February 16, 2011

Birthers aren't like Truthers.

There's a new poll showing that a majority of Republicans doubt that President Obama was born in the United States. Are they paranoid-type thinkers, like the 9/11 Truthers, looking for things to connect up and suspecting that conspiracies lie underneath things that other people think are as they've been presented in the media?

I think we need to see that they are not. They have one issue. One question. They have suspicion about one thing, and that suspicion notably hasn't led them into other theories. There's one factual issue — the immensely important matter of the President's qualification — that hasn't been nailed down to their satisfaction.

It's perfectly rational to take as your working theory that evidence that isn't produced would run counter to the interest of the party who could produce it and does not. In legal cases, if a party fails to produce a document requested in discovery, the judge can deem that the fact is established to be what the party seeking discovery is trying to prove. (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)2)(A)(i)).

All I'm saying is that it's not paranoid to answer the question the way the majority did in that poll. I haven't followed the so-called "birthers" that much. Presumably, some of them branch out into other theories and cross over into conspiracy thinking and paranoia. But it's absurd to read the poll results as a sign that the GOP is full of folks like that. If you really wanted to gauge the nuttiness of Republicans, you could do a much more fine-grained poll about what Republicans believe and how strongly the birther issue correlates to other beliefs.

184 comments:

TMink said...

Well, nobody is interested in an article about how logical and clear thinking conservatives are.

Trey

TMink said...

Besides, the problem is not that our President was born outside the US. The problem is that in the race box it says "white."

Trey

kent said...

"Birther": Any individual (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) monomaniacally obsessed with any/all activities and events relating to Sarah Palin's vagina, including -- but not limited to -- a fevered, relentless questing for the fabled Afterbirth of Trig.

Yes. These people absolutely, unquestionably are raving, paranoid nutcases, and should be kept away from small children and any of the smaller, more defenseless farm animals.

Original Mike said...

I was amused/annoyed at David Gregory's interview of John Boehner Sunday morning. He kept claiming that it was Boehner's job to denounce (his word) the birthers and people who believe that Obama is a Muslim with lines like:

"Why isn't it your job to stand up and say, "No, the facts are these"?"

I'm thinking, "why is it the job of the Speaker of the House"? Why, instead, isn't it the presses job to investigate the facts and inform the public. Doesn't it fall on your head, Mr. Gregory if the populus has the wrong belief on these issues."

But I guess it isn't. He's only a member of THE PRESS!

Gordon Freece said...

He's qualified regardless of where he was born, because his mother was a US citizen. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone. The NYT tried to pretend that was an issue, but it just isn't.

So why hasn't Obama released the damn birth certificat? It seems obvious that there must be something embarrassing in it, right? Not disqualifying, just embarrassing. That's the assumption your Civil Procedure rule is working from: People don't just randomly stonewall for no reason when there's nothing to be gained by it.

...unless they're incompetent and/or pathologically arrogant. Which Obama is. Obama and his handlers really are dumb enough to withhold the birth certificate for no rational reason at all.

kent said...

He kept claiming that it was Boehner's job to denounce (his word) the birthers and people who believe that Obama is a Muslim [...]

"People are blaspheming against Him, damn your heathen eyes! DO SOMETHING -- !!!"

Scott M said...

People don't just randomly stonewall for no reason when there's nothing to be gained by it

The thing to be gained, assuming nothing untoward at all on the birth certificate, is that it could possibly marginalize a healthy chunk of the oppositions base as loony.

PaulV said...

This reminds me of scheme Karl Rove used to trick DNC into telling CBS about the Rathergate Memos and getting 60 Minutes to utter forged documents on the American People.

Hagar said...

It is the MSM that says it is about his place of birth.

It is more like John Kerry's miltary records. We know he served in Viet Nam, and he has the hat, he has the hat to this very day, and he must have an "honorable discharge," or he could not have served as a U.S Attorney.
So what is in there, even on his DD214, that he does not want us to see? Inquiring minds want to know.

CachorroQuente said...

Besides, the problem is not that our President was born outside the US. The problem is that in the race box it says "white."

Guess what you are referring to is the Hawaii "long form" birth certificate for Obama. There are several examples of those forms from about the time of Obama's birth available on the web and none of them includes an entry, or a box for an entry, for the race of the child.

Tibore said...

"I think we need to see that they are not. They have one issue. One question. They have suspicion about one thing, and that suspicion notably hasn't led them into other theories. There's one factual issue — the immensely important matter of the President's qualification — that hasn't been nailed down to their satisfaction."

As much as this pains me to say, there is still a common methodology between birthers and truthers. And that's their reaction to factual evidence, plus their commision of the logical fallacy "appeal to perfection". The fact that birthers are monogamous in regards to conspiratorial fantasizing doesn't change the fact that they engage in paranoid fantasizing. See Mick's past posts as a telling example.

Monogamy to ill-constructed argument and weakly supported assertion in the face of fact does little to distinguish one set of conspiracy peddlers from the more free-ranging "promiscuous" types like truthers. It merely means they suffer from a monomania.

Thorley Winston said...

The thing to be gained, assuming nothing untoward at all on the birth certificate, is that it could possibly marginalize a healthy chunk of the oppositions base as loony.

Bingo and I think we saw a similar strategy with our last President and how he subtly nudged some of his loonier critics into wasting eight years trying to turn over every rock in Crawford, Texas hoping and utterly failing to find some evidence of illegal drug use.

ricpic said...

A certificate of live birth doesn't have ANY doctor's signature on it. It's bupkis.

Tibore said...

But that said, I do agree with what the Professor said:

"But it's absurd to read the poll results as a sign that the GOP is full of folks like that. If you really wanted to gauge the nuttiness of Republicans, you could do a much more fine-grained poll about what Republicans believe and how strongly the birther issue correlates to other beliefs."

That is very true. I wouldn't want to tar the entire party with the brush of birtherism. The real test is less how strongly belief in the birther claims correlates to other beliefs, but rather how a given individual reacts in the face of factual evidence.

Using 9/11 trutherism as an example: Some of the claims are, in initial presentation, actually quite believable. For example, if jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, how did the towers end up collapsing then (the answer is available elsewhere, but the crux of it is that steel doesn't have to melt to fail)? I think the same thing applies to those who espouse birther beliefs: Some will have been presented with an easy fiction posed as a question or an unanswered point, but some in that group will have not been exposed to the full spectrum of facts, answers, and context. So the key to measuring the "nuttiness" quotient is, in my mind, how they react when they are presented with the entire set of facts, and not merely the pointed, slanted "questions".

Some of you who've been here a while know I've studied truthers and their claims. There's something shocking to discover there: In regards to the details of the 9/11 events, as well as in regards to refuting truther claims, some people who call themselves "Truther" are actually the most knowledgeable about the event, even though the specific individuals I'm thinking about have long rejected every truther claim that has come about. Those folks started out as believers in the conspiracy assertions, but upon investigation realized that the evidence says otherwise, and that the truther claims were poorly constructed and supported to begin with. The point here is that the real litmus test of whether an individual is a free thinker or is a slave to a given narrative lies in how they react to evidence. The true thinkers understand that conclusions are drawn from evidence; the paranoiacs shape what evidence they present according to the contours of their beliefs. Only one of those groups of people are right.

dbp said...

Althouse: "It's perfectly rational to take as your working theory that evidence that isn't produced would run counter to the interest of the party who could produce it and does not."

Bingo!

YoungHegelian said...

The matter wasn't helped any when the Dem. governor of Hawaii vowed to release the full form birth certificate, and then later admitted they couldn't find it.

There seem to be waaay too many things about Obama that got lost in a black hole along the way (e.g. details of his college years, his years with his black liberation church, what he did with his time at at U of C, the LA Times spiking the recording of him at a pro-palestinian conference, and what ever happened to the $800M he raised as a candidate).

The birth certificate? In and of itself, trivial and pointless. As part of a larger pattern of deliberate obfuscation by our president about the details of his life, not trivial at all.

AJ Lynch said...

Shouldn't this be tagged "red meat for Althouse hillbillies" ?

Meade said...

Tibore said...
The fact that birthers are monogamous in regards to conspiratorial fantasizing doesn't change the fact that they engage in paranoid fantasizing. See Mick's past posts as a telling example.

Has Mick engaged in paranoid fantasizing? I looked at some of his past posts. Seems to me he generally sticks to the facts. Can you give us a specific example of his "paranoid fantasizing?"

Bruce Hayden said...

It is more like John Kerry's miltary records. We know he served in Viet Nam, and he has the hat, he has the hat to this very day, and he must have an "honorable discharge," or he could not have served as a U.S Attorney.

I think that it is how he got his honorable discharge - there is some indication that he was aided by Ted Kennedy, and it was done at the time when a lot of protesters were getting theirs (under Carter, I believe).

What has always been a bit suspicious there is that he was supposed to be in the Naval Reserves at the time that he was testifying as to all the supposed atrocities in the war in Vietnam, yet, his haircut was far from regulation. His reserve commitment was supposedly similar to GWB's National Guard commitment, but we have no evidence that he performed any of it.

So, my guess is that when he left active service, he just drifted off, and never completed his reserve commitment. And, w/o that, he couldn't get an honorable discharge. He came back later, needed the honorable discharge, and got help from one of his Senators.

There is a possibility that he was booted for his testimony in Congress, but I think that his haircut at the time is indicia that he was already considering himself out of the military by then.

Bruce Hayden said...

What is going to be quite humorous this coming election, if Obama indeed runs for reelection. The big trend in states right now seems to be requiring candidates for national office to produce birth certificates in order to get elected, or in his case, to get electors.

The legal arguments are going to be quite interesting here. States have traditionally had at least some control who gets on their ballots. But the Presidential election is of national concern. But, then, why don't we have national election standards?

Like I said, should be interesting.

MikeR said...

"Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?" Yes, No, Not sure.
I think it's quite possible that a non-political American would not be sure. Not because he's a Birther, but because he doesn't remember.
Further, a slightly more political American who has never researched the subject, never read articles on it, never checked out what the short document produced looked like - might also say he's not sure. Not because he's a Birther, but because he recognizes his own ignorance.

I would that that to be a Birther, you need to believe in a conspiracy, and the poll question ought to reflect that.

edutcher said...

This stems from HI Gov Abercrombie wanting to be a good little soldier and saying he was going to put an end to this and then couldn't find the document.

Bet Barry wishes he'd said something to him.

Meade said...

There's a new poll showing that a majority of Republicans doubt that President Obama was born in the United States.

I'd like to see a new poll taken of only the voters who elected Mr. Obama in 2008: "If President Obama runs for reelection in 2012 but fails to produce documents that prove he meets the eligibility requirements found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, will you vote to reelect him?"

Bruce Hayden said...

It's perfectly rational to take as your working theory that evidence that isn't produced would run counter to the interest of the party who could produce it and does not. In legal cases, if a party fails to produce a document requested in discovery, the judge can deem that the fact is established to be what the party seeking discovery is trying to prove. (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)2)(A)(i)).

Reminds me a bit of the last case my father argued before the Colorado Supreme Court before retiring. They didn't put his client on the stand because he couldn't remember the relevant conversation (it later turned out he had Alzheimer's, which ultimately was the major cause of his death, but they didn't know that then). So, at the trial level and the intermediate appeals level, the courts figured he was hiding something, and on those grounds, decided in favor of the other party.

But then, at the Co. Supreme Court, my father pointed out that they were willing to stipulate to what the other party had said had been the conversation. And, indeed, they had done so all along. And even with that stipulation, the other side shouldn't win. And they ultimately didn't.

For any lawyers, or law students there, the case revolved around consent by silence, and the result was that, in CO now, there has to be a duty to speak, in order for there to be assent by not speaking. And, in this case, there was no duty, so his failure to respond was not assent.

Maybe the moral to the story is that you have to be careful about what you impute by someone's failure to testify. In any case, my father thinks that this win was a good way to retire from almost 50 years of practicing law.

AJ Lynch said...

I am not certain that a person is natural born if they were born overseas AND they had only one parent who is an American citizen.

Original Mike said...

@MikeR: Yes. If I were to honestly answer the question, "Was Obama born in the U.S.?", I'd have to say "I don't know". I know there's a claim he wasn't, and I am not personally familiar with the arguments and evidence. That equals an "I don't know" in my world.

I'm also aware that the media is making a big push to label people making the claim as nuts. However, it's been a very long time since I trusted the media, so that that doesn't sway me very much.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would that that to be a Birther, you need to believe in a conspiracy, and the poll question ought to reflect that.

I would think that if you were a birther-denialist, then you would need to be either be abusing drugs, or torturing kittens, and the poll question ought to reflect that.

AJ Lynch said...

Meade:
OT but I'd like to see a poll ask this question: Do you think the fed govt could withstand a 10% across the board spending cut asap?

Trooper York said...

I think that Barry was born in Hawaii but his birth certificate contains something that they do not want to reveal.

Either his religion is listed as Muslim or his male parent is listed as "unknown" or his race is listed as Caucasian.

Anyway you slice it he is hiding something.

But there are plenty of other reasons to oppose him. He gives you a new one everyday.

He is very good that way.

madAsHell said...

I think it was Obama's acquaintance, and Gov. of Hawaii Ambercrombie(sp?) that pushed me over the line.

Ambercrombie was going to settle this for everyone....but he couldn't find the birth certificate either!

What's the adage...."Don't ever ask a question to which you do not know the answer"

Ignorance is Bliss said...

While I have no doubt that President Obama was born in Hawaii, if I was called by a polling organization, I'd be mighty tempted to screw with them.

Trooper York said...

Oh.

Next election.

Fire his ass!!!!!

Hagar said...

We know he was considered excessively gung-ho and reckless in Viet Nam (also see his tapes of himself in rakish battle attire, etc.) and when he returned to private life, he was again quite proud of his service, displaying memorabilia on his office walls, etc.
But then there is his interlude in Washington with the protest movement, slovenly "protester's fatigues," long hair, etc. Quite out of character with his behavior before and after. So what if it was all an act, and he actually worked undercover for some Naval intelligence agency and got typically over-exuberant?
Very embarrassing, I would say.

Tibore said...

"Meade said...
Tibore said...
The fact that birthers are monogamous in regards to conspiratorial fantasizing doesn't change the fact that they engage in paranoid fantasizing. See Mick's past posts as a telling example.

Has Mick engaged in paranoid fantasizing? I looked at some of his past posts. Seems to me he generally sticks to the facts. Can you give us a specific example of his "paranoid fantasizing?"


Sorry for the brief answer, Meade, but I'm caught doing some hit-and-run blog reading here (and of course this blog is one of those I like to frequent). But to answer your question: Yes, he does indeed indulge in this. As one example: Back on the second, he asserted that "The Banking Elite controls Obama", which is very classic paranoia speak (a shadowy group who controls money also controls politics). There is a nugget of truth to the concept of the banking sector, and therefore the CEOs and other high officials within individual banks, having disproportionate influence with the government, but I would argue that is on the same level as lobbyists having influence. It's certainly not some "puppet master" sort of relationship.

Also, referring specifically to the birther claims: This example is unforunately not "paranoid" as much as it is "fantasizing", but his continual and mistaken insistence on Jus soli not being applicable to the birther claims, as well as his misapprehension of the effect of Jus sanguinis, all of which is settled precedent. Both of those are both examples of fantasizing in contradiction to established fact. Yes, again, this is admittedly not "paranoid". And I acknowledge that I should have made a clearer distinction between paranoid and simple fantasizing - my viewpoint has been shaped by Truthers, and they engage in an equal mix of both. But, the overall point I was trying to make was that Mick has engaged in credulous thinking, and has not rigorously tested his beliefs against established fact as much as he simply tries to argue against all that he disbelieves in, regardless of the accuracy of the arguments he musters.

And last: Please take note that it is unimpressive to marshal context-free "facts" in arguments. If you want to see an example of such, in 9/11 trutherism three individuals to look up that are the epitome of this sort of argument are Tony Szamboti, Anders Björkman, and Gordon Ross. All three are engineers. All three can independently drum up impressive looking arguments. That doesn't mean those arguments reflect reality. I'm less impressed by Mick's marshalling of "facts" and more by his slant in interpreting them to his favor, but that's a whole other thread.

Yeah, this is a brief response, I'm afraid, ocnsidering how much more I can say on the topic of conspiratorial and conterfactual thinking :D. I can go on longer, but again, I'm time pressed. I'll look here again in the future (unfortunately, probably days hence, given my schedule this week) and see if you have any more questions. I'm happy to engage with you, Meade, as a person I respect and like the heck out of here.

Anonymous said...

"If you really wanted to gauge the nuttiness of Republicans, you could do a much more fine-grained poll about what Republicans believe and how strongly the birther issue correlates to other beliefs."

They don't want facts. they want a narrative.

The narrative they want is: The GOP is full of birther nuts.

If the narrative is framed this way, then the question can be dismissed out of hand.

Barack Obama is not qualified to be the President of the United States and he has participated in a conspiracy to falsify the qualifications he presented to the Electoral College.

He should be impeached if he does not resign, arrested, tried and then punished.

At any rate, the Electoral College needn't accept his electors next time around - now that they know they have been deceived.

garage mahal said...

Only 51%? That seems low.

Original Mike said...

Maybe Barry was born in Green Bay. Someone should ask him who are the World Champions of profootball. If he knows it's the Green Bay Packers, that would be good enough for me.

Shanna said...

I think it's quite possible that a non-political American would not be sure. Not because he's a Birther, but because he doesn't remember.

I agree. I have a coworker who said something about Obama being Muslim and my boss and I (different sides of the political spectrum) were both surprised but she thought it was what Obama had actually said. Some people who don’t pay much attention just hear something like “obama is a muslim” or “obama wasn’t born in the us” and think it is simply the truth, not a theory. They’re not paranoid, they’re just not paying attention.

I also think they would have gotten different answers if they just asked if Obama was qualified for president, instead of asking where he was born. Mick’s position is fairly rare.

roesch-voltaire said...

It all depends on what counts as evidence. Truthers doubt the edited video showing the crash into the Pentagon, and Birthers doubt the form produced by the city health records. Clearly a common thread here: government conspiracies

285exp said...

President Biden. 'nuff said.

Is believing that Obama hasn't proven he was born in Hawaii as paraniod as believing that Bush knew about the 9/11 plot or even participated in it?

madawaskan said...

Anyway you slice it he is hiding something.

Gasp! He could be Jewish.

Trooper York said...

Well that is easy to check.

Let's see he if he has ten percent off.

You can just any member of the mainstream media to verify it as they all suck his dick every chance they get.

Holmes said...

People know what polls are used for. This is just the poll equivalent of a middle finger.

Trooper York said...

Wait was I not civil?

Sorry.

Anthony said...

My question about the birthers is why they raised this issue in the first place? Were they asking for documentation of the birthplace of every presidential candidate in the 2008 election, or each previous president? If they did, was proof provided and was it more definitive than proof offered by the Administration or the state of Hawaii? If the birthers did not, then where did the skepticism surrounding President Obama's birthplace originate? And how are we to know that the suspicion is not being perpetuated in bad faith?

Just Lurking said...

The thing to be gained, assuming nothing untoward at all on the birth certificate, is that it could possibly marginalize a healthy chunk of the oppositions base as loony.

Agreed. They could end the controversy any time they want by releasing the doc. Any other President would have done so a long time ago.

But this is one of the most cynical and divisive administrations ever. They embrace this as yet another opportunity where they can demonstrate their contempt for the opposition.

Trooper York said...

I think the birth certificate will show that Don Ho was his father.

kent said...

I think the birth certificate will show that Don Ho was his father.

Way I always heard it, it was his mother who was the Ho.

madawaskan said...

Trooper

Mmm could be Wayne Newton.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Wait...obviously I'm not winnin' the future here.

Wayne ain't Hawaiian.

I always thought he was.

He fooled me with his yukalaelee.

RichardS said...

If Harlan was right to dissent in Wong Kim Ark, it's academic, anyway. In other words, if citizenship is based on compact theory (and hence consent), rather than soil (like common law, as the majority held), he's a natural born citizen, since his mother was a citizen.

Trooper York said...

Well I do think that more than 51%
of Republicans would think that one of his parents was a Ho.

I was just trying to be civil.

Scott M said...

Wait...obviously I'm not winnin' the future here.

madawaskan, as snarkologists, it is our duty not to make fun of this phrase (for now). If we do and in great enough numbers and volume, the administration will not go with it and we'll loose the greatest snark opportunities in American history.

Please keep it on the DL (for now).

aronamos said...

The biggest argument against him being born outside the US was the age of his mother. As a survivor of raising a girl, there no more sticky a cockleburr than an 18-year-old girl in discomfort.

I figure His parents weren't actually married. But wouldn't that play into the Narrative?

madawaskan said...

Scott M

Gotcha-but you gotta let me have that bullet train crapola.

Gawd-why can't the Republicans run with that?

I mean why would a Hawaiian want a train?

kent said...

I figure His parents weren't actually married. But wouldn't that play into the Narrative?

Only if you remember to mention the three wise men, and the manger.

Michael said...

"The thing to be gained, assuming nothing untoward at all on the birth certificate, is that it could possibly marginalize a healthy chunk of the oppositions base as loony."

Not so. People would just shrug and ask what took so long. The loony part is not coming up with the stupid birth certificate. I mean really, what could possibly be the big deal? Some nurse checked the wrong race? His name is Barry? Who give a shit. I think as a nation we are all a bit worn out with this asshole.

Original Mike said...

Oh, nooo! More dead Choo-Choos.

smrstrauss said...

The basis of birther theory is the claim that Obama was not born in the USA. I stress this because the basis is NOT the allegation that the evidence for his birth in the USA is insufficient.

Birthers did not care about evidence for the 43 presidents who preceded Obama. They only desire more evidence (though what has been published is sufficient) because they believe that Obama was born in Kenya, or some other country.

This comes from the LIE that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. But she actually said repeatedly in a taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family had heard of his birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

So, when you assert that birthers are at least rational, please tell me how they can be rational and deliberately ignore this fact:

If a child were born in any other country than the USA, she or he would need a US visa or to be entered on the mother’s US passport in order to be allowed to enter the USA. If such a document existed for Obama, it would have to have been applied for, and the files of the applications for it would still exist–and NO SUCH DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FOUND.

IN addition to that fact, there is--of course--such well known facts as THREE Republican officials confirming his birth in Hawaii, and the notices in the Hawaiian newspapers in 1961.

Birthers say that the THREE officials are lying, and they claim that the notices were ads (which is not true) that were placed by the parents or the grandparents. But they were not ads, they were notices from the government, which did not send them out unless there was proof of birth in Hawaii.

traditionalguy said...

An appearance of irregularity is there. Neither the live birth certificate nor even a Hospital/Doctor /Nurse testimony backup is there. So what do we do? He is President. That leaves impeachment which is a political act. Before the time the Senate has a 2/3 vote to convict, the 2012 election will be over anyway.

Almost Ali said...

Virtually everyone now knows Obama is a serial bullshitter - a jive turkey.

Including Gov. Abercrombie.

Anonymous said...

Althouse and Meade You are ridiculous here. Just yesterday, Mick claimed that Obama is beholden to international bankers to keep the debt high.

Furthermore, I have questions about Obama's birth certificate. I am quite sure there is something on it that Obama doesn't want people to see. It's probably simply that he is listed as white because his mother was white. He can't have that, because a large part of the edifice of his political career is built on blackness. Am I a birther?

Next, read the cases Mick "cites." They say nothing he says they say. He has this blood-and-soil idea of nationality that is, frankly, un-American.

Finally, the birthers are simply wrong. Obama was born American because he came out of an American vagina. End of story.

Is this the day that Althouse in her desire to be different finally jumped the shark?

cubanbob said...

smrstrauss said... in the time it took for you to write your ridiculous comment, in deed in less time, Obama could have released his original birth certificate. I have mine. I presume you have yours, he is just being a jerk by not releasing it along with with college transcripts. He is a bullshitter and a grifter and has been all his life. Not for nothing he is a Chicago politician.

Next year he will release his birth certificate in order to qualify in every state since at least one state will require by law that the document be produced.

garage mahal said...

Oh, nooo! More dead Choo-Choos.

haven't seen you around much lately, I thought maybe you were downtown protesting the health care changes being RAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT. ;)

Anonymous said...

Bob -- The word grifter is good and accurate. Although I think Obama genuinely believes he is helping people. Perhaps like Berard Madoff. Or Jimmy Swaggart.

Almost Ali continues to use an abjectly racist term, however. Why, Ali? Why persist in racism when it is so unnecessary? What do you hope to gain when people who are not racist hear you?

JDF said...

Didn't one or two Hawaii newspapers publish a birth announcement? Doesn't that fact (something essentially impossible to explain away) pretty much destroy any theory that BHO was not born in Hawaii, regardless of what is in the birth certificate itself?

If that is the case, then the contents of his birth certificate are irrelevant to the constitutional question Ann raises.

For that reason, I suggest that continuing interest in this issue is a) evidence of fact-averse paranoia, or b) partisan desire to play "gotcha" with BHO.

Best, JDF

Rialby said...

No they are not the same.

Truthers believe that multiple people working in concert colluded in the planned murder of 10s of thousands of their fellow Americans.

Birthers believe that the current President of the United States is lying about his location of birth.

Anonymous said...

Birthers and truthers are both obviously wrong, yet they continue to argue on. That's similarly crazy.

Rialby said...

Trutherism is FAR more uncivil that birtherism.

Rialby said...

"That's similarly crazy."

That well may be true. It's also true that those who believe that the President of the United States fresh off a victory by 500 votes decided to up and murder 50,000 Americans in one day in order to start a war. To suggest as much is a much greater evil than to suggest Barack Obama, son of a Kenyan, was born in Kenya.

Scott M said...

Truthers believe that multiple people working in concert colluded in the planned murder of 10s of thousands of their fellow Americans.

10's of thousands?

Rialby said...

"It's also true that those who believe that the President of the United States fresh off a victory by 500 votes decided to up and murder 50,000 Americans in one day in order to start a war."

...It's also true people believe that the President of the United States fresh off a victory by 500 votes decided to up and murder 50,000 Americans in one day in order to start a war.

Kevin said...

Birther and Truther are not even close to the same order of magnitude, and it is ludicrous that they get constantly paired as if they were equal.

To be a Birther, you have to believe that a politician would ... lie ... for more power.

Does anyone NOT believe that?

To be a Truther, you have to believe that the President of The United States of America created the most elaborate ruse in history, involving missles and disappeared airplanes and preplanted explosives by demolitions professionals as a part of a conspiratorial cast of thousands, and thereby murdered thousands of American citizens (remember that the Towers held up to 45,000 people, so the death toll could have been 10x the final one), in cold blood on live international television, for ... what again? To make Haliburton stock go up a couple of bucks?

How are these two concepts comparable in any way? If what the Birthers allege is true was true, then that would be a shame, but it really wouldn't matter to most people.

If what the Truthers allege is true was true, it would be among the most monsterous crimes in all of human history. It would void the entire concept of the United States as its citizens perceive it.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Obama could have released his original birth certificate. "

Actually, he couldn't because Hawaii did not send it to him. It only sends out the new short-form official birth certificate that it sends to everyone--even those born before 2001--since it became the official birth certificate in 2001. Thousands of people use the Certification to prove their birth in the USA every year.

Re: "I have mine. I presume you have yours.."

Answer: Well good for you, but thousands of people lose their original birth certificates, and when they do and need one they ask the state to send them the birth certificate. In my case, I did lose the original, and my state sent me the new short-form birth certificate. That is what happens in Hawaii also.

Re: "Next year he will release his birth certificate in order to qualify in every state since at least one state will require by law that the document be produced."

Answer: If you are referring to the original birth certificate, that will not be the case. No state will pass a law that requires anything other than the official birth certificate of another state. There are two good reasons for this. The first is the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

The second is that some state (not Hawaii, which still has the original) may have destroyed the originals or may want to do so in the future. NO state can prevent another state from destroying records.

And, since many states have gone only to short-form birth certificates for a decade or so, in time there will be a large group of people who ONLY have short-form birth certificates--and they will have to be eligible to be president.

Original Mike said...

@garage: I don't have a problem with paying more for health care. The bigger one is pension. It's effectively a 5 - 6% pay cut, on top of the 3% furlough pay cuts of the last two years, but I'm OK with that too. I just wish I trusted the politicians to use the money responsibly, but I ain't too optimistic about that.

Rialby said...

Scott M - 10s of thousands.

Yes, had the attack gone as planned, there could have been thousands of more people dead as a result. The 1993 attack somehow only (I use that word with sadness) killed 7 people but could have killed 50,000 if the buildings had collapsed as intended.

Anonymous said...

Truthers are much worse than birthers. No one could disagree.

What would you say, though, is the percentage of concentric circle overlap, though? My guess is quite a lot. People who believe in conspiracy see conspiracy everywhere and always.

MikeR said...

"WHY doesn't he just release his birth certificate!??"
Because he gains a lot by not doing so, by making a lot of conservatives look like loons. Pure win.
Why is this hard to understand?

Anonymous said...

Hypothetical: The state where you live loses your birth certificate. How do you get it?

P.S.: If you believe you have an "original" copy of your own birth certificate, you are simply a fool. I am reminded of the clerk who worked for me who believed that the copies of originals somehow were more valuable than the copies of copies of originals.

Anonymous said...

"I think the birth certificate will show that Don Ho was his father."

It might also show that A Ho was his mother.

Saint Croix said...

It's not nutty to think Obama was born in a foreign country. It's entirely possible.

It's nutty to go on and on and on about it. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. His mother was an American. He's an American. He could be born on the moon, he'd still be an American. What would he be if he was born on the moon? A moonie? A man without a country? A man without a planet? An alien?

Birthers are morons.

garage mahal said...

@OM
No schadenfreude from me. Sounds like it's getting amended already.

Pogo said...

Obama's birth certificate has evidence of thermite on it.

Almost Ali said...

It might also show that A Ho was his mother.

Please, the polite term is liberal.

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to see a new poll taken of only the voters who elected Mr. Obama in 2008: "If President Obama runs for reelection in 2012 but fails to produce documents that prove he meets the eligibility requirements found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, will you vote to reelect him?"

The mainstream media would never commission such a poll.

So, my quesiton is: What's stopping the blogosphere's elite (PJ Media, Althouse, Politico, et. al.) from banding together to commission such a poll from Gallup?

We need to quit fantasizing about the media doing the right thing and just do it ourselves with the donations we receive from our readers via Amazon.

Anonymous said...

Saint Croix nails it.

Pogo said...

"I am reminded of the clerk who worked for me who believed that the copies of originals somehow were more valuable than the copies of copies of originals."

This is very often true in the art world, I understand.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" Althouse and Meade You are ridiculous here. Just yesterday, Mick claimed that Obama is beholden to international bankers to keep the debt high.

Furthermore, I have questions about Obama's birth certificate. I am quite sure there is something on it that Obama doesn't want people to see. It's probably simply that he is listed as white because his mother was white. He can't have that, because a large part of the edifice of his political career is built on blackness. Am I a birther?

Next, read the cases Mick "cites." They say nothing he says they say. He has this blood-and-soil idea of nationality that is, frankly, un-American."


And of course your argument is a nullity. Thank you Meade for the vote of confidence.
There is simply NO EVIDENCE that Obama was born in Hi. A pic on a website is proof of NOTHING, and any lawyer here that would say that it is, is incompetent.

There is NO WAY that anyone could say w/ certainty that Obama was born in Hi. Furthermore even if he was born in the White House, he would not be a natural born Citizen, because his father was not a US Citizen. Obama owed allegiance to Britain at birth, and that disqualifies him. As for that being an "unAmerican" thought, NONSENSE again.
A2S1C5 is a security requirement, designed to ensure, to the highest degree, allegiance and attachment to the US of the CIC of the armed forces. Do you think that the US Constitution discriminates against 34 year olds? Just because you don't qualify doesn't mean it's "unAmerican". The CIC is being held to a higher standard of being a second generation US Citizen. He has his finger on the button, DUH.

As for Obama being under the control of the Elite bankers, it is very obvious. He has just OK'd the handing of $800 Bilion to those bankers for free. They are the ones that caused the whole meltdown (which will enter the next down leg soon). They have bid Commodity prices up with that free money to the point that the poor are starving even more, and it has caused reverberations around the world. Equity prices are being bid up to give the illusion of Prosperity, when there is NONE. REAL unemployment approaches 20%, Housing Prices are CRASHING. Mark to Market accounting has been suspended in order to protect the Bankers, who's banks are in reality bankrupt if assets were held to actual value, not fantasy. 15% of the US population is on food stamps. No, there is only recovery for the bankers that caused it all.

You and your buddy smrstraus (KNOWN Obama internet operative) are simply protecting the Usurper.

Obama is not eligible, even if born in the White House, on the Oval office desk and was delivered by JFK, because his father was not a citizen. NO ONE of the esteemed "lawyers" that may be on this site have proven me wrong ONCE, and you never will because I speak the truth. Look back at my posts, and you will see a well reasoned and laser correct argument. Look at the rebuttals by those like you, and you will see lies, and an inability to reason. How can a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS be born a British subject?
You still can't answer, and never will.

Scott M said...

DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!

If you comment on it, he will come.

Biff said...

I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet, but, for what it's worth, the pollster, Public Policy Polling, is a Democrat affiliated firm. That may or may not have a bearing on the results, but I'd be interested in understanding exactly how they ran this particular poll.

Anonymous said...

Pogo -- I do stipulate that, at some point, there is diminishing value in copies, particularly if you have a lesser copier. However, that's at least a dozen and probably 100 copies down the line.

Original Mike said...

"If you comment on it, he will come."

Is this Iowa?

Anonymous said...

Being born American at birth need not relate to where you are born as long as one parent is American. (It's easier with the mother.)

Similarly, under current law, if your parents are on American soil when you come out of any vagina, you are an American through and through.

Sorry, Mick. You just don't understand the law. Your reading or Supreme Court cases is hilariously wrong, as has been demonstrated to you.

Anonymous said...

"It's nutty to go on and on and on about it. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. His mother was an American. He's an American."

Well, now what if his birth certificate says otherwise? What if his birth certificate lists a foreign mother?

Then wouldn't be eligible, now would he?

Obama claims his mother was an American. Is that true?

That's why we have birth certificates ... because sometimes people lie about their births if they have something to gain.

At any rate, the members of the Electoral College has been fooled once. They will not allow themselves to be hoodwinked again - and will require any candidate who shows up presenting delegates to provide proper credentials.

Obama will not be allowed delegates, since he will refuse to present proper credentials.

Pogo said...

I really don't give a damn about BHO's birth certificate. It's pointless.

I care more that he acts like he was born in Tehran.

Anonymous said...

What if his birth certificate lists a foreign mother?

This is the part where you people go off the rails. A birth certificate and any similar document report and are evidence of reality. They themselves are not reality and reality need not and often does not conform to them.

Obama's mother is who Obama's mother is. It doesn't matter what the document says.

Anonymous said...

"Obama's mother is who Obama's mother is. It doesn't matter what the document says."

And there we have the logic of the left.

Machos claims that Obama must be American because his mother's vagina is American, but then tries to claim that Obama's mother is whoever Obama says now that his mother is, and not what the official records show at the time of his birth.

Gee ... I wonder why people are suspicious?

Anonymous said...

"I care more that he acts like he was born in Tehran."

I care more that he acts as if he is President of Mecca.

cubanbob said...

"smrstrauss said...
Re: "Obama could have released his original birth certificate. "

Actually, he couldn't because Hawaii did not send it to him. It only sends out the new short-form official birth certificate that it sends to everyone--even those born before 2001--since it became the official birth certificate in 2001. Thousands of people use the Certification to prove their birth in the USA every year."

Its called getting a certified copy. Its not that hard to do if you want to. As for states legislating what documentation is required to be eligible on the ballot, thats Obama's problem if he can't produce the required documentation. Just like a gay marriage license, it is legal where issued but to date there has been no Supreme Court ruling that another state that does not allow gay marriage accept the validity of the marriage or the license. In the end one state will pass this legislation, probably AZ, maybe TX and the fun and games will begin. He will produce it, whatever is on there that is embarrassing will come out, the whole thing will blow over and he will look the schmuck that he is for not having released it in the first place and he would further diminish himself for no good reason. And if by some remote chance he doesn't, then several states will rush to pass this legislation through guaranteeing he won't be eligible to be on the ballot in enough states to win and he won't let that happen. So for what purpose has he spent a substantial amount of time and money fighting the release of the documents? Just proves again that he is a jerk and a grifter.

Lincoln said you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, obviously you fall in to Lincoln's second category.

Anonymous said...

Ut -- Believe me, I am not on the left. Come here more often and that will be abundantly clear.

Also, you are a very poor reader. I did not say that Obama's mother is who Obama says she is. I said that Obama's mother is who Obama's mother is. I think that you will see the considerable difference there is you reflect for a moment.

Again, consider my hypothetical above. Suppose the office of records burned down and your birth certificate was destroyed. Could you prove that your mother is who your mother is? Or would we be left in a situation where we have no idea who your mother is and no one would believe you?

jr565 said...

The head pol in Hawaii said that he'd produce the documentatoin then said there is no documentation. There is no definitive proof to refute the claim. Now I happen to think its a bogus story, but Obama would help out a lot if he just released some relevant documentation.
And is this any more crazy than thinking Obama isn't really a christian (well maybe a bit). There, you have two sides both liberal and conservative who have doubts about obama's authenticity.
But even if you combined both the birth thing and the religion thing does that come even 1/1000th to the bat shit crazy level of the truthers?
I mean to buy their story would require a coverup and consiracy not just of the president but all the air traffic controllers and would require ahead of time putting charges (Unnoticed) in the WTC prior to the attack, then as far as a the pentagon is concerned, either destroying a plane or hiding it, THEN firing a missile at the pentagon and then pretend that it was a plane that hit it. What happened to the passengers that were on that plane who are no longer here? I guess they had to be executed since a plane certainly didn't hit the Pentagon.
I have never heard a conspiracy theory so convoluted and bizarre. If you combined area 51, JFK's assassin, the moon landing is fake conspiracy into one giant conspiracy it wouldn't be as crazy as what the truthers believe.

jr565 said...

Tibore:
Using 9/11 trutherism as an example: Some of the claims are, in initial presentation, actually quite believable.

Maybe if you forgot to take your meds and are a schizophrenic. Otherwise they are the ramblings of the guy on the train talking about the man in the big house who is zapping his brain with energy waves.

Gene said...

CachorroQuente: There are several examples of those forms from about the time of Obama's birth available on the web and none of them includes an entry, or a box for an entry, for the race of the child.

No, but they do include boxes for the race of the father and the mother.

Anonymous said...

What's interesting to me about the Truthers is that there is the same sort of Truther movement among a large contingent of Muslims. For them, the culprit is Israel, and these people expend considerable energy making up stories about how the Mossad was behind September 11.

Why? Why do two groups with wholly different aims and cultural values feel compelled to lie to themselves in different ways about the very same thing when the truth is obvious to any rational person?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Obama is not eligible, even if born in the White House, on the Oval office desk and was delivered by JFK, because his father was not a citizen. "

Who told you this? It is wrong. The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY is that not one single one of the 535 members believes that the citizenship of Obama's father has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Anonymous said...

"Suppose the office of records burned down and your birth certificate was destroyed. Could you prove that your mother is who your mother is?"

Trivially and authentically. But your hypothetical is beside the point.

The record shows something. What it shows is known only to Barack Obama, who refuses to release the record but who could have it released if he wanted to. It might show he is not qualified.

The Electoral College is not bound to award delegates to candidates who show up but refuse to present proper credentials. They shouldn't. Obama is refusing to provide the Electoral College with proper credentials; therefore, electors are not bound to vote for him.

And they won't.

Doesn't matter if he has 65 million popular votes because as we all know, popular voting is not how we elect our Presidents.

Anonymous said...

Moreover, Strauss, the issue of whether someone who was born in another country of at least one American parent has never been litigated. If it were litigated, any court would find that the 14th Amendment requires that anyone who is American at the time of birth is a natural born American.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm with Seven Machos. His mother is American, so who cares about the birth certificate? Yes, obviously he doesn't want anyone to see it. I don't know why. And yes, that is strange.

But he is also obviously an American. As long as that's the case, I don't see the point of pressing the birth certificate issue.

Freeman Hunt said...

Also, does doubting he was born in the United States make one a Birther?

I don't care if he was born in the United States or not, and I don't care.

Anonymous said...

Ut -- I am quickly losing my patience with you. What the record shows is meaningless if it doesn't show what is true. I have demonstrated here, already, that Obama is an American no matter where he was born.

Also, the Electoral College did certify Obama and will do so again if he is popularly elected. Again, these are facts -- things true -- which have happened or will happen with no regard for your interesting but useless thoughts.

Blue@9 said...

It may not be paranoid, but it's a pointless exercise. What do people think will happen if they're proven correct? What is the beat possible outcome? Impeachment and a constitutional crisis? Wow, sign me up, I'm rather bored with this whole recession business (and didn't you hear, once you depose Obama, liberalism will be dead for good. Not).

I believe in the Constitution, but as a matter of civil government the people made their choice. Attempting creative ways to delegitimize him is a waste of time, just as it became laughable the way the left kept saying Bush won in a coup. It made them feel better about themselves ("we didn't *really* lose"), but it got pretty fucking lame after a year or two. You know that people claiming moral ascendency are full of shit when their political positions start showing up on bumper stickers.

Mutaman said...

I'd suspect the majority of Republicans also think Obama is a socialist and a Muslim So that makes three things "that hasn't been nailed down to their satisfaction"

As far as Anne's annalogy to disclosure: It is not proper to demand that a non governmental party produce a public record in discovery. If you want a public record, you subpoena it from the appropriate agency.
I believe this basic rule is even followed in wierd places like Wisconsin.

http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2010/12/02/public-records-request-is-not-discovery/

jr565 said...

Maybe he wasn't born in the US but is a nacural born citizen (beause of his mother) so he's still embarrased that the birth cert. will show he was born on foreign soil. It may ultimately not matter as to his ultimate citizenship, but it doesn't mean it couldn't hurt his career in politics or reinforce the idea that he is a liar..

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Being born American at birth need not relate to where you are born as long as one parent is American. (It's easier with the mother.)

Similarly, under current law, if your parents are on American soil when you come out of any vagina, you are an American through and through.

Sorry, Mick. You just don't understand the law. Your reading or Supreme Court cases is hilariously wrong, as has been demonstrated to you."



And of course you are wrong again (it's a habit). There is no such thing as "current law" w/ regard to whom is a natural born Citizen. It still means what it meant in 1787, i.e one born in the US of US Citizen parents, or as Laurence Tribe said, "one born w/in the Territory and Allegiance of a nation". A2S1C5 has NEVER been amended. Natural Born Citizen has NEVER been deemed to be a "Citizen at Birth", or Born a Citizen" or a "Bonafide Citizen" or any other euphemism that you and your Obama Internet Opersatives want to call it.

Mick said...

jr565 said...

"Maybe he wasn't born in the US but is a nacural born citizen (beause of his mother) so he's still embarrased that the birth cert. will show he was born on foreign soil. It may ultimately not matter as to his ultimate citizenship, but it doesn't mean it couldn't hurt his career in politics or reinforce the idea that he is a liar.."


NO ONE born outside of the US is a natural born Citizen, including John McCain.

Anonymous said...

Mick: Are slaves still three-fifths of a person, too?

No? Why?

Anonymous said...

NO ONE born outside of the US is a natural born Citizen, including John McCain.

This has never been litigated. We need not accept your arguments.

What is definitely true is that a person who comes out of an American vagina is considered an American equal to all others in terms of rights and status under the 14th Amendment, which you will note was ratified after 1787.

cubanbob said...

Seven Machos said..

Muchaco you pointed an interesting psychological disfunction that afflicts myriads of human beings. The inability to accept that life is at time capricious, random, indifferent and doesn't have to make sense.

6 million Israeli Jews have kick the ass of 250 million Arabs in conventional war fighting 5 times. How can that be? 6 million Israeli Jews produce more scientific and technical achievements in one year (and every year) than those very same 250 million Arabs in the last 60. How can this be? The answer is both simple and complex: it's Islam and the Arabic culture. But rather than be introspective and see why the failure, pride will not admit their failings so it must be a conspiracy to defeat us. No matter how illogical they can't lose 'face'. The same thing with the Germans after WW1. How could we have lost? Our armies are where they were in the West since 1915. The enemy has been unable to breach our lines so how could we have lost? Of course it never occurred to the average German to remember that Germany could not feed herself and the Anglo-America blockade brought Germany to the edge of starvation. That is why the High Command forced the acceptance of the Armistice. Mass starvation would have collapsed the Army even if the allies stopped firing their guns. They knew the allies would take advantage of a starving Germany that could not fight effectively with starving troops and fully occupy the country and therefore took the only deal that prevented the occupation of the country. But they myth of being stabbed in the back was the balm needed to avoid the realization that they brought a horrible war on themselves and lost it. For no good reason at the price of ruining themselves and losing millions in the process.

Truthers are people who can't stand randomness and capriciousness. Life has a purpose and meaning in all of its aspects even if malevolent. Its a certain comfort for them to believe that our government is somehow so super capable and powerful that it can pull of a 9/11 ( and a December 7th) and not that a bunch of rag heads or slant eyes are having an unbelievably lucky day. There is an order in the universe for these nuts and that is comforting to them as opposed to sheer randomness and capriciousness that is all to often in life both as individuals and as nations.

chickelit said...

Blue@9 said...What is the beat possible outcome? Impeachment and a constitutional crisis?

No. law is about precedent. If one candidate doesn't produce an original record deemed important, why should the next candidate?

Potential embarrassment or not, he should produce the record.

chickelit said...

What is definitely true is that a person who comes out of an American vagina is considered an American equal to all others in terms of rights and status under the 14th Amendment, which you will note was ratified after 1787.

I'll grant you that but Obama was technically entitled to dual citizenship. It may be entirely beside the point but I view dual citizenship is a dilution of American citizenship and I suspect others do too. It is not wrong to want to know this.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" Moreover, Strauss, the issue of whether someone who was born in another country of at least one American parent has never been litigated. If it were litigated, any court would find that the 14th Amendment requires that anyone who is American at the time of birth is a natural born American."




Oh so now you and your known Obama Internet Operative buddy are conversing? No court would find any such thing. The words Natural Born do not appear in the 14A. It is you and your fellow Obama protectors that make the leap from a "Born" citizen to a natural born Citizen. NOTHING in the Congressional Globe Congressional minutes from the 14A deliberations says ANYTHING about amending A2S1C5.
Further, the writer of the 14A, Stephen Bingham defined nbc thusly:

"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that ”every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is”, in the language of your Constitution itself, ”a natural born citizen”…."

Further Minor v. Happersett (1874)defined it in dicta:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Got that? It says the definition is not in the USC (Therefore it is not in the 1866 14A.

I know. Just inconvenient facts.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" Mick: Are slaves still three-fifths of a person, too?

No? Why?"

Silly argument, heard it a thousand times,
Next.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

NO ONE born outside of the US is a natural born Citizen, including John McCain.

"This has never been litigated. We need not accept your arguments.

What is definitely true is that a person who comes out of an American vagina is considered an American equal to all others in terms of rights and status under the 14th Amendment, which you will note was ratified after 1787."


It doesn't have to be litigated. It's natural law, that has been upheld MANY times as the origin of the term of art, natural born Citizen, in American jurisprudence for over 200 years.

Anonymous said...

Mick -- The holdings of your cases actually come out against your own proposition.

In one of the cases you cite, you make the remedial mistake of assuming that only people born in the United States are natural born Americans. The word only is not there.

Moreover, you will never, ever get what you want. But tell us again the one about how Obama is the tool of international bankers. I love that one.

Mick said...

Blue@9 said...

"It may not be paranoid, but it's a pointless exercise. What do people think will happen if they're proven correct? What is the beat possible outcome? Impeachment and a constitutional crisis? Wow, sign me up, I'm rather bored with this whole recession business (and didn't you hear, once you depose Obama, liberalism will be dead for good. Not).

I believe in the Constitution, but as a matter of civil government the people made their choice. Attempting creative ways to delegitimize him is a waste of time, just as it became laughable the way the left kept saying Bush won in a coup. It made them feel better about themselves ("we didn't *really* lose"), but it got pretty fucking lame after a year or two. You know that people claiming moral ascendency are full of shit when their political positions start showing up on bumper stickers."


Because Obama is trying to set a precedent that would allow foreign influence into the Oval Office, at the behest of the One World Government Banking elite. We are a nation of LAWS.
You mean it's OK for the President to be a Usurper? Then you don't deserve a Constitution.
The 25th and 20th Amendments set the process for removing an ineligible President or President elect.

Anonymous said...

Obama was technically entitled to dual citizenship

As have been several previous presidents, particularly those born closer to the founding of the country. Big deal. So what?

Anonymous said...

Because Obama is trying to set a precedent that would allow foreign influence into the Oval Office, at the behest of the One World Government Banking elite

LOOK ALTHOUSE! Read the fucking crazy and weep.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" Mick -- The holdings of your cases actually come out against your own proposition.

In one of the cases you cite, you make the remedial mistake of assuming that only people born in the United States are natural born Americans. The word only is not there.

Moreover, you will never, ever get what you want. But tell us again the one about how Obama is the tool of international bankers. I love that on"


Another Common Obot line of BS (is that why you brought smrstrauss here?)
They were citizenship cases, and the Judge was opining on the different meanings of Citizenship, including natural born Citizenship. It is dicta, but clearly shows that the Understanding was that it was natural law that was the basis of the term.
If you are talking about Wong Kim Ark, then you are also wrong, since the holding in that case was that the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Resident aliens are citizens if they claim residence at the age of majority. It never said that WKA was a natural born Citizen.
More crap against the wall by Obot bootlickers, that cannot refute the truthful and logical argument w/ lies.

IT SAYS in Minor v. Happersett that the definition is NOT IN THE USC. That was in 1874, and repeated in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark. That means it is NOT IN THE 1866 14 Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Obama is trying to set a precedent that would allow foreign influence into the Oval Office, at the behest of the One World Government Banking elite -- Mick

I'm done arguing with you. I have the trump card forever.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Obama was technically entitled to dual citizenship

As have been several previous presidents, particularly those born closer to the founding of the country. Big deal. So what?"


Of Course you are wrong again (it's a habit). NO POTUS born after 1789 was born a dual citizen. The ones born before that were grandfather clause, ("or a citizen at the time of the ratification..").

That would be except for Chester Arthur, the only other surper, who committed fraud by lying about his date of birth and burned all of his family history in an attempt to hide the fact that his father was not a citizen when CA was born.
That fact was not known to the public, and has only been recently discovered that CA was 13 when his father naturalized. Fraud is not Precedent.

EVERY other one, not grandfathered in, was born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents. EVERY ONE.

Another Common Obot obfuscation exposed.

Cedarford said...

Among the 51 percent of Republicans who think Obama was born outside of America, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was preferred by 24 percent, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 19 percent, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) by 14 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 11 percent.

Romney’s performance improves greatly among the 49 percent who think Obama was born here or are not sure. He takes 23 percent among that group compared with 16 percent for Huckabee, 11 percent for Palin and 10 percent for Gingrich.



It would be fascinating to poll the quite different in mindset groups the following questions:

1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe that those who support whatever the modern state of Israel wants of America go to Heaven, but those who don't stand with Israel go to hell?
3. Do you think it is true that the more you cut taxes on the wealthiest, the more government revenue you get?
4. Do you believe the Earth is under 6,000 years old and eventually, remains of the Ark and the animals will be found? Perhaps bones of many creatures that died aboard the Ark and thus went extinct?
5. Do you believe Obama is a secret Muslim?
6. Are you from the Deep South or Alaska.

My guess is that the majority of the Former Group would answer "yes" to at least 5 of 6 of those poll questions, while the Latter Group of Republicans would say "no" to each question.

It's looking like it will be hard for an electable nationally Republican to survive the Republican primary process.

===============
PS, my two cents on Obama's birth are that the evidence shows he was born in Hawaii and more importantly, to a married American woman.
My guess is the problem is that in Hawaii, half-breeds could be listed by whichever race the parents decided was best. Eurasians as white, a Japanese-native Hawaiian as being formally of the race the politically and economically dominant Japs (Until laws passed in the 70s gave those of native Hawaiian blood special race preferences that forced those listed as Japanese, white to go past their birth certs for other evidence of their bloodlines.
Which makes it very possible that O's parents listed him as white as that would advantage him the most in 1961 before affirmative action was created, magically, without us ever having a vote or specific law from Congress establishing it.

By all accounts, there is no place to record religion on the birth certs then used.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

Obama is trying to set a precedent that would allow foreign influence into the Oval Office, at the behest of the One World Government Banking elite -- Mick

I'm done arguing with you. I have the trump card forever.


Right. You're done because your lies are exposed, and you're wrong. I stick by that statement. Obama is exactly the kind of man that the founders would have prevented, and exactly the kind those with bad intentions want to use, one with little allegiance or attachment to country.

Anonymous said...

the One World Government Banking elite -- Mick, completely seriously

Mick said...

Cedarford said,

"PS, my two cents on Obama's birth are that the evidence shows he was born in Hawaii and more importantly, to a married American woman."


There is absolutely NO PROOF that is admissable in any court of law that Obama was born in Hi. If you are a lawyer, you should be ashamed. A pic on a website is proof of NOTHING.
It is the very fact that Dunham was married to BO Sr. That makes Obama ineligible, since that is what made him a dual citizen (at best) at birth, and not a natural born Citizen.

CachorroQuente said...

The Electoral College is not bound to award delegates to candidates who show up but refuse to present proper credentials. They shouldn't. Obama is refusing to provide the Electoral College with proper credentials; therefore, electors are not bound to vote for him.

And they won't.

Doesn't matter if he has 65 million popular votes because as we all know, popular voting is not how we elect our Presidents.


Jeez, this is weird. Do you have any idea how the "electoral college" works? Where do you suppose the candidates are supposed to show up to present their credentials? In the dean's office on the campus of the Electoral College?

Clue: electors are chosen based on the laws of the various states and are generally nominated by the party of their candidate. Each elector is pledged to vote for the candidates (P and VP) of their party. Every elector that is chosen by the Democrats (Obama electors) will be pledged to vote for Obama. Do you really believe that the Democrats are going to choose electors who are pledged to vote for Obama but will refrain from doing so because of this birther nonsense?

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"the One World Government Banking elite -- Mick, completely seriously"

Yes. What's the matter, can't win?
Disappointed because you aren't eligible?

Anonymous said...

Mick -- We've been over this. I was born in Missouri to people from Missouri. Their parents were from Missouri also.

You on the other hand, believe in a One World Government Banking elite.

cubanbob said...

Dude back away softly. It's getting squirrelly in them there parts.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Mick -- We've been over this. I was born in Missouri to people from Missouri. Their parents were from Missouri also.

You on the other hand, believe in a One World Government Banking elite."


Sure you were. You can be anyone you want on the internet can't you 7?

Chris said...

He's American. I'm Canadian. We don't trust him.

chickelit said...

Big deal. So what?

Do you know any dual citizens? Really well? These people tend to have conflicted loyalties.

FWIW, it's likely that O's father never did the paperwork so the point is moot. Still, why not put such things to rest once and for all?

Anonymous said...

Well, Chick, at least you don't believe in a One World Government Banking elite. So you've got that going for you.

Synova said...

"It is more like John Kerry's miltary records. We know he served in Viet Nam, and he has the hat, he has the hat to this very day, and he must have an "honorable discharge," or he could not have served as a U.S Attorney.
So what is in there, even on his DD214, that he does not want us to see? Inquiring minds want to know.
"

It's got his IQ.

Or the equivalent, anyhow. Certainly George Bush's military records (which were available) included the official assessment of his IQ (though the actual test is a different one.)

Please recall that Kerry ran on the "Bush is a village idiot" platform. Stupid, unable to understand nuance, etc.

To reveal that Kerry had a lower IQ than Bush would have been devastating. It would have made swiftboating look like good natured teasing.

Synova said...

"I'd suspect the majority of Republicans also think Obama is a socialist and a Muslim So that makes three things "that hasn't been nailed down to their satisfaction""

Muslim? Certainly not by faith. As a technicality due to his father's religion and youthful experiences? Perhaps in the same way that the Catholic church considers baptized believers "catholic" even when they aren't. (I'm not up on precisely how that goes, or if it's current, but for the sake of example it works.)


Socialist? By what definition of "socialist" is Obama not a socialist? By the "OMG that's a dirty word so we're going to use "progressive" instead" definition?

Cedarford said...

The Birther argument against McCain, ineligible because he was not "natural born in a State" was buried by Barry Goldwater's candidacy - as that semi-deranged guy was also born in a territory. No fuss was raised. Or Charle Curtis, Hoovers VP, who was born off the sovereign Kaw Reservation in better facilities to a then non-citizen Kaw mother and an American father, but whose residence was the Kaw Reservation land from birth to late childhood, living with his full Native American grandparents.
George Romney ran for President, born in Mexico to American settlers not granted Mexican citizenship by accident of location of his birth. 1980 Prez candidate Lowell Weicker was born in Paris to a Indian-born daughter of a Brit general and a US drug firm executive.
We may possibly, but not likely, someday see someone running for President born outside a recognized American state, like Puerto Rico, Guam, or US VI. More likely, we may see some son or daughter of a serving member of the US military, diplomatic corps posted overseas when the kid is born, or child of the 3 million expats making great contribution to US interests and economy - running for high office. (And for the not well informed, being born outside the US while parents are doing duty assignments in diplomatic or military service is rarely a matter of personal choice. For those parents, in ability to select where they are to do duty in service of the nation)
The Birther fixation on happenstance location of birth (jus solis) vs, natural born by blood lineage of US citizen parents (jus sanguinis) means they think an anchor baby born to illegals is a true natural American, while the child of General Petraeus serving in a Belgian NATO post on superiors orders at the time - is not a real American child.
Add besides territories not being states, and foreign countries not, you have oddball DC. In fact, Algore himself was not born in a US State. Neither was 1988 Presidential candidate Pat BUchanan ---both were born in DC.

Cedarford said...

Seven Machos said...
Well, Chick, at least you don't believe in a One World Government Banking elite. So you've got that going for you
==================
One doesn't have to necessarily believe in a One World banking elite or one of the classic conspiracy cabals - The Biltbergers, Bohemian Group, organized Jewish cabals run by Rothschilds, NYC Jewish financiers etc., to note the obvious.

The obvious is the big people in the banking community have been treated Very, Very Well by both Parties in America and key foreign financial centers since post WWII. Not only did we borrow trillions to make the bankers whole, their trash mortgage loans worth money again...we have turned a blind eye to offshore accounts of the Ruling Elites, the whoring of our national interest to churning Petrodollar and illegal drug money owners.
It is not just in America. Russia woke up find their national assets grabbed by 3 dozen uberconnected Oligarchs backed by international bankers in London, Israel, and NYC.
3rd World nations put into serfdom by the World Bank and IMF.
Eager bankers financing the offshoring of US industries and jobs for a sweet chunk of change they get from destruction of American jobs and production.
Bankers in Davos talking to Elites about the great money both sides can make with Forced Green laws, inside track on firms benefiting from taxpayer green subsidies - the killing to be made with high speed rail and carbon brokerage.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracist to see some really foul machinations occuring now and in the past with the transnational bankers.

Anonymous said...

"I'm with Seven Machos. His mother is American ..."

Freeman, how do you know this?

Think about your answer first.

Anonymous said...

"I have demonstrated here, already, that Obama is an American no matter where he was born."

You haven't demonstrated a fucking thing, dude.

You've merely claimed Barack Obama is an American because you claim his mother is an American but you have no proof of that.

You do not know who Barack Obama's mother is; and further, you do not know who is listed as his mother on Barack Obama's birth certificate.

So, you'll have to do a lot more to convince the Electoral College.

They were tricked once.

They will not be again.

JAL said...

@AJ I am not certain that a person is natural born if they were born overseas AND they had only one parent who is an American citizen.

You forgot the part about that parent who is the American citizen being "physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totally not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...." 71 Stat. 644 (<---?)Section 301(a)(7)Immigration and Nationality Act

Which eliminates the chance of BHO being a natural born American citizen if he was born in Kenya.

Among other things, based on the non- marriage marriage of Ms. Dunham and sleeze senior Obama, I find the Kenya birth theory really an outlier.

But. I could be wrong.

mr said...

Please describe the citizen status of children who are born by cesarean section.

All this vagina talk is making them nervous.

JAL said...

@C4 We may possibly, but not likely, someday see someone running for President born outside a recognized American state, like Puerto Rico, Guam, or US VI.

Perhaps not then (1971?) but now, if one is born in Puerto Rico, they are "natural born citizens." (Just was there. Ran acrorss those exact words doing my background reading.)

And based on the statute I quoted above (7:44 pm) the "outlying possessions are equal to "in the United States."

Anonymous said...

Ut -- Your bluster is hilarious. I can only refer you to the comment above by CachorroQuente concerning the Electoral College. Its members are among the most dedicated members of their respective parties. There is no way whatsoever that they will vote for a candidate from another party.

The fact that you don't understand this simple fact of American civics should be embarrassing to you.

And for all your birthers: I contend that the low-paid hospital orderlies who managed your birth certificates botched or lost said certificates. Therefore, please prove that your mother is your mother. Right now. I demand satisfaction.

Finally, when our resident Jew hater Cedarford seems circumspect and reserved in a thread relative to others, I think it's fair to say that Althouse has attracted a lesser strain of commenters.

Revenant said...

The whole "Obama isn't really a natural born citizen" schtick achieves the unusual trifecta of being simultaneously idiotic, counterproductive, and moot.

It wouldn't matter if he wasn't, only a fool would think he wasn't, and it does nothing but help him to claim that he wasn't.

Roux said...

I believe he was probably born in Hawaii but there's something fishy about the whole thing. I think that reports that he didn't legally change his name back after he was adopted are more than likely true.

Big Mike said...

I'm with Gordon back at 12:32 -- I'm content to accept that Barack is a natural-born citizen who was born in Hawaii, but all this silly stonewalling has me wondering if there isn't something buried in the "long form" that would be embarrassing.

My own guess -- which I've posted in other Althouse threads -- is that his mother tried to scam the "man" by claiming she was unmarried so she could collect welfare.

But it could be anything.

It could even be that the "long form" really did get mislaid by an errant file clerk some number of years ago.

But when a fellow says he's cutting the budget, and instead raises it by $200B over the previous year's budget, well, it's not at all unreasonable to wonder what other scams he's trying to pull off.

Bruce Hayden said...

Please describe the citizen status of children who are born by cesarean section.

All this vagina talk is making them nervous
.

Ok, maybe use "womb" or "uterus".

Big Mike said...

Oh, and 7, my friend. I really do have my birth certificate readily at hand.

Synova said...

"Please describe the citizen status of children who are born by cesarean section."

Clearly the distinction between "born" and someone "from his mother's womb, untimely ripped" has long standing in English judicial custom. It would be too much to assume the founders were unfamiliar with this distinction.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do believe that the credentials of electors do have to be accepted, and that this is done by Congress. Or, more specifically, a slate of electors votes, their votes are certified (typically by the Secretary of State), the electoral votes are transmitted to Congress, and are accepted if not disputed. But acceptance of a state's electoral votes is not automatic. Rather, they can be contested by a member of each House, or when multiple sets of electoral votes are received for a state.

This was potentially a problem in the 2000 election, after Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris had certified the Bush electoral votes, and the Florida Supreme Court was trying to get Gore's certified. It would have been interesting, starting with the law specifying that the Secretary of State was the one to certify votes of electors, and she wasn't about to certify Gore's even if ordered to by the Supreme Court in Florida.

But then, Gore had a further hurdle in that the Republicans controlled Congress at the time, and disputes would go to each House of Congress to be decided. And, if there remained a dispute after that, then the determination by the executive of the state would control (said executive being related in the first degree to the ultimately winning candidate). (All the gory details are in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code, and, in particular, Section 15). So, it was likely that the Bush electoral votes would be accepted, instead of the Gore electoral votes, by a Republican Congress.

Luckily I think, the U.S. Supreme Court mooted all this by ruling that Bush won Florida, and thus, his slate of Florida electors were the only ones who showed up to cast their ballots.

Adrian M. Baron said...

We did a post on this on the Nutmeg Lawyer called Saving Old Glory From Obama. A lawyer encounters a birther. Enjoyed reading your blog professor.

-Adrian

http://www.nutmeglawyer.com/2009/07/saving-old-glory-from-obama-are.html

pbAndj said...

Althouse is completely wrong.

This poll clearly shows that a lot of Rs are irrational nuts. Their minds are aflutter, unbounded by sense or wisdom.

Of course, Altouse is correct to note that other polls could further suss this out mental affliction.

For example, how is it that the R health care reform of the nineties is now socialism?

Or, how is it that W was given carte blanche (if not clear support, of one sort or another) to pursue deficit spending and fib fueled foreign fiascoes?

Or, what about Reagan's many tax increases, his tripling the debt and doubling the deficit (as a % of GDP), amnesty, or allowing safe havens for terrorists in Afghanistan and Lebanon (after the terrorists killed hundreds of Americans)?

Or, how do Rs who have re-branded themselves (i.e. TPed themselves) sustain their re-branding with the deepest sincerity as they pretend to have never supported thirty years of R failures, rather than a reasonable sense self-shame and humility leading to an explicit search for penance.

Even though Rs have controlled the Executive since Reagan (except for the surplus and strong job creation years of WJC) while our middle class has been treading water and our country has fallen backward (except for our military) relative to other nations, Rs think, in fact, they viscerally feel w/ meta-physical certitude, that more of that failing record would really be a good idea.

Many Rs are nuts.

This birtherism is just one, of many, symptoms.

Almost Ali said...

Seven Machos said...
Almost Ali continues to use an abjectly racist term...

The term "jive turkey" is not racist in the Obama context, it's fitting. He's also a jive-ass who regularly engages in oral jive-bys.

And the sooner everyone realizes that he's the quintessential jive-ass jive turkey, the better off we'll all be.

Anonymous said...

"Sometimes you have to let other people be right, because they can't be anything else."

Cedarford said...

So, anyhow, wrapping this pathetic thread up, does anyone really buy the Birther notion of place of birth matters more than Americans having babies? Does anyone think a Saudi born in a oil tech university town his dad attended though no one learned "filthy Western perverted life" and never learned English and joined Al Qaeda in 1997 is more a "natural-born US citizen" than an American a boy born in Guam? A dude descended from 8 generations of Americans by blood lineage, now in Ohio, helping care for a Dad with a foot and arm up to the shoulder blown off by an Iraqi IED?? Over a "natural born illegal Mexican anchor baby still unable to talk articulate English at age 30???

Ken Mitchell said...

Hagar: Everything you need to know about John Kerry's discharge from the Navy is that it was three years LATE, and was signed by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records. Ergo, Kerry's original on-time discharge wasn't good enough - because it was probably a General under OTH conditions, and perhaps even a BCD.

And it was Jimmy Carter's Viet Nam Draft Amnesty program that got Kerry off the hook; he could never have become a senator with a BCD.

I had a friend and colleague who protested the Viet Nam war and refused to go to Canada; they enlisted him in the USAF and sent him to a stockade in Minnesota for a year, and then kicked him out with a BCD. A few years ago, he discovered long after the fact that he had one year of honorable service in the Air Force; the amnesty act had scrubbed his record. From that day on, he wore a "USAF Veteran" baseball cap; a cap that I, a retired Navy officer, purchased for him.

For Obama, I am confident that he was born in Hawaii. The reason for this confidence is that one person certainly had the knowledge and the influence to see Obama's legal birth certificate, and utterly unscrupulous enough to have Obama thrown out of the race if she had been able to. But Hillary Clinton was unable to demonstrate that Obama wasn't qualified to be President, and she was unable to win the race legally. Since Hillary couldn't knock Obama out of the race, then we must assume that Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA. Q.E.D.

Freder Frederson said...

In legal cases, if a party fails to produce a document requested in discovery, the judge can deem that the fact is established to be what the party seeking discovery is trying to prove.

Nice to throw in some legal citation to give your "I'm not saying the birthers are right but . . ." some false legitimacy. The only problem with this example is that a legally sufficient document that is acceptable in any court in the U.S. has been produced. Any court would not require any document beside the official Hawaii document that has already been produced.

You are a freaking law professor. How you could write something that is obviously so wrong is beyond me. Would you seriously accept such a spurious argument to pass in a student's exam?

Blue@9 said...

Because Obama is trying to set a precedent that would allow foreign influence into the Oval Office, at the behest of the One World Government Banking elite.

WTFBBQ? I should have guessed.

I believe he was probably born in Hawaii but there's something fishy about the whole thing. I think that reports that he didn't legally change his name back after he was adopted are more than likely true.

Maybe. Does it really matter? Here's what I think: Obama was born in Hawaii. In the 60s. Ever been to Hawaii? I have serious doubts about the integrity of their recordkeeping.

Fen said...

The loony part is not coming up with the stupid birth certificate. I mean really, what could possibly be the big deal?

If the father is Muslim, its common for them to write the baby's faith as "Muslim" in the Religion section.

Obama doesn't want to go down that path with the public.

Almost Ali said...

The only problem with this example is that a legally sufficient document that is acceptable in any court in the U.S. has been produced.

Not quite. The document in question (COLB) is NOT the original. It's an extract, supposedly taken from the original (long form). When challenged, a competent court will not accept a COLB in lieu of the original.

Therefore, if a long-form exists - which appears extremely unlikely given Gov. Abercrombie's experience - Obama and/or the Sec. of State (Hawaii) should produce it.

Meanwhile, Obama remains the only US president elected based entirely on hearsay.

Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

Freder Frederson said...

"In legal cases, if a party fails to produce a document requested in discovery, the judge can deem that the fact is established to be what the party seeking discovery is trying to prove.

Nice to throw in some legal citation to give your "I'm not saying the birthers are right but . . ." some false legitimacy. The only problem with this example is that a legally sufficient document that is acceptable in any court in the U.S. has been produced. Any court would not require any document beside the official Hawaii document that has already been produced."




If you're a lawyer, you must not be a very good one. NO DOCUMENT has been produced. A pic on a website is proof of NOTHING. Try going to a post office, whipping out your laptop, and showing a pic of your BC when you go for a passport.
Besides that the seal is false. It is not a "raised seal" as Hi. law requires, it is an incised seal. The raised part is in the back of the document, and is backward, and the raised part by Hi. law must be on the front w/ the signature. Obama made up his own seal.
Were the people that supposedly inspected the COLB for Factcheck document experts? That would be NO.
Regardless, Obama's foreign father, and resulting Citizenship at birth of BRITAIN makes him ineligible.

Did you happen to see this on CNN?
Disinformation campaign started, and Media in full propaganda mode.
It has NEVER been determined by the SCOTUS that children born of 2 alien parents in the US is a CITIZEN, much less a natural born Citizen. Also Toobin, the "constitutional expert" completely misstates Vattel, when he says that nbcs must be born of parents who were BORN in the US. Vattel said that the parents must be CITIZENS not Born in the country. The fact that they are lying just proves that they KNOW that Obama is ineligible and are trying to make it seem like a Nativist issue.
There is nothing "nativist" about requiring the POTUS, for security reasons to be insulated from any foreign controlling jurisdiction.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/02/15/exp.ac.montana.birther.bill.cnn

Mick said...

Cedarford said...

"The Birther argument against McCain, ineligible because he was not "natural born in a State" was buried by Barry Goldwater's candidacy - as that semi-deranged guy was also born in a territory. No fuss was raised. Or Charle Curtis, Hoovers VP, who was born off the sovereign Kaw Reservation in better facilities to a then non-citizen Kaw mother and an American father, but whose residence was the Kaw Reservation land from birth to late childhood, living with his full Native American grandparents. "


All Obot nonsense. Romney and Goldwater weren't elected. Anyone can RUN for President. Ineligibly running is not a crime. But if they were born in US OWNED territories, then they were probably eligible (if both parents were US Citizens)
The PCZ was LEASED territory. TERRITORIES of the US are wholly OWNED by the US. DC is WHOLLY OWNED by the United States.

These are all rehashed nonsense arguments that are easily shot down, then they come up w/ another nonsense argument, trying to find the relative exception (because that's how the liberal mind works, everything is relative).
All of my arguments are FACTUAL and piece together logically. NO ONE here has successfully refuted me.

Tibore said...

"jr565 said...

Maybe if you forgot to take your meds and are a schizophrenic. Otherwise they are the ramblings of the guy on the train talking about the man in the big house who is zapping his brain with energy waves."


Please don't mistake me for a truther; please see threads such as this one as an example. It's been a study of mine for several years now to see how truthers present information. And I know how utterly fallacious they are, but they've honed their abilities to the point where they can get an honest person who's trying to be fair to stop and think "Ok, so what is the answer to that?

I'm not saying they're actually right. And yes, there's a subset of idiots out there who's claims are prima facie stupid ("No Planers", "Beam Weapon advocates", "mini-nukes", etc.). Rather, I am saying that there are those who do manage to take advantage of peoples sense of fairness and openmindedness by framing their talking points in such innocuous ways that those points end up being the "gateway" to deeper lunacies.

Yes, eventually most truthres do get down to mumbling in paranoid ways. I've seen it time and time again. But I've also seen that there's usually a journey from otherwise presenting initially respectable questions ("The towers collapse should have shown resistence"... "Why did the airliners fly around for nearly an hour without being intercepted/Why didn't the NORAD alert fighters catch them?") before they show the lunacy underneath. And that's why I consider their prepackaging of their distortions to be mildly insidious: They know they have an uphill battle, so they package points innocuously, in deceptively benign fashion. And usually have answers already available to the obvious first questions ("Did you know the first F-15's were off the ground before Flight 77 was even hijacked? Why didn't they catch it? They're supersonic, and could've been over Washington fast"... it's actually true, Otis ANG fighters lifted off at 8:44am, Flight 77 was hijacked at 8:54am, but you'd have to know the actual events to discover why no hijacked airliners were intercepted... and why interception may not have mattered anyway).

You're right. Eventually they do show their true colors. But my point was their initial veneer - a false one, obviously - of legitimacy of claim combined with what appears to be a genuine inquisitiveness can potentially fool people. That's all that I was trying to get across.

Lex said...

Birtherism isn't innately like Trutherism. There are real differences between them. "Birthers aren't like Truthers" is a little more nebulous.

I mean, maybe (for the sake of argument) there's nothing innately paranoid nutso about doubting the validity of BHO's birth certificate.

But the "birthers" who use BHO's lack of birth certificate (1) as a not-very-thinly-veiled way to code him as ethnically different and not like us; or (2) as evidence that he is a rabid anti-colonialist trying to subvert American defense because of his hatred of white people and his father's Fanon-like resentment of the colonial past, while trying to convert us all to Islam and instate a caliphate while intentionally collapsing the economy so that he can usher in a socialist era of centralized m.o.p.? Yeah, they're nuts.

Are the "birthers" all trying to do that? Maybe not. I don't care enough to find out, the same way I checked out of Sullivan's Fetus of Doom stuff after about a day.

Conservatives who want to defeat Obama's policies would probably be better served to focus on his ineptitude than on his Négritude. It requires less unnecessary multiplication of entities and fewer Beautiful Mindish chalkboards. (Why anyone thinks Palin would be less inept is beyond me, but the reasons for her ineptitude, likewise, have nothing to do with weird conspiracies about her fetal girth.)

Mick said...

Lex said,

Then you are not really a conservative, nor do you deserve a Constitution, if you are OK with a Usurper President.
The BC doesn't matter. Obama's own story makes him ineligible. His father was not a US Citizen, and Obama was born (at best) a dual citizen of Britain, and may even be British to this day. That's OK w/ you?

Anonymous said...

Mick -- You are not going to win. So it doesn't matter.

In my law job, do a lot of civil rights work. I get calls all the time from people claiming much worse constitutional violations than anything you have alleged about Obama -- people who have simply had their constitutional rights trampled.

Most of the time, I don't take cases. The biggest reason, besides time is: despite all the constitutional violations, I know the case is a loser.

You. Are. Never. Going. To. Win. So get over it.

Podorowsky said...

Mick,
Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a state. It's where Magnum lives with Higgins.

Plenty of previous presidents had parents who were foreign. Get off the conspiracy theories and focus on something that matters. This debate is well settled.

Almost Ali said...

You are not going to win. So it doesn't matter.

"Winning" in the purely legal sense is no longer the point. Winning in the court of public opinion is much more preferable, and at the moment a sizable chunk of the electorate doubts Obama's was born in Hawaii, primarily because he has failed to prove his claim by producing the necessary documentation, and because if such documentation actually exists - common sense dictates its quick and easy production.

Just ask Gov. Abercrombie.

Revenant said...

Winning in the court of public opinion is much more preferable, and at the moment a sizable chunk of the electorate doubts Obama's was born in Hawaii

"A sizable chunk of the electorate agrees with birthers" = "the vast majority of the electorate thinks you are insane".

Sharon Knapik said...

According to Obama and the COLB of dubious origin, his father was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. It even says that on Obama's website.

Most people think the Natural Born Citizen qualification is two US citizen parents or at least 'subject to the jurisdiction there of' A travel Visa for a parent who is a British subject is a dubious qualifier.

Obama on his website does not say he is a Natural Born Citizen. He says he is a Native citizen.

Yet, the form submitted to the Sec. of States, state the undersigned verify the qualifications to hold office. All except the Hawaii form. The qualification language is different.

McCain was certified as eligible by the Senate due to the Panama Canal Zone issue. The document states TWO US citizen parents.

It's not the birth certificate, he's missing a US citizen parent.

What I have seen is other people and the media make it about the BC, and of course, he's never released his... not even the copy he found in a book at Toot's, according to his autobiography.

And old articles, when he was running for State Senate didn't help when some, iirc, mentioned his Kenyan birth.

Anonymous said...

Sharon -- You simply do not understand the law. You are wrong.

cubanbob said...

Give it a rest. The real issue besides any embarrassing items on his birth certificate is whether or not he has ever renounced his Indonesia and British Colonial/Kenyan passports/citizenship after his 18th birthday after the age of majority or after legal adulthood.

RickAHyatt said...

What the Socialist Democrats are feverishly trying to hide is what his father's true name is: That of East German Master Spy Markus Wolf, who specialized in the breeding and creation of "Manchurian Candidates."
I know, I'm one of his sons, too.
As such, I got swept up into US Army MI in the mid-70's and had as my Agent Handler, CIA Dir. GHWB.
He wanted me to remember that the Trade Center would come down in 2001, preempting the enemy's agenda to get us into meat grinder wars in the "Axis of Evil" in 2008. Wolf was "Turned" a lot earlier than most people thing, because I was used to lure him to the West in '77.
www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com for real-live photos of other spies I was worked against, and more.
Thank God for the Bushes!