I want to see Obama’s birth certificate – the full, long-form birth certificate. Not only do I want to see that – I want to see his college records, transcripts, thesis, and all that other garbage that has been mysteriously sealed.
Have I gone off the deep end and joined the dark side? No. Not really. In all frankness, I think birtherism is a disgusting cancer on the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and especially the hugely influential Tea Party movement. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is indeed eligible to hold his office, and as a Palinista I deal with enough “Trig Truthers” to feel Obama’s pain on this issue.
Here’s the thing, though. If the birthers are so easy to refute, why not do it? Produce the information and get rid of them. Yeah, for a while they were small enough to ignore, but polls keep showing higher and higher numbers of birthers. The idea is so crazy that most sane people will never accept it, but there comes a point when even the nuttiest ideas get too big to ignore – and this is one of those times. And at the moment, the administration’s refusal to confront the issue is making it look like they are hiding something – even if they really aren’t - and many otherwise sane people are starting to consider the birthers’ arguments. I will repeat that I am not of those otherwise sane people (wrong on both counts, I’m not a birther and most people here will attest that I’m not sane), but I am getting really tired of dealing with this baloney. So can we please just get this over with?
Of course - there is one little problem. Obama refuting the birthers would indicate that he wants them to go away – and I don’t think he does. Yes, they may be a little offensive, but they’re also a great political weapon. The entire Tea Party movement…oh, they’ve got some birthers in the crowd, so we can’t listen to them! The Republican Party - most birthers must vote Republican and so we need to criticize the GOP for not stopping these maniacs! Never mind that the Dems spent years refusing to confront 9/11 truthers, the Republicans must eliminate the birthers!
People like David Axelrod, and Rahm Emanuel are smart enough to know where their bread is buttered – and they know that they are much better off if they feed the birthers’ paranoia. If they refute them properly, then the Tea Parties and the GOP suddenly be can’t dismissed as havens for black-helicopter conspiracy theorists. They may be feigning offense, but I think that deep-down, the Obama strategy team are the biggest Orly Taitz fans on the planet.
So, here’s what I propose we do as Republicans. First, stop taking the blame. We didn’t create these people, we didn’t stoke their passion, and we sure as heck don’t like the effect they are having. Second, wash our hands of any responsibility. Heaven knows that we have done everything we can to try and refute them while Obama has done next to nothing – we’ve done our part and this issue is no longer (and really never was) our problem. Third, put the blame for this brouhaha where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of Barack H. Obama. We have every reason to believe that he has the info to disprove this nonsense if he wanted to, so it stands to logic that HE DOESN’T WANT IT REFUTED. And why should he? The stronger the birthers get, the more he can dismiss his opponents as nutcases. It’s 100% pure political gold, and anyone with a brain knows better than to kill the golden goose.
So, if I were Michael Steele right now, I would use my next TV appearance to say that we have done everything we can to shut these people up - but we have not gotten any help from the administration and if anything they’ve been counterproductive. We believe you, Barack – but you have to step up, grow a spine, and confront this idiocy like a man. We can make all the circumstantial arguments we want, but you’re the only one that has the irrefutable proof – so the responsibility for the growth of the birther movement is all yours. From here on out, you can do what you wish about it, but if you keep all of those records sealed, we will call it what is – a political ploy to ensure that you have the birthers as an issue in 2012. And if indeed there is no long-form birth certificate due to some accident or clerical error, at least open up the rest of the records (like your college grades) as a show of good faith.
We’re done trying to clean up your mess, Barack – and it’s time for you to grow up and stop making us do your work for you. If you’re so offended by these nutcases, do the right thing and shut ‘em up.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Does anyone know of a good website that lays out the evidence surrounding this issue (from either side).
December 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
His college transcripts and thesis is something I would like to see.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I would vary one of your comments slightly and say that the Birthers AND the Tea Party Movement are both disgusting cancers on the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Adam: I totally agree (I’ve made the point several times here) that Obama is the main beneficiary of Birtherism — why should he stop Republicans from discrediting themselves?
But the idea of having Steele speak out on the subject terrifies me — he consistently botches everything he says.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
You seem to be mistaken. The folks you mention, you, and everyone but me are a disgusting cancer on the Conservative Movement etc. Don’t be fooled by imitations.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Why do I get the feeling that the Republican party is imploding? Oh, because it is. It is getting quote shattered into pieces and the birthers are helping quite a bit. Imagine having Orly Taitz as a leading spokesperson in one section of the Republican party. And then you have World Net Daily in the other corner. As the election creep up the rhetoric will too. There will be Republican pitted against Republican while the Democrats will be unified for the most part. This will become intense when the primaries approach. And if Palin tosses her fishing hat into the ring it may bring the end to the party. This is not healthy for America, the Democrats will get a free pass and a giant mandate to do as it pleases in Obama’s second term.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
[...] Birther Adam Brickley Going Birther I want to see Obama’s birth certificate – the full, long-form birth certificate. Not only do [...]
December 11th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Okay, here is the thing. There needs to be standards. The constitution says that you have to be a U.S. Citizen, it doesn’t say how you have to prove it. We don’t want to get to the point where in order to run, every record you ever had has to be released.
So, unless we are willing to go through this same thing for every republican candidate, we have to let this go unless there is credible evidence that Obama was not born in the U.S. So far newspapers anouncing his birth and the photo copy of his birth certificate should be enough.
Besides, what happens if by some chance it is decided he was not eligible, then what are you prepared for a President Biden? Or even worse, a President Nancy Pelosi?
Think of the consequences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Adam, my old friend. Your two Co-Founders of Draft Sara Palin for VP 2008 are both Birthers; Stephen Maloney of PA and me Eric Dondero of Texas.
Every bit of evidence I’ve seen leads me to believe that Obama was not born in the United States, but almost certainly in northern Kenya. Moreover, I’m even more concerned about his trip to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in 1982. Plus, his childhood growing up in a heavily Muslim environment in Indonesia. Even his own half-sister in Indonesia has said repeatedly “Barack was brought up as a Muslim.”
By calling us Birthers “Kooks,” you are essentially writing off some of your best friends and closest allies on the Right.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Co-Founder, Draft Sarah Palin for VP 2008
December 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
For what it is worth. (not my opinion by the way, she can have her day in the son, but will eventually fade away.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/11/poll-of-gop-insiders-its-time-for-palin-to-go-away/
December 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
December 11th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
reply to 11: great video, I agree 100%
December 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
It would appear from this site that Republicans are calling Tea Party Patriots disgusting nut-bags??? Because we believe in fiscal responsibility? the Constitution? Small Government and FREEDOM??? I guess we are Crystal Clear on where the Republicans stand, Good Luck With That One !!!
By the way, as for the Birther comments, you can summarize them as lunatics all you want but at least they give a damn about our Constitution and what it stands for. This President, if you can call him that, is crashing our country into the side of a mountain at record speed, he lies to us on a daily basis and frankly the only thing we know about his past is from his myth-filled books that he had his buddy Bill Ayers write for him. With all this self-satisfaction you have regarding his being eligible, maybe you should produce some for all of us to see. The real problem is, neither you nor anyone else has produced any real proof of where he is from, what he did in college or anything about his past. For you to vouch for him and bash those who question him tells me you might need to re-think your party affiliation. When in US history has a President locked down every single stitch of his past??? NEVER. He is a liar, a fraud and is totally inept and un-qualified to be the President of this great country. A country might I add that he obviously hates with vengeance. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I really don’t understand the school of “I want to see every tissue the president has ever sneezed on and every roll of toilet paper he’s ever wiped his ass on.”
We have enough information to bash the president with. He’s obviously eligible for office, so everyone needs to shut up.
Absolutely no one else in this country’s history has ever been held to this ridiculous standard. It’s political gold for a reason: we have a serious problem in the party with nuts. (Yes, the Democrats do too, but we’re supposed to be better than them, people!) We should deal with that instead of asking the president to put varnish over our defects.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
My one problem with that Lindsey Graham video is that he says “He was born in Hawaii. He’s not a Muslim. He’s a good man.” McCain similarly said. “No, ma’am, [he's not an Arab,] he’s a good family man” — Can an Arab Muslim not be a good man, a good family man?
December 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
15
“Can an Arab Muslim not be a good man, a good family man?”
Yes, he can. Good point Alex.
Also, wanted to say regarding your post on the GOP becoming the party for gays. I think you might be onto something, but the GOP should meld it with the point made by MWS. The GOP should stand up for oppressed minorities whether they’re homosexuals in Africa, or Christians in China or Iraq.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I see two comments here that really make no sense at all. Thunder say’s “Our Constitution calls for our President to be a Natural Born Citizen but doesn’t mandate that we check it out”, and Alex Knepper says, “I don’t understand the school of “I want to see every tissue the president has ever sneezed on and every roll of toilet paper he’s ever wiped his ass on.” and “We have enough information to bash the president with. He’s obviously eligible for office, so everyone needs to shut up.”
Well that is just about the most idiotic comment I’ve heard in a while. When I started my last job, I had to prove who I was and show proof of my College education, which they verified to ensure that I was qualified for that job. More important, I got a hold of my original Birth Certificate within five minutes, it cost me $12.00. Obama has spent $1.4 Million hiding his, WHY?
December 11th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
He has produced his birth certificate. In Hawaii, a certificate of live birth is an equivalent of that, and the easier one to get, as I understand.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
This is such an exceedingly stupid fight to pick. Why waste so much energy on it. The GOP is really coming to be the party without ideas. While millions are losing jobs, just how well do you think that the general population would view such an utterly pointless attack as this?
December 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Alex, Hawaii has never produced any single document EVER. The only document you refer to is the one his peeps posted on Snopes and Fightthesmears. Anybody can Photoshop a document to post online, but try using to get a passport or a job, they will laugh at you. Plus a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth are two completely different things. The Certificate his people posted shows nothing about the Hospital, Doctor, no pertinent information at all. Don’t you think it’s a bit odd that NO Doctor, Nurse or anyone else has ever come forth to claim to have been there when Onama was born, NOBODY. That’s because NO DELIVEING DOCTOR OR NURSE EXISTS. If they did, they sure as heck would have loved to have laid claim to birthing “THE ONE”. You really should open your mind and do some homework because if you did, you would end up like I did, with a lot more questions than answers. I didn’t start out dis-believing him, but after everything HE has done and all the money he has spent to hide his past, I must say, he must have something very serious in his past he wants to hide. WHY???
December 11th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Are you really that dumb that you can’t see that Obama has CHOSEN not to give in to the stupid birthers because they give him an extra 5 or so % points?
December 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Oh, I think he has things in his past he wants to hide.
Being born in Kenya is not one of them.
Has a doctor ever rushed forward to say “I birthed George W. Bush” or “I birthed Joe Biden”? Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody actually does this. (Have we ever seen Joe Biden’s birth certificate?)
Ah, so it’s photoshopped. OK, then. So is your argument that it doesn’t count, or that it isn’t real? Haha. If he DID produce his long-form birth certificate, you’d probably just say it was photoshopped, anyway.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
The Birthers are hilarious. One of the strangest, most racist political conspiracies ever.
I really do not like to play the race card, but would anyone doubt Obama was an American citizen if he were a white man named Barry Dunham?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
There is absolutely no evidence that the birthers are giving Obama an extra 5% in approval.
They rile up our base without hurting us with any other voters. Liberal and moderate Democrats and liberal independents are not voters who are up for grabs.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I also like the Muslim = teh evil.
Even if he were a Muslim (which he is not), so?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“If the birthers are so easy to refute, why not do it?”
Because it creates a wedge issue that is tricky for Republicans. Basically, all Democrats and almost all Independents reject the Birther arguments. But around half of Republicans accept them. When you can get all of your own base on one side, most all the independents, and half your opponents, that’s an issue you want to keep alive.
What does Obama want? He wants incidents like Palin’s the other day, when she lent credence to the Birthers (because they make up a meaningful part of her base) but had to backtrack, because it makes her look nutty to the larger electorate. Team Obama is hoping all the 2012 hopefuls get peppered on this issue, and they’re not going to pull Republicans’ chestnuts out of the fire by producing the certificate. At least not unless independents start doubting.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I’ve met a few people who have expressed birther sentiments. On other issues they are with us, but it seems that they just include this as another reason to dislike the man. This whole birther non-sense is an artificial creation of the media trying to drive a wedge into the Republican Party and portray all those who oppose Obama or his policies as wackjobs.
Bash the President about his horrendous record as President. But leave the college thesis and religion and birth certificate crap alone. Digging up this past b.s. won’t defeat a single liberal policy or help defeat Obama or the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I sympathize with Obama’s situation here.
My wife was adopted so all she has is a certificate of live birth. No birth certificate is available to her.
So we went to the Alabama License Office to get her a Photo ID. At first refused her “Certificate of Live Birth” demanding a “Birth Certificate”. We had brought along her Photo ID from our last state along with a marriage license, and a few other documents.
I showed them her adoption documents, told them a Certificate of Live Birth was all we could get now and mentioned that a Certificate of Live Birth was good enough for Obama to prove his American identity.
At that point after some wrangling with a supervisor they agreed and gave her the Photo ID.
It’s amazing Obama slid through the Presidential election with so little of his skeletons coming out given the racist, terrorist and communist associates he hung out with during his time in Chicago.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
What is truly funny about all this is that Barry told us he wasn’t eligible to be the POTUS — TWICE!! Unfortunately we didn’t listen. . .
First, when he was running for the Illinois senate, he told us he was born in Kenya.
Second, in his ghost-written book, Barry said that his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. Barack, Jr. would have been a British subject as well.
Case closed!
December 11th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen. That gives him the rights of an American citizen. I don’t see what’s so difficult about this.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:26 am
I wonder if many of the birthers aren’t the same people that don’t trust Romney because he’s a Mormon?
Just wondering…..
December 12th, 2009 at 12:33 am
explain to me again why Obama should lift a finger to help the Republican Party?
December 12th, 2009 at 12:41 am
30 – I think their argument is:
Under current law, you would be correct.
But under the law in effect at the time he was born, if only one parent was an American citizen, then that parent had to have lived in the US for five years after the age of 14. His mother was only 18 when he was born and thus could not confer citizenship to him solely by virtue of parenthood.
I actually don’t know if this is true but this is what the “birthers” say.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Some calling others idiots have no idea of what constitutes ‘natural born citizen’ vs just ‘US citizen’. There is a big difference. This birther thing is not just a matter of where one is born; there are other technicalities that enter into the designation as to whether someone is a ‘natural born citizen’. What Alex is claiming that he is ‘nbc’ just because his mother was a US citizen does not appear to be true. That only gives him citizenship. Some of you need to read up on the issue without predetermined bias. I’m not a birther, but I don’t think the issue is as cut and dried as some believe, and I believe he should have to produce his birth certificate. Why have a rule if you don’t have to prove it. I couldn’t get my social security without producing it; why should anyone be able to be POTUS?
December 12th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Yes, jersey, that is the way I understand it also. But I’m not sure it has changed under current law either.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Republicans leaders & strategists are stupid. When Democratic leaders were flocking to the premiere of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 nobody managed to soil them with the rag of 9/11 trutherism. I beleive Daschle (senate leader) even said he agreed 100% with its content. Many other leading Democratic officials also spoke in absolute positive terms about it even Howard Dean Democratic leader at the time. Anti-war rallies were bursting at the seams with 9/11 truther propaganda. Yet I don’t recall a single Democratic official being forced to answer questions about trutherism. But guess what even though Steele, McCain and several others have absolutely denounced it. Even Palin and others never supported the central arguments but just supported citizen rights to ask questions. The problems still exists and is supposed to ripping the party apart, even Republicans say this. The Republican party has a real communications problem. And its not Limbaugh and Cos fault. The Democrats are light years ahead when it comes to messaging. And just for the record before I am called a birther. I don’t care if Obama was born in Hawaii or Timbuktu, the fact that he has an American mother is more than enough for me.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:54 am
TB,
About a third of your country in independant and apart from the strange 04 election THIS group decideds who occupies the white house.
Damn right at least 15% of this group would find the birther abhorent enough to vote for Barry.
Also you are contradicting your own point as nothing fires up the base of a party like people saying ridiculous and fanciful things about their leader (in this case also blatantly racist as I don’t recall the same things being said about McCain who certainly wasn’t born in the US).
Finally I’m sure some sensible republicans would be persuaded not to vote at all if these types of people are leading and representing the GOP.
Like you say Barry could end this issue – think about why he choses not too.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:04 am
It seems the “birthers” and the “Tea Partiers” and the “Palinites” outnumber Republicans at the moment. I’m a conservative, so I guess that leaves me out of the RINO party for the moment. When conservative Christian Constitutionalists take the party back, maybe then we can get rid of the commies. The RINO’s making deals with the commies are the problem now. As far as birthers go, Google “Natural Born Citizen” and look up the Founders writings and the SCOTUS case about it and you will find Obama’s dad was Kenyan and that makes Obama illegal for POTUS even if he was born in Hawaii. Both parents must be citizens and you must be born here to be “Natural Born”. Otherwise an anchor baby could be born here and never learn English and wave the Mexican flag around and qualify for POTUS.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:53 am
If you’re going to discuss this issue at least get the nomenclature right. What Obama posted online was a certificaTION of live birth, not a certifiCATE of live birth which is most commonly called a birth certificate. A certificate of live birth is also called the “long form”. It is filled out at the hospital and contains the doctors signature and other vital information. A certification of live birth is what most states give out now and indicates the the state has a certificate of live birth on file. NO FILES ARE DESTROYED!
The issue concerning his college records is this, did Obama enroll or receive financial aid as a foreign student, possibly Indonesian? This is a man who has possibly held citizenship in the US, Britain, Kenya and Indonesia, shouldn’t we be able to find out exactly where the loyalties of our President lie?
Finally we have the issue of his father. Obama has admitted that at his birth he was a British citizen. Many people, including myself, believe that to be a natural born citizen one must be born in the US to parents who are BOTH US citizens at the time. This is a legitimate legal question. At this time there is no law nor any court case the SPECIFICALLY defines what an NBC is. All the cases that have been brought have been thrown out SOLELY on the basis of standing. A new case is being brought by Leo Donofrio on the behalf of Chrysler dealers who lost their businesses so we’ll see how it goes.
December 12th, 2009 at 6:28 am
“I don’t recall the same things being said about McCain who certainly wasn’t born in the US” The US Senate declared that Mr. McCain was eligible to run for the Presidency because he was born of US citizens even though the military base in Canal Zone was not part of any of the 50 states or DC. IG and Jersey both make good legal points.
In the end it is most likely that many people answer polling companies saying that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii because they are frustrated with all the shenanigans.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:25 am
He’s in good company then. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Jackson, and WH Harrison were all subjects of the British Crown at birth.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:41 am
#41. Ouch.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Ohio,
“In the end it is most likely that many people answer polling companies saying that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii because they are frustrated with all the shenanigans.”
I think that’s true. On the other side, the “Truthers” believed that crap simply because they opposed Bush’s policies.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:04 am
What you critics of Birtherism seem not to understand, Alex and my old friend Adam, is that this issue matters because it reflects Obama’s beliefs. Yes, it’s a direct threat to the US Constitution, having a foreign born President.
But moreover, Obama has decidedly African Muslim Radical Communist beliefs that he no doubt gained in his years in Kenya and Indonesia. And he’s trying to transform this Nation into a carbon copy of an African Communist/Islamic Republic.
If you cannot see that you are completely blind!
December 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Eric,
“Obama has decidedly African Muslim Radical Communist beliefs that he no doubt gained in his years in Kenya and Indonesia.”
Even if that is true, wouldn’t that be true if he were born in Hawaii or Kenya? Is your problem his place of birth or his upbringing? You’re jumping around now.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Eric, you are entirely right! The reason Obama won’t produce his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate is that it will show that he is NOT a natural born citizen! He is not a true American; thus, he has no qualms about destroying our democratic form of government.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am
What’s more, he has been paid well by his socialist-communist backers to destroy us.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Eric,
“And he’s trying to transform this Nation into a carbon copy of an African Communist/Islamic Republic.”
LOL!!!!
What exactly do radical Muslims and Communists have in common?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:31 am
33 – You are correct but beyond that it’s clear that our forefathers put the term ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution and grandfathered themselves so they could serve even though they didn’t qualify under that requirement in order to limit our president to a special kind of citizen. Much of our law is based on a body of legalese known (then and now) as The Law of Nations which defined ‘natural born citizen’ as a person born ‘on the soil’ of parentS who are citizenS (plural). Their intent is clear; why we ignore that is just beyond my understanding.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Obama has admitted that at his birth he was a British citizen.
He’s in good company then. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Jackson, and WH Harrison were all subjects of the British Crown at birth.
—————————
All of those mentioned were covered by the grandfather clause – please read the Constitution, you’re making a fool of yourself.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“All of those mentioned were covered by the grandfather clause – please read the Constitution, you’re making a fool of yourself.” He was not making a fool of himself, he was just making an interesting point.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
48 – “What exactly do radical Muslims and Communists have in common?”
Total control. Here’s an interesting video that may help explain the connection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvsnwA6zbXQ
December 12th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Obama has decidedly African Muslim Radical Communist beliefs that he no doubt gained in his years in Kenya and Indonesia.
African roots? Yes, his father was African.
Muslim roots? Probably; there’s evidence that he was a “Muslim” when he was, like, eight years old.
Radical? Oh, yes. A community organizer is a leftist rabble-rouser.
But what in God’s name does that have to do with being born in Kenya?
December 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am
51 – What ‘interesting point’ Joe? If you read the Constitution? it clearly explains that citizens of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution are eligible. So what’s the interesting point?
December 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am
And he’s trying to transform this Nation into a carbon copy of an African Communist/Islamic Republic
That would make an interesting government. An Afro-Islamic Communist Republic. Gosh.
Well, he’s not succeeding, if that’s his master plan. Especially given the Hispanic (not black) Supreme Court Justice he appointed, the gays in high-level positions (not very Islamic), or his decidedly center-left appointees in the economic areas (they’re left-wing, but they ain’t Krugman or Stiglitz).
December 12th, 2009 at 10:09 am
If any of you posters really want to understand why some of us question Mr. Obama’s eligibility, you would be well served to read the June 10, 2009 intelligence report posted here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697. Many of the comments on this blog have no basis in fact. In my opinion, posters should make an effort to comprehend what has transpired before they begin typing. We have rights to freedom of speech and press that I believe are being suppressed and abused. Since when in America is it OK to ridicule people who seek the truth? It’s our right to keep asking what, where, why and how until all our questions are answered. It is also our duty to protect and defend our Constitution and our Bill of Rights!
December 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am
If there is an interesting point in there, it is that they did NOT consider themselves to be ‘natural born’ because their parents were not U.S. citizens. For me, that grandfather clause closes the issue.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Hallie Roberts says: “The reason Obama won’t produce his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate is that it will show that he is NOT a natural born citizen!” Or perhaps he hasn’t produced it because Hawaii no longer supplies this. Here’s what the state of Hawaii says: “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.” The state officials have publicly verified this and the validity of his posted birth certificate (the COLB *is* a birth certificate now) several times, and have publicly verified that Obama was born in Honolulu. Why would anyone need more than that definitive statement?
I’m also completely flummoxed by people who quote some very old writing saying something about requiring both parents to be citizens. That’s simply not true. The US Supreme Court has said that anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen (and thus eligible to be president). In the Supreme Court case I’m referring to both parents were Chinese citizens – BOTH parents. And the child was still a natural born citizen. This is clear and everyone has accepted this for years and years, but now crazy-Orly puts up this theory about both parents having to be citizens and all these otherwise sane people are grabbing onto that and repeating it.
It seems that people are just grabbing onto anything they can in desperation, whether it makes sense or not. It would be an interesting psychological study!
December 12th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Of course they exempted themselves from the rules they wrote. But the fact remains that they were born as subjects of the British Empire. Does this mean that their first loyalty always was to the British Crown? Do place of birth and/or citizenship at birth determine a person’s lifelong loyalties, political philosophy, etc?
If any of that happens to be true, then our earliest presidents all worked to undermine the Constitution.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I hate to burts your bubble but there are a lot of us that are not republicians but crazy Democrats?yes Democrats.When you try and paint a picture you like all self proclaimed genius that you are the only people in the world who know but who refuse to even ask him to provide the real deal.That you are afraid to find out the real reasons why Barrack Obama aka Barry Soetoro is hiding.
You all are wanting this man to be your hero and all he is,is a zero! but you like you accissed Geogre Bush you just can’t stand that you and others like you can’t admit that you were WRONG!You have the real deal shown to anyone that hasn’t worked for or isn’t in bed ,like the media is with him and let us see it not a photo shopped copy and a bad one at that.
I would like to know how he was able to be borned of one parent and she being a minor and Ann Dunham who lived and grew up in a place where it was not a state until 2 years after Barrack Obama’s birth?which Ann Dunham/Obama was still a minor who before Barrack could claim his citizenship(must live in the usa for 5 years after your 14th birthday and he was only 5 when they moved to Indonesia, she meets,marries,and moves to Indonesia and attends school right away?when only Indonesian citizens or chlidren of a citizen could attend any school,Barrack was adpoted by Lolo Soetoro and he became an Indonesian citizen.His school records show he attended school at a madrassa school and he is listed as a Indonesian citizen and his religon as Islam. he was indoctrinated as a mulisum.When he was in his 20′s he obtained an Indonesisan passport with the help of his adopted father and traveled to Pakistan where he as Indonesian citizen and his religon as Muslim he could travel the country freely and could have trained or school by Osama bin Laden for all we know ,because he still refuses to say or release his papers.(How far do you think he would have gotten if his passport would have said American/Religon Christian?)Im not a betting man but I would take that bet and give you odds on how far he would have made it?
Now this is why we want to see all his papers and force him to provide the papers that should have been ask for when he was being “VETTED” oops he didn’t get vetted did he? they checked out John McCain?
Then theres the possiably that he attended school after his coverting to Muslim as a foriegn exchange student(Remember what Obama said “If anything bad turns against Islam I will support Islam”)This is something that terrorist in Fort Hood said to his fellow marine,Iam a muslim first an american last.
This is why we the people “Birthers” are demanding to know what is so important that someone would spend 2 million dollars to keep hidden.And now that he has the american taxpayer paying his attorney’s fees it’s time he stops wasting taxpayers dollars and show us the papers we the people have ask for since before he became a Manchurian candidate for the office of POTUS?
What is so amusing when they try and say that we believe he was borned in Indonesia,the intendtional adding that birthers are some how supporting every conspiratacy theory that has been since Coloumbus claimed the earth was not flat?what a wacko he was?lol.
This man has been exposed for accepting campaign funds from illegal sources,lied to us all that he actually wrote his own book?lol,The first time he got paid to write he couldn’t even come up with a rough draft,and had to return the money.then comes Bill Ayers(The Unrepentant Bomber and weather underground terrorist) and he has a best seller.The facts are these:the facts that he states in his book are lies just like in all his ramblings speeches that is a reed shaking in the wind and has to take 90 days to support a man he choose to take the war “oh his afganistan”and when he ask for 60,000 he reduces that to 40,000 and in the end gets 30,000.What kind of president takes that long on a decision that he said all along he was for the Afganistan surge(A bush/chaney plan that he didn’t support in Iraq, his alienating Isreal our only friend in the middle east for the last 2 decades,His refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist at fort hood has been the icing on the cake? O-B-A-M-A- O= One B = Big A = Ass M = Mistake A = America or OMG O = Obama M= Must G = GO !!!!!!!!
December 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Are you being flogged as you write these lines?
And for the love of God: free speech guarantees you neither a media outlet nor a receptive audience.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Does this mean that their first loyalty always was to the British Crown?”
It would except that they just finished fighting a war to get out from under that thumb. They knew, however, that no one could qualify to be the President without grandfathering themselves so they exempted their generation to overcome that hurdle. They did NOT, however, exempt future generations to insure that there would be no foreign influence going forward. Obama is a prime example of why that is still a good requirement today and why it is so important to protect our Constitutional protections, rights and privileges.
“Do place of birth and/or citizenship at birth determine a person’s lifelong loyalties, political philosophy, etc?”
That’s not a relevant question. The Constitution answers that question with a big ‘YES!’. If we don’t feel that is right for the times, we should change it – NOT ignore it and the Constitution has provided two methods for accomplishing that end.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
We have rights to freedom of speech and press that I believe are being suppressed and abused.
Say it loud and say it proud, baby: I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!
December 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Brickley says,
“I have seen more than enough evidence
to convince me that Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
is indeed eligible to hold his office”
This completely destroys his credibility and forces me to conclude that the author of the posted article is a Team Obama Stooge. The only evidence that is immediately available is that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a foreigner.
Ipso facto … he is not, and cannot be, a “Natural Born Citizen,” by the traditional meaning of the words used in Article II of the Constitution.
Brickley sells the Team Obama line that the word “native” = the word “natural.” The “Birthers” pin their hopes on a conspiracy to conceal foreign birth. Interesting, but hardly necessary. The “Birthers,” patriots though they may be, have enabled Team Obama to use their justifiable qualms about a Birth Certificate to totally obscure the Natural Born Citizen issue.
If BHO, Jr. is telling the truth about who his Dad was, he is ineligible. He is not a “Natural Born Citizen.” That would be true if the SOB was foaled on the White House Lawn on the 4th of July, or at low tide on the beach at Waikiki. Both of those scenarios would make him a native born citizen, just as good as any other citizen, but ineligible to assume the office of POTUS. It’s not a civil right. It’s a national security matter. Not even BHO, Jr. on his “Fight the Smears” claims he is a natural born citizen.
While it is true that no court in the land has ever absolutely defined what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. However, they sure as hell have defined what one isn’t.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
62. The Constitution, for all its admirable traits, also answers the question as to whether a slave should count as 3/5ths of a person with a resounding YES!
December 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
A community Organizer?HUH?Hes the one who trained and directed the Acorn members on the get out and vote to falsely register 100 of thousands people who were dead or non existing resdents to vote,and the ones who was doing what they were Instructed to do by Obama are now in JAIL?and who openly showed their intendtions when they were busted for trying to defraud the goverment. He was the one who took city bank to court and forced them to loan blacks and minorities the money to buy a house they couldn’t afford 6 months after they bought it and the fact that they were the ones the suit was filed,admitted that their credit wasn’t good at all? His defense was that they refused to grant loans on racism and slavery act? This is when the banks said OK! and started lending money to anyone and started making their money on the loans they would be making on fees applied to these subprime loans that should not have been given.
It could be said that Obama case was the one case that started this subprime lending to get started.His claims I never worked for ACORN and in another breath he claims to be one of them fight along side of them.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Your position is dumb (and, I assume you KNOW it is) because it presumes that Obama has hidden his record solely to “create” the birthers. He didn’t! The birther movement is an incidental argument, the spin that lefties always try to put on unfortunate facts. Obama is refusing to reveal his standard documents because to release them would cause him more damage than to continue to conceal them. For example, there is no question that his master’s thesis was plagiarized, he copied it from someone else. Some lefty professor at Columbia would NEVER have turned him in but, today, the text would be run though a software program and, viola! His medical records? No, because he’s impotent, he’s HIV-positive, he has STDs, he’s was (is?) a drug addict. He is hiding something heavy and to reveal won document would force him to show the next until his terrible secret was public.
Think about all of us white liberals who voted for Obama only because he was black and not Bush. What information about Obama’s background would it have taken to say, “Yes, but…” and vote for McCain? Now that we know Obama is an empty suit, a boob reading from the teleprompter what others have written for him, who of us would vote for him again? Damn few! So, he is not going to reveal NOW what would have been so damaging to him last year.
The only way to the truth is a detailed investigation of his past, the kind of investigation that the captive media did on Bush’s past.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
65 – “62. The Constitution, for all its admirable traits, also answers the question as to whether a slave should count as 3/5ths of a person with a resounding YES!”
You are absolutely correct – it DID {past tense} up until the ratification of the 13th Amendment. THEY did it the right way.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
65 – “62. The Constitution, for all its admirable traits, also answers the question as to whether a slave should count as 3/5ths of a person with a resounding YES!”
You are absolutely correct – it DID {past tense} up until the ratification of the 13th Amendment. THEY did it the right way.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Don’t look now, but I think your straightjacket has come undone.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
runninbear
r= racist u= ugly n=nuts n=nuttier i= idiot n= narcissist bear
December 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Adam Brickley…
You win the Darwin Award.
Obama puts on his site that he is ineligible per the Natural Born Citizen clause pertaining to exclusively the job of Commander in Chief, and you run around giving Obowma props for being eligible.
Adam, I heard Saddam Hussein banged your mom before he died. As long as your mom has her birther in the U.S., he should be able to run for President in 35 years.
Congrats on your Darwin.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You’re starting to give lunatics a bad name.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
73 – I heard Saddam Hussein banged your mom before he died.
You’re starting to give lunatics a bad name.
—————-
No, he’s making a very important point. While his ‘your mom’ comment was insulting, unnecessary and distracting, you should think about the fact that any tyrant in the World could send a pregnant female to this country prior to the birth. Under ‘your’ rules, that child would be eligible to be our President regardless of his upbringing so long as s/he meets the 35 years old and 14 years a resident requirements. This is FAR more than a Democrat/Republican struggle or a “hate Obama” issue and you should carefully consider the consequences before pushing that radical change to our Consitution.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The birthers are a God send to the Obamas. It keeps people off the simple fact his daddy was never an American and to truly be a Natural Born American Citizen both your parents have to be Americans Citizens at the time of your birth. That is what separates the common citizens from the Natural Born American Citizens that John Jay wrote to George Washington about when he mentioned it being a requirement for their new Commander in Chief. That my friends is the elephant hiding in our room that no one says they can see, or smell. A BC would not mean a thing right now, with the FBI,CIA, and various other organizations they have at their disposal they could fake the Dead Sea Scrolls by now and show Obama was really Jesus Christ’s father. Why else would Nancy Pelosi risk it all by removing the Constitutional requirement from the DNC notifications of their Presidential pick. Wake Up America! This is not Rocket Science! Simple known facts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have been taken over by a Communist coup and have a usurper sleeping in our White House. So sad, but so true. Now what?
December 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
58 – Please go back and reread the Kim Wong Ark case. The court clearly states that Kim is only a CITIZEN! The words “natural born” are not found in the decision.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
When Barack Obama was born in Honolulu his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 (www.fightthesmears.com; http://www.factcheck.org). Barack Obama was born British. The Constitution provides an exception for those who were born British to be president of the US – but only if you were born before the adoption of the Constitution. (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5).
Barack Obama is ineligible. Bobby Jindal may be ineligible, too, depending upon whether or not his parents’ Indian citizenship transferred to him at the moment of his birth in Louisiana.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“You’re starting to give lunatics a bad name.” It is just called bad taste.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“’You’re starting to give lunatics a bad name.’ It is just called bad taste.”
——————
What is bad taste? Nonsensical messages like yours?
December 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
No, what is non sense is you accusing somebody having a fling with Saddam Hussein.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“No, what is non sense is you accusing somebody having a fling with Saddam Hussein.”
——————-
What utter tripe. I didn’t accuse anybody of doing anything. I think you need some reading lessons. Nice try but you sure are making yourself look ignorant.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’m not pushing anything, but rather refusing to be pushed. The whole issue, inasmuch as there is one, leaves me radically unmoved.
But I would suppose that those igniting their hair over Obama’s citizenship might, on the off chance that they get their case heard by the Supremes, wind up with an interpretation of “natural born citizen” that would be the opposite of what they hope to achieve: The SCOTUS liberals would not unseat a sitting president, and the conservatives would be mostly unwilling to overturn the accepted results of a popular election. They’d potentially widen the definition of natural born citizenship to include Obama’s circumstances, assuming that these are what the “birthers” believe them to be.
It’s a heads-he-wins/tails-you-lose proposition.
I’d like to be rid of this president and his radical ideologies as fast as possible. Pay close attention to the last word in that sentence. I assume any other means of removing the president outside the next scheduled election to be impossible. So I cannot be bothered to care about your cause at all.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Everyone agrees that President Obama’s original birth certificate would end the controversy. Please vote and explain why you think President Obama has not produced or should not produce his original birth certificate. http://eyeonthelaw.blogspot.com/
December 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“I didn’t accuse anybody of doing anything.” The suggestion was rather clear to me.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am
IceTrey said: ‘Please go back and reread the Kim Wong Ark case. The court clearly states that Kim is only a CITIZEN! The words “natural born” are not found in the decision.’
Actually, the words “natural born” appear over and over and over in the decision. At least 34 times in fact (that’s what came up when I did a quick search through the majority opinion).
Furthermore, there are only two types of citizens: those who are citizens by virtue of their birth (these are natural-born citizens) and those who become citizens later (naturalized citizens). That’s it. Just those two. Regardless of the bizarre theories apparently made up out of whole cloth by crazy-Orly and her compatriots.
Here’s the final paragraph in the majority opinion for the Wong Kim Ark case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
There you have it. Born in the US = became a citizen at the time of his birth, so is a natural-born citizen.
This ain’t rocket science folks.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
By decision I meant exactly what you quoted, the last paragraph. Specifically, “at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States”. As for your contention that to be born in the US makes you an NBC, you are wrong. Wong was a 14th amendment citizen, therefore that means he was a citizen by virtue of law. He was a statutory citizen. To be an NBC means that no law is required to affirm your citizenship. As you stated the term natural born is discussed in the body of the argument yet the SC declined to call Wong a natural born citizen. They merely called him a citizen as evidenced in your own quote. Why? Because to be born a citizen does not necessarily equal natural born citizen.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
IceTrey: Sorry, but you’re just wrong. The birthers have come up with all these convoluted arguments trying to make up different types of citizenship. But that doesn’t mean it’s true. In the Wong case, he was a citizen by his birth – what made him a citizen was precisely the fact that he was born in the US. That made him a natural born citizen. And it’s completely clear that’s what the Supreme Court decision is saying in that case.
Same with Obama. He was born in Honolulu, and since his parents were residents of Hawaii he became a citizen by his birth (regardless of his parents’ citizenship). That makes him a natural born citizen.
Yes, it really is that simple.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:01 am
This thread is horrifying.
62. The Constitution, for all its admirable traits, also answers the question as to whether a slave should count as 3/5ths of a person with a resounding YES!
So they should have counted as a full vote?
That was the position of the slave-holders, you know. They wanted more votes.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:42 am
87- Let me lay it out for you. There are 4 ways you can become a citizen
1. natural born – born in the US, 2 citizen parents
2. native born – born in the US, 1 or 2 foreign parents
3. born – born outside the US, 1 or 2 citizen parents
3. naturalized
You don’t understand what the word “natural” in natural born means. As I said before it means “requiring no law”. I suggest you google the phrase there is plenty of information out there that clearly explains it.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Woodrow Wilson’s mother was a British citizen. Seven other presidents had a parent or both parents who were not American citizens.
You birthers are stupid.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:09 am
The three-fifths rule in the Constitution is historical artifact, which is what I would argue “natural born” is.
Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person was part of a compromise between slave states and non-slave states to buy support for the Constitution. Slave states wanted to count slaves for the purpose of the census and its implications for each state’s congressional representation in the House. Yet they also wanted to make sure that slaves were not counted as humans, but instead as personal property.
I find it interesting that none of the birthers has yet to show us any indication of the Founders debating the issue of citizenship by making the distinctions the birthers claim are so important. Undeterred by the lack of evidence of debate among the Framers (no one has pointed to the Federalist Papers, for instance), they insist the wording “natural born citizen” implies up to four categories of citizenship.
The strongest case I’ve ever seen for the oddly formulated qualifications for the presidency was that one faction of the Framers wanted to make sure that the Caribbean bastard Alexander Hamilton would never be eligible.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
IceTrey – Thank you for laying it out for me. Unfortunately, you’re still wrong. There are two types of citizens. Natural born, and naturalized. The others you list are made up. Fabrications. No basis in law.
Continue to believe your fantasies if you’d like, but whenever this gets considered by people who actually understand the law, it’s dismissed for the garbage that it is.
I don’t have any real desire to stay here and continue arguing when you are using made-up theories about citizenship. I’ll just close with a quote from the decision in one of the recent birther cases. This is from the Indiana Court of Appeals (November of this year): “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” (this is from Ankeny v Indiana if you want to look it up)
Even if the Wong Kim Ark case decision wasn’t clear enough for you, surely that is.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Is that a Supreme Court decision, no, therefore it is meaningless. As for my assertions having no basis in law I agree that at this time it is merely opinion, BUT SO IS YOURS! Since there is no law nor has there ever been ANY Supreme Court case that SPECIFICALLY deals with what the definition of natural born citizen is, any discussion is merely argument and opinion. That being said, once again, you are wrong. If you argue that someone who is born in the US to 2 foreign parents and is a citizen under the 14th amendment (a law) is “natural” born then you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If you argue someone born outside the US to a citizen who themselves becomes a citizen under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (a law) is “natural” born you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You are the one who is making up the idea the the term “natural” equates to “citizen at birth”. That’s not what it meant when the Constitution was written and that’s not what it should mean now.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The Republican Party did a terrible job of not ensuring that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president. Besides the birth certificate we have the issue of Obama’s father a foreign born citizen and Obama himself declaring himself a dual national citizen of the US and UK. Sure Obama is playing the game to weaken the opposition while we allow him to remain in office without him proving he is eligible to hold office. The Republican Party gets none of my financial support for allowing this issue not to be resolved in the courts.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
OK. Supreme Court. Minor v. Happersett (1874):
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
That, combined with the Wong Kim Ark case decision, should be enough for you. But probably not.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Yes. But once again there are 3 ways to be born a citizen. You can be natural born, born and be a citizen under the 14th amendment or born and be a citizen under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The latter 2 require the force of law to make you a citizen. Laws which can be changed. We can repeal the 14th amendment. The Immigration Act has been changed numerous times in the last 250+ years. You can NEVER change the circumstances of a natural born. Any action that requires an act of man (a law) is not natural it is by definition artificial.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
94 – The reason the Republicans didn’t vet Obama was because McCain isn’t an NBC either because he was born in Panama.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:06 am
[...] For the full post: http://race42008.com/2009/12/11/going-birther/ [...]