The Birthers Go Down To Georgia

You thought the birthers went away? Silly you.

If you thought that the birthers went away after President Obama released an official copy of his “Long Form” Birth Certificate in April, after having released a Certified copy of the same all the way back in 2007, boy were you wrong. It hasn’t gotten much national attention, but there is a currently proceeding making its way through the administrative hearing process in Georgia seeking to have Barack Obama excluded from the Georgia General Election Ballot. Their arguments are the old familiar ones, of course. They allege that the President’s birth certificate isn’t real, and that even if it is, he isn’t a “natural born” citizen because one of his parents was not an American citizen at the time of his birth. The legal authority they offer in support of this particular claim is an old, obscure, Supreme Court case called Minor v. Happersett which makes certain statements not central to its holding about what a “natural born citizen” might be. It wasn’t until 24 years later, though, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the Supreme Court definitively stated that people born of immigrant parents in the territorial United States are citizens from birth, in other words they are natural-born citizens.

In any event, the usual cast of characters, including our old friend the lawyer/dentist/real estate agent Orly Taitz, filed a Complaint with the Georgia Secretary of State who, following the applicable law, referred the matter to an Administrative Law Judge . The President’s attorneys had attempted, without success, to kill the case on procedural grounds but it would appear that the rules are slightly different in administrative hearings so matters are still going forward. Yesterday, a hearing was held:

A hearing on whether President Obama should be removed from the November ballot in Georgia ended Thursday without a ruling — and also without Obama.

The president’s lawyer boycotted the proceeding — triggered by citizenship challenges brought by a group of so-called “birthers” — calling it “baseless, costly and unproductive.” Lawyers for the challengers said the president should be held in contempt for not complying with a subpoena.

“This court has authority to take appropriate steps to punish him in contempt,” said state Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Waycross Republican who represents two men from Duluth and Morrow who filed challenges.

Judge Michael Malihi, who recently refused to quash the subpoena summoning Obama, never addressed the request. He cut off another lawyer when he began to complain that Obama’s no-show amounted to “contempt for the judicial branch.”

“I’m not interested in commentary on that, counselor,” Malihi quickly interjected during the hearing, which drew about 80 spectators and members of the media.

Obama’s name is on the November ballot, put there by the Democratic Party under standard practice. The challenges were filed last year with the Secretary of State’s office, which referred them to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Malihi will now make a recommendation to Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Kemp’s decision can be appealed to a Fulton County judge.

On Thursday, lawyers raised two arguments for why Obama should not be on the ballot. One contended an 1875 Supreme Court opinion says only a “natural born citizen” — someone born in the U.S. and whose parents were U.S. citizens — can be president. (Obama’s father, who was from Kenya, was not a U.S. citizen.) The other alleged Obama’s birth, social security and passport records are forgeries.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, a leading proponent of challenges to Obama’s candidacy, made the latter argument. She turned and faced the gallery — and the TV cameras — during her opening statement, prompting Malihi to tell her: “Counsel, please address the court.”

During closing arguments, as Taitz began referring to documents that were not in evidence, Malihi pointedly asked, “Counsel, are you testifying?”

Taitz abruptly halted her arguments, took the witness stand and began testifying. Malihi soon cut her off.

The claims raised Thursday have been brought in courts across the country in dozens of cases, all of them dismissed. Obama released his long-form Hawaii birth certificate last year, quieting but not extinguishing the challenges. Malihi’s ruling earlier this month that Obama should appear gave renewed hope to undeterred “birthers” and made Georgia the latest battleground.

Marietta lawyer Melvin Goldstein, who has practiced extensively before the court, called Malihi a “very fair and very reasonable” judge. “But this issue has been adjudicated and then dismissed so many times, I can’t imagine his decision would be contrary to decisions in the other cases.”

Even if Malihi were to rule against Obama for some bizarre reason, though, that would hardly be the end of the process. The Secretary of State would have the discretion to accept or reject Malihi’s findings and, presumably, even after that there would be recourse to the actual court system for further appeal. The idea that this is going to prevent the President from appearing on Georgia’s ballot is simply absurd. These arguments have failed in every Court before which they have been made and they are going to fail again. It’s really a pathetic display, and an embarrassment to the legal profession. Of course, Donald Trump is probably enjoying it immensely. In short, I wouldn’t sweat this one very much if I were the President, which is likely the reason that his attorney didn’t even bother to show up yesterday.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Campaign 2012, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Hey Norm says:

    Racist pukes will never go away.

  2. @Hey Norm:

    I got your bell curve right here:

    There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

  3. mimi says:

    Note that Georgia State Representative, Mark Hatfield, was the attorney for plaintiff Clayton County (GA) GOP Chair, Carl Swensson.

    The other attorney was Van Irion. He has a lot of paypal buttons on his “Liberty Legal Foundation” website, but I don’t know if he has ever won a case. It looks like he is mostly a patent attorney.

    Irion is also listed as being on the board of The Southern Legal Resource Center, “the preeminent advocate for the civil and constitutional rights of Confederate Southern Americans”. I don’t know if he is still a board member or not.

    In any case, the birther movement is an ugly thing.

  4. Jenos Idanian says:

    Yeah, it’s amazingly stupid. But it’s still apparently a legal subpoena. Will Obama honor it, or just declare that he’s above this law, too? He’s already done that to the War Powers Act and the Constitution (he declared Congress in recess when they disagreed, and he backed the TSA in detaining Senator Paul — Article I, Section 5 and Article I, Section 6 respectively).

    Every idiot gets their day in court. Even stupid birthers, if they play by the rules. Until President Obama rewrites things to his benefit, of course.

  5. @Jenos Idanian:

    Until President Obama rewrites things to his benefit, of course.

    So do you think dialing the paranoia up to 11 helps you with the general readership?

    Or are you one of those Fox dead-enders who think everyone has the paranoia?

    (I hope you followed my link.)

  6. sam says:

    I wanna see the long form DNA test establishing that Orly Taitz is from this planet.

  7. sam says:

    @john personna:

    Aha! Scientific verification of J.S. Mill’s observation:

    I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative.

  8. @sam:

    In a nutshell, yeah. We could insert the balance that people on the far left have similar blind spots. Regardless, that story is climbing Memeorandum now. It will be good for some punditry today.

  9. David says:

    I do not know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not, in large part because every court case to date has been thrown out for lack of standing. No case has been decided on the merits, which means that no judge has considered the evidence.

    No one outside of the Hawaiian government officials has seen the actual birth certificate, and the document on the whitehouse.gov website includes sufficient anomolies to call its validity into question.

    Seriously, even someone who is not an expert can pull up the document, and look for the following three things: The numbers at the top right hand corner, the word TXE, and the “Pm” in the time of birth.

    If you look at the string of numbers in the right hand corner, the rightmost number 1 is clearly different than the other numbers. It’s as plain as day – just blow up the magnification to 200% or so.

    If you look at the time of birth, there is a P and a subscript M. In 1961, a typewriter would not have been capable of creating this.

    The registrar’s stamp has the word TXE in it. I have made around 100,000 photocopies in my career (as a lawyer) and not one of them has ever introduced a typo. The registrar’s stamp doesn’t include this typo, so no document with his stamp should include a typo.

    The President is a former constitutional law professor, so he undoubtedly knows the “best evidence” rule. This document is simply not the best evidence, and its validity has been disputed, so it really is encumbent upon him to provide the best evidence.

    I’m certain he can provide this evidence, and that he is a natural born citizen. However, if he doesn’t provide evidence better than what appears to be a scanned document, rather than a photocopy, he really does so at his own peril.

    I expect some PAC to put commercials on TV of some of the testimony, showing the errors in the birth certificate, and if that causes even 2% of swing voters to be swayed, it could be fatal to his election. So, if you are an Obama supporter, knowing how close the election will be, you ought to encourage him to provide better evidence and put this issue to rest, once and for all.

    The main stream media will not focus on this, but you can be sure the fringe will. It’s time to get closure on this, and get to see the original (or at least a document that has not been photoshopped.

  10. sam says:

    @David:

    I do not know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not, in large part because every court case to date has been thrown out for lack of standing. [And then more of the same old bullshit, covered over with a patina of “reasonableness” and beard-stroking.]

    BTW, how do you stand on John’s being dead on the basis of the cover of Abbey Road?

  11. Hey Norm says:

    @ Sam…
    Koo Koo Katchoo.

  12. Rob in CT says:

    @David:

    I do not know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not

    later, same post:

    I’m certain he can provide this evidence, and that he is a natural born citizen.

    Hahahahaha!

    He’s already provided more than enough evidence (and the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements listing him should be enough for a thinking person to conclude that there is simply no reason to dispute the birth certificate).

    You get an F in concern trolling.

  13. Hey Norm says:

    @ John…
    C’mon…name me a similar pile of crap on the left.
    I mean…yeah the left has it’s Kusiniches. But anything matching Birtherism? And a not-insignificant number of republicans believe this stuff.

  14. Rob in CT says:

    Damnit, formatting FAIL on my part.

    I do not know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not

    Same post:

    I’m certain he can provide this evidence, and that he is a natural born citizen.

    He’s already provided more than enough evidence (and the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements listing him should be enough for a thinking person to conclude that there is simply no reason to dispute the birth certificate).

    You get an F in concern trolling.

  15. Scott O. says:

    @David: You’re probably right but unfortunately I have been brainwashed by the main stream media and therefore conclude that you are insane. Sorry.

  16. David says:

    Crap. I’m going to have to change my posting name now. Sigh.

  17. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Hey Norm:

    The closest the left has is the Truthers (or whatever the term is for “9/11 was in inside job” types), however I think that movement really strattles the partisan divide, with it being weighted a bit more to the left.

    The left doesn’t really have a crazy cause all of its own.

    (Queue Drew, Bithead, et al claiming Climate Change is the left’s version).

  18. WR says:

    @David: “I expect some PAC to put commercials on TV of some of the testimony, showing the errors in the birth certificate, and if that causes even 2% of swing voters to be swayed, it could be fatal to his election.”

    Fortunately, the only “swing voters” stupid enough to fall for this paranoid nonsense are hard core racists who would never vote for either a black man or a Democrat, so I don’t think anyone on the other side is sweating this.

  19. PD Shaw says:

    @sam: Paul is dead at the time of Abbey Road. You have to keep the important things straight, because heaven knows if there one thing out of place, the most fanciful conspiracy theories will emerge.

  20. Joel says:

    @sam:
    It’s Paul that was dead, not John. 😉

  21. @Hey Norm:

    I was actually thinking of the old-line, true, socialists who didn’t quite grasp the human condition. Why can’t we all share? I mean naivete may be charming, but it isn’t really bright. Of course that sort of dim-witted leftist politics, while a bogey man for the right, is largely absent from legislative politics.

    On your question though, autism and vaccinations?

  22. Hey Norm says:

    @ John…
    Is autism and vaccines partisan? Is Jenny McCarthy a Democrat? I don’t know.
    I was thinking about trutherism…Bush was behind 9.11, and it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon…but even that crap isn’t widespread by any means (pun intended).
    Not like Birtherism.

  23. Sally Hill says:

    Why is it wrong to question the people who run our government – and ultimately decide how you live your life? This is a bad thing why?

    The article is not truthful in its reporting of ‘facts’ of the GA case. They are NOT alleging that the BC is fake. They in ‘fact’ presented it as evidence in their case – they are in ‘fact’ saying it is real. The basis of the case is the fact that, as Obama himself contends, his father was not a US Citizen; therefore, Obama is not a NBC of the US.

    Look, Obama said he was born in Hawaii and has proven as much with his BC. I believe him….I have no reason not to. Obama said he was born with dual citizenship (US and British) . In that his father’s citizenship was British at the time of Obama’s birth, that stands to reason. I believe him. How can you be a NBC of either nation when you are born with allegiance to two different nations? NBC infers that one is loyal, owes allegiance to, and is under the jurisdiction of only one nation. He wasn’t, or so he says he wasn’t. I guess I believe him…I believe him on everything else he is saying, why shouldn’t I?

    I guess the better questions are:
    1) Why does the author of this article feel the need to twist the facts of the case in GA?
    2) Why does the author and most of the commentors think the President is lying about his father’s citizenship?

    I’m not really sure what the true meaning of ‘birther’ is. I don’t consider myself to be one since I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and believe he was a dual citizen at birth. However, that fact in itself makes him ONLY a US Citizen and NOT a NBC.

    I’m not really sure which meaning of the word ‘racist’ Norm is referring to.
    1) Racist – the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
    2) Racist – one who disagrees with President Obama.

    I’m a racist in the second definition of the word. I would be curious though – if Norm were referring to the first definition – which race is superior? Which race do you consider Obama to be? And would someone who is white that thinks the white race is superior to the black race, only be considered 50% a racist against Obama? How about a racist Asian – 100% racist?

    I find it odd that Obama doesn’t know which race to identify himself with. In his book, and his early years, he wished to distance himself from his white mother’s race. He continued on embracing his black heritage throughout school and even married an African-American woman. He ran for president as basically a black American – accusing anyone (no matter what race) that opposed him of being racist (hence the new meaning).

    So….I found it very odd the other night in his State of the Union address when he started talking of his Grandfather. I immediately envisioned his father’s father, since that his the race he self-identifies with. As he continued to talk, it became apparent he HAD SWITCHED HIS IDENTITY! He was talking of his WHITE (gasp!) grandmother and grandfather – I thought he was trying to distance himself from being white. But then – that wouldn’t fit into his current agenda.

    Race plays a huge part with this President, which is terribly unfortunate. He has done much to harm race relations in this country in just three short years Truly sad.

    I’m not a birther – but I’m a proud racist. I 100% disagree with everything Obama says politically. And I think it NEVER hurts to question our government officials. If we don’t keep them honest, who will?

  24. @Hey Norm:

    Found this 😉

    “Katie Wright, the mother of an autistic son who links his condition to thimerosol, the mercury preservative in childhood vaccinations”, will be interviewed on the Ring of Fire radio show on Air America on Saturday.

  25. Rob in CT says:

    Yeah, I was gonna say the anti-vaxxers, though I’m not sure that’s all lefty. The Troofers are another possibility, but that seems to be a mix of lefties and anarcho-libertarian (and just plain crazy) types.

    Historically, you can say that the “conservative” side in the waning days of the Soviet Union was, of course, on the Left. Conservative doesn’t have to mean Right wing. It usually is, but not always. It’s a position relative to the status quo. Though that was (as “conservative” usually is) really just an attempt to maintain the status quo because they were privileged by it.

  26. BTW, I should say that while there is anti-intellectualism and anti-science far out on the left, I don’t usually sweat it because it is far from impacting our lives. It didn’t stop fracking, and will only delay the midwest pipelines.

    If it slowed down nuke construction (and old charge), post Fukushima we feel a bit differently about that.

    On the other hand, the right’s anti-intellectualism and anti-science are right there on stage, as litmus-tests for Presidential candidates. Ye Gods, imagine if the vaccination thing were something Dems had to sign off on! Then we might be in some equally crazy world.

  27. Rob in CT says:

    @Sally Hill:

    Well, I guess I’m not a natural born citizen of the United States, either, then. My father was still a Canadian citizen when I was born.

    To which I say to you: f*ck you. The beauty of it is, the law is on my side, as Doug noted in his post:

    The legal authority they offer in support of this particular claim is an old, obscure, Supreme Court case called Minor v. Happersett which makes certain statements not central to its holding about what a “natural born citizen” might be. It wasn’t until 24 years later, though, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the Supreme Court definitively stated that people born of immigrant parents in the territorial United States are citizens from birth, in other words they are natural-born citizens.

    One more thing:

    I 100% disagree with everything Obama says politically

    Yes. Modern Conservatism: against whatever liberals are for, updated daily.

    That is a mindlessly partisan position you’ve staked out, regardless of whether or not you’re a racist. It’s worse: you’re a fool.

  28. mantis says:

    @Sally Hill:

    I’m not a birther – but I’m a proud racist.

    Glad you cleared that up.

  29. Rob in CT says:

    It’s so sad to see simple folks get all confused

    So….I found it very odd the other night in his State of the Union address when he started talking of his Grandfather. I immediately envisioned his father’s father, since that his the race he self-identifies with. As he continued to talk, it became apparent he HAD SWITCHED HIS IDENTITY! He was talking of his WHITE (gasp!) grandmother and grandfather – I thought he was trying to distance himself from being white.

    So hard for Sally, having to think and review (false) assumptions she’s made. It hurts her head.

  30. James H says:

    Actually, the birth certificate is clearly a forgery …

    The man we know as “Barack Obama” does not truly exist.

    Indeed, he is actually a traveler from the distant future. He leaps from life to life … setting right what once went wrong …

  31. David says:

    @Sally Hill: Sorry, contrary to what you tho I is a natural born citizen, if you are born here, you are one (with limited exceptions, none of which apply here). You may not be a racist, but you are grasping at nonexistent straws.

    The other David in this thread.

  32. Rob in CT says:

    @john personna:

    Right, the Left has its wacknuts, but they are, at least for now, marginalized. The Right has let its wacknuts drive the bus.

    I hear tell the Dems were in a similar spot in times past (by which I mean the 70s, when I was but a babe, but actually the better parallel is the antebellum Democratic Party).

  33. Rob in CT says:

    @James H:

    In 11 dimensions? 😉

  34. David says:

    Posting from phone result in confusing posts… Sorry about that.

  35. mantis says:

    … and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home.

  36. Doubter4444 says:

    @Sally Hill:
    See David, THAT’S how you concern troll!
    Well Done, “Sally Hill”!

  37. Rob in CT says:

    Ye Gods, imagine if the vaccination thing were something Dems had to sign off on!

    *shudders*

    The only vaccination issue that has come up is some hysteria over that overian cancer vaccine. And we know who’s fired up about that.

  38. Hey Norm says:

    @ Sally Hill…

    “…I 100% disagree with everything Obama says politically…”

    Nice to know you are an open-minded clear thinking rational individual.
    BTW…Does that mean you think OBL is alive?

  39. @john personna: That is the greatest line I’ve ever read in a piece of journalism. “These people are stupid!”

  40. CAEI says:

    Barack Obama is an illegal alien.

  41. Brummagem Joe says:

    Obama should worry. This kind of insanity to the extent it is visible does him a favor rather like photos of Republicans angrily waving their finger in his face while he smiles. It’s marginal but subliminally it just serves to reinforce the insanity versus reason perception.

  42. CAEI says:

    [Comment removed due to violation of comment policy]

  43. mantis says:

    Looks like someone wants a visit from the Secret Service.

  44. David says:

    @CAEI: Please say that is snark.

  45. Rob in CT says:

    John,

    This, to me, is by far the strongest part of that article you lined to:

    But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like “every kid is a genius in his or her own way,” might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

    “My speculation is that it’s not as simple as their model presents it,” Nosek said. “I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where ‘People I don’t know are threats’ and ‘The world is a dangerous place’. … Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful.”

    This rings true for me. Dogma is *easy* Critical thinking, challenging your own biases… these things are hard.

  46. Neil Hudelson says:

    NBC infers that one is loyal, owes allegiance to, and is under the jurisdiction of only one nation.

    Based on a definition you made up out of thin air?

    The Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Hinkley were all loyal, allegiant Americans?

    Interesting.

  47. Rob in CT says:

    This really is more fun if you just forget all about it and start singing The Devil Went Down to Georgia…

  48. Jenos Idanian says:

    So, just when did the Democrats fully distance themselves from Michael Moore? I recall a LOT of leading Democrats going to the premieres of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and praising the movie.

    Hollywood also has quite a few 9/11 Troothers. Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Margaret Cho, Dick Gregory, Jeneane Garafolo, Roseanne Barr, Harry Belafonte, James Brolin, Joe Rogan, Esai Morales… just how have they been shunned and marginalized for their Troother statements?

  49. michael reynolds says:

    But wait, I’ve been told repeatedly there are no racists anymore, except for black “race hustlers.”

    I need Drew and Bithead and Tango Man to ‘splain it all to me again.

  50. mantis says:

    Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Margaret Cho, Dick Gregory, Jeneane Garafolo, Roseanne Barr, Harry Belafonte, James Brolin, Joe Rogan, Esai Morales

    I have no idea as to the accuracy of your list, but those are all celebrities. Many republican party officials in state and federal positions have come out as birther nuts, as well as some extremely popular political commentators on the right. But the guy who hosted Fear Factor is a truther, so they’re exactly the same! QED

  51. James H says:

    @CAEI:

    Barack Obama is an illegal alien.

    So is Superman.

  52. Septimius says:

    There is one significant difference between the birthers and the truthers. After the release of the birth certificate last April, support for birtherism dropped dramatically, especially among Republicans. The latest poll I could find on the issue showed that support for birtherism was cut in half following the release of the birth certificate. Conversely, years after 9/11 and the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, 35% of Democrats still believed that GWB knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and another 26% were not sure.

  53. Jenos Idanian says:

    @mantis: Of course I picked celebrities — that was the quickest list of prominent liberals who have a strong Troother contingent. And I’m still waiting for a single celebrity to get as thoroughly marginalized as the idiot Birthers have been.

    Rosie O’Donnell is coming back to TV. Michael Moore got most of the Democratic Congressional leadership to show up for the Fahrenheit 9/11 premiere and praise it. Jeneane Garafolo had a show on Err America and is a frequent political commentator. (She had many stupid words about the Tea Party, as I recall.) Charlie Sheen is getting a new show. Ed Asner — practically an avowed Communist — works for Pixar. Roseanne Barr dressed up as Hitler for a photo shoot, and she’s still accepted.

    I got no problem with the Birther idiots getting ostracized. I just wonder why the Troothers don’t rate the same.

  54. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Hollywood also has quite a few 9/11 Troothers. Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Margaret Cho, Dick Gregory, Jeneane Garafolo, Roseanne Barr, Harry Belafonte, James Brolin, Joe Rogan, Esai Morales… just how have they been shunned and marginalized for their Troother statements?

    The stupid is strong with this one. Holy crap, there are still people who don’t realize that some celebrities say dumb things? And said celebrities, Hollywood, etc. are the Democratic party? The Navy ships thread is making more sense now.

  55. David M says:

    Where did the edit button go? Should be “And said celebrities, Hollywood, etc. are not the Democratic party?”

  56. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    So, just when did the Democrats fully distance themselves from Michael Moore?

    I can’t remember when Michael Moore convinced me of anything. Of course, I’m just a moderate and independent. Still, I think the right has a perverse wish that Moore was more influential, rather than just a gadfly, so that they could make that stick.

    Hollywood also has quite a few 9/11 Troothers. Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Margaret Cho, Dick Gregory, Jeneane Garafolo, Roseanne Barr, Harry Belafonte, James Brolin, Joe Rogan, Esai Morales… just how have they been shunned and marginalized for their Troother statements?

    I’ll stipulate that all those are “out there,” but again where do we get them influencing policy?

  57. David says:

    @john personna: Come on John, everyone knows that the “Democrat” party is run by Hollywood… (since there are two Davids posting in this thread, please turn on your snark detector)

  58. Barb Hartwell says:

    Never in history has an American president been so disrespected by his own country men. We seem to be going back to the raciest days when it was accepted to treat people of color or different religions with disgust. What a shame. Back in the sixties I too was part of the hate crowd as were my parents and probably their parents, but as time went on I grew, I`m not saying I am without prejudices, and I am still a work in progress. What I am saying is things are getting better between the races, genders and religions and we need to move forward not back. To the guy who disagrees with everything Obama says You are the one of the worst offenders of disgraceful behavior, besides CAEI Grow up

  59. mattb says:

    @Septimius:

    Conversely, years after 9/11 and the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, 35% of Democrats still believed that GWB knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and another 26% were not sure.

    That link would be dramatically more helpful if the content wasn’t firewalled. All I can see is the topline that 22% of Americans believe GWB knew ahead of time. Any chance for a link that actually shares the full data?

  60. Barb,

    I’m not sure that’s right. If you look at the things said about John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln during their Presidencies, what Obama has faced has been pretty mild

  61. Barb Hartwell says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Well maybe I`m wrong but in my lifetime I have never witnessed it., but has anyone condemned even the good things about these men.

  62. Jeremy R says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln

    So all modern political social norms are out the window then I suppose? We’re back to antebellum standards of political decorum?

  63. Jeremy,

    I did not say that, and I have written quite frequently here about the decline in political discourse in the country on both sides of the political aisle. At the same time, saying that Obama has been treated worse than any President in history is simply not an accurate representation of history.

  64. Joel says:

    @john personna:
    Well, Michael Moore IS pretty popular in a lot of circles and he pulls some outrageous stunts (like portraying Cuba as a paradise in Sicko or calling for the head of Standard and Poor to be arrested). With that said, he still doesn’t have the mainstream popularity of birtherism.

  65. john personna says:

    @Joel:

    Yeah, what should we say, that the left-most third of the Democrats are Mooreans? Something like that. I don’t think it’s the left-most half by any means.

  66. sam says:

    @PD Shaw:

    And Joel … you’re right. Paul was the one with no shoes. It’s been a long time… (Funny thing, I was picturing Paul when I wrote that originally.)

  67. Septimius says:

    @mattb: I can’t get you around the firewall, but there were lots of news stories done when the poll was released. This is from wikipedia:

    Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, “Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.”, “Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.” and “Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.”

  68. WR says:

    @Joel: Moore didn’t portray Cuba as a “paradise.” He said — and showed — that it was easier for a poor person to get medical help there. I realize that to many on the right, showing anything about Castro’s Cuba that protrays it as any less than the ninth level of hell is either insanity or treason, but this response is just silly. You got evidence that Moore fabricated these scenes? Great, put up or shut up.

    And calling for the head of Standard and Poor to be arrested is somehow wacky? The heads of all the ratings agencies should be in jail for conspiracy and fraud, after spending years giving AAA ratings to securities they knew were worthless because they were getting paid.

    I’ve actually yet to see one right winger prove an actual lie in any of Moore’s films, despite an entire industry devoted to the subject. It’s all “he didn’t parrot the accepted line, and that makes him a liar and a meanie!”

  69. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    Been busy all day guys, what did I miss? Aw, dangit, did the birthers go home already? Darn, I always miss the good stuff.

  70. matt says:

    @Septimius: Knowing about an attack and planning it are two different things. Personally I think the warnings were there and Bush SHOULD of known something was coming but apparently didn’t.

  71. SocalJay says:

    As long as people refuse to acknowledge the facts, this debate will never end.
    Fact — this issue has never been about BHO’s citizenship. The birth certificate “scandal” is a distraction from the real issue, i.e., the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There are websites that contend that cases like “Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)” prove their point. They don’t.
    Fact — a state court ruling cannot change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, any more than the U.S. Senate publishing a resolution can change it’s meaning, i.e., the resolution passed claiming John McCain was a natural born citizen. It doesn’t.
    Fact — since the Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, directly construed the Article 2, Section 1, natural-born citizen clause, to determine the citizenship status of the petitioner, the Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen class is precedent. It is.
    People can deny the existence of these facts all they want, but it doesn’t not change the fact that neither Marco Rubio, or John McCain, or Barack Obama are natural born citizens. No matter how popular a person is, it doesn’t change these facts.

  72. Septimius says:

    @matt: Ok. What about this one?

    “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.

    A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”

    No poll question is going to be perfect, but it is clear that a significant number of Democrats believed as late as 2006 or 2007 that the Bush Admin was at least “somewhat likely” complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

    The point is that even years after 9/11 and all of the investigations and when no credible evidence ever emerged that showed Bush or his admin were complicit in the attacks, a lot of Democrats believed he was. Likewise, A lot of Republicans believed that Obama was not a U.S. born citizen or at least had doubts regarding his citizenship. However, as soon as Obama released his birth certificate, support for that point of view dropped; instantly and dramatically. I’d be curious to know how many Dems still believe that Bush was complicit. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone polls that question anymore.

  73. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    Yay! The birthers are back!

    @SocalJay:

    People can deny the existence of these facts all they want

    Or, they can deny the existence of ALL THOSE OTHER FACTS that President Obama is actually an American.

    I’d say you just got hoisted by your own petard, SocalJay.

  74. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    I am not a “birther” and you apparently either can’t read or have the reading comprehension level of a third grader. This is not, and never was, a citizenship issue. Get over it.

    The natural born citizen clause, on all accounts, was inserted into the U.S. Constitution to protect the nation from having a President that was subject to the laws of another country. In this particular case, being his father’s son, BHO is subject to the laws of Kenya, England, and the U.S., unless he has formally renounced the claims of the other two countries. Actions for which there has been no evidence. There is also the remote possibility that he acquired Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father. It’s a simle concept, really. A person born of two citizen parents, born in the U.S., has no other allegiance except that of his own country.

    To deny the implications of that situation is no better than sticking your head in the said and wishing it to all go away.

  75. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @Septimius:

    The point is that even years after 9/11 and all of the investigations and when no credible evidence ever emerged that showed Bush or his admin were complicit in the attacks, a lot of Democrats believed he was.

    Well, see, here’s the difference, Septimius: we don’t let the crazies drive the bus.

    Here’s another difference: As you may have noticed from this post by Doug, the Birtherism issue is still alive and well. How many lawsuits are there over Trutherism? How many Democratic leaders and luminaries can you point to who believe this and actively further it?

  76. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @SocalJay:

    In this particular case, being his father’s son, BHO is subject to the laws of Kenya, England, and the U.S., unless he has formally renounced the claims of the other two countries. Actions for which there has been no evidence. There is also the remote possibility that he acquired Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father. It’s a simle concept, really. A person born of two citizen parents, born in the U.S., has no other allegiance except that of his own country.

    SocalJay, I know you like to think that your just being logical, but, really, you’re not. That quote of yours above has a whole lot of assumptions built into it that actually need demonstrating first. Not to mention you just sound like you drank a big glass of Krazy.

    Lastly, I don’t know if anyone has told you this, but you’re understanding of the Constitution doesn’t actually qualify you as an authority on constitutional interpretation as, say, nine Supreme Court justices. You can rail all you want, but, in the end, it’s their opinion that matters.

  77. sam says:

    @SocalJay: @SocalJay:

    since the Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, directly construed the Article 2, Section 1, natural-born citizen clause

    You’re dead-ass wrong as regards Obama parentage.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    That court never considered the case of a person born in this country, one of whose parents was a foreign national. It only asserts that there is no doubt at all about persons born in this country both of whose parents are citizens.

    But so what, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , as Doug points out, settled the question. You lose. Again.

  78. David says:

    I always love it when someone starts out “I’m not a” and proceeds to prove that they are.

  79. Septimius says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: Just because there is a lawsuit in Georgia, doesn’t mean birtherism is alive and well. As I pointed out, and as the polling data that I linked to shows, within days of Obama releasing his birth certificate support for birtherism was cut in half. By May 8, 2011, just 2 weeks after Obama released his birth certificate, only 23% of Repbublicans thought Obama was definitely or probably born in another country. Conversely, 5 years after 9/11, 22.6% of Democrats thought it was “very likely” that the Bush Admin either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or knew they were coming but did nothing to stop them. Another 28% thought it was “somewhat likely.”

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. were sued by crazy truthers, too. And, there were prominent Democrats who were truthers. Van Jones signed the truther petition and he got a job in the White House. Howard Dean thought the theory that Bush was tipped off about the attacks was interesting. He became DNC chairman.

    I also think that there is a problem in trying to equate the craziness of these two conspiracies. Believing that the President of the United States knew of a major terror attack and did nothing to stop it is, I think, much more insidious and damaging to the nation than the belief that an ambitious politician covered up the truth of his birthplace in order to run for President. Obviously, I think they’re both nutty, but to believe in trutherism is to believe that there existed a large-scale conspiracy involving the President and the highest ranking government officials that resulted in the immediate deaths of 3000 Americans and the deaths of thousands and thousands more in 2 wars. If that were to be true, it would be one of the most heinous crimes in history and would shake our system of government to its core. To believe in birtherism is to believe that it was probable or likely that President Obama was not a natural born citizen, yet decided, on his own, or with the help of some campaign staffers and lawyers, to cover up the truth of his birth. Were it to be true, the very worst that would happen would be Obama’s resignation. The country would survive.

  80. An Interested Party says:

    Awwww….it’s so cute how some are trying to set aside the Birther nonsense by yelling, “Look over there! Democrat Truthers!” Of course, that won’t do anything to lessen the Birther craziness, but it is so adorable…

  81. Scott O. says:

    @Septimius: Obama released undeniable proof that he was born in Hawaii before he was elected. Your link shows 43% of Republicans ( 9% of Democrats too! ) thought he was defiantly or probably born in another country 2 years later. We’ll have to wait to find out how much birtherism regrows over the next few years after the release of further undeniable proof last April.

  82. anjin-san says:

    So what’s the deal here? Social Jay = Janos = Jay Tea = Just Another Knucklehead…

  83. doubter4444 says:

    I think this thread is about over, but this:

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. were sued by crazy truthers, too. And, there were prominent Democrats who were truthers. Van Jones signed the truther petition and he got a job in the White House. Howard Dean thought the theory that Bush was tipped off about the attacks was interesting. He became DNC chairman.

    Caught my eye.
    Disregarding the explanation Van Jones had, and passing on the fact that it’s a Rathmussen poll, I will say that one of the current Republican presidential hopefuls, in this cycle, is a bit of a truther.

    I’m not saying that Democrats were not skeptical of the initial explanations of 9/11, but I really take that as more of a deep anger of Bush/Cheney. I’d be interested in a follow up poll, after the commission report, after Bush has left office.
    In the same vein, I’d be interested to see if Birtherism continues after Obama leaves office.
    But, to the point of the argument here, I do think that it takes quite a bit mental gymnastics to straight faced claim that Truthers are equal to or greater than Birthers.

    At the very least, it is so apples and oranges – one is an act of world changing significance, the other is about a couple of buildings (JK! I’m here all week).

    Seriously, 9/11 is, and will remain, shrouded in mystery and second guessing and recrimination and finger pointing because of it’s enormity.
    Just like Pearl Harbor, just like JFK’ death.

    The Birth certificate issue is plain racial politics and the fact that the leadership tacitly condoned the crazies and that many high level congressman and women not only did not have the stones to say so, but actually backed it, is a disgrace.

  84. mattb says:

    @Septimius:
    Thanks for the link.

    Two points on it — not to defend troofers — but:

    (a) Rassmussen uses a bit of weasel wording to downplay the amount of Republicans who think Bush had fore knowledge:

    Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.

    7 to 1 margin means that 1 in 8 Republicans believed he did… 1/8=12% … So 12% of Republican respondents. The numbers still show that more than double the amount of democrats believed it. Still 12% is not an insignificant number… That gets me to the second point:

    (b) The poor phrasing of the question (which could have led to high Republican numbers as well) – as the other Matt pointed out. Due to the discussion of the August 6th security briefing document, some people (of either political persuasion) could construe that Bush knew of the possibility of the attack.

    As to the second link, I wish I knew where Ben Smith was getting the breakout by political party. Unfortunately, the link he provides to the entire survey only provides the question and the top line reponse (without breakout by political persuasion). And honestly, the phrasing of the question is again a little wonky:

    There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is: People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.

    http://www.newspolls.org/surveys/SHOH33/18911

    I have to wonder how the numbers might have shifted if there had been two questions — one on assisting and one on foreknowledge — and if the phrase “because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.” was left off the end of the statement.

  85. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    “Lastly, I don’t know if anyone has told you this, but you’re understanding of the Constitution doesn’t actually qualify you as an authority on constitutional interpretation as, say, nine Supreme Court justices. You can rail all you want, but, in the end, it’s their opinion that matters.”

    I’m glad we agree on something. I never said it was my “opinion.” I said that SCOTUS had construed the definition in Minor vs. Hapersett.

  86. SocalJay says:

    @sam:

    Reread the passage that you provided and please try to comprehend what it says:

    #1 “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.

    #2 “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.

    As to this class there have been doubts (#2), but never as to the first (#1).

    BHO clearly is not #1 by his own admission.

    Minor vs. Happersett is the only SCOTUS court case construed in such a way, clearly defining the difference. The U.S. vs. Kim Wong Ark only addresses a citizenship issue, not eligibility. Equally so the 14th Amendment.

    The “natural born Citizen” clause pertains to the civic status required to be eligible for
    public office, whereas the 14th Amendment specifically confers the political status of
    membership in the nation.

    The 14th Amendment, and the natural-born citizen clause are very capable of coexistence. The Amendment is our general citizenship clause, while Article 2, Section 1,
    provides the specific requirement for Presidential eligibility. If the legislature had
    intended to repeal or modify the natural-born citizen clause with enactment of the 14th
    Amendment, then, according to Supreme Court precedents in Morton v. Mancari, et al.,
    the Amendment’s intention to do so would have been clear and manifest, containing
    language stating that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction
    thereof, are natural-born citizens. Instead, the Amendment simply states that they are
    citizens.

    As I stated previously for those trolls who continue to associate my comments with Birthers, this issue has nothing, I REPEAT, nothing to do with the birthplace or citizenship of Obama. I apply the same logic to Rubio and McCain, and to my son who was born overseas while I was stationed abroad.

  87. SocalJay says:

    @doubter4444:

    At the very least, it is so apples and oranges – one is an act of world changing significance, the other is about a couple of buildings (JK! I’m here all week).

    I’m sorry, are you suggesting here that a politician’s birth status issue outshines an act of terror that resulted in the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent civilians? I hope that’s not what you’re saying.

  88. Scott O. says:

    @SocalJay: You fit in the Racialist Birther Triumphalist category.

  89. SocalJay says:

    @Scott O.:

    You fit in the Racialist Birther Triumphalist category.

    How about trying to address the topic instead of calling names or placing labels? Too challenging for you?

  90. Scott O. says:

    @SocalJay: Whats the topic again? You think your son should be ineligible to be president because he hates America?

  91. SocalJay says:

    @Scott O.: Are you for real? Do you really think that insulting people and acting like a juvenile furthers political discourse? You know very well what the issue is, just look at the title of this thread of you need a clue. Other than flatly deny the issue in its entirety, not one person on this thread has addressed the difference between citizenship and eligibility. Not one person has addressed the fact that only the SCOTUS can issue an interpretation on the Constitution as precedence, and that they have done so on the issue of the natural born citizen clause. I can only surmise that they have no relevant argument since they, like yourself, can only engage in insults and name calling.

  92. Scott O. says:

    @SocalJay: IANAL. But if your argument was valid why is it only supported by (warning, insults ahead) kooks on the fringe?

  93. doubter4444 says:

    @SocalJay:
    Did you read the next line?
    Of course not, what I am saying is that conflating 9/11 with the Troofer movement is false on it face, because the enormity of the9/11 demands that people try to make sense of it -in anyway possible, and that in instances like it, all sorts of motives are searched for and questions are asked, and answers are never going to be satisfying to everyone.

    The bigger the event, the more the need to find or create a rational for it, a context for it to reside, and there it’s an easy step to wonder what the connections are.

    That’s the cookbook recipe for conspiracy theories.

    Deciding that Obama, basically, because he is black, lied about his citizenship and has forged documents and either bribed or intimated state officials, gone back in time to post news articles (or was a manchurian candidate), is not.

    That’s the apples to oranges.

    That Republican government office holders winked and nodded and let it go on – is as I said a disgrace.
    There is no equivalence. To make one is a dishonest comparison.

  94. SocalJay says:

    @Scott O.: Is that the best you have? The fact that you automatically classify me as a kook instead of a citizen with serious questions about the conduct of our government speaks volumes. If I’m a kook, address the issue. Prove to me that what I posted are in fact NOT statements found in SCOTUS court cases and therefore precedent. Prove to me that my argument is invalid on technical grounds or that other existing precedent overrules the long-established rules of statutory construction. That two precedents can exist because they do not negate each other, but in fact represent distinct statuses. The argument is that the natural-born citizen clause requires birth in the country to parents, both of whom are citizens. A parental citizenship requirement for Presidential eligibility does not infringe upon birthright citizenship for persons born in the country to alien parents. Eligibility for public office is a civic status, whereas membership in the nation as a citizen is a political status. These are two vastly different statuses. Construing them independently, as is required by the rule of statutory construction, allows them to co-exist so that both are given a separate and unique effect.

    As for why this issue hasn’t gone mainstream, I have my own opinions on that, but they are just that, opinions. Not the least of which is supported by fact … that not one court case presented on this issue has been allowed to proceed in any court except in Georgia. I believe that main reason for this is that within Georgia, State election laws allow for standing where the other cases did not. But that is my opinion.

    Another “opinion” I have is that everyone is afraid of what might happen if in fact he was found to be ineligible by the only court that really matters, SCOTUS, and that all attempts will be made to never let the issue get there. I believe that at least one of the Justices has stated as much. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if this were to happen. Who wants to be responsible for that? Again, that’s just my opinion. And just as you are allowed yours, I am allowed mine. As for the facts, that’s another story. Your move.

  95. SocalJay says:

    @doubter4444: Point conceded. I read your statement to be the opposite of your argument. As for some of the other stuff, some of it has been proven and some of it is still conjecture.

    For example, in one of my earlier statements, I pointed out that because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama automatically assumes the citizenship rights of his father according to British and Kenyan law. The same as my son who was born in Colombia. Obama was a dual citizen at birth. I have never questioned his U.S. citizenship, as statutory law allows for citizenship even though his mother wasn’t old enough to convey it, or his father wasn’t a citizen. He is also possibly an Indonesian citizen based on adoption by his stepfather. That would then make him a citizen of four separate countries while a minor. That is not a conspiracy, that is conjecture based on historical fact.

    Additionally, it has been proven that both of his birth certificates where “manufactured” and are not originals. Whether that was intentional or incidental is conjecture. It has been investigated and proven that the constitutionality clause normally included in eligibility certification letters sent to each state by the Democratic Party was missing. Whether that was intentional or incidental is conjecture. It has been reported that the passport files for Obama and his mother went missing or were stolen. Whether that was intentional or incidental is conjecture. There are many such stories about things that have happened in which whether they were intentional or incidental would be conjecture. We honestly don’t know because no one seems to have access to any of this information. I have never in my life ever seen a political figure that is so clean he squeaks. That more than any other point makes we wonder. Nobody is that perfect. Is that a conspiracy theory? Better people than me have to be the judge of that.

  96. OzarkHillbilly says:

    If you look at the things said about John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln during their Presidencies,

    None of whom (by coincidence) were “Natural born citizens” either (if one follows the definition proposed by “birthers”).

  97. sam says:

    @SocalJay:

    Jay, your logic is faulty.

    If I say

    all robins are birds

    this does not exclude other kinds of animals from being birds.

    Similarly, if I say

    all children born in a country of parents who [are] its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These [are] natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    This does not exclude children of mixed parentage (one citizen, one foreign-born) from being natural-born citizens. It is silent on the question. Where in the cited passage do you see the exclusion? Where do you see that it says, “If and only if both of one’s parents are citizens can one be a native-born citizen”?

    I do not see that at all.

  98. Joel says:

    @WR:
    The Castros are thugs (so was Che) and Cuba IS a terrible place for most of the people who live there. It’s not right-wing propaganda to say the country is a totalitarian police state, and it’s well-known that the country puts on a very different face for tourists and other outsiders. Here’s what a doctor who worked in Cuba says about that segment of the movie:

    [i]Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso, 39, who practiced medicine in Cuba for four years before coming to Miami in 1999, describes the Cuban healthcare system as ”a disaster,” from doctors reusing needles to draw blood from patients (and keeping a sharpening stone for the needles ) to the X-ray machine at Cardenas Regional Hospital, which hasn’t been replaced since 1959.

    ”The treatment Moore and the rescue workers receive in the film was done specifically for them, because they knew it would make great propaganda,” says Alfonso, a general practitioner in Little Havana. “The medical centers in Cuba that treat tourists and government officials and VIPs are very different than the ones that treat the general population. If you’re a Cuban citizen and need a prescription drug, most doctors either tell you to ask your relatives in the U.S. to ship it to you or recommend alternative herbal remedies. That’s the degree of scarcity on the island.”[/i]

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/06/23/148897/cuban-healthcare-is-painted-rosy.html#storylink=cpy

  99. sam says:

    BTW, Jay, let’s really get into the weeds. On your argument, the property of being nonnative-born has to be transitive. One is nonnative-born if one of one’s parents holds dual citizenship (even if one is born in this country). On your argument, Obama is not native-born because he inherited his father’s citizenship. But then Sasha and Malia Obama are not native-born because they inherited their father’s citizenship (on his father’s side). And even if they hied themselves over to the British embassy to “renounce their citizenship”, this would not remove the taint of being nonnative-born because, on your argument, that attaches at birth (when their father was a British citizen, according to you) and cannot be expunged. (So also, none of your son’s children will be native-born even if born in this country as they will inherit their father’s Colombian citizenship.)

    Do you really want to go down this dreary path?

  100. David says:

    @sam: Sam, logic? Seriously?

  101. doubter4444 says:

    @SocalJay:
    Additionally, it has been proven that both of his birth certificates where “manufactured” and are not originals. Whether that was intentional or incidental is conjecture. It has been investigated and proven that the constitutionality clause normally included in eligibility certification letters sent to each state by the Democratic Party was missing. Whether that was intentional or incidental is conjecture. It has been reported that the passport files for Obama and his mother went missing or were stolen.

    Lots of passive voice here… it’s “proven” his BC is “manufactured”?

    You are playing the concern troll a bit, so I’ll bite: I don’t know what that means, on the one hand, it could mean”faked”….or it could mean “it’s a copy of the original they made from the original” – which makes more sense?

    As for: It has been reported that the passport files for Obama and his mother went missing or were stolen
    What? I remember reports of passport functionaries accessing his files, not that they’ve been “lost” or stolen”. Links? (from real sources, not WND or Prison Planet).

  102. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    Doubter, don’t play SocalJay’s game. He has yet to demonstrate that any of his “evidence” is actually valid or from official, reliable sources. It’s a classic conspiracist tactic: credulously accept anyone’s opinion as valid, assume your interpretation of the facts is the accepted interpretation, throw in a few weasel words, and then “report” all of this as if your merely passing along what, by golly, is obvious to everyone. I can also sound all official and report that Obama’s birth certificate is fake–if I hide the fact that it was my neighbor Joe doing the “reporting.”

    The fact of the matter is that all this birther nonsense has been rejected in court after court in this land, but no amount of proof will ever satisfy people like SocalJay.

  103. SocalJay says:

    @sam:

    This does not exclude children of mixed parentage (one citizen, one foreign-born) from being natural-born citizens. It is silent on the question. Where in the cited passage do you see the exclusion? Where do you see that it says,

    If you take a statement out of context, it’s easy to construe another meaning. However, the SCOTUS construed the meaning by contrasting one class against another. The first class being “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” That is clearly the first, and a separate, class of citizen. The second class being “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts …” This is the second class of people, and clearly distinctive from the first. With the first there is not doubt whatsoever, with the second there is doubt, requiring statutory laws and regulations to clarify citizenship, where the first there is no need.

    In context there is no confusion about distinction between the two classes of citizens. Only the first is eligible to hold the position of POTUS according to the natural born citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution.

  104. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: It would serve no purpose to do your homework for you. Regardless, I have no doubt whatsoever that you would refute any source, even if it came from SCOTUS itself. So I choose not to waste my time schooling you.

    And just in case you haven’t looked deeper than the main stream media that’s in Obama’s pocket and never report anything even mildly critical of the President, a State Court in Georgia did in fact find Obama not eligible to be on the 2012 ballot based in part on what I presented. You know better than I that information is nothing more than a tool or vehicle to present ideas. No different than a painter and his oils. Using your criticism, you have also failed to prove your counterpoint. So I guess we’re even.

  105. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @SocalJay:

    It would serve no purpose to do your homework for you.

    Well, actually, among rational adults, that’s called “supporting your argument.” You make an assertion, you support it with the best evidence you can. It’s your job to prove yourself right, not us to prove you wrong (although we will).

    And just in case you haven’t looked deeper than the main stream media that’s in Obama’s pocket and never report anything even mildly critical of the President…

    Oh, I see, now it’s a conspiracy by the mainstream media. Forget ALL THAT OTHER PROOF, like the State of Hawaii certifying his birth certificate as genuine, we should just take on your word that this hidden, secret, you’ve-got-to-want-to-believe other “proof” you talk about is true. It always comes down to a conspiracy with you guys.

    Unlike you, SocalJay, I don’t need Absolute Truth. I am generally convinced by what is reasonable, transparent, and probably true as reported by reliable sources. To me, the X-Files was a TV show, not real life.

  106. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: Only one problem with your Hawaii comment, to my knowledge the State has never stated officially that what Obama presented was genuine, only that it exists. If words are so important to you, you should have been able to figure that out.

    And one last time, just for emphasis added, why do you keep bringing up the birther crap? Honestly, I could care less where he was born. I have never, not once, questioned either his citizenship or his birth place. I’m assuming you can comprehend a written statement, so please stop suggesting that I do.

    My only concern with Obama, just like it was with McCain and potentially that GOP darling Rubio, is ensuring that the government conducts its business in accordance with our Constitution. It’s a simple as that. I believe that both parties are complicit in this issue. For what reasons I cannot fathom other than political gain.

    For an example of what concerns me, go back to Obama’s own words

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    What is the purpose of having a national civilian security force? Who is the enemy? There is only one logical answer: Those who oppose the government.

    We have private security companies. We have local police and sheriffs, fire services and health officials. Some states have state guard units and state police as well. We already have the Coast Guard, FBI, ATF, DEA and Secret Service. Why in the world do we need a “national” civilian security force that rivals the federal military? The answer is obvious and supported by historical fact. To protect centralized power at the federal level. Which means that we, you and I, are the enemy.

    I’m sure, given your previous comments, that you will chalk that up as just another conspiracy theory without actually countering the argument. However, even you cannot deny that if we follow that road to its logical end, we will find ourselves in a police state. I for one didn’t serve 24 years in the military to sit by and silently let that happen. And neither should you. I don’t care what political party is in power, the result is the same. That’s why the Constitution is so important. That’s why it matters what the intentions and allegiances of those we elect are important. That’s why there exists a “natural born citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution.

  107. sam says:

    @SocalJay:

    The first class being “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” That is clearly the first, and a separate, class of citizen. The second class being “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts …” This is the second class of people, and clearly distinctive from the first. With the first there is not doubt whatsoever, with the second there is doubt, requiring statutory laws and regulations to clarify citizenship, where the first there is no need.

    It shows no such thing. What it says is there is a class called ‘natural born citizens’ and there is no doubt that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth” are members of that class. It is silent on whether the class includes other children. It does not exclude. There is no if and only if there.

  108. An Interested Party says:

    SocalJay continues to tell us that he is not a birther…but what he and they have in common is that they are peddling theories and ideas that will never get out of conspiracy land and will never have any real effect on anything, other than to give some people something to argue about…

  109. SocalJay says:

    @sam:

    Do you really want to go down this dreary path?

    Sure, why not? Since you’be butchered everything I wrote, let me clarify things.

    First, it is not the laws of the U.S. I was referring to when using either my son or Obama as examples. I was referring to the laws of the country from which they were derived. Under British Law, Obama Sr’s son was automatically a British subject, therefore subject to it’s laws. This is the most closely aligned with common or natural law. The same can be said for my son who was born in another country. He has the right, under Colombian law, to claim citizenship of that country because he was born there. Both of these concepts are derived from Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, or laws of land and by blood. I was born in the U.S. of citizen parents, and therefore my son also had the right to U.S. citizenship, even though he wasn’t born there. But I had to petition the INS for a birth certificate supporting that claim. That petition, in and of itself, proves that he was not “natural born,” even though he is a citizen. In Obama’s case, his mother was neither old enough, nor had lived in the U.S. for a long enough period of time “after the age of 16” to legally convey citizenship on her son. But he legally qualified for citizenship based on his being born in Hawaii, or Jus Soli. This still required a statute or law, which most scholars believe that the 14th Amendment fills.

    So you see, your characterization of what I wrote was in fact, incorrect. Minor vs. Happersett made the distinction clear, and is the only place in SCOTUS rulings where it was construed as such, and therefore why it is a legal precedent to this day. If you think about it, if not for that definition of the natural born citizen clause, why would they need to put in into the Constitution in the first place?

  110. SocalJay says:

    @An Interested Party: @sam: The only way that either myself or you are going to know if we are right is if the SCOTUS takes up the issue and rules on it.

  111. SocalJay says:

    @sam: What is confusing to you between the statements “As to this class there have been doubts” and “but never as to the first.”

    It’s as clear as the sun shines. “Doubts” need clarification (statutes) and “no doubts” does not. What could be clearer than that?

  112. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    What is the purpose of having a national civilian security force? Who is the enemy? There is only one logical answer: Those who oppose the government.

    Except if you actually listen to the thing it says:

    “And we’re going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

    He was talking about “soft power” solutions alongside military capabilities to ensure the safety of the US. The wider context was probably the clash between Neocons and traditional Conservatives on which services would be best suited to run the Iraq occupation – (civil) state or (military) pentagon. A hotly debated topic at the time if I remember correctly. Beck just cherry-picked by cutting out the 20 secs he needed to get to his “Brown Shirts” rant.

  113. grumpy realist says:

    Well, if we take the route that “if you don’t have two parents who were NBCs then you can’t be a NBC”, I doubt we’re going to have that many presidential candidates.

    Can you prove that all of your ancestors were NBCs? Remember, if any one of them is not an NBC then the offspring won’t be an NBC and we get contamination of non-NBC-ness all down the chain.

    Which is why the deVatellists are silly. They’re also silly because we’ve got a ton of court decisions–including some recent birther ones–that show the accepted definition of NBC now includes “anyone born in the US whose parents fall under US jurisdiction.” You can squawk all you want about your analysis and Teh Constitution, but the fact is, the US is a common law country and we’ve got a bunch of decisions that have told you effectively to Piss Off. The only way you could get the two-parent theory to fly is Actual Statutory Law (if not a constitutional amendment) and good luck passing that.

  114. An Interested Party says:

    The only way that either myself or you are going to know if we are right…

    A moot point, as the President isn’t going anywhere because of the argument you are making and there is little to no likelihood of a case getting to SCOTUS that would cause his removal because his father was born in Kenya…

  115. SocalJay says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: How in the world did you get from the foreign service diplomatic corps to a civilian national security force? It completely sidesteps U.S. and international laws on warfare. You cannot, under existing laws, use civilian security forces to engage in war. That’s why contractors such as Blackwater are watched so closely. They are not force projection, but force protection. So what you’re suggesting this that Obama wants to create government jobs to replace contractors currently doing that job? I don’t buy it.

    The key difference between the two forces, military and civilian, is that there are specific laws limiting the use of federal military in domestic uses (Posse Comitatus), and Congress controls that use. Agencies such as TSA fall under authority of the executive branch, which would create an untenable shift in the balance of power given to a single branch of government under one person. And unless there were very strict limitations placed on this new “civilian security force” for domestic use, similar to Posse Comitatus, I cannot see how it would ever meet the Constitutionally required separation of powers. It would be, in essence and reality, the “brown shirts” you so casually dismiss.

  116. sam says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Can you prove that all of your ancestors were NBCs? Remember, if any one of them is not an NBC then the offspring won’t be an NBC and we get contamination of non-NBC-ness all down the chain.

    That’s an elegant statement of the conclusion I was arguing for in my Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 08:17. On Jay’s premise, the property is inheritable and cannot be expunged. As a matter of fact, it is probably true that on Jay’s argument Ronald Reagan was not eligible to be president.

  117. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @SocalJay:

    Only one problem with your Hawaii comment, to my knowledge the State has never stated officially that what Obama presented was genuine, only that it exists.

    Your claim is false on it’s face:

    The Health Department’s director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama’s birth records.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen…”

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    Well, SocalJay, it’s official, I win, you lose. Thread over. Time to pack up and go home. Ain’t nothin’ to be seen here anymore folks. Move along, move along.

  118. SocalJay says:

    @An Interested Party:

    and there is little to no likelihood of a case getting to SCOTUS that would cause his removal

    Where did I ever mention his removal? I sure wish you wouldn’t put words in my mouth. Truthfully, I don’t expect that it will get there either. There are too many forces aligned against it on both sides of the isle, both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want their pretty boy Marco Rubio placed on a ballot, so why would the help things any?

    Be as it may, the process has already begun, whether you acknowledge it or not. If, after a ruling by Judge Malihi, Obama is not placed on the Georgia ballot, it will start a process that can only end with SCOTUS. That is the goal of all of us who want clarification of this issue. So cry as you want, nothing we say here will change that. Though it doesn’t stop me from saying it either. Nor you it seems.

  119. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: You are so funny. Where does it say that the document that was distributed was “the” official birth document? Nowhere. It says “exactly” what I said it did. That she has seen records and that he was born in Hawaii. How does that differ from what I said? Not one iota. Also, she has absolutely no authority to declare Obama a natural born citizen because, as many have pointed out, they don’t accept the only SCOTUS ruling on the subject. That means that only SCOTUS can determine his natural born status. Thanks for helping my cause. Keep trying.

  120. SocalJay says:

    @sam: Actually, if any of you could read, you would notice that I never made that claim at all. What I said was, quite clearly, that in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the U.S., you must be born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Period.

    My other comments were based on Obama’s parentage and my son’s birthplace, and his right under another country’s law to claim citizenship by blood or soil. Since my parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of my birth, I cannot claim citizenship of any country of my ancestors, only the U.S.

    How in the world you got from there to “all of my ancestors have to be NBCs” is about as farfetched as they come.

  121. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @SocalJay:

    Where does it say that the document that was distributed was “the” official birth document? Nowhere.

    Per Hawaii State policy, official birth certificates are not released to parties that cannot show a tangible interest in receiving it. A sworn affidavit or oath by the Health Department head stating that a) it exists and b) it’s the real deal is sufficient to settle the issue. For the non-crazy people anyway.

    Also, she has absolutely no authority to declare Obama a natural born citizen because, as many have pointed out, they don’t accept the only SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

    I’m not even sure what you mean here. I can’t think of any situation where the oath or affidavit of the official elected person in charge isn’t counted as proof, particularly in regard to Hawaii State policy that they do not release birth certificates to busy bodies.

    But, of course, this really isn’t about “clarity,” as you like to pretend, Jay. This is fundamentally about bigotry and racism.

  122. SocalJay says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker: That’s not the point I’m arguing, so why dodge the truth? He statement in no way states that what was publicly presented resembles the data she has on file. Why you keep dodging what plain English makes obvious is beyond me.

    As to the other point, State law never trumps the Constitution. Not even Congress can issue an interpretation of the Constitution or change the meaning of it. The standards for doing so are extremely high (75% of all States must ratify any change). Hence my comment that a Hawaii official has not authority to interpret the natural born clause of the Constitution, period.

    And the only bigoted person here his you. “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.” And though you continue to insult and call names, and I have done nothing except question your reading comprehension based on your attempts to place me in a box of your choosing. Not exactly what I would call reasonable on your part.

  123. sam says:

    @SocalJay:

    Actually, if any of you could read, you would notice that I never made that claim at all.

    The conclusion is implied by your premise. You are obviously not familiar with relational logic. I suggest you google ‘relational logic’ and read some of the entries you find there.

  124. An Interested Party says:

    Where did I ever mention his removal?

    I never claimed that you did…

    So cry as you want, nothing we say here will change that. Though it doesn’t stop me from saying it either. Nor you it seems.

    No crying here…as I wrote before, all of this is moot, but you go ahead and keep tilting at windmills…

  125. SocalJay says:

    @An Interested Party:

    I never claimed that you did…

    A moot point, as the President isn’t going anywhere because of the argument you are making

    What is your definition of “isn’t going anywhere”? I’ve always understood it to mean something vacating one spot for another.
    As for your dismissal …..

  126. Scott O. says:

    SocalJay 15:02

    a State Court in Georgia did in fact find Obama not eligible to be on the 2012 ballot based in part on what I presented.

    SocalJay 18:41

    If, after a ruling by Judge Malihi, Obama is not placed on the Georgia ballot,

  127. SocalJay says:

    @Scott O.: You are correct, I misstated in the first comment, and corrected my mistake in the second. This was because I returned to the story I had read and realized my mistake after reading it again. It is actually up to the Secretary of State of GA whether or not to take the advice of any ruling by Malihi.

  128. CAEI says:

    @CAEI: Barack Obama is an Illegal alien.

  129. SocalJay says:
  130. WR says:

    @Joel: So why exactly am I supposed to reject Moore’s word and blindly accept that of some anti-Castro doctor I’ve never heard of? Really, this doesn’t count as proof.

  131. Doubter4444 says:

    @CAEI:
    Go away, you’re not even a good troll.

  132. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    How in the world did you get from the foreign service diplomatic corps to a civilian national security force? It completely sidesteps U.S. and international laws on warfare. You cannot, under existing laws, use civilian security forces to engage in war.

    Did you actually listen to the thing as I suggested? I did get there because that’s what Obama said.

    You seem to operate under the assumption that “defence” means “war”. It is quite possible to defend the nation by engaging other nations and convincing them that it’s not in their best interest to attack you (diplomacy) or convincing foreign nations citizens of the good intentions of the US so that they vote for US-friendly governments. In that sense they are an civilian force for defending the nation or a “civilian defence force”.

    I know you will now probably go on the whole “that’s far-fetched. If he did means that he wouldn’t have said civilian defense force but used the word xxx …”.

    Keep in mind two things: Firstly Obama was ad-libbing here. It’s quite common for people not use 100% exact wording when speaking freely. Secondly there have been absolutely no moves to establish such a force in the last three years. You would think he would have gotten farther if he really intended to create the “Obama brown shirts”. If one reading of a sentence fits reality (and the semantic structure) and the other doesn’t, it might be a good idea to get with the first one.

  133. SocalJay says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: You don’t need to lecture me on the defense of the country. I served in uniform for 24 years. How about you? I also notice that you use the form of the word “defence” which is used primarily by those who have been taught the Queen’s English, not in America. What was your reason for that?

    In that sense they are an civilian force for defending the nation or a “civilian defence force”

    I would never construe any such thing in the way that you have. When someone says “civilian security force” the first thing that comes to mind is the TSA. A newly created security force controlled by the federal government with a wide range of powers therein.

    What you characterize in your statement above, is commonly known as a “citizen-soldier” or national guard. We have those already. They are answerable to the governor of a state, not the federal government and they wear uniforms. To suggest that a civilian engage in anything other than administrative or diplomatic functions, excluding police or intelligence functions, is what I was referring to a a stretch of the imagination. But I digress. Here is what Obama said:

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    What you see as an “innocent” comment, I see as a threat to our Constitutional form of government. Nowhere in his statement does he say foreign enemies. He makes it clear that this force, equaling that of the military, address “national” issues. The executive branch and its administration represents the nation. And like the TSA, any additional “civilian national security force,” especially one that rivals the military, would be an abomination and a threat to our way of life.

    Remember what I wrote earlier, it is both side of the isle that are creating these new “rules.” It began with Clinton, was perfected by Bush, and Obama continues to carry the water. People should be very careful what they “support” in the name of security. Remember the famous passage, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

  134. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    Look, there seems to be little point in debating this further. You seem unwilling to consider anything that might contradict your pre-conceived notion. See how in my last post I predicted what your answer would be? And here we are. I was spot on – careful parsing of possible readings while ignoring both context and the way it was actually said. Basically your argument boils down to “Screw what he actually said. When I hear “civilian security force” I think TSA, so that must be what he meant.”

    If you listen to the clip it seems quite clear what Obama means. The sequence goes: “… [Pause] We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets and be there for military families. [Pause] And we are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian [strong emphasis on civilian] national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded. [Pause] We need to use technology …”

    There is absolutely no pause between “diplomacy” and “We can not rely”. Reading this in any other way but that Obama is talking about fulfilling the national security objectives by increasing reliance on diplomatic (i.e civilian) means just spits in the face of semantics and natural language use. It would require to assume that he completely switched topics between sentences without any pause or indication thereof and that he did so despite the fact that every other topic change in the speech was clearly denoted by a pause.

    If one wants to know what someone meant, one must base the inquiry on that persons frame of reference, not ones own. One simply cannot parse someone else’s ideas by running his wording through ones own preconceptions. It’s always a question of finding what the other guy meant with those words, not what oneself would have meant if one had said them.

    If you want read this differently, ok. I just can’t see either a good argument for that nor a good reason why it should be necessary. Sure, the creek of the security apparatus is reason to be concerned. But to base this on a passage that had nothing to do with the topic and was only ever made relevant by Becks fraudulent video editing is asinine. The problem is visible enough without conspiracy theories.

    And with that I’m out. If you are unwilling to look at the clip and address the problems with your reading of there is little I can do to convince you otherwise. The thread is dead anyway.

  135. SocalJay says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: I’m sure the thread is dead since the regulars on this blog have no intention of expanding their understanding of what’s going on and the role “the chosen one” is playing.

    I understand fully the context within which Obama placed his comments. He has applied variations of this theme since he was campaigning in 2008. Unfortunetly for us, the shift of power that was created by Bush under NSPD 51, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, plays right into what has followed. The government continues to make subtle changes to governing, even in the face of contradictions with the Constitution. For example: In 2009, H.R. 675 to Amend Title 10 was introduced. Had it been passed, it would have changed the powers that DoD civilians have. Then the DoD published Directive 1404.10, which directs federal troops to be trained and deployed withing the U.S. All of this discussion flys in the face of Constitutional limits placed on the federal government. Mind you, they are all in the name of “national security.”

    So you see, my angst isn’t only with Obama. I have bones to chew with what Bush did as well. We will rue the day that we went to sleep at the wheel and allowed these things to pass without so much as a whimper. When not in context with the bigger picture, Obama’s comments seem inocuous enough. But when combined with a series of events, like trying to push through Rangel’s “Universal National Service Act,” one has to begin to wonder what’s really going on.

    Have a nice day!

  136. P says:

    Several points of ignorance or dishonesty in your post.

    You say, “….after President Obama released an official copy of his “Long Form” Birth Certificate in April, after having released a Certified copy of the same all the way back in 2007..”

    First, Obama released nothing. His own counsel at the time even stated that Obama had never even been allowed to see the copy of any birth record.

    Second, the image of the document released in 2007 was a “Certification of Live Birth”, which is a document exclusively produced only by the state of Hawaii and in no way functions as a primary form of identification like the “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” which has been the official standard certificate of the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Dept. of Health since 1915. Hawaii’s document was created in 2001.

    Hawaii’s own Department of Homelands rejected the document as a primary form of identification. Moreover, no individual working within the HDOH has ever verified or claimed to have issued the document image of 2007.

    You say…”It wasn’t until 24 years later, though, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the Supreme Court definitively stated that people born of immigrant parents in the territorial United States are citizens from birth, in other words they are natural-born citizens..”

    You neglect to mention that the court found and acknowledged in the ruling that Ark’s parents were U.S. citizens based on the mother’s marriage to the father, who was already declared a U.S. citizen by virtue of his “domicile” and “conduct of business” for more than the mandated 7 years required to be declared a U.S. citizen at Ark’s birth in 1873. Therefore, Ark was not recognized by the court as being born to immigrants but to U.S. citizens.

    The fourteenth amendment as it applies to citizenry in no way implies qualifications which circumvent the mandates of the Natural born clause of the preeminent Article induced a hundred years earlier. What makes one a citizen under the 14th amendment by virtue of class action, does not necessarily make one eligible as a Natural born citizen to be president under Article 2. (Statutory construction et al).

    I strongly urge you to promptly educate yourself on this matter and set aside your emotional attachment to the most prolific criminal liar in American political history. Regardless of the domain of consciousness to which this matter is acknowledged, the legal process will go forth until the evidence of Obama’s fraudulence is weighed upon its merit.

  137. slimslowslider says:

    I strongly urge you to promptly educate yourself on this matter and set aside your emotional attachment to the most prolific criminal liar in American political history.

    Bahahahahahahahahahahahahha

  138. Doubter4444 says:

    @slimslowslider:
    How, P here is a the real thing, SocialJ!
    That’s how you Birther.
    Just when I thought this thread was dead, A loon jumps back in.

    And just for giggles, why is Obama the “ most prolific criminal liar in American political history?”

  139. ShitEatingLiars says:

    If all else fails, scream racism! The refuge of the stupid myrmidons who are Kool Aid drinkers. Have fun when there is civil strife in the streets when our economy tanks and people go hungry. Can you say and think GREECE? If not then go back into drinking that Kool Aid and say: Oh Bammie is my commie…

  140. SocalJay says:

    @Doubter4444: Ouch!

  141. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @ShitEatingLiars:

    Have fun when there is civil strife in the streets when our economy tanks and people go hungry.

    Hey, Brainiac, perhaps you haven’t noticed the unrest already in the streets across the country or the state of our economy since 2008? Maybe you should look out your parent’s basement window from time to time.

    Nutters. Hmmph. You always see what isn’t there but never see what is there.

  142. Doubter4444 says:

    @SocalJay:
    LOL, I know others jumped, but you are not like “P”…. at least I think so.
    Look i don’t care if someone likes the president or not, it’s still a free country (marginally, at least).
    Just don’t like him for reasons that make sense, that reflect well. It’s just a small thing I look for in people… a little intellectual honesty. Rare these days.
    @ShitEatingLiars:
    and you: what a douchebag. Go back to town hall or where ever.
    You are barely coherent and – just for what it’s worth, I’ll tell you what, if it come down to it, it’s a lot easier to teach a granola-eating, tree hugging tri-althete costal liberal how to shoot some fat asses, than it is to get a bunch of obese type two diabetes wall-mart greeters to get in shape, and get on the front line.
    You’ll get a few battles in the beginning, but we’ll put you in the ground, just like last time.

  143. GaTruth says:

    @Hey Norm: Knee-jerk racist-phobes never go away. Georgia as a whole has excellent race relations these days (unlike Philly and Chicago, or New England where few African Americans live). But, that’s beside the point. While I don’t agree with the case, I disagree even more with people like you who aren’t smart enough to see how destructive BO’s policies are, how counter they are to our country’s founding principles, and when you encounter someone who disagrees with his policies you have so little on your side you immediately throw the race card. Pathetic! Now pack your tent, leave Oakland, get a job and start contributing to society.

  144. GaTruth says:

    @Hey Norm: Re: Leftist idiots? How about the “9/11 was an inside job” crowd? How about the “Bush blew up the levies in NO when Katrina came through” crowd? Here’s the best, and you might fall into this group, “Socialism works, it just hasn’t been tried in a pure enough form.” If that last one wasn’t so pervasive it would be as funny as the Birther fiasco. Instead, it is exactly why we are where we are today.

  145. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    @GaTruth:

    How about the “Bush blew up the levies in NO when Katrina came through” crowd?

    Hey, Brainiac Jr, here’s the difference between our nutters and you nutters: We don’t let our nutters drive the bus. Name one liberal leader or luminary (i.e., “A” players, not “B” players) that is on record with the inside job nonsense or NO levies nonsense. And if Michael Moore or Sean Penn is part of your answer you’ve already lost.

    On the other hand, I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count how many righty leaders and luminaries are on record or dog-whistling birther or (cough) “soshulism” nonsense.

    “Socialism works, it just hasn’t been tried in a pure enough form” … is exactly why we are where we are today.

    Seriously, do you guys even know what socialism is? Have you ever even read a definition of it? Or is it just anytime someone wants to share or split the costs of something?

  146. SocalJay says:

    Actually some of us do know what socialism is and reject it. Here is a passage that describes one particular aspect of socialism:

    The Socialist Community is a great authoritarian association in which orders are issued and obeyed. This is what is implied by the words “planned economy” and the “abolition of the anarchy of production.” The inner structure of a socialist community is best understood if we compare it with the inner structure of an army. Many socialists indeed prefer to speak of the “army of labour.” As in an army, so under Socialism, everything depends on the orders of the supreme authority. Everyone has a place to which he is appointed. Everyone has to remain in his place until he is moved to another. It follows that men become pawns of official action. They rise only when they are promoted. They sink only when they are degraded. It would be waste of time to describe such conditions. They are the common knowledge of every citizen of a bureaucratic state. Ludwig von Mises, 1922

    Now compare that to Obama’s call for a civilian national security force and you understand how some of us reject that path. This game didn’t start yesterday. In fact, it began before the ink was dry on our Constitution. It took little more than a century before people began to forget what was sacrificed to ensure we were not enslaved by our government. Over the past 120 years, our system of government has been eroded to the point where it is almost not recognizable when compared to the vision that our founding fathers had. That is not mere musing, but a statement of fact. And now we get the honor of bandying words with someone like you who has rejected what America stands for, choosing instead to support a man who is doing his utmost to destroy the last vestiges of a dream that became reality.

  147. Doubter4444 says:

    Ahhh… Ludwig von Mises, 1922!
    Your’e one of those, are you?
    Now compare that to Obama’s call for a civilian national security force and you understand how some of us reject that path.
    Got a picture of Ayn to curl up with on old nights?

    Libertarianism needs to doff the tin foil hats and incorporate a world view that actually, you know, works, for the time we live in and creates a set of values worrkable or the average person.
    Otherwise it’s just wanking.

  148. SocalJay says:

    @Doubter4444: You know what Doubter, you’re something else altogether. The way you try and convince everyone that you’re somehow clairvoyant and have all the answers. For the record, I’ve never read Ayn Rand. The question posed was if any of us even new the meaning of the word “socialism.” I offered up a passage from a man way out of your league who wrote what I see as being fairly descriptive of a cornerstone of socialism and what socialism is all about. You cannot deny that our President has continued to call for this type of service. Only progressives believe that our Constitution is irrelevant and that the meaning of “right and wrong” changes with the times. Only progressives believe that a “state apparatus” can force people to do the right thing, and they generally tend to throw values right out the window. The more progressives try and put chains on people, the more they will resist. That, in essence, is the history of our country. Why would you expect anything different?

  149. slimslowslider says:

    birthers lost again, hahahahah.

  150. SocalJay says:

    @slimslowslider: Orly Taitz is a birther, there is no question about that. The other two lawyers are not. Their arguments have nothing to do with his birth. They have to do with eligibility and the U.S. Constitution. But I’m sure that means nothing to you, as your are probably a Ginsburg fan.