pitch- you might not do any better under those circumstances.
Also, much as it pains me to say it, he certainly isn't the first sox fan to say cominskey park. I don't like it, but i've heard it many times from fellow sox fans.
Posted by: sox fan at July 15, 2009 02:07 PM (sRjpU)
12
Why on earth would St. Louis fans boo the Sox? We never see them. We're a National League city. The reasoning is nuts. We have no rivalry with the Sox.
Second, how big a fan of the Sox is Mr. O? I hear he botched the name of their park and called it "Cominskey." I would bet the guy never watches baseball and has never played the game in his life. He should stop faking it.
Second, how big a fan of the Sox is Mr. O? I hear he botched the name of their park and called it "Cominskey." I would bet the guy never watches baseball and has never played the game in his life. He should stop faking it.
Posted by: MartineStL at July 15, 2009 03:08 PM (rqNVs)
13
Looking at the ESPN coverage and then a utube of the 9/12 pitch, which I had not really paid attention to, is revealing to me given the comments and controversies. Anti-Barry Numero Uno here and somewhat dissaffected Bushie (econ) and I detect almost no difference between the boo level Bush/Barry but Bush's positives seem much higher, most of which we can be certain was for the occassion far more than the man. Barry's wiffle pitch was pathetic and I say that as someone with near zero interest in the game and yes, the cinemetography employed was quite transparently covering for Barack so he must have known how this would go down.
But Dubya! Holy sheep shite! I know almost nothing about baseball but even I could see that thing a) was hauling and b) would have come impossibly high and inside of a righty after a wicked break! You could just see it peel off as the camera angle was right over his shoulder. Criminy. The interplay between sports and politics is something I generally disdain although fairly athletic myself but this was a real display and another small reason to be nostalgic for Bush. They accumulate.
But Dubya! Holy sheep shite! I know almost nothing about baseball but even I could see that thing a) was hauling and b) would have come impossibly high and inside of a righty after a wicked break! You could just see it peel off as the camera angle was right over his shoulder. Criminy. The interplay between sports and politics is something I generally disdain although fairly athletic myself but this was a real display and another small reason to be nostalgic for Bush. They accumulate.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 04:16 PM (NNQkQ)
14
I'm surprised Obama threw a pitch at all; I expected he would make a fine sounding speech on the pitchers mound and then let Newsweek carry the ball over home plate for him.
Posted by: Zhombre at July 15, 2009 06:13 PM (6NjdK)
15
As I recollect, President Bartlett did a much better job.
Posted by: KBK at July 15, 2009 07:24 PM (qTuTK)
Deployment Orders for Soldier Who Challenged Obama's Citizenship Revoked?
I happen to think that Birthers are nuts, which makes this all the more befuddling, if true:
I have no ready explanation for why the military would rescind his deployment orders, unless they plan to keep him stateside to begin a disciplinary investigation against him. Frankly, for the sake of our nation, I hope this is the case. Because if the Pentagon allows soldiers to simply declare Obama an an illegitimate Command in Chief—as the article would have you believe—it would seem to set a precedent that would lead to chaos in the military, allowing service members to question all orders for the executive branch. It would be anarchy. WorldNet Daily simply must have this wrong. The larger ramifications of the case being dismissed for the reasons alleged by the attorney are too terrible to consider. Update: Was the entire case a scam? Greyhawk makes a compelling case that the birther's "victory" here may be fraud, and more importantly, one that forces another soldier who was not scheduled for deployment to leave his loved ones on very short notice. If that is the case, Major Cook is a blue falcon of the first order.
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment
to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office. His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders. "We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:45 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We've agreed to disagree on whether he is or is not a NBC. I'd like to suggest, though, that it's the ramifications of having a president who cannot, or WILL not prove his eligibility that are too terrible to contemplate, and this point is not disputable. He refuses to offer the proof that would end this in one minute.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 15, 2009 10:22 AM (VLC2c)
2
Sir,
What disciplinary investigation is there to bring? He did not Miss Movement - the movement orders were revoked.
It's not illegal to question an order, it is illegal to not follow an order. In this case the legitimate authority changed its mind.
Regards,
What disciplinary investigation is there to bring? He did not Miss Movement - the movement orders were revoked.
It's not illegal to question an order, it is illegal to not follow an order. In this case the legitimate authority changed its mind.
Regards,
Posted by: Miike at July 15, 2009 10:32 AM (Exyh+)
3
I tend to agree with you about the sanity
of the birthers but what is scary is that
Obama will not release birth certificate
or just about anything else about him.
Little stuff like medical records, school
transcripts, etc. Most of what we know
about Obama is what _he_ has told us about
himself.
Privacy I can understand but when you are
president you have none.
of the birthers but what is scary is that
Obama will not release birth certificate
or just about anything else about him.
Little stuff like medical records, school
transcripts, etc. Most of what we know
about Obama is what _he_ has told us about
himself.
Privacy I can understand but when you are
president you have none.
Posted by: tps at July 15, 2009 10:34 AM (luvH4)
4
Why do you figure they did that? My guess is Obama doesn't want more idiots representing our soldiers or more racists out there with guns and itchy trigger fingers around brown people.
Posted by: george at July 15, 2009 10:37 AM (eRSgt)
5
I'm with Bill Smith; we'll have to agree to disagree about the eligibility issue. Look, it doesn't matter who the man is--Obama, Clinton, Mork from Ork, or John Quincy Adams. What does matter is respect for the Constitution. A sense of duty to the American people and to the founding fathers--unselfishly upholding the Rule of Law. He has yet to offer definitive proof that he is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency which to me indicates that he doesn't have any respect for the document or the American people. It's so simple to prove and would make a lot of people, like myself, eat their words. Why wouldn't he want to do that? Most of the possible answers terrify me.
Frankly, judging by the folks he's appointing (Tzars, I'm looking at you) it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was ineligible.
Not that I think Congress would do anything about it at this point if that were the case.
I feel as though I'm mourning the loss of my Country. It's not a conservative thing or a liberal thing. We've been out of touch with what the Founding Fathers envisioned for a good long while.
I do agree that there's probably some important information left out of this article.
Frankly, judging by the folks he's appointing (Tzars, I'm looking at you) it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was ineligible.
Not that I think Congress would do anything about it at this point if that were the case.
I feel as though I'm mourning the loss of my Country. It's not a conservative thing or a liberal thing. We've been out of touch with what the Founding Fathers envisioned for a good long while.
I do agree that there's probably some important information left out of this article.
Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2009 10:38 AM (hx3q3)
6
So, are the "birthers" wrong? Possibly. However, there is a great deal about Obama's past that is inexplicably missing or inaccessible. I've no doubt that should I run for high office, even my toenail clippings from third grade would be made public. How is it then that a simple, authentic document or documents proving Obama's birthplace, and his eligibility to be president, cannot be produced? One would think that something so simple, something so common for all Americans could be quickly and easily made public. One might also think that Obama would want to put this sort of thing behind him once and for all.
On the other hand, it certainly isn't hard to imagine that Obama and his minions would lie about something like this, is it? In any case, it would be nice to know, with certainty, wouldn't it?
On the other hand, it certainly isn't hard to imagine that Obama and his minions would lie about something like this, is it? In any case, it would be nice to know, with certainty, wouldn't it?
Posted by: MikeMcDaniel at July 15, 2009 10:57 AM (egZnw)
7
This is insanity. President Obama campaigned for two years and won the White House fair and square. The American people have spoken. I don't care if he was born on Mars, or from the jackal in THE OMEN. Obama is 100% POTUS. But as a six-year veteran, I do care what effect this case will have on morale and welfare in the US Armed Forces. And I say all that as a lifelong conservative Republican who has never voted Democrat, OK? Obama is President. Even Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz concede that basic point. GET OVER IT!
Posted by: TheMadKing at July 15, 2009 11:18 AM (4Agj0)
8
TheMadKing, I must disagree. It continues to matter because the Constitution clearly states that the President must be a NBC. If it is proven that he is not, I think there is a valid question as to whether he is legally the President even having won the election. At the very least it would melt down into a Consitutional crisis which could cause all kinds of unrest.
I personally hope for the stability of our country that he is a NBC, but I'm not real sure why he wouldn't want to put the issue to rest.
I personally hope for the stability of our country that he is a NBC, but I'm not real sure why he wouldn't want to put the issue to rest.
Posted by: PoliticalGhost at July 15, 2009 11:35 AM (0S8Xt)
9
But it is not just the question of birth. I have yet to hear (or read) a reasonable explanation of how he was able to travel to Indonesia ans Pakistan. He could not have done it with a US passport at the time.
Either a UK passport, or Indonesia passport...
Can some one enlighten me on how that works?
Either a UK passport, or Indonesia passport...
Can some one enlighten me on how that works?
Posted by: Choops at July 15, 2009 11:44 AM (cP024)
10
"I don't care if he was born on Mars, or from the jackal in THE OMEN. Obama is 100% POTUS." - TheMadKing
You're welcome to your opinion, MadKing, but you'd be at odds with the Constitution on thar account since there are requirements for the office of POTUS.
Come to think of it, the Omen-Jackal as POTUS would be a step up from what we have now....
You're welcome to your opinion, MadKing, but you'd be at odds with the Constitution on thar account since there are requirements for the office of POTUS.
Come to think of it, the Omen-Jackal as POTUS would be a step up from what we have now....
Posted by: Steve Thorson at July 15, 2009 11:51 AM (RBr9J)
11
TheMadKing/PoliticalGhost,
As I understand it--and I don't pretend to be a lawyer--if Obama is not a NBC, then he simply and utterly fails to qualify for office under the Constitution and the 22nd amendment. It does not mater if he was elected if he is not a NBC, becuase he did not qualify. His election would be simply be invalidated, and no impeachment is needed. Pack up, and go home, thee is nothing to appeal, unless he wants to see if he can get his Senate seat back from Roland Burris.
Biden would theoretically take over as acting President if Obama was booted because he is not NBC. Beyond that? Get's far too murky for me to want to delve into it.
Of course, I think he's an NBC and that the lawyer in this case isn't to be trusted, but exploring the hypothetical is an interesting exercise.
As I understand it--and I don't pretend to be a lawyer--if Obama is not a NBC, then he simply and utterly fails to qualify for office under the Constitution and the 22nd amendment. It does not mater if he was elected if he is not a NBC, becuase he did not qualify. His election would be simply be invalidated, and no impeachment is needed. Pack up, and go home, thee is nothing to appeal, unless he wants to see if he can get his Senate seat back from Roland Burris.
Biden would theoretically take over as acting President if Obama was booted because he is not NBC. Beyond that? Get's far too murky for me to want to delve into it.
Of course, I think he's an NBC and that the lawyer in this case isn't to be trusted, but exploring the hypothetical is an interesting exercise.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2009 11:58 AM (gAi9Z)
12
MadKing ... Yes Obama campaigned for the office of President for two years. But he stonewalled all the way on his validating records as an American citizen -- his proof that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, his scholastic records, both from secondary school and colleges, whether he has a legitimate passport. While he studied at Occidental College, he accepted a scholarship under the name Barry Soetoro which was designated for foreign students, which could be described in the very least as fraud. So he seems curiously uncertain whether he is a foreign student or a natural born citizen of the United States, What's more, since he has been inaugurated and is serving as our President, he still stubbornly refuses to clear up these puzzling holes in his resume.
As PoliticalGhost says, if he can't "find" these documents and prove his legitimacy for the office he holds, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Marianne Matthews
As PoliticalGhost says, if he can't "find" these documents and prove his legitimacy for the office he holds, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at July 15, 2009 12:01 PM (3S3+J)
13
I tend to agree with most here. Produce the documentation and the story ends.
As far as the comment by tps: "Little stuff like medical records, school transcripts, etc. Most of what we know about Obama is what _he_ has told us about himself."
Below is the list from the WND article, and it seems to be a bit more than just little stuff, I would call this a complete wash cycle:
"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."
As far as the comment by tps: "Little stuff like medical records, school transcripts, etc. Most of what we know about Obama is what _he_ has told us about himself."
Below is the list from the WND article, and it seems to be a bit more than just little stuff, I would call this a complete wash cycle:
"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."
Posted by: scituate_tgr at July 15, 2009 12:02 PM (g7aof)
14
Good projection George! If you want to see a racist take a look in the mirror.
Posted by: bandit at July 15, 2009 12:03 PM (/R+6i)
15
I think the birthers are the same as the truthers, but what scares me more is, they have a point. Obama has put a lot of energy and money into blocking information that really doesn't need to be blocked. His first executive order (I could be mistaken about when it was signed) was to block access to presidential records? Why is his thesis and Law Journal articles blocked from access.
To paraphrase the Bard, Methinks he doth protest too much.
If he had nothing to hide, then just show it. He is acting guilty by not doing so. I hope he is a NBC because if it comes out he isn't, it will probably destroy this country faster than Obama's policies are doing.
To paraphrase the Bard, Methinks he doth protest too much.
If he had nothing to hide, then just show it. He is acting guilty by not doing so. I hope he is a NBC because if it comes out he isn't, it will probably destroy this country faster than Obama's policies are doing.
Posted by: John at July 15, 2009 12:17 PM (3ruuX)
16
"WorldNet Daily simply must have this wrong. The larger ramifications of the case being dismissed for the reasons alleged by the attorney are too terrible to consider."
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. On that - you doubt his orders were suddenly, oddly and inexplicably revoked in a bizarre 180 turn? The revoked order, in fact, is posted at the atty's site. Someone got very nervous.
It is easy to dismiss such things, but it's not always the wisest route in the end. I remember many fine and intelligent people who thought there was no way Richard Nixon could be involved in a bungled burglary at some hotel.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. On that - you doubt his orders were suddenly, oddly and inexplicably revoked in a bizarre 180 turn? The revoked order, in fact, is posted at the atty's site. Someone got very nervous.
It is easy to dismiss such things, but it's not always the wisest route in the end. I remember many fine and intelligent people who thought there was no way Richard Nixon could be involved in a bungled burglary at some hotel.
Posted by: Steve Thorson at July 15, 2009 12:25 PM (RBr9J)
17
Can't keep him here for disipline until he violates part of the UCMJ. From what I understand he did not refuse the order, just filed a lawsuit. Nothing illegal about that. Very interesting. Maybe they don't want to fight it. But they won the Michael New case. So, even more interesting.
Posted by: Federale at July 15, 2009 12:29 PM (QZ/te)
18
The courts(including SCOTUS) will never touch this issue for two reasons.
First and foremost, as PG states, an adverse ruling against BHO would invoke a Constitutional crisis by nullifying a presidential election - not to mention nullifying the election of the first black POTUS. SCOTUS, while not s'posed to be political, has become so. They would not take this action without political cover.
Second, certifying a presidential election is the purview of Congress. On 1/8/09 Congress in joint session certified the 2008 electoral college results, making BHO POTUS(which, BTW is why Maj. Cook will not get anywhere with this objection; BHO is POTUS because the Congress said so). It's a separation of powers issue belonging to Congress. IMO(totally unqualified), once the EC results were certified, his qualifications(or lack) effectively became moot. Judiciary will have a perfect alibi for keeping hands off. If congress decides that BHO perjured himself by providing false credentials, then they may impeach, convict and remove him from office. Voila - constitutional crisis averted; other than Joe Biden is now POTUS. Biden gets to appoint his own VP(Nancy P doesn't automatically ascend).
Regardless the evidence, Congress wouldn't go the impeachment route until public opinion turns overwhelmingly against BHO, this giving themselves political cover. And no, I'm not holding my breath for any of this to happen...
First and foremost, as PG states, an adverse ruling against BHO would invoke a Constitutional crisis by nullifying a presidential election - not to mention nullifying the election of the first black POTUS. SCOTUS, while not s'posed to be political, has become so. They would not take this action without political cover.
Second, certifying a presidential election is the purview of Congress. On 1/8/09 Congress in joint session certified the 2008 electoral college results, making BHO POTUS(which, BTW is why Maj. Cook will not get anywhere with this objection; BHO is POTUS because the Congress said so). It's a separation of powers issue belonging to Congress. IMO(totally unqualified), once the EC results were certified, his qualifications(or lack) effectively became moot. Judiciary will have a perfect alibi for keeping hands off. If congress decides that BHO perjured himself by providing false credentials, then they may impeach, convict and remove him from office. Voila - constitutional crisis averted; other than Joe Biden is now POTUS. Biden gets to appoint his own VP(Nancy P doesn't automatically ascend).
Regardless the evidence, Congress wouldn't go the impeachment route until public opinion turns overwhelmingly against BHO, this giving themselves political cover. And no, I'm not holding my breath for any of this to happen...
Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 12:30 PM (2MrBP)
19
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but you can certainly fool 52% of them at least once.
Posted by: Lil at July 15, 2009 12:45 PM (eaMmA)
20
I would say chances are Barry-boy are about 80% - but that's not 100%.
Can you remember another American president (or serious candidate), who millions of Americans questioned their NBC eligability?
Or Hussein may very well hold dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. Not sure if that invalidates his eligiability (probably does) and you must swear off all allegiances to other nations, kingdoms, etc.
Can you remember another American president (or serious candidate), who millions of Americans questioned their NBC eligability?
Or Hussein may very well hold dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. Not sure if that invalidates his eligiability (probably does) and you must swear off all allegiances to other nations, kingdoms, etc.
Posted by: Wyan at July 15, 2009 12:57 PM (HH3AB)
21
really....why is it so unfathenable to think he was not born in the USA? Why is it?
....have anyone NOT seen or heard all of the lies that Obama and His adminstration of commissars perpetuates on a daily basis?
....has anyone NOT seen how one campaign promise after the other has been broken by Obama and shows Obama to be a L-I-A-R.
...has anyone NOT heard sotomayor this week?????? yesterday??? ayres & wright in the past????
Obama is a product of liberals, radicals and liars. In fact, the basis for all three are to never accept criticism about themselves that is true and negative.
...why is it that the conservative folks who feel he is a phony are "right wing nut jobs" by certain "right wing" bloggers?
ALL those on the right and/or conservatives are ALL considered exactly the same thing from the left: NUTJOBS. Doesnt matter what you "believe" in.
...so why is it that certain conservative bloggers throw the "nutjob" accusation at those conservatives they disagree with in regards to the birth questions?
This is so pathetic & simple to see that as of today, all of the necessary documents that could absolve Obama of any doubt whatsoever, in regards to his birth place origin, have NOT been provided.
This is an outrage.
Yes, i consider Obama president, but he is a liar & deceitful AND is hiding something about his birth. OBAMA IS A LIAR & A VERY BAD PRESIDENT.
...Obama doesnt allow many of his education records released...
AlSO wiki has two places for Obama's birth...
ALSO Obam's grandmother witnessed the birth...IN KENYA!
ALSO Kenya considers Obama being born THERE...
...yet many conservative bloggers dont find this suspicious. ?????
So why should any of us find anything suspicious then?
...why listen to all these gaffs, lies, and thuggish politics pointed out by conservative bloggers, when the birth questions has been put down as "nutty" by those same conservative bloggers who want us to rally around their own conspiracy flags?
The lie about his place of origin is what gives validity to all the other lies.
Why some conservative bloggers dont see this is beyond comprehension....are they waiting for the trees in the woods to hit them over their heads first????
...REALLY...
....have anyone NOT seen or heard all of the lies that Obama and His adminstration of commissars perpetuates on a daily basis?
....has anyone NOT seen how one campaign promise after the other has been broken by Obama and shows Obama to be a L-I-A-R.
...has anyone NOT heard sotomayor this week?????? yesterday??? ayres & wright in the past????
Obama is a product of liberals, radicals and liars. In fact, the basis for all three are to never accept criticism about themselves that is true and negative.
...why is it that the conservative folks who feel he is a phony are "right wing nut jobs" by certain "right wing" bloggers?
ALL those on the right and/or conservatives are ALL considered exactly the same thing from the left: NUTJOBS. Doesnt matter what you "believe" in.
...so why is it that certain conservative bloggers throw the "nutjob" accusation at those conservatives they disagree with in regards to the birth questions?
This is so pathetic & simple to see that as of today, all of the necessary documents that could absolve Obama of any doubt whatsoever, in regards to his birth place origin, have NOT been provided.
This is an outrage.
Yes, i consider Obama president, but he is a liar & deceitful AND is hiding something about his birth. OBAMA IS A LIAR & A VERY BAD PRESIDENT.
...Obama doesnt allow many of his education records released...
AlSO wiki has two places for Obama's birth...
ALSO Obam's grandmother witnessed the birth...IN KENYA!
ALSO Kenya considers Obama being born THERE...
...yet many conservative bloggers dont find this suspicious. ?????
So why should any of us find anything suspicious then?
...why listen to all these gaffs, lies, and thuggish politics pointed out by conservative bloggers, when the birth questions has been put down as "nutty" by those same conservative bloggers who want us to rally around their own conspiracy flags?
The lie about his place of origin is what gives validity to all the other lies.
Why some conservative bloggers dont see this is beyond comprehension....are they waiting for the trees in the woods to hit them over their heads first????
...REALLY...
Posted by: lu-ee at July 15, 2009 12:57 PM (oogdQ)
22
Bob: Hate to disagree with this, but I'm in the market of seeing the 'reality' of en situ of whats happening on the ground here. This case is causing MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq. The DOD revocation of the order is unheard of, see the Erehen Watada case per se. (double jepordy, no time, no issue)
Rather than allow this case to proceed to adjudication under UCMJ / Local Courts / or SCOTUS the DOD effectively eliminated the need to. By revoking the orders, 'alles en ordenun' (forgive the bad grammer/sp)
The facinating issue is more that this was a FEILD GRADE officer. The individual in question is a Major. Major is a rank that is considered a 'holding pattern' until they are ready for their 'Light Chicken' (Lt.Col.) I've been around and in and around the professional military my entire adult life, and RARELY do Majors stand up in such a fashion. Also, for the record, very few majors retire/get forced out/end their careers as Majors. The majority (bad pun) go on to the Lt Col. grade, and THEN retire/get forced out after the fact. Majors are superfluous in the modern military to a certain point.
My issue is that the ONLY way the DOD would pre-empt these orders is from on 'higher.' It makes me somewhat wonder if the 'birthers' do have a point. I'm against Obama and his BS... but this lends MAJOR credence to the idea that he's got something to hide.
Like I said... look at how hard they went after LT Watada... fire, brimstone and the kitchen sink, and yet this joker gets a pass??? Something in Denmark ain't quite right
And the troops here know it. And they ARE watching!!! Just sayin'
Yer Man in The Sand
Big Country
Rather than allow this case to proceed to adjudication under UCMJ / Local Courts / or SCOTUS the DOD effectively eliminated the need to. By revoking the orders, 'alles en ordenun' (forgive the bad grammer/sp)
The facinating issue is more that this was a FEILD GRADE officer. The individual in question is a Major. Major is a rank that is considered a 'holding pattern' until they are ready for their 'Light Chicken' (Lt.Col.) I've been around and in and around the professional military my entire adult life, and RARELY do Majors stand up in such a fashion. Also, for the record, very few majors retire/get forced out/end their careers as Majors. The majority (bad pun) go on to the Lt Col. grade, and THEN retire/get forced out after the fact. Majors are superfluous in the modern military to a certain point.
My issue is that the ONLY way the DOD would pre-empt these orders is from on 'higher.' It makes me somewhat wonder if the 'birthers' do have a point. I'm against Obama and his BS... but this lends MAJOR credence to the idea that he's got something to hide.
Like I said... look at how hard they went after LT Watada... fire, brimstone and the kitchen sink, and yet this joker gets a pass??? Something in Denmark ain't quite right
And the troops here know it. And they ARE watching!!! Just sayin'
Yer Man in The Sand
Big Country
Posted by: Big Country at July 15, 2009 01:03 PM (H/RUP)
23
By the by... the Major in question is NOT in direct violation of Article 2 of the UCMJ which states specifcally "a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present"
He did none of those... however the 'catchall' Article 134 indicates that "makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces."
Article 134 is usually used to 'fry and dry' anyone who might be 'rising up.' In this case, it waasn't used.
If anything, it shows that his choice of venue and wording kept him from being fried, even under Article 88 which states "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department,the Secretary of Transportation, or the
Governor or legislature of any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, or possession in which
he is on duty or present shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct."
All he did was ask essentally was "Prove to me you are legally President under the Constitution." and the reaction following, shows there' more to this than meets the eye.
He did none of those... however the 'catchall' Article 134 indicates that "makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces."
Article 134 is usually used to 'fry and dry' anyone who might be 'rising up.' In this case, it waasn't used.
If anything, it shows that his choice of venue and wording kept him from being fried, even under Article 88 which states "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department,the Secretary of Transportation, or the
Governor or legislature of any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, or possession in which
he is on duty or present shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct."
All he did was ask essentally was "Prove to me you are legally President under the Constitution." and the reaction following, shows there' more to this than meets the eye.
Posted by: Big Country at July 15, 2009 01:16 PM (H/RUP)
24
MadKing......if you are a veteran (as I am) of the armed forces, you should know better. You were sworn to uphold and defend the constitution - not anyone person. You do not swear allegiance to the president, you swear it to the constitution.
Laws and rules matter. Without them, we have arbitrary, personality based "law making".
Barry al Hussein quite likely holds dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. That is probably why he has hidden the records of his past. But I urge you all, the question is not whether or not al Hussein is a US citizen, the question is whether or not he's NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which is the requirement of the constitution.
Laws and rules matter. Without them, we have arbitrary, personality based "law making".
Barry al Hussein quite likely holds dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. That is probably why he has hidden the records of his past. But I urge you all, the question is not whether or not al Hussein is a US citizen, the question is whether or not he's NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which is the requirement of the constitution.
Posted by: rssg at July 15, 2009 01:28 PM (HH3AB)
25
Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?
Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?
Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?
Posted by: Honda at July 15, 2009 01:30 PM (ladck)
26
"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."
What's amazing to me is the amount of energy, political capital and influence that must be required to keep all this information under wraps. As Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead". Soros, ACORN and company have gotta' be keeping a full court press to keep the lid on. That alone should keep the conspiracy theorist going wide open, but nobody seems to have picked up on it...
What's amazing to me is the amount of energy, political capital and influence that must be required to keep all this information under wraps. As Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead". Soros, ACORN and company have gotta' be keeping a full court press to keep the lid on. That alone should keep the conspiracy theorist going wide open, but nobody seems to have picked up on it...
Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 01:36 PM (2MrBP)
27
"Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?
Honda - got nothing to do with fear. It's all politics. Our political ruling class will always follow the path of least resistance. That's one reason why we need the 2nd Amendment. IMO, we're already in a constitutional crisis as we've got an Exec. Branch that's wildly exceeded the power proscribed for it under the Constitution. Funny how that was the left's charge against GWB for eight years...
Honda - got nothing to do with fear. It's all politics. Our political ruling class will always follow the path of least resistance. That's one reason why we need the 2nd Amendment. IMO, we're already in a constitutional crisis as we've got an Exec. Branch that's wildly exceeded the power proscribed for it under the Constitution. Funny how that was the left's charge against GWB for eight years...
Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 01:42 PM (2MrBP)
28
I'm bemused by those who equate "birthers" with truthers.
Truthers are all about DENYING what we all plainly -- or is that planely -- saw, AND which other evidence corroborates.
"Birthers" are about what we HAVEN'T seen, evidence that either doesn't exist, or is being withheld.
Let's not try to use bumper sticker arguments the way the Left does, OK?
Truthers are all about DENYING what we all plainly -- or is that planely -- saw, AND which other evidence corroborates.
"Birthers" are about what we HAVEN'T seen, evidence that either doesn't exist, or is being withheld.
Let's not try to use bumper sticker arguments the way the Left does, OK?
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 15, 2009 01:49 PM (VLC2c)
29
African Media: Obama returned to "continent of his birth"
A major Ghanaian news outlet has been caught in a revealing slip-up after it reported that President Barack Obama's recent visit to the African country was a return to his birthplace. -- Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of president."
A major Ghanaian news outlet has been caught in a revealing slip-up after it reported that President Barack Obama's recent visit to the African country was a return to his birthplace. -- Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of president."
Posted by: BET at July 15, 2009 01:51 PM (HH3AB)
30
"Obama is President. Even Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz concede that basic point. GET OVER IT!"
Like any of us can forget this for even ONE second. SIGH!
Like any of us can forget this for even ONE second. SIGH!
Posted by: Karen at July 15, 2009 02:40 PM (eXdIs)
31
Based on the faulty recollection of a man entering dementia we now have Bush's dental records from 1972 and Dan Rather and his producer were fired for presenting as true a letter that they could have easily found to be a forgery.
If nothing else, the big story here is the complete media incuriosity about anything having to do with Obama.
And we STILL don't have John Kerry's military records.
If nothing else, the big story here is the complete media incuriosity about anything having to do with Obama.
And we STILL don't have John Kerry's military records.
Posted by: Locomotive Breath at July 15, 2009 03:04 PM (RlXCV)
32
Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?
Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?
posted by Honda at July 15, 2009 01:30 PM
Thank you, Honda. That's an excellent insight, worthy of serious reflection.
Although Churchill is rightfully admired for his leadership and courage in saving Britain, in some ways he considered his work a failure- if he had been successful at rallying Europe to resist Hitler early on, the war and his later work would not have been necessary, and the much more massive suffering would have been avoided.
May we all strive to speak and live truthfully.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?
posted by Honda at July 15, 2009 01:30 PM
Thank you, Honda. That's an excellent insight, worthy of serious reflection.
Although Churchill is rightfully admired for his leadership and courage in saving Britain, in some ways he considered his work a failure- if he had been successful at rallying Europe to resist Hitler early on, the war and his later work would not have been necessary, and the much more massive suffering would have been avoided.
May we all strive to speak and live truthfully.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Posted by: Peter Warner at July 15, 2009 03:23 PM (KFS8k)
Posted by: brando at July 15, 2009 03:43 PM (IPGju)
34
Proud to be a birther.
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits.
http://www.thesubstratum.com/general-politics/bombshell-deployment-orders-for-soldier-challenging-obama-citizenship-revoked/
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits.
http://www.thesubstratum.com/general-politics/bombshell-deployment-orders-for-soldier-challenging-obama-citizenship-revoked/
Posted by: Gerald at July 15, 2009 03:45 PM (Uhe/c)
35
What I find interesting is that his order WERE revoked. Why, or more specifically, why now?
Where was this suit filed? In a military court? As I read the documents, a military officer WOULD have the right to question the right of an elected President to issue orders when said President has NOT proven NBC eligibility. The officer has a duty to the Constitution to do so. You CANNOT get a US Passport with a "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii; you must have your long form. With the records Obama has shown us, he couldn't even SERVE in the military, let alone command it. Obama's "proof" doesn't qualify. The ratification of election results by Congress doesn't count. They're just confirming the results, not the man's eligibility. The Secretary of State in each of the 50 states is tasked with confirming eligibility of the candidates. In at least 10 states, a foreign-born citizen was on the ballots JUST IN THIS LAST ELECTION! His name wasn't Obama.
So, if this case comes before a military tribunal, this Major will have the right to request proof from President Obama. Obama cannot dodge this through legal tricks. If no proof exists, the MILITARY TRIBUNAL will be FORCED by their oath to the Constitution to remove President Obama from office. They will have no other choice. If President Obama should refuse to leave office, you would THEN have a Constitutional crisis, as there's no provision for the military's removal of a President. It's never happened in this country.
Do you NOW see why Obama is pursuing an well-equipped and armed force of "Brownshirts" inside this country's borders?
I believe the military pulled the orders to allow them time to consider the ramifications of their actions.
If Obama was NOT natural born, then he cannot ever be President, BY OUR LAW. Period. If you've ever taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, you're shirking your duty if you DON'T stand up and demand proof!
Where was this suit filed? In a military court? As I read the documents, a military officer WOULD have the right to question the right of an elected President to issue orders when said President has NOT proven NBC eligibility. The officer has a duty to the Constitution to do so. You CANNOT get a US Passport with a "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii; you must have your long form. With the records Obama has shown us, he couldn't even SERVE in the military, let alone command it. Obama's "proof" doesn't qualify. The ratification of election results by Congress doesn't count. They're just confirming the results, not the man's eligibility. The Secretary of State in each of the 50 states is tasked with confirming eligibility of the candidates. In at least 10 states, a foreign-born citizen was on the ballots JUST IN THIS LAST ELECTION! His name wasn't Obama.
So, if this case comes before a military tribunal, this Major will have the right to request proof from President Obama. Obama cannot dodge this through legal tricks. If no proof exists, the MILITARY TRIBUNAL will be FORCED by their oath to the Constitution to remove President Obama from office. They will have no other choice. If President Obama should refuse to leave office, you would THEN have a Constitutional crisis, as there's no provision for the military's removal of a President. It's never happened in this country.
Do you NOW see why Obama is pursuing an well-equipped and armed force of "Brownshirts" inside this country's borders?
I believe the military pulled the orders to allow them time to consider the ramifications of their actions.
If Obama was NOT natural born, then he cannot ever be President, BY OUR LAW. Period. If you've ever taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, you're shirking your duty if you DON'T stand up and demand proof!
Posted by: Eric Eikenberry at July 15, 2009 04:05 PM (rmPMB)
36
And for the record, I would FULLY support a President Obama who can PROVE he is a natural-born citizen WITH the proper document. I don't have to like his policies to support the man as President of the United States of America.
But. I. HAVE. to. know.
But. I. HAVE. to. know.
Posted by: Eric Eikenberry at July 15, 2009 04:07 PM (rmPMB)
37
Bob, I was going to give you a big thumb's up for your honesty and brevity regarding the birther nonsense, then I made the mistake of reading the comments.
Everyone here who was born to a mother who is an American citizen raise your hand. OK, seems like everyone here was born to a mother who is an American citizen.
Everyone here who was born to a father who is an American citizen please raise your hand. OK, cool, again prolly all of us can raise on our hands on both counts.
Umm, birthers? If your mom is a citizen and gives birth to you, guess what? You're an American citizen no matter if you were born in china, Timbuktu, or, like our President, Honolulu. Same goes for your dad, if he's a citizen, so are you.
Obama's birth certificate is real and just because you refuse to recognize fact does not mean you are worth listening to, in fact, you're just asking for the mocking, snickering and outright guffaws directed your way. This isn't difficult question folks. Now I know you hate seeing the Republican party trashed at the polls, ridiculed across the nation and demeaned by we mean ol' liberals, but guess what? This birther nonsense just keeps arrows in our quiver, so please, don't stop. Just don't stop.
Everyone here who was born to a mother who is an American citizen raise your hand. OK, seems like everyone here was born to a mother who is an American citizen.
Everyone here who was born to a father who is an American citizen please raise your hand. OK, cool, again prolly all of us can raise on our hands on both counts.
Umm, birthers? If your mom is a citizen and gives birth to you, guess what? You're an American citizen no matter if you were born in china, Timbuktu, or, like our President, Honolulu. Same goes for your dad, if he's a citizen, so are you.
Obama's birth certificate is real and just because you refuse to recognize fact does not mean you are worth listening to, in fact, you're just asking for the mocking, snickering and outright guffaws directed your way. This isn't difficult question folks. Now I know you hate seeing the Republican party trashed at the polls, ridiculed across the nation and demeaned by we mean ol' liberals, but guess what? This birther nonsense just keeps arrows in our quiver, so please, don't stop. Just don't stop.
Posted by: HumboldtBlue at July 15, 2009 04:33 PM (5hw7R)
38
Madking almost has the politics right but as others observe, the law quite, quite wrong. I would be more enthusiastic about this if Barry hadn't covered his flank with Joe Biden but this response regardless of what the truth is, is a deathtrap for Barry and the Dems. First off, while one could usually, like Madking, dismiss this for post-electoral commity, the simple fact is that John McCain had a very similar question asked of his status given his birth in the Canal Zone. Well, he came up with all his docs. Of course he expressed zero interest in Barry doing the same, yet another mark against this infuriating fool. So stonewalling would appear to be inoperative. When I first read of the suit I thought it would be dismissed or otherwise settled quietly but instead they rescind the orders?!?!?!?!?!? So what do they think will happen? Probably it is similar to their expectations from Iran that a submissive posture will quell the waves. WRONGO! Now there will be dozens of similar claims for reasons ranging from Constitutional scruple to sheer laziness. Will the dismiss them all? What else can they do? That presumes that they cannot produce the documents. If that is the case then they will dismiss and dismiss and the claims will grow and grow to the point where even Barry Backers have to say, look we have to produce the papers. I know it is humiliating to give in to these loony rednecks but it must be done if we are to keep them in harness.
And if the docs are NOT produceable the whole thing is too big to wave off with charges of racism, treason, lunacy, drunkeness... whatever.
I don't care for the dismissive tone towards the Birthers and much less for the identification with the Truthers. It was always uncalled for, Yank, and given the givens of today, even less so. It puts me in mind of the nasty treatment meted out to the Paulians and to Sarah Palin by the establishment. Accusing your right flank of lunacy and dementia should be based on a sound foundation and even then, engaged in with restraint. If Barry does prove to hail from Kenya or have other problems of legitimacy who will be the nut then? As always, time will tell.
And if the docs are NOT produceable the whole thing is too big to wave off with charges of racism, treason, lunacy, drunkeness... whatever.
I don't care for the dismissive tone towards the Birthers and much less for the identification with the Truthers. It was always uncalled for, Yank, and given the givens of today, even less so. It puts me in mind of the nasty treatment meted out to the Paulians and to Sarah Palin by the establishment. Accusing your right flank of lunacy and dementia should be based on a sound foundation and even then, engaged in with restraint. If Barry does prove to hail from Kenya or have other problems of legitimacy who will be the nut then? As always, time will tell.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 04:34 PM (NNQkQ)
39
HumboldtBlue, darling, you seem to be ignorant of the law and the constitution.
Once again, for the slow learners like HumboldtBlue, the requirement to become POTUS is not simply being a citizen (duh!), it's that you MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which in the days of the Founding Fathers meant, BORN IN THIS NATION'S TERRITORY. Today, we use the term "native born citizen" to distinguish "naturalized citizens" which means immigrants who became US citizens.
McCain was born in Panama, at the time of his birth, Panama was US territory. Furthermore, there is an exemption for babies born to US citizens are active duty in the armed forces (or civilian services) overseas.
Once again, for the slow learners like HumboldtBlue, the requirement to become POTUS is not simply being a citizen (duh!), it's that you MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which in the days of the Founding Fathers meant, BORN IN THIS NATION'S TERRITORY. Today, we use the term "native born citizen" to distinguish "naturalized citizens" which means immigrants who became US citizens.
McCain was born in Panama, at the time of his birth, Panama was US territory. Furthermore, there is an exemption for babies born to US citizens are active duty in the armed forces (or civilian services) overseas.
Posted by: rssg at July 15, 2009 05:21 PM (HH3AB)
40
The only reason for Obama to hide his birth certificate is to conceal the fact that the birth certificate was issued for a birth not in Hawaii, as Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children of former residents of Hawaii. What has he got to hide? Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. So most likely he was not born in Hawaii or the U.S. To end the "trutherism" as you call it, then why not release the birth certificate.
Posted by: Federale at July 15, 2009 05:31 PM (QZ/te)
41
rssg you have no argument. Obama was born to an American mother in an American state. I could not care less what you want to believe, it makes no difference because the facts betray your silliness. When you can prove that Obama's mother was not an American citizen and that he was not born in Honolulu please get back to us.
Until then, you're a self-deluded fool who has jumped on a band wagon that has no wheels. But please, as I said earlier, keep up with the birther stuff, the laughter generated is good for the soul.
Really, you're funny, in the sad pathetic way Palin is funny, because in your alternate universe it's obvious that ignorance is bliss.
Any human being born in the United States (see, I didn't even have to use all caps) is a citizen, or, if you like, seeing as though you're a Constitutional scholar, a natural born citizen. I'm sure you're one of the folks who also hates the fact that illegal immigrants who give birth to children in the States do so for many reasons, one being that their children are natural born citizens. Sheesh the stupid gets deep.
Until then, you're a self-deluded fool who has jumped on a band wagon that has no wheels. But please, as I said earlier, keep up with the birther stuff, the laughter generated is good for the soul.
Really, you're funny, in the sad pathetic way Palin is funny, because in your alternate universe it's obvious that ignorance is bliss.
Any human being born in the United States (see, I didn't even have to use all caps) is a citizen, or, if you like, seeing as though you're a Constitutional scholar, a natural born citizen. I'm sure you're one of the folks who also hates the fact that illegal immigrants who give birth to children in the States do so for many reasons, one being that their children are natural born citizens. Sheesh the stupid gets deep.
Posted by: HumboldtBlue at July 15, 2009 06:00 PM (5hw7R)
42
Humboldt, it is you who is ignorant on this topic. McCain was asked almost identical questions about his place of birth, being the Canal Zone and they were perfectly legitimate and were treated so by the media, the Democrats and his Republican opponents. He responded substantively and with documentation. Barack has not. And now by this action they either a) are admitting they cannot so respond or b) they care not to respond but if it is the latter their actions make further challenges of this sort inevitable. Either way you had best strap in.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 06:08 PM (NNQkQ)
43
"This case is causing MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq. The DOD revocation of the order is unheard of, see the Erehen Watada case per se."
Best of my knowledge, Watada wasn't an IMA volunteer.
But do clarify "MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq". Beyond the concept of massive ripples or the amazing spread from a WND story to theater-wide situation (of which you're aware) in less than 24 hours, do you mean every Joe from Mosul to Basra is lining up at legal to demand a peak at the President's birth certificate? Do you mean staff at Corps (or higher) are scrambling in preparation for just that?
Or do you mean some guys who caught this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann at the DFAC are pissed that someone weaseled out of a (A'stan in this case) combat tour and wonder who the poor slob is that will get the short-notice non-vol?
Best of my knowledge, Watada wasn't an IMA volunteer.
But do clarify "MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq". Beyond the concept of massive ripples or the amazing spread from a WND story to theater-wide situation (of which you're aware) in less than 24 hours, do you mean every Joe from Mosul to Basra is lining up at legal to demand a peak at the President's birth certificate? Do you mean staff at Corps (or higher) are scrambling in preparation for just that?
Or do you mean some guys who caught this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann at the DFAC are pissed that someone weaseled out of a (A'stan in this case) combat tour and wonder who the poor slob is that will get the short-notice non-vol?
Posted by: Greyhawk at July 15, 2009 06:31 PM (/tYJS)
44
It would be illegal to follow an order that was not lawful. And military members do get the training to be able to tell the difference, at least I did.
Posted by: Larry at July 15, 2009 07:09 PM (v9zij)
45
" He responded substantively and with documentation. Barack has not. "
Yes, he did. What he provided is, contrary to birther self-delusions, perfectly valid legal proof that he was born in Hawaii, and thus is a natural born citizen. The COLB he provided is backed up by the newspaper birth announcements published about the same time in Hawaii. Birther arguments that the "certificate of live birth" is insufficient are simple nonsense. Demands for a mythical "long form" are nonsense.
Yes, he did. What he provided is, contrary to birther self-delusions, perfectly valid legal proof that he was born in Hawaii, and thus is a natural born citizen. The COLB he provided is backed up by the newspaper birth announcements published about the same time in Hawaii. Birther arguments that the "certificate of live birth" is insufficient are simple nonsense. Demands for a mythical "long form" are nonsense.
Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:37 PM (2wuT4)
46
Federale wrote: "The only reason for Obama to hide his birth certificate is to conceal the fact that the birth certificate was issued for a birth not in Hawaii, as Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children of former residents of Hawaii."
The birth certificate is online, it says he was born in Hawaii. Get a life.
The birth certificate is online, it says he was born in Hawaii. Get a life.
Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:38 PM (2wuT4)
47
Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever? "Get a life"? You first.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 07:43 PM (NNQkQ)
48
Erik wrote: "What I find interesting is that his order WERE revoked. Why, or more specifically, why now?"
Because it makes the case moot, and thus Army staff don't have to waste taxpayer money in wartime responding to nuisance lawsuits from a crazy, incompetent lawyer. They have more important things to do.
Because it makes the case moot, and thus Army staff don't have to waste taxpayer money in wartime responding to nuisance lawsuits from a crazy, incompetent lawyer. They have more important things to do.
Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:47 PM (2wuT4)
49
megapotamus:"Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever?"
NO reason? You think the Army wants to waste time and money fighting a crazy lady in court, rather than doing useful things? What's the point?
Canceling his deployment order makes the case moot, so it'll be quickly dismissed, and the Army doesn't have to waste any money on Taitz.
NO reason? You think the Army wants to waste time and money fighting a crazy lady in court, rather than doing useful things? What's the point?
Canceling his deployment order makes the case moot, so it'll be quickly dismissed, and the Army doesn't have to waste any money on Taitz.
Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:51 PM (2wuT4)
50
"Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever? "Get a life"? You first.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 07:43 PM"
You're expecting an Obamite to use common sense, mega?
By the way, Obama must really be ticked - the guy was just fired from his CIVILIAN job. Remind you of team Obama's intimidation attacks against Joe The Plumber?
"Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez - Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility"
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 07:43 PM"
You're expecting an Obamite to use common sense, mega?
By the way, Obama must really be ticked - the guy was just fired from his CIVILIAN job. Remind you of team Obama's intimidation attacks against Joe The Plumber?
"Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez - Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility"
Posted by: jim vale at July 15, 2009 08:45 PM (RBr9J)
51
Jon H, look at Factcheck's photo #5 ( http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg ) and tell me how they got that seal to not bend when the paper it was on folded. To see what that seal SHOULD look like, trace the circle intersected by the top fold. Why doesn't the seal on the bottom fold have that same kind of distortion?
And then look at Factcheck's photo #1 ( http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg )and tell me what you see immediately under the fold, where the words "Barack Hussein Obama" would be if this was the same paper as on photo #5. Other lines of print show up just fine at that scan quality, focus, and angle. Why is that line missing, if this is really the same document as #5?
I reported this to the local FBI office. The guy told me they don't investigate document fraud. So I went online to report document fraud and the site said they would forward it to.....the FBI. Why did that guy lie to me, if our law enforcement bodies are acting in good faith on this matter?
Obama has committed the federal felony of forgery, spent nearly a million dollars arguing that it's nobody's business whether he's eligible, and now changed his military orders in order to keep these records hidden. What that tells me is that he would do ANYTHING to push this under the rug. IOW, anybody who has access to the proof can name their price and he'll do it.
Sort of scary when you consider that Russia has his passport records from when they detained him as a Senator, which may differ from what America has on file since his passport records were accessed 3 separate times by a person in the company now headed by our national security chief.
And then look at Factcheck's photo #1 ( http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg )and tell me what you see immediately under the fold, where the words "Barack Hussein Obama" would be if this was the same paper as on photo #5. Other lines of print show up just fine at that scan quality, focus, and angle. Why is that line missing, if this is really the same document as #5?
I reported this to the local FBI office. The guy told me they don't investigate document fraud. So I went online to report document fraud and the site said they would forward it to.....the FBI. Why did that guy lie to me, if our law enforcement bodies are acting in good faith on this matter?
Obama has committed the federal felony of forgery, spent nearly a million dollars arguing that it's nobody's business whether he's eligible, and now changed his military orders in order to keep these records hidden. What that tells me is that he would do ANYTHING to push this under the rug. IOW, anybody who has access to the proof can name their price and he'll do it.
Sort of scary when you consider that Russia has his passport records from when they detained him as a Senator, which may differ from what America has on file since his passport records were accessed 3 separate times by a person in the company now headed by our national security chief.
Posted by: Nellie at July 15, 2009 09:17 PM (KZZsN)
52
So, this guy volunteers to go the Afghanistan. Army says, OK, dude, cool, we'll schedule you to go. Guy says, yeah but first, you gotta show me the President's birth certificate, so me and my delusional friends can see whether he was born in Kenya. Army says, Uh - thanks, but no thanks, ya fuckin' nutjob.
And this proves... President Obama isn't, in fact, the President of the United States? I am LOVIN' this...
And this proves... President Obama isn't, in fact, the President of the United States? I am LOVIN' this...
Posted by: NotThatICareBut... at July 15, 2009 10:41 PM (6kWnq)
53
The masses are asses. Keep believing the "official story" because nobody in government ever lies.
Get me outta here.
Get me outta here.
Posted by: Lauren Hall at July 15, 2009 10:50 PM (WW3wP)
54
"...I happen to think that Birthers are nuts, which makes this all the more befuddling..."
That's a good word for you...befuddled.
That's a good word for you...befuddled.
Posted by: Jonny Amplesack at July 15, 2009 10:54 PM (wZv8E)
55
"That's a good word for you...befuddled."
(While I'm not sure, re: this blogger): That's a good word for much of the neoliberal and Establishment 'conservative' Blogosphere!
(While I'm not sure, re: this blogger): That's a good word for much of the neoliberal and Establishment 'conservative' Blogosphere!
Posted by: Aakash at July 15, 2009 11:32 PM (Ut/WZ)
56
As long as Obama doesn't prove his birth and thus his right to be president, anyone who challenges that right is quite correct in doing so.
He may or may not be a legitimate US born citizen, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced and there's a mountain of indications that he's nothing of the kind.
As said, disciplinary action would be out of place here. A soldier is sworn to the constitution, not yet the president.
And if the president is not an American born citizen, he's a usurper and any orders issued by him or in his name are illegal and following them a crime.
In fact if the president is not legalle entitled to the post the military has a legal requirement to see that president removed from office, like was done in Honduras. That's part of their job, to "protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic", the latter of which would apply to a president who's not entitled to the job and refuses to leave it voluntarilly.
He may or may not be a legitimate US born citizen, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced and there's a mountain of indications that he's nothing of the kind.
As said, disciplinary action would be out of place here. A soldier is sworn to the constitution, not yet the president.
And if the president is not an American born citizen, he's a usurper and any orders issued by him or in his name are illegal and following them a crime.
In fact if the president is not legalle entitled to the post the military has a legal requirement to see that president removed from office, like was done in Honduras. That's part of their job, to "protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic", the latter of which would apply to a president who's not entitled to the job and refuses to leave it voluntarilly.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at July 16, 2009 12:01 AM (hrLyN)
57
Obama is not a natural born citizen, no way, but I, like most or many others who know this, don't depend on the birth certificate for this position, so am not sure I'd fit the "birther" label that well -- not that Obama has ever provided the public with a birth certificate, as opposed to a certificaTION (most likely fraudulent, at that).
Anyway, this Maj. Cook's a hero in my eyes, not refusing to go, just wanting confirmation that Obama is a natural born citizen, so that Cook would be complying with his oaths & law to obey *legal* orders. On top of that he vowed to God to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
I just pray lawyers in this & other cases don't end up shot like Lt Quarles Harris. Already engineer Maj. Cook was fired from his private job under pressure from the government.
Anyway, this Maj. Cook's a hero in my eyes, not refusing to go, just wanting confirmation that Obama is a natural born citizen, so that Cook would be complying with his oaths & law to obey *legal* orders. On top of that he vowed to God to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
I just pray lawyers in this & other cases don't end up shot like Lt Quarles Harris. Already engineer Maj. Cook was fired from his private job under pressure from the government.
Posted by: ER at July 16, 2009 06:48 AM (pSCQs)
58
oh dear, I see from comments some people don't realize that it's not a matter of if Obama is a citizen or not (though he may not be if he has Indonesian citizenship, very possible for several reasons), nor does it help if Obama's a naturalized citizen, or even if he is a native born citizen, he must be a *natural born* citizen.
Posted by: ER at July 16, 2009 06:52 AM (pSCQs)
59
Jon, this is an efficiency measure? They don't want to waste time fighting it? Perhaps like Sotomayor your understanding of our legal system comes from your exposure to Perry Mason but there is this concept called "precedent", that is what we do today we will also do tomorrow barring changes. So now there is a precedent that an active military member can get an order rescinded by filing a lawsuit and will not even have to contend that lawsuit. Genius. The orders of the DOD are now utterly optional. And this standard does not apply merely to the military. Any federal employee could contest the legitimacy of any policy directive of the Executive in the same way and this is to keep DOJ operations streamlined? Pathetic. I had thought there was a bit of destupification going on among Obama's sycophantic and braindead disciples. Nope. He doesn't even have to come up with his transparent and vapid lies anymore. You morons will come up with them yourselves.
Oh and for the gleeful Lefties who say, "Keep it up, this is ridiculous!"
Agreed.
Oh and for the gleeful Lefties who say, "Keep it up, this is ridiculous!"
Agreed.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 16, 2009 07:02 AM (LE00/)
60
"Already engineer Maj. Cook was fired from his private job under pressure from the government. "
He was fired because his security clearance was revoked. Which will happen when you ask to be deployed to Afghanistan and then do a 180 and refuse to be deployed in a PR stunt.
No security clearance, no DOD-related job. Simple as that.
He was fired because his security clearance was revoked. Which will happen when you ask to be deployed to Afghanistan and then do a 180 and refuse to be deployed in a PR stunt.
No security clearance, no DOD-related job. Simple as that.
Posted by: TR at July 16, 2009 08:18 AM (mc50w)
61
You get security clearance denied if you ask a question? He didn't refuse to go anywhere; he was asking for proof that going would be a lawful order.
In Iran asking questions is verboten. When did it become verboten here in America? Oh, that's right. When Obama threatened to have the White House news corp decimate Chrysler investors who availed themselves of our legal system to ask questions, and when his thugs threatened to have the IRS trump up some charges against them. Just for presenting a valid question.
At least Obama is consistent. Consistent as death.
In Iran asking questions is verboten. When did it become verboten here in America? Oh, that's right. When Obama threatened to have the White House news corp decimate Chrysler investors who availed themselves of our legal system to ask questions, and when his thugs threatened to have the IRS trump up some charges against them. Just for presenting a valid question.
At least Obama is consistent. Consistent as death.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 10:51 AM (KZZsN)
62
Of course the who controvery can be finished by Obama releasing the birth certificate, but that will not happen. It will not happen because the original will show that his birth was not in Hawaii. It is that simple. There is no other reason for him not to release his birth certificate.
Posted by: Federale at July 16, 2009 11:09 AM (QZ/te)
63
The decision to revoke the orders and force somebody else to go at a minute's notice was the DOD's decision. They had two options: answer the question, thus putting every soldier's mind at ease, giving them all Geneva Convention protections, and preventing a bad precedent OR they could avoid the question by forcing somebody else to go at a minute's notice.
What did they choose? What Obama ALWAYS chooses - to shaft somebody else to save his own sorry behind.
It is incredibly rude to force somebody - maybe even somebody with a family - to go to Afghanistan with little notice. I share your disgust with that.
Why did the DOD make that choice?
What did they choose? What Obama ALWAYS chooses - to shaft somebody else to save his own sorry behind.
It is incredibly rude to force somebody - maybe even somebody with a family - to go to Afghanistan with little notice. I share your disgust with that.
Why did the DOD make that choice?
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 11:32 AM (KZZsN)
64
just for the sake of arguement...has any one proven that obama was born in the us? or should i go under my original assumption and think all the hub bub is just a cover up?
Posted by: grady strickland at July 16, 2009 01:12 PM (EvrXl)
65
"It's not illegal to question an order, it is illegal to not follow an order."
Incorrect. It is not illegal to disobey an unlawful order, it is the obligation of every service member to disobey an unlawful order.
As I see it, until the O proves that he can legally be president, then there are no lawful orders at all.
Incorrect. It is not illegal to disobey an unlawful order, it is the obligation of every service member to disobey an unlawful order.
As I see it, until the O proves that he can legally be president, then there are no lawful orders at all.
Posted by: Matt at July 16, 2009 01:18 PM (XKpp2)
66
Grady -- yes, it's been proven that he was born in the U.S.
The State of Hawaii, on one of its web sites (hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl), states clearly that "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." Further, it states that "the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."
Obama has a Certification of Live Birth that states he was born in Honolulu. Some people are so unhappy with him that they are arguing that he's not eligible to be POTUS. But the same people have been saying it for a long time and have no real evidence to support it.
The State of Hawaii, on one of its web sites (hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl), states clearly that "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." Further, it states that "the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."
Obama has a Certification of Live Birth that states he was born in Honolulu. Some people are so unhappy with him that they are arguing that he's not eligible to be POTUS. But the same people have been saying it for a long time and have no real evidence to support it.
Posted by: Doubtful at July 16, 2009 01:24 PM (u5fuM)
67
@Matt -- "As I see it, until the O proves that he can legally be president, then there are no lawful orders at all."
Please be careful. DoD had an easy way out with Cook -- since he volunteered to go, he also had the option of changing his mind.
I have a feeling that if anyone tried to refuse an involuntary order on the same grounds, punishment would be swift and sure.
And if that happened, I wouldn't want to be identified as someone who encouraged that sort of behavior.
I think you know what I mean.
Please be careful. DoD had an easy way out with Cook -- since he volunteered to go, he also had the option of changing his mind.
I have a feeling that if anyone tried to refuse an involuntary order on the same grounds, punishment would be swift and sure.
And if that happened, I wouldn't want to be identified as someone who encouraged that sort of behavior.
I think you know what I mean.
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 01:51 PM (u5fuM)
68
Doubtful, read the posts before this and tell me how an authentic, 3-D document when photographed
1) has a seal that doesn't bend when the paper it's on folds,
2) loses only one line of print when it is photographed sideways, and
3) has a raised surface which doesn't show up on a computer scan of it even with edge detection applied to the image.
That COLB image proves nothing, but strongly suggests that Obama committed document fraud rather than show a legitimate, authenticated COLB - even though he could have requested one that verified only his name and birth place. Even now, he could authorize Hawaii to verify what is on the COLB he posted, BUT HE WON'T. Why not?
1) has a seal that doesn't bend when the paper it's on folds,
2) loses only one line of print when it is photographed sideways, and
3) has a raised surface which doesn't show up on a computer scan of it even with edge detection applied to the image.
That COLB image proves nothing, but strongly suggests that Obama committed document fraud rather than show a legitimate, authenticated COLB - even though he could have requested one that verified only his name and birth place. Even now, he could authorize Hawaii to verify what is on the COLB he posted, BUT HE WON'T. Why not?
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 02:33 PM (KZZsN)
69
Big Guy, if a soldier refuses to obey an involuntary but unlawful order that would be against the UCMJ, would it not? A soldier can't excuse himself for doing an unlawful act just because he was ordered to do it, can he?
That's the issue here. If Obama's orders are lawful, Cook says he will follow them. If they are not lawful he would be breaking the UCMJ to follow them AND without lawful orders to be in Afghanistan he would be classified as a non-military combatant if captured on the battlefield, thus not qualified to receive Geneva Convention protections.
That's the argument he's made. Is that argument incorrect?
That's the issue here. If Obama's orders are lawful, Cook says he will follow them. If they are not lawful he would be breaking the UCMJ to follow them AND without lawful orders to be in Afghanistan he would be classified as a non-military combatant if captured on the battlefield, thus not qualified to receive Geneva Convention protections.
That's the argument he's made. Is that argument incorrect?
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 02:39 PM (KZZsN)
70
Nellie, those are silly, long since debunked arguments -- even WorldNetDaily is on the record saying:
"A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there."
The presentation of a forged document is a serious crime. The governor of Hawaii is a Republican. Both houses of Congress voted unanimously to accept the results of the Electoral College. If the forgery is as obvious as you say it is, why has no one credible even mentioned it?
There are rumors and innuendos and fake charges. But there is no there there.
"A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there."
The presentation of a forged document is a serious crime. The governor of Hawaii is a Republican. Both houses of Congress voted unanimously to accept the results of the Electoral College. If the forgery is as obvious as you say it is, why has no one credible even mentioned it?
There are rumors and innuendos and fake charges. But there is no there there.
Posted by: Doubtful at July 16, 2009 02:44 PM (u5fuM)
71
@Nellie --
I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that Obama has been legally elected and sworn in and is currently the POTUS. Military orders must still be obeyed.
It makes no sense to me that any member of the military can say at any time, I'm not going to obey your orders because I don't think you're eligible to be POTUS -- and then the whole system has to grind to a halt while the President tries to satisfy one person's doubts.
If, as you say in another post, there are obvious signs of forgery on his COLB, that's a criminal matter and should be dealt with by a prosecutor.
Any member of the military who takes it upon himself to test the President's eligibility by refusing to follow orders is taking a mighty big risk.
I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that Obama has been legally elected and sworn in and is currently the POTUS. Military orders must still be obeyed.
It makes no sense to me that any member of the military can say at any time, I'm not going to obey your orders because I don't think you're eligible to be POTUS -- and then the whole system has to grind to a halt while the President tries to satisfy one person's doubts.
If, as you say in another post, there are obvious signs of forgery on his COLB, that's a criminal matter and should be dealt with by a prosecutor.
Any member of the military who takes it upon himself to test the President's eligibility by refusing to follow orders is taking a mighty big risk.
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 02:52 PM (u5fuM)
72
I hear what you're saying, BigGuy, and I agree that a military can't function if the soldiers second-guess their leadership at every turn. You would hope that if Congress certifies someone as president, he's eligible. But Dick Cheney never even asked the question of whether there were objections, and even if he had it wouldn't have made any difference because Pelosi had already said that objections had to be written and turned in ahead of time.
Seems to me that Hitler also had the cover of being certified, if I remember correctly. That didn't excuse anybody at Nuremburg, though.
I reported the signs of forgery to my local FBI. You know what I was told? We don't investigate document fraud. So then I went online and filed a report which the site said they would forward to the FBI. I'm not holding my breath on them acting on it. A law enforcement officer in Texas (?)began to investigate the claims and ended up being disciplined for "racial prejudice on the job". I e-mailed my local sheriff. He said it's interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the President of the US.
Those who believe the eligibility issue is a mere technicality are missing the issue that our law enforcement isn't investigating clear signs of forgery - most probably because they don't want to be derided as a "birther". Now THAT'S a secure foundation for our criminal justice system... junior high sticks and stones...
If Obama committed document fraud when trying to prove his eligibility, what should happen to him? As you say, Congress already certified him. Does that mean we, the people, have no ability to petition the government for a redress of the grievance of breaking our Constitution? Would he serve as president from jail?
The whole thing is a mess. If the people who allowed this to happen aren't held accountable for it we can kiss the rule of law good-bye.
Seems to me that Hitler also had the cover of being certified, if I remember correctly. That didn't excuse anybody at Nuremburg, though.
I reported the signs of forgery to my local FBI. You know what I was told? We don't investigate document fraud. So then I went online and filed a report which the site said they would forward to the FBI. I'm not holding my breath on them acting on it. A law enforcement officer in Texas (?)began to investigate the claims and ended up being disciplined for "racial prejudice on the job". I e-mailed my local sheriff. He said it's interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the President of the US.
Those who believe the eligibility issue is a mere technicality are missing the issue that our law enforcement isn't investigating clear signs of forgery - most probably because they don't want to be derided as a "birther". Now THAT'S a secure foundation for our criminal justice system... junior high sticks and stones...
If Obama committed document fraud when trying to prove his eligibility, what should happen to him? As you say, Congress already certified him. Does that mean we, the people, have no ability to petition the government for a redress of the grievance of breaking our Constitution? Would he serve as president from jail?
The whole thing is a mess. If the people who allowed this to happen aren't held accountable for it we can kiss the rule of law good-bye.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 03:10 PM (KZZsN)
73
@Nellie --
Some of what you say is not quite right. The requirement that objections be made in writing did not come from Nancy Pelosi -- it is a requirement of federal law (United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 15): "Every objection shall be made in writing."
I don't think anyone is saying that "the eligibility issue is a mere technicality." What they're saying is that there's no valid evidence of ineligibility.
I mean, I understand that you're disappointed that the FBI didn't do what you wanted them to do. But -- may I say this without offending you? -- has it occurred to you that the "clear signs of forgery" that you think you're seeing simply aren't what you think they are? Remember, WorldNetDaily stated unambiguously that they found the COLB to be authentic.
Some of what you say is not quite right. The requirement that objections be made in writing did not come from Nancy Pelosi -- it is a requirement of federal law (United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 15): "Every objection shall be made in writing."
I don't think anyone is saying that "the eligibility issue is a mere technicality." What they're saying is that there's no valid evidence of ineligibility.
I mean, I understand that you're disappointed that the FBI didn't do what you wanted them to do. But -- may I say this without offending you? -- has it occurred to you that the "clear signs of forgery" that you think you're seeing simply aren't what you think they are? Remember, WorldNetDaily stated unambiguously that they found the COLB to be authentic.
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 03:22 PM (u5fuM)
74
Thanks for the reference to the US Code. Do you have any idea how I could see that? Does the law also require the question to be asked verbally?
There's no valid evidence of either ineligibility OR eligibility. Posting a scan or photo online is not acceptable documentation for any government purpose. The question is who the burden of proof falls on. The Twentieth Amendment says that between the electoral vote and the inauguration a president who "fails to qualify" cannot be president. Seems to me that that puts the burden of proof on the one who wants the job.
What do you think, BigGuy? Do you think a real seal would stay perfectly round when the paper it's on folds? Do you think that a paper would lose just one line of print when it's photographed on its side? Do you think that a document with a surface raised so much that it can be shown in relief when photographed sideways would show no signs of that raised surface when a computer scan of it has edge detection applied?
If the FBI wanted to tell me I was crazy or that the evidence wasn't sufficient, etc, fine. They didn't do that. They told me, instead, that it is not their concern. I asked who DOES investigate document fraud. He didn't know.
And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now? What a joke. Except I'm not laughing. I want my country back.
There's no valid evidence of either ineligibility OR eligibility. Posting a scan or photo online is not acceptable documentation for any government purpose. The question is who the burden of proof falls on. The Twentieth Amendment says that between the electoral vote and the inauguration a president who "fails to qualify" cannot be president. Seems to me that that puts the burden of proof on the one who wants the job.
What do you think, BigGuy? Do you think a real seal would stay perfectly round when the paper it's on folds? Do you think that a paper would lose just one line of print when it's photographed on its side? Do you think that a document with a surface raised so much that it can be shown in relief when photographed sideways would show no signs of that raised surface when a computer scan of it has edge detection applied?
If the FBI wanted to tell me I was crazy or that the evidence wasn't sufficient, etc, fine. They didn't do that. They told me, instead, that it is not their concern. I asked who DOES investigate document fraud. He didn't know.
And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now? What a joke. Except I'm not laughing. I want my country back.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 03:36 PM (KZZsN)
75
@Nellie --
The Federal Code citation that I found is at a National Archives site, www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html. You have to scroll down, the Constitutional provisions are shown first.
I agree that one can't prove anything with an online image. But what's the option? You can't expect a candidate to mail a hard copy to every individual in the country. In fact, I can't think of a single presidential candidate other than Obama who even went so far as to post a birth certificate image online. There are those who say he shouldn't even have done that as it only led to more questions, and I'm beginning to agree.
"And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now?" Well, I don't know what your options are. We have a large criminal justice apparatus on both the state and federal levels. All it takes is a single prosecutor to bring a case. I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of law enforcement officials who are opposed to Obama, but not a single one has raised his or her voice about this -- and there was plenty of time for one to do it.
To my way of thinking, the only way out is to posit a gigantic conspiracy to silence them, and I just don't find that even remotely credible.
But I understand that your view may be different.
The Federal Code citation that I found is at a National Archives site, www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html. You have to scroll down, the Constitutional provisions are shown first.
I agree that one can't prove anything with an online image. But what's the option? You can't expect a candidate to mail a hard copy to every individual in the country. In fact, I can't think of a single presidential candidate other than Obama who even went so far as to post a birth certificate image online. There are those who say he shouldn't even have done that as it only led to more questions, and I'm beginning to agree.
"And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now?" Well, I don't know what your options are. We have a large criminal justice apparatus on both the state and federal levels. All it takes is a single prosecutor to bring a case. I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of law enforcement officials who are opposed to Obama, but not a single one has raised his or her voice about this -- and there was plenty of time for one to do it.
To my way of thinking, the only way out is to posit a gigantic conspiracy to silence them, and I just don't find that even remotely credible.
But I understand that your view may be different.
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 03:58 PM (u5fuM)
76
All that has to be produced is his mothers birth certificate. I don't believe her citizenship has been questioned. According to the Title 8 of the U.S. Code he is a natural born citizen of the USA.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
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)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
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)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Posted by: Earl Lawson at July 16, 2009 04:50 PM (YmYO3)
77
Thanks for the link.
JPG images of John McCain's birth certificate with accompanying affidavits and doctor's signature are posted at
http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145
Regarding conspiracies to not investigate, I don't know if it even requires that. This whole ordeal has been eye-opening for me, regarding just how bad our law enforcement is now.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, but disciplining the LE person who begins an investigation - accusing them of racial discrimination on the job - is definitely an effective way to silence the little investigators.
When I reported this to my local sheriff he said it was interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the POTUS. When I called the FBI, as I said, they said they don't investigate that. When I contacted my US Attorney they said they can't take cases from the public but I could have the FBI forward it to them...
I talked to my SOS who told me they only require the candidate to sign a statement saying they were eligible. But he assured me that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN would never allow a politician to get away with deception.
As I understand it, a Senator (don't remember which one) referred the case to the FBI but the FBI hasn't done anything with it, at least last I knew. I'm sure they told the Senator that they don't investigate document fraud...
Leo Donofrio, Phil Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, and Orly Taitz all got their cases as far as the SCOTUS, who were reported to have found the issue not serious enough to address - but when Taitz asked Scalia in person about those cases he knew nothing about them.
I called my 2 Senators' offices and my representative's office and had the office staff look with me at the Factcheck documents and how the seal was perfectly round though the circle on the top fold which was folded at about the same angle was definitely distorted. They all agreed it was fishy and assured me that they would let their boss know. Later I got letters from them saying "I've seen no evidence that Obama is not eligible..." I called back and chewed them out. They said I could send a direct e-mail... (which I had already also done before)
Sorry to be so long about this, but I hope you can see why I've come to view the military as the last guardians of this country's integrity and Constitution. That's why this whole Major Cook thing means more to me - and to him - than just some soldier backing out at the last minute. There's a whole long history of law enforcement slapping me and others in the face over this.
SCOTUS and other courts have repeatedly denied "standing" - in effect saying it's none of my damn business if my country becomes a banana republic. I lose nothing of value if I lose my country.
I know I'm among friends here who would lay down their lives in the belief that we DO lose something of infinite worth if we lose this country. I would love to be able to say it doesn't matter, just go on my merry way. But like it or not, I love this country and everything she has stood for these past two centuries. I love my kids and don't want to deny them the same freedom my parents bequeathed and entrusted to me.
I am no more able to stop Congress from blatantly breaking the law than I am to stop Obama from blatantly breaking the Constitution and forgery laws. We have become a nation where criminals-in-office call the shots at will and the rest of us have nothing but the (if we can keep it) 2nd Amendment to defend ourselves. If we don't draw a line in the sand SOMEWHERE and insist on the law being kept, this country is done.
JPG images of John McCain's birth certificate with accompanying affidavits and doctor's signature are posted at
http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145
Regarding conspiracies to not investigate, I don't know if it even requires that. This whole ordeal has been eye-opening for me, regarding just how bad our law enforcement is now.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, but disciplining the LE person who begins an investigation - accusing them of racial discrimination on the job - is definitely an effective way to silence the little investigators.
When I reported this to my local sheriff he said it was interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the POTUS. When I called the FBI, as I said, they said they don't investigate that. When I contacted my US Attorney they said they can't take cases from the public but I could have the FBI forward it to them...
I talked to my SOS who told me they only require the candidate to sign a statement saying they were eligible. But he assured me that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN would never allow a politician to get away with deception.
As I understand it, a Senator (don't remember which one) referred the case to the FBI but the FBI hasn't done anything with it, at least last I knew. I'm sure they told the Senator that they don't investigate document fraud...
Leo Donofrio, Phil Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, and Orly Taitz all got their cases as far as the SCOTUS, who were reported to have found the issue not serious enough to address - but when Taitz asked Scalia in person about those cases he knew nothing about them.
I called my 2 Senators' offices and my representative's office and had the office staff look with me at the Factcheck documents and how the seal was perfectly round though the circle on the top fold which was folded at about the same angle was definitely distorted. They all agreed it was fishy and assured me that they would let their boss know. Later I got letters from them saying "I've seen no evidence that Obama is not eligible..." I called back and chewed them out. They said I could send a direct e-mail... (which I had already also done before)
Sorry to be so long about this, but I hope you can see why I've come to view the military as the last guardians of this country's integrity and Constitution. That's why this whole Major Cook thing means more to me - and to him - than just some soldier backing out at the last minute. There's a whole long history of law enforcement slapping me and others in the face over this.
SCOTUS and other courts have repeatedly denied "standing" - in effect saying it's none of my damn business if my country becomes a banana republic. I lose nothing of value if I lose my country.
I know I'm among friends here who would lay down their lives in the belief that we DO lose something of infinite worth if we lose this country. I would love to be able to say it doesn't matter, just go on my merry way. But like it or not, I love this country and everything she has stood for these past two centuries. I love my kids and don't want to deny them the same freedom my parents bequeathed and entrusted to me.
I am no more able to stop Congress from blatantly breaking the law than I am to stop Obama from blatantly breaking the Constitution and forgery laws. We have become a nation where criminals-in-office call the shots at will and the rest of us have nothing but the (if we can keep it) 2nd Amendment to defend ourselves. If we don't draw a line in the sand SOMEWHERE and insist on the law being kept, this country is done.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 04:54 PM (KZZsN)
78
Earl Lawson, what the law is now doesn't matter because according to Constitutional interpretation laws can't be applied retroactively. So what matters is the law in effect in 1961.
That law said that a person could confer citizenship to their foreign-born offspring only if they (the parent) were at the time of the birth a citizen of the US for 10 years, with at least 5 of them being after the age of 14.
Obama's mother was a citizen but was not yet 19 when Obama was born. She could not confer citizenship to him if he was born outside the country. That's why the place of his birth makes such a difference.
That law said that a person could confer citizenship to their foreign-born offspring only if they (the parent) were at the time of the birth a citizen of the US for 10 years, with at least 5 of them being after the age of 14.
Obama's mother was a citizen but was not yet 19 when Obama was born. She could not confer citizenship to him if he was born outside the country. That's why the place of his birth makes such a difference.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 05:00 PM (KZZsN)
79
Well, Nellie, best of luck to you. If you're convinced that Obama's guilty of forgery, you're going to have a hard time establishing that -- either because, as you believe, of "how bad our law enforcement is," or because, as I believe, there is absolutely no credible evidence of a crime having been committed.
But, I urge you, please be careful. Don't ask our brave and patriotic military people to disobey orders for this reason. Even if you think it's the right thing to do, what if you're wrong? What if, as the vast majority of Americans believe, Obama is eligible to be president? Do you want our folks in uniform to destroy their careers over some accusations that very few people take seriously?
But, I urge you, please be careful. Don't ask our brave and patriotic military people to disobey orders for this reason. Even if you think it's the right thing to do, what if you're wrong? What if, as the vast majority of Americans believe, Obama is eligible to be president? Do you want our folks in uniform to destroy their careers over some accusations that very few people take seriously?
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 05:22 PM (u5fuM)
80
My godson/nephew is Marine ROTC due to graduate next year. I have said nothing to him about this. What any military person does is entirely up to their own conscience and I understand the deep moral dilemma. Our military people are my heroes and I would die before I would deliberately bring them to harm.
I wish I could tell him that he was going into a military where earnest questions pursued in a respectful and lawful manner wouldn't destroy his career. I guess the military is more political than either he or I thought it was.
I've issued the invitation elsewhere for anybody to post on Youtube a video of a document where
1) a circle on the top fold distorts with the fold but the circle on the bottom fold doesn't,
2) the page loses only one longest line of print when it is photographed on its side, and
3)an image raising the paper surface (so much that its relief can be shown in a side view) shows no sign of an image when edge detection is applied to its scan.
Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you. If you can show me any way to duplicate these results I will gladly eat my hat, buy you a beer, and go back to making cookies. I trust that you are patriotic, brave, and earnest - as I have also found Bob to be. You've certainly given me a respectful hearing and I appreciate that. All I ask is that you think about what I've said and arrive at your own conclusions.
God bless the USA!
I wish I could tell him that he was going into a military where earnest questions pursued in a respectful and lawful manner wouldn't destroy his career. I guess the military is more political than either he or I thought it was.
I've issued the invitation elsewhere for anybody to post on Youtube a video of a document where
1) a circle on the top fold distorts with the fold but the circle on the bottom fold doesn't,
2) the page loses only one longest line of print when it is photographed on its side, and
3)an image raising the paper surface (so much that its relief can be shown in a side view) shows no sign of an image when edge detection is applied to its scan.
Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you. If you can show me any way to duplicate these results I will gladly eat my hat, buy you a beer, and go back to making cookies. I trust that you are patriotic, brave, and earnest - as I have also found Bob to be. You've certainly given me a respectful hearing and I appreciate that. All I ask is that you think about what I've said and arrive at your own conclusions.
God bless the USA!
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 05:48 PM (KZZsN)
81
@Nellie --
"Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you."
Well, to tell you the truth, Nellie, this is what I think.
The governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, is a Republican. She campaigned for McCain. I'm sure she's appointed other Republicans to state administration positions. And I'm sure that some of them would have been very eager to help McCain get elected.
The State of Hawaii has access to all the records, and if Obama was not born in Hawaii, they know it.
To me it is inconceivable beyond my wildest dreams that they would not have found a way to leak this information to ensure McCain's victory.
And even more inconceivable is the thought that Obama would have risked incarceration by relying on the minuscule chance that not a single soul would say a single word.
So, when you speak of phenomena seeming strange to me, I can't get beyond the ones I mentioned. They absolutely shut down the case for me.
Yes, thanks for your kind words, and all the best to you!
"Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you."
Well, to tell you the truth, Nellie, this is what I think.
The governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, is a Republican. She campaigned for McCain. I'm sure she's appointed other Republicans to state administration positions. And I'm sure that some of them would have been very eager to help McCain get elected.
The State of Hawaii has access to all the records, and if Obama was not born in Hawaii, they know it.
To me it is inconceivable beyond my wildest dreams that they would not have found a way to leak this information to ensure McCain's victory.
And even more inconceivable is the thought that Obama would have risked incarceration by relying on the minuscule chance that not a single soul would say a single word.
So, when you speak of phenomena seeming strange to me, I can't get beyond the ones I mentioned. They absolutely shut down the case for me.
Yes, thanks for your kind words, and all the best to you!
Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 06:28 PM (u5fuM)
82
I know what you mean. I also never thought it could happen here. I appreciate your honest response. It makes sense.
But I think there are other factors at play also. McCain wouldn't even let Sarah Palin talk about Obama's known relationship with Bill Ayers. He campaigned on the whole thing of being civil, a nice guy who gets along with everybody. And he, having been born outside the country, would be the last person to bring up Obama's birthplace.
Obama is all about lawsuits. Remember what he did with the NRA ad? He threatened lawsuits to any media who broadcast them. If anybody had come up with official documents which could prove his ineligibility they would have been sued out of existence. It is in both the terrorists' and communists' playbooks to use lawsuits to overwhelm and threaten anybody they want to be quiet little sheep.
It really raised my eyebrows when Obama's attorney against Berg was a lawyer for CAIR. CAIR's tactic is suing people into fear - such as threatening to sue the Minneapolis passengers who reported the "flying imams'" suspicious behavior. Anybody who reported suspicious behavior would do so knowing they'd have to spend their entire life's savings defending themselves in lawsuits financed by Muslims' required "charity" contributions and Saudi oil money.
It would have been legal suicide for someone to look at that stuff and then tell what they saw.
And it would have been political suicide to expose what the media had already decided was America's first Black president. Heck, the wife of our former "first black president" was called a racist in the primary. You can call Hillary many things, but I don't think racist is a fair label. But the Obama media slung it around like it was nothing - in response to her questioning the Rezko connection, if I remember correctly. A very transparent political ploy on Obama's part. He never did the dirty work; his handlers did.
Furthermore, anybody who said they had seen it would have no way to document that's what they saw. They couldn't go in front of the public and show them the record; that's exactly what Obama's entire case is about.
Obama wasn't risking a whole lot, actually. He had no other choice but to do something or he would lose. And if he wasn't born in Hawaii then he may well not even be a US citizen at all. What would the government do to him if he got caught? Deport him to Indonesia?
But I think we need only look at the Chicago-type tactics that Obama has used openly (see http://veritasbelt.blogspot.com for a partial listing) to realize that he's not a lone, defenseless little lamb. He's surrounded himself with all the right people. They know how to handle people who talk too much.
The result? People don't talk much.
And Obama also had the media to cover for him. Every blog in the world is afraid of being labeled a "birther" site. It's good old junior high peer pressure, but it's very, very effective. Who would voluntarily choose to be ridiculed for something they can't even prove anyway? I can confirm that it's not pleasant watching all the "conservatives" you admire call you a nutcase and shoo you away or shut you up.
Orly Taitz had the wiring in her car cut the same week her husband's car had something potentially lethal come up (can't remember the specifics). NOt something that happens accidentally. But every fool in the world will call her crazy for "dreaming up conspiracy theories" if she says anything about it. And some of the intimidation tactics could actually drive a person crazy. Who would voluntarily choose to subject themselves to that?
I feel like someone from Orwell's "1984" who's being told I'm crazy or extreme if I still see 3 fingers when the whole rest of the world (except us crazies. lol) sees only 2. But I can't get my lyin' eyes to see my experiments turning out like the posted COLB's. I just can't find a way to make it possible. So what can I do? Live with myself, or get the world's approval?
I enjoy conversing with you BigGuy. You're reasonable. And patient. lol. Sorry this is so long.
But I think there are other factors at play also. McCain wouldn't even let Sarah Palin talk about Obama's known relationship with Bill Ayers. He campaigned on the whole thing of being civil, a nice guy who gets along with everybody. And he, having been born outside the country, would be the last person to bring up Obama's birthplace.
Obama is all about lawsuits. Remember what he did with the NRA ad? He threatened lawsuits to any media who broadcast them. If anybody had come up with official documents which could prove his ineligibility they would have been sued out of existence. It is in both the terrorists' and communists' playbooks to use lawsuits to overwhelm and threaten anybody they want to be quiet little sheep.
It really raised my eyebrows when Obama's attorney against Berg was a lawyer for CAIR. CAIR's tactic is suing people into fear - such as threatening to sue the Minneapolis passengers who reported the "flying imams'" suspicious behavior. Anybody who reported suspicious behavior would do so knowing they'd have to spend their entire life's savings defending themselves in lawsuits financed by Muslims' required "charity" contributions and Saudi oil money.
It would have been legal suicide for someone to look at that stuff and then tell what they saw.
And it would have been political suicide to expose what the media had already decided was America's first Black president. Heck, the wife of our former "first black president" was called a racist in the primary. You can call Hillary many things, but I don't think racist is a fair label. But the Obama media slung it around like it was nothing - in response to her questioning the Rezko connection, if I remember correctly. A very transparent political ploy on Obama's part. He never did the dirty work; his handlers did.
Furthermore, anybody who said they had seen it would have no way to document that's what they saw. They couldn't go in front of the public and show them the record; that's exactly what Obama's entire case is about.
Obama wasn't risking a whole lot, actually. He had no other choice but to do something or he would lose. And if he wasn't born in Hawaii then he may well not even be a US citizen at all. What would the government do to him if he got caught? Deport him to Indonesia?
But I think we need only look at the Chicago-type tactics that Obama has used openly (see http://veritasbelt.blogspot.com for a partial listing) to realize that he's not a lone, defenseless little lamb. He's surrounded himself with all the right people. They know how to handle people who talk too much.
The result? People don't talk much.
And Obama also had the media to cover for him. Every blog in the world is afraid of being labeled a "birther" site. It's good old junior high peer pressure, but it's very, very effective. Who would voluntarily choose to be ridiculed for something they can't even prove anyway? I can confirm that it's not pleasant watching all the "conservatives" you admire call you a nutcase and shoo you away or shut you up.
Orly Taitz had the wiring in her car cut the same week her husband's car had something potentially lethal come up (can't remember the specifics). NOt something that happens accidentally. But every fool in the world will call her crazy for "dreaming up conspiracy theories" if she says anything about it. And some of the intimidation tactics could actually drive a person crazy. Who would voluntarily choose to subject themselves to that?
I feel like someone from Orwell's "1984" who's being told I'm crazy or extreme if I still see 3 fingers when the whole rest of the world (except us crazies. lol) sees only 2. But I can't get my lyin' eyes to see my experiments turning out like the posted COLB's. I just can't find a way to make it possible. So what can I do? Live with myself, or get the world's approval?
I enjoy conversing with you BigGuy. You're reasonable. And patient. lol. Sorry this is so long.
Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 07:06 PM (KZZsN)
83
Bigguy "I think you know what I mean."
Don't worry brother. I got out shortly after the O took office.
Don't worry brother. I got out shortly after the O took office.
Posted by: Matt at July 17, 2009 01:11 PM (XKpp2)
84
The birther major's deployment orders were canceled because, when he volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan he had the absolute right to change his mind up to the day of deployment. The army took his lawsuit seeking to have his deployment be enjoined as an exercise of that right.
He and his crackpot lawyer should be hit with rule 11 sanctions, since it is obvious that their entire course of conduct was a fraud on the court: it is entirely unnecessary to sue to receive a remedy that you can get with a letter and a first-class stamp.
He and his crackpot lawyer should be hit with rule 11 sanctions, since it is obvious that their entire course of conduct was a fraud on the court: it is entirely unnecessary to sue to receive a remedy that you can get with a letter and a first-class stamp.
Posted by: John Casey at July 18, 2009 03:49 PM (QeRAm)
85
John. Even if you volunteer for a deployment, you can not change your mind. That is kind of like saying that you volunteered to join the military so you can get out at any time you choose.
This is not the case. As soon as your name appears on deployment orders you can not refuse them.
This is not the case. As soon as your name appears on deployment orders you can not refuse them.
Posted by: Matt at July 19, 2009 02:55 PM (XKpp2)
86
how much more does it take to prove that something very fishy is going on here?
the military doesn't do 180's on deployment orders over nothing.
every single effort to force Obama to prove his natural born status has been thrown out or blocked in some fashion.
is the Constitution the Law of the Land or isn't it?
right now, it isn't
the military doesn't do 180's on deployment orders over nothing.
every single effort to force Obama to prove his natural born status has been thrown out or blocked in some fashion.
is the Constitution the Law of the Land or isn't it?
right now, it isn't
Posted by: shoey at July 19, 2009 07:11 PM (RxUMK)
87
I have no problems with a person questioning his or her orders. But orders need to be valid orders from the superiors appointed over you. Thats what the oath says. "To Support and Defend the Constitution of The United States Againt all Enemies Forgien or Domestic and to obey the orders of the President and Officer appointed over you". I absolutley have no problem with that. I took the same oath! So if your leaders are not legitimate it is not a valid order. What need to happen is to have a mass Rally demmanding an open and honest investigation into "The Ones" status. I cannot believe that people can't see the truth here. If you have nothing to hide, then why hide it?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at July 21, 2009 11:40 AM (WGcw3)
Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.2618 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1907 seconds, 552 records returned.
Page size 510 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.