The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president

[Cleverboy]

http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/pagenum/all/
If you want to stop Barack Obama from becoming president, there's still time. But you have to act right now. Go to RallyCongress.com, and you can be the 126,000th-odd American to demand "proof of citizenship" from the president-elect. Follow the instructions at WeMustBeHeard.com, and you can join a sit-in outside the Supreme Court of the United States, starting at 8 a.m. Friday, as the justices decide whether to consider a suit filed by a professional poker player that challenges the presidential eligibility of Obama, John McCain, and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero.

Can't make it to Washington, D.C.? Too bad—you missed your chance to FedEx a letter to the justices for only $10, sponsored by the venerable right-wing site (and Chuck Norris column outlet) WorldNetDaily. "There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public," writes WND Editor Joseph Farah, "that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities."

Widespread? Rapidly growing? Who are these people? They're engaging in a new American political tradition: the quadrennial early-winter attempt to overturn presidential results by any means necessary.It started, as all election madness seemed to, in 2000. As soon as it became clear that Al Gore had won the popular vote but might lose Florida's electoral votes, some liberal writers and activists argued for a constitutional path to victory: convince three Electoral College voters pledged to George W. Bush to switch their votes to Gore. The challenges lasted past the December Electoral College vote and into the January 2001 certification ceremony before a joint session of Congress, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the vote. They got nowhere because they needed a sponsor from the Senate to make it official. In 2005—after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 made the 2001 protest famous—Sen. Barbara Boxer of California objected to the Ohio vote count, and the chambers divided for debate. Bush won anyway.

If you thought Barack Obama's clear rout over John McCain meant we'd be spared a third Electoral College melodrama—well, think again. This time, the argument is not over votes. It's over Obama's citizenship.
I thought this was an interesting article. And, oh yeah... There will be a press conference at the National Press Club on Obama's citizenship on Monday. Market Watch reported this yesterday.

Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired
Monday at the National Press Club
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid={35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3}

Lest we forget however, the National Press Club also hosted a press conference for Larry Sinclair (http://www.press.org/calendar/calendarday.cfm?whatday=18&&whatyear=2008&&whatmonth=6), infamous Obama critic, right before he was arrested for theft and forgery charges (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Sinclair_arrested_and_other_notes_from_the_Press_Club.html). So, there's no accounting for subject matter.

Blue Velvet:
Any further threads on this topic solely supported by links to fringe wingnut bloggery, instead of reputable media sources, will be closed down. Ok, so... I'm thinking this is Slate, so its fair ground, although admittedly they've linked to fringe wingnut bloggery so is it a catch-22? :)

I feel a little sad that people are struggling with this whole thing. You could swap in McCain, and there would be the EXACT same citizenship legal disputes, had he won. Unfortunately for McCain, they would be much more founded, and would require congress to immediately pass standing amendments on issues surrounding military families. I get my nose out of joint when people can't see when things simply need to be dealt with (like the question surrounding Hillary Clinton as SoS... she'll need to have a pay cut to be confirmed).

The Obama situation, however is absolutely contrived. I feel sorry for his paternal grandmother in Kenya with all the people using clips of her being badgered or misinterpreted as proof of something she's never actually said (although she did clearly remark about being happy when she received a letter in the mail from the U.S., informing her she had a new grandson, despite the consternation of her husband). I also appreciate that these fringe people would assert that Obama was born in Kenya from these lame, mostly truncated conversations, and yet have no verifiable evidence that Ann Dunham ever traveled to Kenya after marrying Obama Sr, and before Obama Jr was born (during her second and third trimester).

What cynical, cynical people these be.

~ CB

[rdowns]

I fail to see the point of this thread especially given yesterday's thread.

[Blue Velvet]

You could swap in McCain, and there would be the EXACT same citizenship legal disputes, had he won.


I very much doubt it. It was never a big deal on the left. Not their kind of thing...

[Cleverboy]

I fail to see the point of this thread especially given yesterday's thread. That Slate has rendered a fine article putting all of this elections post vote contention into context? I think its a good article, worth discussing. No? It's not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than exploring the fringe movement that we've all heard pieces of.

~ CB

[leekohler]

I fail to see the point of this thread especially given yesterday's thread.

I agree. Sorry CB, the fact is that there are a lot racist whack jobs out there who just can't fathom why the Republicans lost. It should be obvious, but they just don't get it.

I see no point in discussing this any further.

[és:]

I very much doubt it. It was never a big deal on the left. Not their kind of thing...

I fully agree. This is petty and pointless.

[gilkisson]

It is time to draw upon yet another lesson from history, one that is ironically very apt, and poignant.

“We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation.”
--Robert E. Lee

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

-- Abraham Lincoln

Now isn't the time to preach sedition, folks. It is time to preach unity. Not for the glory of personal ideology, but for the benefit of our country.

[Cleverboy]

I agree. Sorry CB, the fact is that there are a lot racist whack jobs out there who just can't fathom why the Republicans lost. It should be obvious, but they just don't get it.
I see no point in discussing this any further. I understand. We're going to be hearing about this until inauguration though. It's pretty cancerous.

A friend at work months ago was asking, "why doesn't Obama just show his birth certificate?" and we got into it. He remained unconvinced., and he voted for him. He unfortunately listens to tools like Jay Severin, here in Mass... because he finds it interesting, but there it is. I'd prefer to have all my facts lined up and control the discussion because I was keeping an eye on what was happening. It's not just the racist whack jobs sometimes.

~ CB

[63dot]

When Ann Coulter gets her jaw injury restored after her injury, then I would not be surprised if she goes on air about this story. She also does not like John McCain. :)

[leekohler]

I understand. We're going to be hearing about this until inauguration though. It's pretty cancerous.

A friend at work months ago was asking, "why doesn't Obama just show his birth certificate?" and we got into it. He remained unconvinced., and he voted for him. He unfortunately listens to tools like Jay Severin, here in Mass... because he finds it interesting, but there it is. I'd prefer to have all my facts lined up and control the discussion because I was keeping an eye on what was happening. It's not just the racist whack jobs sometimes.

~ CB

Did you tell your friend he DID present his birth certificate?

OMG- I just read the article. These people are BEYOND crazy. It's some new form of insane for which their is no word. Hey wingnuts! The American people voted! You lost! Please go see a shrink or something.

[Cleverboy]

Did you tell your friend he DID present his birth certificate?It never ceases to amaze me how that response gets turned into a debate about "real" (ie. long form) vs "fake" (ie, short form) birth certficate. These days I'm also armed with links to the official Hawaii birth certificate request form (which does not feature any distinction, and produces a short form certificate fully acceptable by the State department).

The weird ass line of reasoning I've been tracking has been... the graphical scan his campaign produced originally was photoshopped, but its been confirmed subsequently that the short form certificate is authentic and looks exactly like the one originally furnished, yet the "graphical analysis" of the digital file is clung to as evidence of forgery, despite independent sites like FactCheck.org and rightwing sites like WorldNetDaily confirming the authenticity of the document in person (complete with stamp, etc). When this thread runs dry, they turn to tortured explanations about dual citizenship and renouncments and statues, and how much the Constitution matters. Most people stop with the birth certificate however, and can't quite understand why its so difficult to show them the "longform" certificate, so that they can pick over it and eventually declare it a fake, or find a new wrinkle that renews their arguments.

I think the biggest problem of this, is that to officially acknowledge these types of people, is to validate their techniques. The whole "real certificate" v. "fake certificate" thing is a horrifying rat hole. I think the going allegation is that people want to know #1.) What doctor's name is on the long form certificate (are they still alive). #2.) What hospital name is on the long form certificate (is there a birth record there) #3.) Whether the long form certificate shows evidence that it was amended or generated for an out of state birth. #4.) Does it list the same state, country as the short form does.

I'm almost inclined to put a website together than meticulously attempts to detail the winding thread of the series of pronouncements, jsut to keep them in line with reality and not have them represent this ADD generation we live in by leaping from one disjointed explanation to another. A recent NEW bubble was that someone allegedly called all the hospitals in Honolulu and could not confirm with any of them that Obama had been born there (not just at the one that's most often mentioned).

It's this proliferation of unvetted and circumstantial tomfoolery that seeks to become a mantra of extremists. That truly bothers me. We all remember "Grand Theft America: Part I - The Last Recount". Now its "Grand Theft America: Part II - The Obamanation" featuring a Hitler-esque black man who preaches socialism, eats babies, and wasn't born here.

I know I'm a fool to try plugging the imaginary leaky dam, but for my own santity, I'm inclined to try. OMG- I just read the article. These people are BEYOND crazy. It's some new form of insane for which their is no word. Hey wingnuts! The American people voted! You lost! Please go see a shrink or something. I was on another forum and couldn't help myself from suggesting one such person had some type of mental affliction, while using the most sympathetically sincere tone. I was told that the posts had to be deleted because the person apparently lost their mind. I wish I could have read it. I really was concerned about them.

~ CB

[leekohler]

It never ceases to amaze me how that response gets turned into a debate about "real" (ie. long form) vs "fake" (ie, short form) birth certficate. These days I'm also armed with links to the official Hawaii birth certificate request form (which does not feature any distinction, and produces a short form certificate fully acceptable by the State department).

The weird ass line of reasoning I've been tracking has been... the graphical scan his campaign produced originally was photoshopped, but its been confirmed subsequently that the short form certificate is authentic and looks exactly like the one originally furnished, yet the "graphical analysis" of the digital file is clung to as evidence of forgery, despite independent sites like FactCheck.org and rightwing sites like WorldNetDaily confirming the authenticity of the document in person (complete with stamp, etc). When this thread runs dry, they turn to tortured explanations about dual citizenship and renouncments and statues, and how much the Constitution matters. Most people stop with the birth certificate however, and can't quite understand why its so difficult to show them the "longform" certificate, so that they can pick over it and eventually declare it a fake, or find a new wrinkle that renews their arguments.

I think the biggest problem of this, is that to officially acknowledge these types of people, is to validate their techniques. The whole "real certificate" v. "fake certificate" thing is a horrifying rat hole. I think the going allegation is that people want to know #1.) What doctor's name is on the long form certificate (are they still alive). #2.) What hospital name is on the long form certificate (is there a birth record there) #3.) Whether the long form certificate shows evidence that it was amended or generated for an out of state birth.

I'm almost inclined to put a website together than meticulously attempts to detail the winding thread of the series of pronouncements, jsut to keep them in line with reality and not have them represent this ADD generation we live in by leaping from one disjointed explanation to another. A recent NEW bubble was that someone allegedly called all the hospitals in Honolulu and could not confirm with any of them that Obama had been born there (not just at the one that's most often mentioned).

It's this proliferation of unvetted and circumstantial tomfoolery that seeks to become a mantra of extremists. That truly bothers me. We all remember "Grand Theft America: Part I - The Last Recount". Now its "Grand Theft America: Part II - The Obamanation" featuring a Hitler-esque black man who preaches socialism, eats babies, and wasn't born here.

I know I'm a fool to try plugging the imaginary leaky dam, but for my own santity, I'm inclined to try.

~ CB

What makes me ill is that this is almost the same crap they pulled with Clinton. Digging and digging, and finding absolutely nothing despite all that money wasted. You know what? Let them. Let them keep looking like the idiots they are. It'll just make people angry and make them look stupid. I'm fine with that. It should keep them out of government for a good long time. :mad:

[atszyman]

Does anyone remember the outrage when the rumor about Trig Palin being Bristol's baby started and was subsequently debunked and died a very quick death?

Why does the Obama wasn't born here rumor persist?

To date Obama has produced infinitely more legitimate legal papers proving his citizenship than Sarah Palin did to prove that she gave birth to Trig, she never released a birth certificate and instead of her medical records we got a doctor's note stating that she was in excellent health.

[Cleverboy]

Does anyone remember the outrage when the rumor about Trig Palin being Bristol's baby started and was subsequently debunked and died a very quick death?

Why does the Obama wasn't born here rumor persist?

To date Obama has produced infinitely more legitimate legal papers proving his citizenship than Sarah Palin did to prove that she gave birth to Trig, she never released a birth certificate and instead of her medical records we got a doctor's note stating that she was in excellent health. Palin's baby drama, was much more recent an event, and featured a cast of current witnesses at the hospital where she gave birth. Everyone of Obama's maternal relatives, present at the time, have died... the last dying the day before election day. Face it, you couldn't have a more perfect storm.

--And yes, the Obama story targets his eligibility to be President. The Palin story targets her character, which is nigh bullet-proof to those that would have still voted GOP.

~ CB

[atszyman]

Palin's baby drama, was much more recent an event, and featured a cast of current witnesses at the hospital where she gave birth. Everyone of Obama's maternal relatives, present at the time, have died... the last dying the day before election day. Face it, you couldn't have a more perfect storm.

I don't remember where I was born, so if all of those around at the time of my birth who would remember were to pass away, does that bring the locale of my birth into question all of a sudden? Regardless of what the legitimate paperwork says?

Is legal documentation subject to question if no more witnesses are around to verify it?

[Cleverboy]

I don't remember where I was born, so if all of those around at the time of my birth who would remember were to pass away, does that bring the locale of my birth into question all of a sudden? Regardless of what the legitimate paperwork says? Is legal documentation subject to question if no more witnesses are around to verify it? Isn't it awful? This is an amazing thing to me that someone could question where you were born and the authenticity of your documentation... and quickly switch off to whether things beyond your control, like automatic citizenship in other countries or your parents actions with regards to being naturalized in other countries, might somehow muddy the process further. It blows me away that someone could, with a straight face, ask why there is no one alive who remembers the day you were born (consider the tragedies that took the lives of your mother, father, grandfather and grandmother).

Seems pretty evil.

~ CB

[leekohler]

Isn't it awful? This is an amazing thing to me that someone could question where you were born and the authenticity of your documentation... and quickly switch off to whether things beyond your control, like automatic citizenship in other countries or your parents actions with regards to being naturalized in other countries, might somehow muddy the process further. It blows me away that someone could, with a straight face, ask why there is no one alive who remembers the day you were born (consider the tragedies that took the lives of your mother, father, grandfather and grandmother).

Seems pretty evil.

~ CB

Expect more. The nutjobs are out in full force now. And make no mistake, they ARE evil. This is just the beginning. They'll probably even bring back Kenneth Starr. :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

Isn't it awful? This is an amazing thing to me that someone could question where you were born and the authenticity of your documentation... and quickly switch off to whether things beyond your control, like automatic citizenship in other countries or your parents actions with regards to being naturalized in other countries, might somehow muddy the process further. It blows me away that someone could, with a straight face, ask why there is no one alive who remembers the day you were born (consider the tragedies that took the lives of your mother, father, grandfather and grandmother).

Seems pretty evil.

~ CB

It's really a shame that I failed to get the names, addresses, and phone numbers from the court office where I obtained my marriage license. How will I ever prove that my wife and I are legally married without witnesses to corroborate that I did not forge the paperwork? I also didn't make sure that the hospital staff would remember our kids. What if they can't recall our particular children if our kids' citizenship ever comes into question?

Of course even if there were witnesses, they'd all be dragged through the mud to ruin their credibility and be cited as co-conspirators.

It really is awfully convenient that when he was merely an infant, his family had enough foresight to forge the whereabouts of his birth so that he could make a highly improbable run for president. What vision and optimism they had.

[Blue Velvet]

It really is awfully convenient that when he was merely an infant, his family had enough foresight to forge the whereabouts of his birth so that he could make a highly improbable run for president. What vision and optimism they had.


Well... when you're bringing the AntiChrist into this world, you make sure you plan ahead and take a packed lunch. ;)

[Sun Baked]

They'll probably even bring back Kenneth Starr. :rolleyes:

Or one of the cooking personalities to talk about the proper way to season and cook politicians.

[mgguy]

[QUOTE=atszyman;6716702To date Obama has produced infinitely more legitimate legal papers proving his citizenship than Sarah Palin did to prove that she gave birth to Trig, she never released a birth certificate and instead of her medical records we got a doctor's note stating that she was in excellent health.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that who gave birth to Trig is personal and not legally or officially relevant,unlike Obama's citizen status which is relevant.

[leekohler]

The difference is that who gave birth to Trig is personal and not legally or officially relevant,unlike Obama's citizen status which is relevant.

And Obama has provided the necessary documentation proving the whereabouts of his birth. He's a natural born citizen- end of story. It's been confirmed by authorities as well. This whole stupid movement is just that- stupid. And full of a bunch of nuts who can't accept reality.

[mgguy]

[QUOTE=leekohler;6716622]What makes me ill is that this is almost the same crap they pulled with Clinton. Digging and digging, and finding absolutely nothing despite all that money wasted.:[/QUOTE)

Finding nothing? You must be kidding. Clinton was impeached after all. Geeze.

[leekohler]

Finding nothing? You must be kidding. Clinton was impeached after all. Geeze.

None of what they were looking for was found, so they had to delve into his personal life. He got impeached for lying about a blow job. And BTW- in case you forgot, he was acquitted. So there you go- nothing.

[mgguy]

And Obama has provided the necessary documentation proving the whereabouts of his birth. He's a natural born citizen- end of story. It's been confirmed by authorities as well. This whole stupid movement is just that- stupid. And full of a bunch of nuts who can't accept reality.

You might be right. But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue. I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected.

[leekohler]

You might be right. But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue. I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected.

He was, so what's your point?

[mactastic]

You might be right. But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue. I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected.
I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if they had witnessed the birth personally, they'd still hop on any bandwagon they could find that might possibly prove embarrassing to Obama.

[mgguy]

[QUOTE=leekohler;6717502]None of what they were looking for was found, so they had to delve into his personal life. He got impeached for lying about a blow job. And BTW- in case you forgot, he was acquitted. So there you go- nothing.[/QUOTE)

He lied to a Grand Jury under oath. That's a big deal for a Prez, especially when the jury was investigating a case brought against him.

[mactastic]

He lied to a Grand Jury under oath. That's a big deal for a Prez, especially when the jury was investigating a case brought against him.
He was CHARGED (aka impeached) with lying to a grand jury under oath by overzealous partisan prosecutors.

He was acquitted of the charge.

By your logic, I could say that Dick Cheney and Abu Gonzalez tortured prisoners. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=602470)

[bradl]

None of what they were looking for was found, so they had to delve into his personal life. He got impeached for lying about a blow job. And BTW- in case you forgot, he was acquitted. So there you go- nothing.

He lied to a Grand Jury under oath. That's a big deal for a Prez, especially when the jury was investigating a case brought against him.

This has nothing to do with Clinton. Andrew Johnson was impeached, and this has nothing to do with Clinton nor Obama. So what's your point?

I have Amer. Indian blood in me (Choctaw). I go to fill out the application for the CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood) for application to the Tribe, and find out that since my Father is alive, he also needs to prove his Amer. Indian descent back to our first ancestor who registered on the Dawes Role of 1885. However, my father's records were destroyed when the hospital he was born at burned down some 40 years ago, and the city hall records were destroyed in a tornado. Does that mean he can't prove his descent, nor can I, let alone prove that he's a naturally born American citizen? He has witnesses for his birth (he's the youngest of 5), and amazingly, the doctor who delivered him is still alive.

BL.

[atszyman]

The difference is that who gave birth to Trig is personal and not legally or officially relevant,unlike Obama's citizen status which is relevant.

If all the witnesses had passed away and you had been told all your life that you were born, where you think you were born, and had the documentation to prove it. What would you think of someone who tried to accuse you of not being born where you think you were?

Remember, you have no witnesses to prove it, only what you've been told and the legal documentation.

I wasn't commenting on the relevance of either rumor, just how fast one died out without any documentation, yet the other persists in coming up despite having the documentation to disprove it.

[.Andy]

I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected.
I certainly wouldn't. I don't see why it's an issue if he's the best man for the job and the choice of the American people.

[atszyman]

You might be right. But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue. I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected.

I certainly wouldn't. I don't see why it's an issue if he's the best man for the job and the choice of the American people.

If he's been raised here the vast majority of his life, and has the legal documentation that says he was born here, and he was told he was born here, without witnesses, for all intensive purposes he was born here as best it can be determined.

Even if there was some conspiracy since his birth in the 60s to ensure that he'd be able to run for president (on the off chance a black man might even have a shot in his lifetime) and no one ever let him in on it, how would he be any different than any other person who has been told their entire life that they were born here?

[Macky-Mac]

yeah, but can Obama prove Sarah Palin isn't his mother? :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

yeah, but can Obama prove Sarah Palin isn't his mother? :rolleyes:

Of course he can.

Obama has never seen Russia from his house. :D

[ucfgrad93]

I fail to see the point of this thread especially given yesterday's thread.

Agreed. This is going nowhere and it has the same ring of truth as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Loose Change.

[Macky-Mac]

Of course he can.

Obama has never seen Russia from his house. :D

that doesn't prove a thing! everybody knows Palin always flies to Texas when she's secretly giving birth.......and you can't see Russia from Texas! :D

[gilkisson]

What the... is this still going on? Again? Seriously?
Wasn't this same thread closed with extreme prejudice last night?

Besides, this birth certificate issue isn't the real problem. Here's one for ya: Can Obama prove he is even human? Huh? Didn't think about that, did ya? Yeah... He's from some freaky space planet, or somethin'... He needs to provide proof, like unaltered DNA or somethin', to prove he is even from Earth! And he has to do it live, on national TV, because any doctor would be one of "them"...

Do you see how dumb this all sounds?

[bradl]

What the... is this still going on? Again? Seriously?
Wasn't this same thread closed with extreme prejudice last night?

Besides, this birth certificate issue isn't the real problem. Here's one for ya: Can Obama prove he is even human? Huh? Didn't think about that, did ya? Yeah... He's from some freaky space planet, or somethin'... He needs to provide proof, like unaltered DNA or somethin', to prove he is even from Earth! And he has to do it live, on national TV, because any doctor would be one of "them"...

Do you see how dumb this all sounds?

Dude.. leave Michael Jackson out of this. :D

BL.

[gilkisson]

Dude.. leave Michael Jackson out of this. :D

BL.

No, MJ used to be human. He mutated later...

[mysterytramp]

One thing to consider -- which may contort this thread into something relevant -- is the whole issue of proof of citizenship vis a vis the anti illegal immigration furor. Very soon (or in some states now) you'll need to present a birth certificate to get a drivers license. If you don't, you might not be allowed on an airplane or in a federal building.

I don't know about you, but I'm scared to death that the local MVA (or DMV) is going to be the arbiter of American citizenship. Judging by my peers, I'm not so sure about the MVA's ability to vet the ability to parallel park.

And just what is a birth certificate? A piece of paper. No fancy seal. No holographic imprint. You won't need to be working for al Qaeda to create a decent forgery with a run-of-the-mill inkjet printer.

Which might prove the whackos right. Obama's birth certificate is fake. But then again, they're part of the same Moronic Masses that want this crusade against illegals in the first place. All they're doing is proving that they can't prove their own American citizenship.

mt

[NT1440]

One thing to consider -- which may contort this thread into something relevant -- is the whole issue of proof of citizenship vis a vis the anti illegal immigration furor. Very soon (or in some states now) you'll need to present a birth certificate to get a drivers license. If you don't, you might not be allowed on an airplane or in a federal building.

I don't know about you, but I'm scared to death that the local MVA (or DMV) is going to be the arbiter of American citizenship. Judging by my peers, I'm not so sure about the MVA's ability to vet the ability to parallel park.

And just what is a birth certificate? A piece of paper. No fancy seal. No holographic imprint. You won't need to be working for al Qaeda to create a decent forgery with a run-of-the-mill inkjet printer.

Which might prove the whackos right. Obama's birth certificate is fake. But then again, they're part of the same Moronic Masses that want this crusade against illegals in the first place. All they're doing is proving that they can't prove their own American citizenship.

mt
cuz the documentation doesnt match other records and databases right?

[gilkisson]

One thing to consider -- which may contort this thread into something relevant -- is the whole issue of proof of citizenship vis a vis the anti illegal immigration furor. Very soon (or in some states now) you'll need to present a birth certificate to get a drivers license. If you don't, you might not be allowed on an airplane or in a federal building.

I don't know about you, but I'm scared to death that the local MVA (or DMV) is going to be the arbiter of American citizenship. Judging by my peers, I'm not so sure about the MVA's ability to vet the ability to parallel park.

And just what is a birth certificate? A piece of paper. No fancy seal. No holographic imprint. You won't need to be working for al Qaeda to create a decent forgery with a run-of-the-mill inkjet printer.

Which might prove the whackos right. Obama's birth certificate is fake. But then again, they're part of the same Moronic Masses that want this crusade against illegals in the first place. All they're doing is proving that they can't prove their own American citizenship.

mt

Wow. No, really, that was great. On-topic and everything. So, you are saying it's a fake, right? In a backhanded way?

[bradl]

One thing to consider -- which may contort this thread into something relevant -- is the whole issue of proof of citizenship vis a vis the anti illegal immigration furor. Very soon (or in some states now) you'll need to present a birth certificate to get a drivers license. If you don't, you might not be allowed on an airplane or in a federal building.


Hmm.. I had to present my birth certificate or notarized copy of one to get my Learner's permit in Nebraska, and that was back in 1990. After that, the permit could be used as ID to get the license.

As far as other places, all you'd really need is state-issued picture ID and/or passport to get into places. I had a friend just use his student ID from college to board a plane, so it definitely won't be more than something that is ID that has your picture on it (I'll leave forging/fake IDs aside; that's another topic altogether).


I don't know about you, but I'm scared to death that the local MVA (or DMV) is going to be the arbiter of American citizenship. Judging by my peers, I'm not so sure about the MVA's ability to vet the ability to parallel park.


Not following you here. The DMV can't and wouldn't be the arbiter of citizenship. Assuming the immigrant has all the needed paperwork to be in the country, they would be treated as a resident, just like the rest of us, especially when we go to the DMV to get renewals or a new license when we move to a new state. Nothing really should be different there.


And just what is a birth certificate? A piece of paper. No fancy seal. No holographic imprint. You won't need to be working for al Qaeda to create a decent forgery with a run-of-the-mill inkjet printer.


IIRC, each birth certificate has the Seal of the State the certificate was issued from. If you don't have the seal engraved on the paper, it isn't a real birth certificate.


Which might prove the whackos right. Obama's birth certificate is fake. But then again, they're part of the same Moronic Masses that want this crusade against illegals in the first place. All they're doing is proving that they can't prove their own American citizenship.

mt

If they can't prove their own, all the better. Kick them the F out. ;)

BL.

[Macky-Mac]

....

And just what is a birth certificate? A piece of paper. No fancy seal. No holographic imprint. You won't need to be working for al Qaeda to create a decent forgery with a run-of-the-mill inkjet printer....t

well, no, birth certificates do have a "fancy seal" pressed into them by the issuing government agency

[aethelbert]

I don't know if he was born here and I have carried my doubts a few times especially as some of his relatives say that he was born abroad. I'd tend to believe them more than the government, though, with their greatly low credibility these days and whatnot. But if the government screwed up in printing a birth certificate, we must also remember that it's the same group that would be enforcing such a clause... If they're gonna say that he was born here and continue to confirm it, despite the fact that they could be wrong, then they have no right to keep him from running and becoming president.

[.Andy]

This thread is a great illustration of republicans.

[Cleverboy]

I was listening to Campbell Brown tonight on CNN, and the story has finally made it to the MSM broadcasters. Namely, the accusation that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and specifically about the Supreme Court deciding whether to hear the case. They rightly used the term "whack job" and "losers" and "tin foil hats". The problem does become that David Souter rejected it, and now Clarence Thomas has agreed to discuss it in conference... simply to prevent them from referring it to each and everyone of the other justices. Jeffrey Toobin finally declares, "Lawyers with too much time on their hands."

There is no guarantee that every broadcaster will color the story the same way. Yes, I'm wondering openly about Fox.

~ CB

[mysterytramp]

Where to start ...

1) Off topic? Well, there was a notice that this was going to get shut down anyway. Pardon my attempt at keeping the conversation going.

2) What I'm referring to is the Real ID Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act), a poorly considered piece of legislation that is meant to curb illegal immigration. That may be a laudable goal, but the law has the effect of trying to turn a drivers license into more than just proof that you know how to operate an automobile. It WILL be de facto proof of citizenship and it WILL be managed by your motor vehicles bureaucracy. That, by itself, scares the crap out of me.

3) Within the last 12 months I needed to retrieve birth certificates for several members of my family so we could get passports. No fancy seals, no security features whatsoever. Heavy stock paper through a dot matrix printer operated by a high school intern at the county health department. There was fancy scrollwork around the edge, but Staples sells that stuff for less than $1 a page.

4) I wasn't trying to say Obama isn't American. Just that there really isn't a good way to prove ANYONE is an American.

mt

[mgguy]

I certainly wouldn't. I don't see why it's an issue if he's the best man for the job and the choice of the American people.

That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.

[Cleverboy]

You might be right. But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue. I get the feeling that many posters here wouldn't care if he weren't born here now that he has been elected. In this case, its not a "legitimate" issue, but it IS an "available" issue to pursue (until its not). I think everyone on this board cares that the U.S. President fulfills his eligibility obligations, but many here have a SERIOUS problem with people "stealing" elections through court rulings that invalidate and disenfranchise elections. Election 2000 is still a bright burning ember in the mind, enough that a movie was made, titularly named after the main sticking point. There is a legitimate irritation there, because were we to think our legal system was ALWAYS correct, there'd be no cases of false imprisonment. Sometimes it matters how issues are approached. Changing the rules after the game was played, simply seems wholly unethical.

Where to start ...
1) Off topic?.
[--SNIP--]
4) I wasn't trying to say Obama isn't American. Just that there really isn't a good way to prove ANYONE is an American.

Well, I think this is the most relevant statement (#4). I think historically, there is a problem with "birth records". I misplaced my birth certificate many years ago, and I'm not sure what I did with it. Now that I'm older, I'm still feeling that its a chore to get my records in order (passport, birth certificate, etc.). I think there is so much bureaucracy and problems historically depending on who you are, where you were born, etc. Even when a place like Hawaii makes it easy to retrieve your information, someone insisting that the normal answer isn't enough can peel back layers of complication like an onion.

There's no getting around it. That's one of the things that I think makes this whole issue remarkable to me. It's fooled a LOT of people into wondering if there's anything to it.

You want disturbing... look closely at our laws and statutes. Because they are the foundation upon which we've built our civilization, we really need to be AWARE of the language and the implications of problems not yet uncovered or adequately explored. Whether it disenfranchises people of color, homosexuals, women, native Americans, or others... you almost never know when some crap will turn up.

UPDATE: Huffington Post reports that MSNBC has covered the story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/05/obama-birth-certificate-s_n_148729.html

Correspondent Pete Williams covers the details.
WILLIAMS: The Supreme Court seemed to say a couple of decades ago if you were native born that meant you were a natural born citizen. It's never been conclusively determined. So it's a close question, I guess. You could say it's ambiguous. Most scholars agree that the Supreme Court is not going to weigh in and overturn the votes of 44 million Americans unless it was absolutely crystal clear.

~ CB

[Cleverboy]

NBC had a story on Today: Is Obama a "natural born" citizen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28067492#28067492

They clean the story up and successfully treat it seriously, while not going into the stupid details.

~ CB

[mgguy]

He was CHARGED (aka impeached) with lying to a grand jury under oath by overzealous partisan prosecutors.

He was acquitted of the charge.[/URL]

Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright found him guilty of "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. She wrote: "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ... ."

I think that qualifies as lying.

[aethelbert]

NBC had a story on Today: Is Obama a "natural born" citizen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28067492#28067492

They clean the story up and successfully treat it seriously, while not going into the stupid details.

~ CB
Interesting. I don't think that there's a shot in hell of a decision saying that both parents need be citizens to make one natural born. That seems a bit ridiculous. Questioning the validity of the documents is one thing, but trying to interpret the constitution in that way seems way out of line.

[NT1440]

Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright found him guilty of "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. She wrote: "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ... ."

I think that qualifies as lying.

What I dont get was why this was ever investigated in the first place. So he got a bj, good for him.

[Macky-Mac]

...

3) Within the last 12 months I needed to retrieve birth certificates for several members of my family so we could get passports. No fancy seals, no security features whatsoever. Heavy stock paper through a dot matrix printer operated by a high school intern at the county health department. There was fancy scrollwork around the edge, but Staples sells that stuff for less than $1 a page.



Interesting, to be a certified copy of a birth certificate it should have had a seal on it, such as the one pictured below. The passport office kicked back my Mom's application the first time since her BC copy didn't have a seal (cost her a tad more money to get a certified copy and she was cheaping out! :D)

...

4) I wasn't trying to say Obama isn't American. Just that there really isn't a good way to prove ANYONE is an American.


of course ANY document can potentially be forged.....currency is constantly being forged despite all the efforts to prevent that from happening.

[Macky-Mac]

What I dont get was why this was ever investigated in the first place. So he got a bj, good for him.

the investigation was to determine if he had lied in court.....sexual activity was the topic of his testimony so of course we got to hear all about the details

[Anuba]

That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.
Is that what they call "gotcha constitutionalism"?

I find it borderline hysterical that in a country that's entirely made up of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, it is a huge deal whether some newborn plopped out on this stolen soil, or was brought there shortly thereafter.

[NT1440]

the investigation was to determine if he had lied in court.....sexual activity was the topic of his testimony so of course we got to hear all about the details

Wasnt he hauled into court in the first place in relation to his sexual activity? Or is my understanding of the situation wrong? (i was 10 at the time:p)

[Cleverboy]

Is that what they call "gotcha constitutionalism"? :D
I find it borderline hysterical that in a country that's entirely made up of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, it is a huge deal whether some newborn plopped out on this stolen soil, or was brought there shortly thereafter. Of course. Remember though, it took us a while to decide whether slaves born in this country were citizens. I certainly subscribe to the view that we're modern savages, but savages still. Disenfranchising other groups is our national pastime. The inclusive we are, the more we lose our own distinct identity. How scary!

~ CB

[atszyman]

4) I wasn't trying to say Obama isn't American. Just that there really isn't a good way to prove ANYONE is an American.

Which has been more or less my point. Even if he had witnesses saying he was born in Hawaii, they'd all be accused of being in on the conspiracy and they'd be dragged through the mud to ruin their credibility. Heck even if he had a video of his birth they'd claim it was doctored and show the stage where it was all set up. (Hint, it's right next door to the moon landing set.)

He's produced the document, it's been examined by many sources all of which say it's legitimate. Beyond that I doubt any one of us could prove we were born where we've been told we were born any better than Obama has.

I think every accuser should be forced to prove their citizenship to a degree they'd find satisfactory for Obama before their accusation can make it to court (mind you family friends and the doctors who were there aren't good enough witnesses since family will lie for you and any doctor who signed the certificate could be covering their own ass to avoid having to deal with charges of falsifying records, and any doctor who did not sign cannot prove they were there to witness it). If they cannot prove their citizenship beyond what Obama has maybe they should be deported.:D

Who would you rather have as a president, someone who moved here days after their birth and has spent their entire life here, or a 44 year old who moved to Argentina shortly after birth and has only lived here the last 14 years. Personally the natural born citizen in this scenario seems less qualified than the naturalized citizen who has lived here their entire life.

[Cleverboy]

The electors are having their phones beat to crap:

Christian Science Monitor:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/26/a-last-electoral-hurdle-for-obama/
Though many electors are bound by state law to cast their vote for the winning candidate, their constitutional role as federal agents means that any vote they cast on Dec. 15 will count. What’s more, their importance could come into sharper relief if new information about Obama’s citizenship status were to surface before Dec. 15, says James Ceaser, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

“The only time the electors’ role might change … is if something occurred during the election which afterwards made things look really strange,” says Mr. Ceaser. “That’s why I believe personally that human discretion should be involved in every decision until the last second, that nothing should be automatic.”
It will be great when December 15th has passed, they've all voted, and they'll simply start getting accusations of treason.

Damn Internet. :p

~ CB

[atszyman]

The electors are having their phones beat to crap:

Christian Science Monitor:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/26/a-last-electoral-hurdle-for-obama/

It will be great when December 15th has passed, they've all voted, and they'll simply start getting accusations of treason.

Damn Internet. :p

~ CB

And I'm sure every one of the people advocating electors to exercise their own judgement regardless of the voters will would have supported electors changing their votes to the winner of the popular vote in 2000 as well?

[EricNau]

NBC had a story on Today: Is Obama a "natural born" citizen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28067492#28067492

They clean the story up and successfully treat it seriously, while not going into the stupid details.

~ CB
I take issue with the assertion that "natural born" isn't clearly defined somewhere in the United States legal system. While Obama maybe the first person in this situation nominated for President, he certainly isn't the first to be in this predicament. Is there a whole group of people who are in citizenship limbo?

[Cleverboy]

And I'm sure every one of the people advocating electors to exercise their own judgement regardless of the voters will would have supported electors changing their votes to the winner of the popular vote in 2000 as well?
From the article:
Here in North Carolina, the secretary of state’s office has fielded about 50 requests for names and contact numbers of electors – all public information. The last time so many people sought to contact electors was in 2000, amid a bid to urge electors to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, who had won the popular vote.

“Most of the world thinks this is settled except for a few conspiracy theorists,” says North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. “In the 2000 election … Republican electors felt under siege, and I expect the Democrat electors may end up feeling the same way [this time].” I'm not so sure everyone of the people contacting electors in 2000, asking them to exercise their own judgement, are feeling the same way this time around. In that, there's likely nothing too outrageous, just human nature.

~ CB

[Macky-Mac]

Wasnt he hauled into court in the first place in relation to his sexual activity? Or is my understanding of the situation wrong? (i was 10 at the time:p)

yes, it was a civil suit asking for damages resulting from sexual harassment. That suit was ultimately settled out of court. Later there was an investigation into whether he had lied during his testimony. Part of the legal basis for the impeachment was the charge that he had indeed lied.

Impeachment is also a political process so whether Clinton might be too intolerable of an immoral sleaze for cheating on his wife certainly was part of the discussion, even though it wasn't technically part of the impeachment charges against him.

[mgguy]

What I dont get was why this was ever investigated in the first place. So he got a bj, good for him.

It was investigated because Paula Corbin Jones filed a legal case against Clinton for sexual harassment. He allegedly pulled his pants down in front of her and told her to basically "kiss it." In his deposition he lied about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinski. He eventually settled the case with Ms. Jones by paying her $850,000. Later he went before the national media on television and pointed his finger and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski..." Turns out he did.

[CalBoy]

That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.
The requirement states that a person be a "natural born citizen" if they weren't a citizen at the signing of the Constitution.

What constitutes a "natural born" citizen is left up to Congressional definition, so in fact it isn't so much the Constitution that is pesky, but the way Congress has defined what a natural born citizen is at the moment.


I think that qualifies as lying.

But he was ultimately acquitted of perjury, which is the actual crime.

Pesky things these terms, aren't they?

[.Andy]

That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.
But why? Elaborate and educate me as to why it's written into the constitution to differentiate between a foreign born Obama and an America born Obama. What would be the difference in their respective presidencies?

[leekohler]

the investigation was to determine if he had lied in court.....sexual activity was the topic of his testimony so of course we got to hear all about the details

Were any of you alive back then? No- this wasn't why the investigations happened.

The investigations were about the Clintons' financial dealings involving Whitewater. When nothing was found there, the Republicans went after thei r personal lives, which was absolutely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Please read and learn.

[mgguy]

Pesky things these terms, aren't they?

Kinda depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

[mgguy]

Were any of you alive back then? No- this wasn't why the investigations happened.

The investigations were about the Clintons' financial dealings involving Whitewater. When nothing was found there, the Republicans went after thei r personal lives, which was absolutely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Please read and learn.

No exactly. Whitewater investigation started in 1994 and continued throughout the Clinton presidency. The sexual harassment claim filed against Bill Clinton, and his lying about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, came after the start of Whitewater inquiry and before Ken Starr's final report on the matter. The harassment claim and the perjury charge that stemmed from it were not introduced by Republicans but by a private citizen (Paula Corben Jones) and the Independent Council Ken Starr who was appointed by a 3-judge panel to replace Robert Fiske. I believe the final closing of Starr's investigation of Clinton didn't formally end until after Clinton's impeachment.

[leekohler]

No exactly. Whitewater investigation started in 1994 and continued throughout the Clinton presidency. The sexual harassment claim filed against Bill Clinton, and his lying about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, came after the start of Whitewater inquiry and before Ken Starr's final report on the matter. The harassment claim and the perjury charge that stemmed from it were not introduced by Republicans but by a private citizen (Paula Corben Jones) and the Independent Council Ken Starr who was appointed by a 3-judge panel to replace Robert Fiske. I believe the final closing of Starr's investigation of Clinton didn't formally end until after Clinton's impeachment.

And again, wasn't he acquitted on all charges? The Republicans knew they couldn't get him on Whitewater. They knew that damn well from the beginning, so they went and found Paula Jones. They went looking for other things. It was extremely partisan the entire time. Don't even pretend that it wasn't a witch hunt. You know damn well it was.

I find it funny that the very same Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to investigate Bush/Cheney, who did far, far worse.

[mgguy]

And again, wasn't he acquitted on all charges? The Republicans knew they couldn't get him on Whitewater. They knew that damn well from the beginning, so they went and found Paula Jones. They went looking for other things. It was extremely partisan the entire time. Don't even pretend that it wasn't a witch hunt. You know damn well it was.

I find it funny that the very same Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to investigate Bush/Cheney, who did far, far worse.

Read my earlier post pointing out that the judge in the Jones case found that Clinton lied.

[leekohler]

Read my earlier post pointing out that the judge in the Jones case found that Clinton lied.

I'm sorry, so what was the penalty if he was convicted?

[CalBoy]

But why? Elaborate and educate me as to why it's written into the constitution to differentiate between a foreign born Obama and an America born Obama. What would be the difference in their respective presidencies?

Specifically the Constitution only requires that presidents today be "natural born citizens," which is left up to Congress to define. If Congress were to declare that "natural born" could mean that your birth mother was a citizen, then Obama would be fine. Of course that isn't the standard, but I'm just saying that this isn't specifically a constitutional problem but a statutory one.

Now, as for why that was put in there, I'd imagine it's to ensure that foreign influence would be limited. At the time of the drafting, there was some concern over immigrants taking control over a very powerful office (and it has become much more so over time).

I think that from an objective sense, it makes sense today as well. A parliamentary leader is held more accountable by his own party and by the body as a whole than a president is by Congress. There are very few requirements to be President, and I guess this way it increases the chances that the person chosen is going to care more about the country than someone who wasn't born a citizen.

I know, it isn't the best reasoning, but the case to get rid of it isn't all that great either.
Kinda depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

So is that what we're doing now? Making snide remarks when you don't have any legitimate response?

Frankly, I don't see why we're even discussing Clinton in a thread about Obama. How did this tangent even start? :confused:

[leekohler]

Specifically the Constitution only requires that presidents today be "natural born citizens," which is left up to Congress to define. If Congress were to declare that "natural born" could mean that your birth mother was a citizen, then Obama would be fine. Of course that isn't the standard, but I'm just saying that this isn't specifically a constitutional problem but a statutory one.

Now, as for why that was put in there, I'd imagine it's to ensure that foreign influence would be limited. At the time of the drafting, there was some concern over immigrants taking control over a very powerful office (and it has become much more so over time).

I think that from an objective sense, it makes sense today as well. A parliamentary leader is held more accountable by his own party and by the body as a whole than a president is by Congress. There are very few requirements to be President, and I guess this way it increases the chances that the person chosen is going to care more about the country than someone who wasn't born a citizen.

I know, it isn't the best reasoning, but the case to get rid of it isn't all that great either.


So is that what we're doing now? Making snide remarks when you don't have any legitimate response?

Frankly, I don't see why we're even discussing Clinton in a thread about Obama. How did this tangent even start? :confused:

Because they're starting the same crap with Obama that they did with Clinton. Digging for nothing at all.

Oh and back OT- here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

There's the damn birth certificate. Now let's move on.

[IJ Reilly]

It was investigated because Paula Corbin Jones filed a legal case against Clinton for sexual harassment. He allegedly pulled his pants down in front of her and told her to basically "kiss it." In his deposition he lied about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinski. He eventually settled the case with Ms. Jones by paying her $850,000. Later he went before the national media on television and pointed his finger and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski..." Turns out he did.

For whatever historical interest it might have, the Paula Jones suit had already been dismissed by the judge at the time the settlement occurred. Clinton's notorious testimony had previously been disallowed as evidence. It was all one big political fishing expedition, which did manage to hook Bill Clinton trying to cover up an aspect of his personal life that nobody had any real right to know about in the first place. To some people, catching Clinton on something, anything at all, was what mattered. They are still congratulating themselves.

[mgguy]

For whatever historical interest it might have, the Paula Jones suit had already been dismissed by the judge at the time the settlement occurred. Clinton's notorious testimony had previously been disallowed as evidence. It was all one big political fishing expedition, which did manage to hook Bill Clinton trying to cover up an aspect of his personal life that nobody had any real right to know about in the first place. To some people, catching Clinton on something, anything at all, was what mattered. They are still congratulating themselves.

In April 1999, after the first settlement, Judge Wright found President Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones another $91,000 for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers. He was subsequently (2001) stripped of his license to practice law.

[deorg]

IF I was obama right now Ill be [removed] my pants, I hope the Secret Service protect him well, because thera are a lot or racism in the usa

[IJ Reilly]

In April 1999, after the first settlement, Judge Wright found President Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones another $91,000 for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers. He was subsequently (2001) stripped of his license to practice law.

So? In what way does this change anything I said?

[mgguy]

So? In what way does this change anything I said?

My earlier post doesn't change what you said, it responds to it. This was not just about politics, as you suggested, but about repercussions of not telling the truth when giving a legal deposition in a legal case.

[bradl]

My earlier post doesn't change what you said, it responds to it. This was not just about politics, as you suggested, but about repercussions of not telling the truth when giving a legal deposition in a legal case.

And that legal case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic for this entire thread. You're claiming that Obama lied. Lee posted a link to documentation that provides the contrary. Your claim fails. Move on.

BL.

[zap2]

That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.

Yea, it would be a huge issue, if Obama hadn't proved he was a US born citizen.


I know the losing side of the election always has a few supporters who have trouble with the fact they lost, but this is over the top.

[mgguy]

And that legal case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic for this entire thread. You're claiming that Obama lied. Lee posted a link to documentation that provides the contrary. Your claim fails. Move on.

BL.

I haven't claimed anything about Obama. I don't know whether he has lied or not about his eligibility to be president. My posts have responded to comments other posters have made about whether or not this (the constitutional requirement related to birth status) is a legitimate issue to be investigated. I have not made any claims about the validity of his birth certificate or offered any support for claims made by others that it is not. I also first brought up Clinton's lying in response to Leekohler's earlier post saying that the investigation of Clinton didn't lead to anything, which is not true.

[CalBoy]

My posts have responded to comments other posters have made about whether or not this (the constitutional requirement related to birth status) is a legitimate issue to be investigated.

It already has been investigated by many and the birth certificate has been seen by the appropriate authorities.

Why do you think you have special knowledge that they aren't aware of?

This needs to end, really. The incessant concerns over Obama's 'natural born' status are getting ridiculous and bordering on racism.

[IJ Reilly]

My earlier post doesn't change what you said, it responds to it. This was not just about politics, as you suggested, but about repercussions of not telling the truth when giving a legal deposition in a legal case.

The involvement of Kenneth Starr was purely political, as was the impeachment circus which followed.

[mgguy]

Why do you think you have special knowledge that they aren't aware of?

This needs to end, really. The incessant concerns over Obama's 'natural born' status are getting ridiculous and bordering on racism.

You need to read more carefully; I never said I have any knowledge of his birth status nor made any judgements as to the accuracy of claims made about this. I've only said it is a legitimate issue to have been raised.

The involvement of Kenneth Starr was purely political, as was the impeachment circus which followed.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My guess is that you would discount the legitimacy of any investigation of any democrat president and consider them all to be political in nature, which of course you have every right to do.

[leekohler]

You need to read more carefully; I never said I have any knowledge of his birth status nor made any judgements as to the accuracy of claims made about this. I've only said it is a legitimate issue to have been raised.

In what way? And why is it still being pursued? It's been debunked. The nut jobs need to start living in the real world, not fantasy land.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My guess is that you would discount the legitimacy of any investigation of any democrat president and consider them all to be political in nature, which of course you have every right to do.

It WAS purely political. It had nothing to do with how this nation is governed, and certainly didn't have the people's interests at heart. You need to ask yourself why Bush hasn't been investigated for doing far worse while in office.

[NT1440]

In what way? And why is it still being pursued? It's been debunked. The nut jobs need to start living in the real world, not fantasy land.

Well you see lee, if EVERY SINGLE detail isnt gone over, theres got to be some sort of conspiracy. Next election we have to have DNA tests done to every candidate to ensure 100% that they are all indeed human.

This kind of nitpicking really needs to stop.

[mgguy]

This needs to end, really. The incessant concerns over Obama's 'natural born' status are getting ridiculous and bordering on racism.

So this is how it's going to be: Every time someone raises a question about Obama they will be called racist? Come on.

[gilkisson]

So this is how it's going to be: Every time someone raises a question about Obama they will be called racist? Come on.

You're not raising questions. You are sitting in a dark corner, with your fingers in your ears, your eyes shut, and your mind closed, repeating the same things over and over at the top of your lungs. You demand to be heard, as if you have a divine right, but you refuse to listen or learn. Sad.

[NT1440]

So this is how it's going to be: Every time someone raises a question about Obama they will be called racist? Come on.

So this is how its going to be: Everytime an absurd idea is shot down, someone in the thread will latch onto the weakest part of one comment and proceed to comment on how it is some sort of trend that they see everywhere.

[IJ Reilly]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My guess is that you would discount the legitimacy of any investigation of any democrat president and consider them all to be political in nature, which of course you have every right to do.

That is a completely incorrect guess, which it is bound to be, since it's based on no rationale whatsoever.

Kenneth Starr began his investigation on Whitewater, but when nothing turned up, kept going -- until he was looking into Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and blue dresses. The complete lack of boundaries to his investigation, the length of time it took and the money he spent, led to both Republicans and Democrats allowing the Special Prosecutor law to expire.

[ZiggyPastorius]

So this is how it's going to be: Every time someone raises a question about Obama they will be called racist? Come on.

He didn't say criticising Obama was racist, he said the whole thing about Obama being foreign is starting to look largely racist in nature, since no one seems to be bringing anything useful to the table from that side of the fence, and people's reasons for rejecting the notion that Obama COULD BE AN AMERICAN (God forbid) is because he's black/his middle name is hussein/his dad is Kenyan/anything else they make up. I'm not even an Obama supporter, yet I could never imagine myself being so cynical as to go to every length just to prove that he isn't an American citizen, when it's been shown very clearly that he is.

[CalBoy]

You need to read more carefully; I never said I have any knowledge of his birth status nor made any judgements as to the accuracy of claims made about this. I've only said it is a legitimate issue to have been raised.

The issue was raised, and settled long ago.

Your previous post implies that you think the issue is still live:

this is a legitimate issue to be investigated.

My guess is that you would discount the legitimacy of any investigation of any democrat president and consider them all to be political in nature, which of course you have every right to do.

Wow, can't detect any sense of righteousness there. :rolleyes:

If you want to investigate something truly criminal (an abuse of power, bribing, larceny, etc), I'd be all for it.

I won't go along with fishing expeditions, whether they be about a birth certificate or sex in the Oval Office.
So this is how it's going to be: Every time someone raises a question about Obama they will be called racist? Come on.

No, it's not that at all.

However, why is it that we suddenly care so much about a President's birth place and refuse to believe his birth certificate?

Did we do that when any other person won the Presidency?

Frankly I don't think we would have this level of "conspiracy theory" cries if Obama was white.

That's why this is bordering on racism (note how I don't say it is racist).

[leekohler]

The issue was

Frankly I don't think we would have this level of "conspiracy theory" cries if Obama was white.

That's why this is bordering on racism (note how I don't say it is racist).

This would not have happened were McCain elected. I don't care if he's named in the suit as well. That's a pretty obvious cover for what the real intentions are here.

[Macky-Mac]

I think it actually has more to do with the belief that Obama's a marxist than the fact that he's not white

[PlaceofDis]

I think it actually has more to do with the belief that Obama's a marxist than the fact that he's not white

how the hell is Obama a Marxist at all? do you even know what Marxism is?


edit: sorry misread. my mistake. i just don't know how anyone could think Obama is a Marxist not that you necessarily believe that yourself.

[NT1440]

how the hell is Obama a Marxist at all? do you even know what Marxism is?

if you read the post you quoted, youd notice it say THE BELIEF, and there are a hell of alot of morons out there that beleive stupider things, hence this thread.

[Macky-Mac]

how the hell is Obama a Marxist at all? do you even know what Marxism is?

LOL.....i didn't say I think he's a marxist

[PlaceofDis]

if you read the post you quoted, youd notice it say THE BELIEF, and there are a hell of alot of morons out there that beleive stupider things, hence this thread.

LOL.....i didn't say I think he's a marxist

yes see the edit i had put in. sorry was just shocked to even read that. :o

[NT1440]

yes see the edit i had put in. sorry was just shocked to even read that. :o

Srry if my post could have been missinterpreted as hostile.:)

[Cleverboy]

An email supposedly from elector Wayne Abraham:
December 6, 2008

I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.

After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by "experts" or others whose qualifications and motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama's natural born citizenship was worth my understanding.

Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the "natural born" status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector. In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And has never been required by the United States government to become "naturalized" or take the oath of citizenship. This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.

If someone emigrates from another country to the United States, and wishes to become a citizen, that person must enter a legal process culminating in taking the oath of citizenship and being "naturalized." This is why for example the current Governor of California cannot claim "natural born" status and become the President of the United States. He was born an Austrian. He emigrated here. He sought citizenship. And he was "naturalized" in a ceremony conducted by United States officials.

And there is also in the United States the use of Common Law as a part of our judicial system. Most of the time the law is codified by us, but in fact there are traditions and understandings which have not always been codified. My point here is that for example if you have a right of way from your property across another person's property to a road, that person after a specified period of time (dependent upon a particular state's statutes) cannot suddenly decide that you cannot cross his property anymore to get to the road. It is presumed after a certain period of time that this right of way is a right that you retain since he did not protest your crossing his property for years.

These are the two bases upon which I have rendered my decision. Even if some or all of the scenarios to which these concerned citizens have pointed regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship are true, two facts remain. The United States government has never required Mr. Obama to take the oath of citizenship, or even to render a decision at the age of majority between having U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship, or U.S. citizenship and Indonesian citizenship. And he has lived here and been reared and educated as a U.S. citizen. It would seem to me that 47 years is a sufficient amount of time to have lived here as a U.S. citizen, with no government entity challenging it, for us and for Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.

It issued him a Social Security number and a passport, obviously accepting his Hawaiian birth certificate without requiring a team of forensic scientists to examine it. He has lived in the United States as a U.S. citizen for his entire adult life. He has been not only a de facto U.S. citizen, he has been a de jure U.S. citizen. A citizenship conferred upon him by the United States government at his birth, and never questioned by any court, or executive branch official for 47 years. The United States government itself accepted his natural born citizenship when it issued him a passport without requiring him to take the oath of citizenship in a ceremony like all other immigrants to this country.

Therefore, as the Presidential Elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina it is my Constitutional determination that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is qualified to become the 44th President of the United States of America. I will cast my Electoral College vote accordingly on December 15, 2008.

Sincerely,

Wayne Abraham

~ CB

[mgguy]

Your previous post implies that you think the issue is still live:
Not only have you misconstrued what I said, you also quoted me out of context. What I said was:

My posts have responded to comments other posters have made about whether or not this (the constitutional requirement related to birth status) is a legitimate issue to be investigated.

Note that I did not say it is a legitimate issue, as you quoted me as saying (out of context).

[mgguy]

You need to ask yourself why Bush hasn't been investigated for doing far worse while in office.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this question (assuming you swing Democratic though I could be wrong). I believe the Democrats have been the majority in Congress for over 2 years. They have chosen not to do so in spite of an instigation to do so from members within their party, possibly due to political considerations. If they really believe that Bush did the things many have accused him of doing, they had a responsibility to call him on the carpet for it but shirked their responsibility and didn't do so (much to the consternation of many on the left).

[NT1440]

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this question (assuming you swing Democratic though I could be wrong.) I believe the Democrats have been the majority in Congress for over 2 years. They have chosen not to do so in spite of an instigation to do so from members within their party.

We all no that dems dont "have the balls" for conflict. I think its a different story now that hes going to be out of office and cant try to pull some presidential power crap.

[leekohler]

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this question (assuming you swing Democratic though I could be wrong). I believe the Democrats have been the majority in Congress for over 2 years. They have chosen not to do so in spite of an instigation to do so from members within their party, possibly due to political considerations. If they really believe that Bush did the things many have accused him of doing, they had a responsibility to call him on the carpet for it but shirked their responsibility and didn't do so (much to the consternation of many on the left).

Yes- it illustrates my point perfectly. Nothing was done exactly because of political considerations. The same was the case with the Clinton investigation.

[Macky-Mac]

yes see the edit i had put in. sorry was just shocked to even read that. :o

shocked?? and that was a pretty mild statement too....here's a quote from an article at Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16257_Page2.html)

...The claim has reverberated in conservative media outlets, especially talk radio. According to Media Matters, conservative radio hosts Michael Savage, Brian Sussman, Lars Larson, Bob Grant, Jim Quinn, Rose Tennent and Mark Davis (who was guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh) have all repeated the widely discredited claim.

"We're getting ready for the Communist takeover of America with a noncitizen at the helm - I love it," Savage said during an episode of his nationally syndicated radio show "Savage Nation."

"He won't even produce a birth certificate. Don't you love that?" he continued. "Something as basic as Obama's birth certificate now is an issue. I mean, if he's got nothing to hide, show it to me. Doesn't exist. It does not exist. They can't find it in the Hawaii government. It's never been produced. The one that was produced is a forgery."...

[mgguy]

Yes- it illustrates my point perfectly. Nothing was done exactly because of political considerations. The same was the case with the Clinton investigation.

I don't entirely disagree with you. But Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, approved adding to Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation inquiries into other alleged wrongdoings including Travelgate, the misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. So the investigation was not driven only by republican affiliates. Once Clinton lied under oath in a deposition, it because a legal and not just political matter. I think many democrats at the time were not happy that Clinton had lied to them too and wanted the investigation to go forward. So, yes, politics had a lot to do with it but so did legal dynamics associated with the Jones case.

[CalBoy]

Not only have you misconstrued what I said, you also quoted me out of context. What I said was:

Why don't we cut to the chase then:

Do you think the issue is legitimate?

[leekohler]

I don't entirely disagree with you. But Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, approved adding to Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation inquiries into other alleged wrongdoings including Travelgate, the misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. So the investigation was not driven only by republican affiliates. Once Clinton lied under oath in a deposition, it because a legal and not just political matter. I think many democrats at the time were not happy that Clinton had lied to them too and wanted the investigation to go forward. So, yes, politics had a lot to do with it but so did legal dynamics associated with the Jones case.

Regardless, we won't agree on this. It's clear to me what the intentions were in the first place. It was never about anything but politics.

Now, is it possible to get back OT?

[mgguy]

Why don't we cut to the chase then:

Do you think the issue is legitimate?

I personally don't have any reason to doubt that Obama is telling the truth about his birth status. But I believe that those who do have doubts have a right to express them and take whatever actions they deem is necessary within the law to seek the remedies they feel are just. There is a court case pending and the Supreme Court is considering the matter, so in that sense it has legitimacy. I don't believe in censorship or trying to obstruct an individual's or group's attempts to air their complaints. On the other hand, you are free to scorn them and call them wing nuts for doing so, as you seem to want to do.

[abijnk]

I personally don't have any reason to doubt that Obama is telling the truth about his birth status. But I believe that those who do have doubts have a right to express them and take whatever actions they deem is necessary within the law to seek the remedies they feel are just. There is a court case pending and the Supreme Court is considering the matter, so in that sense it has legitimacy. I don't believe in censorship or trying to obstruct an individual's or group's attempts to air their complaints. On the other hand, you are free to scorn them and call them wing nuts for doing so, as you seem to want to do.

The problem becomes when enough is never enough. I don't think anyone here, yourself included, thinks that this will go away after the SCOTUS rules. There will be some, who are by definition "wing nuts," who will say it is a conspiracy no matter what.

[leekohler]

I personally don't have any reason to doubt that Obama is telling the truth about his birth status. But I believe that those who do have doubts have a right to express them and take whatever actions they deem is necessary within the law to seek the remedies they feel are just. There is a court case pending and the Supreme Court is considering the matter, so in that sense it has legitimacy. I don't believe in censorship or trying to obstruct an individual's or group's attempts to air their complaints. On the other hand, you are free to scorn them and call them wing nuts for doing so, as you seem to want to do.

Seriously though, given what we've seen, and the fact that these people's claims lack legitimacy, why do you think they deserve to do what they're doing? I don't find it legitimate at all, and I'll bet you the court throws it out. Expressing one's views is not the same thing as harassment.

[sushi]

This needs to end, really. The incessant concerns over Obama's 'natural born' status are getting ridiculous and bordering on racism.
Unfortunately, you may be correct.

I am sure there are some out there who do not want to see the first black president, and will continue to try to keep that from happening. Sad.

[CalBoy]

I personally don't have any reason to doubt that Obama is telling the truth about his birth status. But I believe that those who do have doubts have a right to express them and take whatever actions they deem is necessary within the law to seek the remedies they feel are just.

The question is, when do we say enough has been done?

Having several people, including journalists, examine his birth certificate seems like a lot to me. I don't think we ever went through that much trouble when Bush or Clinton or Reagan ran for office.

Can we indulge the conspiracy theorists to no end?

Should we exhume JFK's body to find out who really did it?

Should we put out an Amber Alert for Elvis?

At some point we need to say that every reasonable action has been taken. Given that Obama's birth certificate has already been seen by the relevant authorities and journalists, I think we can put this issue to rest. The taxpayer should not be expected to foot the court costs for this insane fishing expedition.

There is a court case pending and the Supreme Court is considering the matter, so in that sense it has legitimacy.
In America, there is always a court case "pending." ;)

Believe me, SCOTUS is going to do nothing about this. The only justice who might even be crazy enough to grant cert would be Scalia, and even he probably wouldn't want to touch this one.

On January 20th at Noon Roberts will administer the Oath and the conspiracy theorists will go on saying that Obama is a socialist, Muslim, Kenyan who is going to end America as we know it.

I don't believe in censorship or trying to obstruct an individual's or group's attempts to air their complaints. On the other hand, you are free to scorn them and call them wing nuts for doing so, as you seem to want to do.

This isn't about their freedom of speech (because they will go on producing pamphlets and giving talks), but rather their abuse of process (which is a civil crime, but it's hard to prove).

There are some people who maintain that Cheney shot that lawyer on purpose; should we let them use tax dollars to fund an investigation?
Unfortunately, you may be correct.

I am sure there are some out there who do not want to see the first black president, and will continue to try to keep that from happening. Sad.

It is sad. But on the other hand, it's also great that most people aren't buying into this garbage. We're finally moving on as a nation.

In the end, if Obama proves to be a good President, as Bill Maher quipped, "we might just figure out blacks are better at it.":p

[IJ Reilly]

I don't entirely disagree with you. But Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, approved adding to Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation inquiries into other alleged wrongdoings including Travelgate, the misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. So the investigation was not driven only by republican affiliates. Once Clinton lied under oath in a deposition, it because a legal and not just political matter. I think many democrats at the time were not happy that Clinton had lied to them too and wanted the investigation to go forward. So, yes, politics had a lot to do with it but so did legal dynamics associated with the Jones case.

Under the Independent Council law, Reno had little choice -- and she was under intense pressure from members of Congress to expand Starr's jurisdiction. Questions were also raised about why Starr had communicated with Paula Jones' lawyers before he requested the expansion of the investigation in that direction, and why he failed to disclose that fact to the AG before he made the request. If that fact had been disclosed, Reno would have been justified in handing the investigation to someone else. Starr also kept all the most salacious sexual details in his report, though really they had no bearing on the investigation.

You can't simply wave your hand and make all the questions raised by the Starr investigation go away. It's the reason we no longer have an Independent Council law.

[mgguy]

Seriously though, given what we've seen, and the fact that these people's claims lack legitimacy, why do you think they deserve to do what they're doing?

They deserve to do what "they" are doing because in this country we are free to express ourselves within the law. As far as I know, they are not breaking any laws and are following legal protocols. What would you suggest doing to stop them, arrest them? Perhaps public scorn such as they are getting in this thread may be sufficient to stop them. But if not, what then? Why should you have the right to dictate what they are allowed to do?

The question is, when do we say enough has been done?

...

At some point we need to say that every reasonable action has been taken. Given that Obama's birth certificate has already been seen by the relevant authorities and journalists, I think we can put this issue to rest. The taxpayer should not be expected to foot the court costs for this insane fishing expedition.

People have a right to petition the court, and it is then up to the court to decide whether the filing is frivolous. Currently, there are two courts that are willing to listen to the claims being made and will make rulings in short order. You would be on firmer ground calling for this issue to be put to rest if you wait until those legal processes run their course.

[CalBoy]

People have a right to petition the court and the court decides whether the filing is frivolous. Currently, there are two courts that are willing to listen to the claims being made and will make rulings in short order. You would be on firmer ground calling for this issue to be put to rest if you wait until those legal processes run their course.

With that phrasing, one might infer that you are anticipating a ruling that affirms their suspicions.

I think I'll count my eggs before they hatch on this one and go with a complete dismissal.

Out of curiosity, what will you say after the courts have made their decision? Are you going to say that these people should keep going and should waste government time and resources?

Do you agree with their suspicions or do you think the matter is frivolous?

You can't simply wave your hand and make all the questions raised by the Starr investigation go away. It's the reason we no longer have an Independent Council law.

Interestingly, Scalia foresaw the very problem that would emerge with Ken Starr in his dissent in Morrison v Olsen (1988).

To a large extent, some of the same factors he discussed then are still in play with this strange desire to prove Obama is foreign born (or is it proving that he's Muslim, or that he's a socialist; honestly, I can't keep up).

[mgguy]

Starr also kept all the most salacious sexual details in his report, though really they had no bearing on the investigation.


I disagree. The details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky were highly relevant to the investigation because Clinton was splitting hairs as to whether getting a blowjob met the definition of sexual relations, which he denied having had with her. Essentially, Clinton's own parsing of words made it necessary to get into the nuances of the sexual encounter to show that he was lying. It was also necessary to present Lewinsky's own testimony alleging that Clinton did more than get a BJ (touching her breasts and other sexual body parts). This evidence directly addressed the perjury charge that he lied about having sex with her (in addition to being alone with her and a few other things).

[mgguy]

With that phrasing, one might infer that you are anticipating a ruling that affirms their suspicions.

I think I'll count my eggs before they hatch on this one and go with a complete dismissal.

Out of curiosity, what will you say after the courts have made their decision? Are you going to say that these people should keep going and should waste government time and resources?

Do you agree with their suspicions or do you think the matter is frivolous?



I believe the courts will side with Obama. Having said that, I do not advocate that the process be stopped before the courts rule. In addition, after the court rulings, anyone who wishes to is still free to continue speaking out their opinion on this matter and even petition the courts for reconsideration if the courts are willing to hear it. However, I would not personally advocate that they do so and I think it would not be in the best interest to the country to extend this out indefinitely. But, again, people are free to do what they wish and speak their minds within the law. Wouldn't you agree?

[Counterfit]

I believe the courts will side with Obama. Having said that, I do not advocate that the process be stopped before the courts rule. In addition, after the court rulings,

Of course, that assumes the SCOTUS will even hear the case in the first place.

[itcheroni]

Of course, that assumes the SCOTUS will even hear the case in the first place.

Which they won't.

[CalBoy]

I believe the courts will side with Obama. Having said that, I do not advocate that the process be stopped before the courts rule. In addition, after the court rulings, anyone who wishes to is still free to continue speaking out their opinion on this matter and even petition the courts for reconsideration if the courts are willing to hear it. However, I would not personally advocate that they do so and I think it would not be in the best interest to the country to extend this out indefinitely. But, again, people are free to do what they wish and speak their minds within the law. Wouldn't you agree?

I'd agree that they can say whatever they want.

I won't agree that they can keep wasting people's time with these frivolous concerns, especially once they are settled.

In this situation, it has already been settled. This is one last desperate plea before people start to build "how they covered it all up" dioramas in their basements.
Which they won't.

No question about that. This won't even get out of the trial court, and I doubt any Circuit is going to bother with this.

[IJ Reilly]

I disagree. The details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky were highly relevant to the investigation because Clinton was splitting hairs as to whether getting a blowjob met the definition of sexual relations, which he denied having had with her. Essentially, Clinton's own parsing of words made it necessary to get into the nuances of the sexual encounter to show that he was lying. It was also necessary to present Lewinsky's own testimony alleging that Clinton did more than get a BJ (touching her breasts and other sexual body parts). This evidence directly addressed the perjury charge that he lied about having sex with her (in addition to being alone with her and a few other things).

No, they were not. In fact Starr as much as admitted afterwards that the released details went beyond what was necessary to present the evidence.

After an additional eight months of bitter combat--legal battles won and p.r. battles lost, charges and countercharges of leaking and lying--it was time for Starr to send his referral to Congress. When it turned out to contain graphic sexual details with no direct bearing on the perjury question, the report struck many as biased, intended to inflame opinion. Starr's reputation was sealed.

Starr says he wanted to leave out those X-rated details, but a majority of his lawyers disagreed and, disastrously, he changed his mind. "We recognized full well how unpleasant and off-putting" the details were, he told TIME. (This is a man who once clucked disapprovingly at an old friend just for telling a Monica joke.) He had his lawyers write bowdlerized versions but felt they didn't make the case. And his prosecutors argued that even the details that fell outside the Jones case's definition of sex should be included, because they buttressed Lewinsky's credibility. In the end Starr relented. He instructed them to stash the naughtiest bits into the footnotes--as if that made a difference. He says he didn't know Congress would release everything and that he never anticipated being cast as Puritan pornographer. "I don't think my crystal ball was working especially well," he sighs. "It so frequently doesn't work well."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101981228-140820,00.html

The discomfort level with this and other aspects of Starr's investigation was substantial. So again, you are trying to dismiss all of the problems with the Starr investigation, which to repeat, is the reason why we have no longer have an Independent Council law.

[rdowns]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama;_ylt=ArVAJep2d08iTf4Pe7HSOLys0NUE)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

[ucfgrad93]

The Supreme Court turned down appeal to hear case about this issue.

The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama

[leekohler]

The Supreme Court turned down appeal to hear case about this issue.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama

Of course they did. Because it was ridiculous in the first place. But as we've said here before, that won't be enough for these people.

[mgguy]

No, they were not. In fact Starr as much as admitted afterwards that the released details went beyond what was necessary to present the evidence.

Your own quoted reference says that a majority of the lawyers felt that it was necessary to include the details about the sexual acts and apparently at the time Starr agreed with them because he put them in. Of course, later when the spotlights were on Starr and he was facing criticism it was convenient for him to distance himself from that earlier decision and he pussed out.

[leekohler]

Your own quoted reference says that a majority of the lawyers felt that it was necessary to include the details about the sexual acts and apparently at the time Starr agreed with them because he put them in. Of course, later when the spotlights were on Starr and he was facing criticism it was convenient for him to distance himself from that earlier decision and he pussed out.

Starr admitted he made a mistake. He didn't "puss out". Some people can still admit it when they make mistakes, you know.

[IJ Reilly]

And again, the point I am making here is that the Starr investigation was conducted in such a way that neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress had any stomach for renewing the Independent Council law. So even though many Republicans were happy to publicly exploit the political opportunities created by Starr, they were privately terrified by what could happen if an Independent Council had the same unlimited mandate to investigate a Republican administration. Some of us may forget, but Starr became essentially the permanent Prosecutor in Residence at the White House during the Clinton years. No president had ever been subjected to that level of scrutiny during their time in office, and probably none ever will in the future.

[mgguy]

And again, the point I am making here is that the Starr investigation was conducted in such a way that neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress had any stomach for renewing the Independent Council law. So even though many Republicans were happy to publicly exploit the political opportunities created by Starr, they were privately terrified by what could happen if an Independent Council had the same unlimited mandate to investigate a Republican administration. Some of us may forget, but Starr became essentially the permanent Prosecutor in Residence at the White House during the Clinton years. No president had ever been subjected to that level of scrutiny during their time in office, and probably none ever will in the future.

OK, so there is no longer an Independent Council law. Now what? How do you suggest we investigate such improprieties in the future? I afraid that this makes it even more likely that needed investigations, or the denial of them, will be highly political in nature. Would you not allow court challenges, like the Jones case, to be made against a sitting president?

[bradl]

OK, so there is no longer an Independent Council law. Now what? How do you suggest we investigate such improprieties in the future? I afraid that this makes it even more likely that needed investigations, or the denial of them, will be highly political in nature. Would you not allow court challenges, like the Jones case, to be made against a sitting president?

How about using the existing laws that are already there, like the traditional Articles of Impeachment, the resumption of habeas corpus, and equal representation of evidence supporting and against the sitting President for the given issue? You don't need an 'Independent Council' to go around digging up dirt like some tabloid reporter trying to get the next big scoop on something that isn't important.

There are easier ways to challenge things in court against a given president. Serve them for a case, and off you go. You don't serve the President (i.e., the Office), you serve the PERSON. And as they are also citizens of this country, they are in no bigger position than you are, let alone above the law (contrary to what Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rove/Ashcroft/Libby/Rumsfeld believe they are). I bet if you do the searching, you will find a number of cases brought up against a person who is/was President, whether they went all the way through court or not.

BL.

[BigHungry04]

Even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen, which makes Obama a natural-born American citizen. If what is alleged is true, he can be a dual-citizen, which does not disqualify him from the Office of the President.

[skunk]

Leaving the absurdity of the question of your having a British President aside, isn't it Independent Counsel, rather than Council? :confused:

[bradl]

Even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen, which makes Obama a natural-born American citizen. If what is alleged is true, he can be a dual-citizen, which does not disqualify him from the Office of the President.

That's the problem. While the Constitution states that only a "Natural Born Citizen" can become President, nothing in the Constitution defines what 'Natural Born Citizen" means.

It wasn't until the Dred Scot decision in 1857 that it was defined by 'place of birth', not 'blood or lineage'. If going off of this McCain shouldn't have been eligible, but (funnily enough), a non-binding bill was passed in the Senate in 2008 stating that because of his circumstances, he is recognized as a 'natural born citizen'. But for Obama, going off of Dred Scot makes all of this moot. He was born in Hawaii in '64. Hawaii was made a State in '59. That makes Obama a 'natural born Citizen', no matter who is parents are.

That's why I brought up Nicole Kidman. Going off of Dred Scot, since she was born in Hawaii, then moved to Australia when she was young, she is eligible to run for President.

EDIT: Let's put this to bed. From the entry on Natural Born Citizens from Wikipedia:


Cases in lower courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause

Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008). In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method, by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.


So that movement at the beginning of this thread, while petitioning Congress is the way to go, seeing that it is based on a lawsuit challenging eligibility, the lawsuit would be immediately thrown out.

Furthermore, from Volume 7 of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf), we have the following:


7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”


Emphasis mine.

Granted, the next section states that this particular statute is no longer operative, but it does not exclude the validity of this after the statute was enacted. Since Obama's right of citizenship descended to him from his Mother, he would definitely be a natural born citizen, once again making this entire movement moot.

BL.

[mactastic]

The harassment claim and the perjury charge that stemmed from it were not introduced by Republicans but by a private citizen (Paula Corben Jones)
The same Paula Corbin Jones who's legal team was made up of people from the Arkansas Project (and reportedly bankrolled by Scaife or his associates), dedicated to smearing Bill Clinton at any cost?

My earlier post doesn't change what you said, it responds to it. This was not just about politics, as you suggested, but about repercussions of not telling the truth when giving a legal deposition in a legal case.
And what repercussions do you think I. Lewis Libby should face?

[Cleverboy]

I love how the BBC phrased it:

'Obama too British' case rejected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7771937.stm
An appeal claiming Barack Obama is too British to become president of the United States has been rejected by the US Supreme Court.

The lawsuit claimed he should be disqualified because, it claimed, he acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

This meant he was not a "natural-born" US citizen, as the US constitution requires, it alleged. Somebody knows how to tweak their readers. :)

I just found an interesting YouTube video, with some guy contending that he is a biographical researcher, suing to get more information, asserting that now (post-election) the birth certificate is a "historical" document. The video is pretty well shot, and features Andy Martin discussing his crackpot theories about Obama's "real father" and the avalanche of almost obscenely twisted logic he's contrived to tell an interesting ream of fiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZwON6dKHks

~ CB

[mgguy]

The same Paula Corbin Jones who's legal team was made up of people from the Arkansas Project (and reportedly bankrolled by Scaife or his associates), dedicated to smearing Bill Clinton at any cost?

And what repercussions do you think I. Lewis Libby should face?

Jones was entitled to have her case funded and defended by anyone of her choosing. I don't care if she hired a pit bull to defend her, they still had to present evidence in a courtroom and follow court protocol. Any "smearing" of Clinton that resulted from the case was his own making--he shouldn't have exposed his pecker to a stranger.

[IJ Reilly]

OK, so there is no longer an Independent Council law. Now what? How do you suggest we investigate such improprieties in the future? I afraid that this makes it even more likely that needed investigations, or the denial of them, will be highly political in nature. Would you not allow court challenges, like the Jones case, to be made against a sitting president?

I think the law should be renewed, with more controls put in place.

Leaving the absurdity of the question of your having a British President aside, isn't it Independent Counsel, rather than Council? :confused:

Nice catch. Give the man a cigar. ;)

[mactastic]

Jones was entitled to have her case funded and defended by anyone of her choosing. I don't care if she hired a pit bull to defend her, they still had to present evidence in a courtroom and follow court protocol. Any "smearing" of Clinton that resulted from the case was his own making--he shouldn't have exposed his pecker to a stranger.
Just so long as we're talking about the same Paula Corbin Jones...

I still fail to see where Clinton was convicted of anything.

[sushi]

... of your having a British President aside ...
Does that mean we will have to start spelling "color" as "colour?" :p

[mgguy]

I still fail to see where Clinton was convicted of anything.

The judge in the caset found Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case and ordered him to pay Jones $91,000 for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.
As a result of this ruling he was stripped of his license to practice law for 5 years. You may not consider this a conviction, but if it isn't it comes about as close as it can to one.

[bradl]

The judge in the caset found Clinton in contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case and ordered him to pay Jones $91,000 for expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.
As a result of this ruling he was stripped of his license to practice law for 5 years. You may not consider this a conviction, but if it isn't it comes about as close as it can to one.

And I say again. This has to do with Obama because...?

BL.

[Macky-Mac]

Just so long as we're talking about the same Paula Corbin Jones...

I still fail to see where Clinton was convicted of anything.

of course he wasn't convicted in the Jones law suit, after all, he made sure the trial wouldn't run its course by paying her off with an $850,000 settlement

[mysterytramp]

I personally don't have any reason to doubt that Obama is telling the truth about his birth status. But I believe that those who do have doubts have a right to express them and take whatever actions they deem is necessary within the law to seek the remedies they feel are just. There is a court case pending and the Supreme Court is considering the matter, so in that sense it has legitimacy. I don't believe in censorship or trying to obstruct an individual's or group's attempts to air their complaints. On the other hand, you are free to scorn them and call them wing nuts for doing so, as you seem to want to do.

These are all fine positions to take, but one has to ponder the boundaries that are being crossed. If one side is able to press its case against the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship, the opponents will have no choice but to escalate the conflict. Suppose Obama is ousted ... Who's president, John McCain? I wouldn't be surprised if aggrieved parties decide to re-examine his time in Hanoi, questioning his patriotism.

Suppose that happens ... I hope you look back at the smoldering ruins of American democracy, come back to MacRumors and start a thread telling us how proud you are of these positions.

That's the trouble with nuclear bombs. Nobody ever comes back to brag they pushed the button.

mt

[mgguy]

If one side is able to press its case against the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship, the opponents will have no choice but to escalate the conflict. Suppose Obama is ousted ... Who's president, John McCain? I wouldn't be surprised if aggrieved parties decide to re-examine his time in Hanoi, questioning his patriotism.

Suppose that happens ... I hope you look back at the smoldering ruins of American democracy, come back to MacRumors and start a thread telling us how proud you are of these positions.
mt

We are not talking "sides" here. The issue is being pushed by only a few individuals and they are doing it through the courts. Even the right wing talk show pundits have shied away from this issue.

[Cleverboy]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/09/birth_certificate/
Dec. 9, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- At first it was a relief to see that the conspiracy theorists who believe Barack Obama isn't eligible to be president didn't shoot any pumpkins at their press conference Monday afternoon. After all, the proponents of this latest theory seem to be heading for levels of mania that even Dan Burton never dreamed up as he investigated outlandish claims about Bill Clinton. (If you need to brush up on your conspiracies, Burton resorted to blowing away squashes in his backyard to show how Clinton had a hand in the murder of White House counsel Vince Foster.) But considering the Supreme Court had refused Monday morning to hear a lawsuit about Obama's citizenship, there was reason to hope that maybe things at the afternoon press conference would stay reasonable.

Two and a half hours later, as dentist-slash-lawyer Orly Taitz harangued reporters for not investigating whether Obama's mother was actually dead, that hope had been obliterated. It was crushed by a torrent of half-baked legal theories, vague platitudes about the Constitution and sinister "facts" assembled by a collection of true believers so extreme that even Michelle Malkin wants nothing to do with them. (Let alone actual Republican operatives, who appear to realize that questioning Obama's citizenship isn't the best way to begin their journey out of the political wilderness.) Although the news conference wasn't quite over when Taitz began her harangue, it had been 15 minutes since a member of the audience compared Obama's alleged electoral fraud to how Hitler rose to power -- a sure sign it was well past time to leave.

The gist of the conspiracy theory is that Obama doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." Somehow Obama is concealing the fact that he was either born in Kenya (or maybe Indonesia) or that he renounced his U.S. citizenship as a child. One of Taitz's fellow alarmists, Pennsylvania lawyer Phi Berg (a bipartisan conspiracist -- he believes George W. Bush was behind 9/11), said Obama is an undocumented immigrant. Most of this "evidence" is easily debunked, though it can get confusing as it gets more feverish.

At any rate, the theory goes, Obama's not fit to take office, and Taitz and Berg, along with a few followers and the main ringleader for Monday's show, anti-tax activist Bob Schultz, aim to stop him. Schultz feels so strongly about the threat Obama poses to the republic that he spent tens of thousands of dollars on full-page newspaper ads last week, and plans to hold a citizens' conference after Inauguration Day if the courts don't intervene -- just the first step, apparently, in a process that Schultz says is devoted to resisting a government that has turned lawless.

"This nation is headed towards a vortex of a Constitutional crisis," Schultz said. "While on the one hand, the Obama citizenship issue is so simple a schoolchild could grasp it, if left festering and unanswered, it possesses the potential to send our nation into a time of great peril."

Talk like that could seem like a real threat, especially with the country dealing with the collapse of the economy and more than enough war to keep any president busy. But Schultz and his allies are having a tough time winning over the masses with their far-fetched theories. About 150,000 people have signed a petition at RallyCongress.com about Obama, which sounds like a lot, until you realize that it's about one-tenth of 1 percent of the total votes cast in the presidential race this year.

Throughout the press conference, the conspiracy theorists had trouble keeping things focused. Harlem minister James David Manning wandered off on a tangent about how Obama's election still means "there's never been a black womb" that produced a president. Manning might have seemed like he was making a case against Obama based on some theory of black nationalism, except that he admitted he had endorsed John McCain in the campaign. That was after he had called Obama "this usurper, this long-legged mack daddy."

Taitz -- the lead attorney in the case the Supreme Court declined to hear Monday morning -- kept making stranger and stranger assertions. At one point, she asked why the government had fined broadcasters for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," but didn't intervene to force the media to report on Obama's allegedly phony birth certificate. She claimed Obama holds passports from at least four countries, compared him to Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, equated the "controversy" about Obama to Watergate, and finished her tour-de-force presentation by saying that if Obama can claim he's a U.S. citizen and win an election, then so could just about anyone. "If a person can become a presidential candidate only based on his own statement," she said, "then somebody like Osama bin Laden, theoretically, can come and write a statement, 'I'm eligible,' and we should put him on the ballot, too?"

That sort of thing went on for 90 minutes before Schultz opened the press conference up to questions. It was clear from the occasional applause that most of the people in the room agreed with Schultz, anyway. Although the event was at the National Press Club, that's no guarantee of mainstream media interest. Groups may appear legitimate because they hold a news conference at the club, but the dirty little secret is the club rents out its rooms to anybody who shows up with the money. Most of the people apparently came from the weirder corners of the media. One friendly questioner, Shelli Baker of Morning Song Radio, wound up taking the mike for about 10 minutes to tell a complicated story involving Saudi oil barons, John Ashcroft, sharia law, the World Bank and Mitt Romney, which left even Schultz confused.

By Jan. 20, the courts -- which have, so far, uniformly refused to treat this matter as anything other than a nuisance -- will probably have left Schultz and his friends out in the cold. But the enduring power of any conspiracy theory comes from its ability to adapt to any circumstances, and this one is no exception. The only thing legal defeats teach the anti-Obama crowd is that the judges are in on it, too. Berg has another lawsuit up his sleeve if the ones he's involved in fail, though he said he couldn't talk about it because the proceedings have been sealed. For the foreseeable future, there could be "a new lawsuit for every action Obama takes" as president, Berg said. And to think Clinton had it bad. Oh, and the rending of clothes continues.

~ CB

[Blue Velvet]

^Hilarious. :D

dentist-slash-lawyer

[Cleverboy]

Dueling conspiracy theorists begin criticising each other in the wake of Supreme Court not caring to look at their cases:
But I am increasingly concerned that the anti-Obama movement is passing into the hands of fast buck artists such as a corrupt Philadelphia lawyer, Philip Berg, and other con artists or profiteers who do not have any legitimate basis for their inflammatory accusations against Obama.

Con men make it difficult for honest columnists to present legitimate questions about Obama. There is no way I can compete with the litany of lies that is being marketed as "facts" and "law" to a deceived public.Con artists such as Philip Berg seek to cash in by filing false legal claims against Barack Obama. The Chicago Tribune suggests this travesty will never end. You be the judge. First, Philip Berg. As near as I can tell, Berg is a scam artist and nothing more. He filed a crackpot lawsuit to collect money and, one presumes, to put the money in his pocket. I spoke with Mr. Berg before he filed his lawsuit, and advised him his claims were injurious to Obamas legitimate opponents. Berg didn’t care. He just wanted to scream—and ask for money.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/

Pots and kettles, calling each other black. This just seems like an interesting vantage point on the evolution of farce. Poor Andy just wants to sell his book on the "truth" behind Obama's "real" father.

~ CB

[pseudobrit]

A lot of people are having a hard time dealing with the Presidency of a black man with a Muslim name born from an immigrant father and partially raised in a Muslim country outside the United States.

As long as they can illegitimize the Presidency in their own minds they have found their coping mechanism.

Let them cry; their tears are delicious.

[rdowns]

When one of the elite wing-nuts (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=) says it's embarassing...


The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself...


It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.

[IJ Reilly]

Obama wrote a bit about his race against Keyes in his book. He's generally respectful and polite in dealing with his political opponents, but in Keyes' case he came close to questioning his rationality.

[leekohler]

Obama wrote a bit about his race against Keyes in his book. He's generally respectful and polite in dealing with his political opponents, but in Keyes' case he came close to questioning his rationality.

Alan Keyes is insane. It's been a long time since I've seen a wacko as extreme as him.

[fivepoint]

I apologize if this was covered here before... I am wondering... it seems obvious that the Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, but I was under the understanding that in addition to being born in the U.S., BOTH of your parents also had to have been born in the U.S. for you to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

Barack's dad was not a U.S. citizen, right? I must be missing something here... I'm not being funny, I seriously want to know. Why does this not matter?

[leekohler]

I apologize if this was covered here before... I am wondering... it seems obvious that the Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, but I was under the understanding that in addition to being born in the U.S., BOTH of your parents also had to have been born in the U.S. for you to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

Barack's dad was not a U.S. citizen, right? I must be missing something here... I'm not being funny, I seriously want to know. Why does this not matter?

No- all that matters is that one parent is a citizen.

[Ugg]

I apologize if this was covered here before... I am wondering... it seems obvious that the Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, but I was under the understanding that in addition to being born in the U.S., BOTH of your parents also had to have been born in the U.S. for you to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

Barack's dad was not a U.S. citizen, right? I must be missing something here... I'm not being funny, I seriously want to know. Why does this not matter?

This has been covered again and again and again.

Please provide us with the relevant law that says both parents have to be American citizens. Also, quoting something from 200+ years ago doesn't count. The laws have been repeatedly amended.

Have the wingnuts been spouting off again?

[fivepoint]

This has been covered again and again and again.

Please provide us with the relevant law that says both parents have to be American citizens. Also, quoting something from 200+ years ago doesn't count. The laws have been repeatedly amended.

Have the wingnuts been spouting off again?

Um... again, I am just asking. Not telling. Hoping for some clarification on the issue.

Lee, thanks. Could I ask where you found that law? I can't seem to find it in any 'official' source on the web.

[leekohler]

Um... again, I am just asking. Not telling. Hoping for some clarification on the issue.

Lee, thanks. Could I ask where you found that law? I can't seem to find it in any 'official' source on the web.

Seems I was wrong. You just have to be born here according to this ruling:

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Lots of good info on that page.

[yojitani]

It's a strange term 'natural born citizen' since there's nothing inherently 'natural' about the united states. What I can tell you though is that it requires ONE parent who has resided in the US longer than 10 years, 5 of which must be after his or her 14th birthday to confer citizenship automatically to a child born overseas.That is not a form of 'naturalization,' it is automatic. I know because I had to go through it with my kids. That said, there are some ambiguities if the parent was not present in the US for the required time but still only has US citizenship.

[skunk]

I apologize if this was covered here before... I am wondering... it seems obvious that the Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, but I was under the understanding that in addition to being born in the U.S., BOTH of your parents also had to have been born in the U.S. for you to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

Barack's dad was not a U.S. citizen, right? I must be missing something here... I'm not being funny, I seriously want to know. Why does this not matter?You mean to say nobody else in the whole United States spotted this? How on earth did they miss it? Good catch!

[és:]

Seriously, your guy lost. That's the game. Give it up.

[yg17]

No- all that matters is that one parent is a citizen.

I don't even think that's the case. If you're born in the US, it doesn't matter where your parents were born. You're automatically a natural citizen.

Parents' citizenship only matters when you're born outside the country.

[fivepoint]

Seems I was wrong. You just have to be born here according to this ruling:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Lots of good info on that page.

Thanks for the link. Good background information here... seems as if the definition has changed somewhat over the years. The constitution never explicitly defines what it means which always confuses the situation. This answers my question, thanks Lee.



You mean to say nobody else in the whole United States spotted this? How on earth did they miss it? Good catch!

Well, like I said, I'm simply asking the question. Not accusing, not implicating... simply wondering. That's the whole point of asking questions. Based on my understanding, both parents had to be citizens, so 2+2 wasn't equaling 4. I posted the question with the hopes if getting a clarification on the issue. Thankfully, I received one. Thanks for the condescending attitude though, Skunk. Very mature.



Seriously, your guy lost. That's the game. Give it up.

Ron Paul lost? Really? Holy crap! BTW, thanks for the educational and non-inflammatory response, 'es. Much appreciated.

[és:]

Ron Paul lost? Really? Holy crap!

Did I quote you? I was talking to the 'fringe movement' that are trying to stop Obama from becoming president. You do know that is what this thread is about, don't you?

Again, your guy lost and Obama won. Time to get over it and move on.

BTW, thanks for the educational and non-inflammatory response, 'es. Much appreciated.

What was inflammatory about stating facts? Was it the sound advice of 'move on' that annoyed you?

He is going to be the president, as elected by the majority of people in the United States. The End.

[Blue Velvet]

Let's all just calm down and chill out. How important is this?

Thought so.

[Cleverboy]

Hey...! I just found a nice nugget of reporting. All the "birther" talk (now reportedly a DEAD thread on CNN's Lou Dobbs), has been waxing a waning forever... the main two threads of so-called fact being: #1.) Has yet to produce a "real" birth certificate. #2.) His grandmother testified to his Kenyan birth.

The SECOND item is just awful. If you hear the taped recording of the poor woman, she's being hit with a bunch of questions attempting to "trick" her into saying something useful on tape. At one point she's asked if she remembers Barack being born in Kenya, and she says "yes"... but then when she is pressed her relatives note her confusion, and attempt to clarify that she couldn't have witnessed Barack Obama being born, as he was born in America... whether she was talking about his father, had a translation problem, or otherwise isn't clear. What IS clear is that the interviewer was attempting to ask questions in a leading manner, and absent language barriers, would likely have not gotten anything useful.

The FIRST item, is interesting, because I recently... finally... got the answer as to what's going on. The "Birthers" have been railing that Obama has yet to produce a "true" birth certificate, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is, in fact, NOT a "true" birth certificate. Long story, short... and I'd not heard this yet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/major-civil-rights-group_n_244532.html):
In part, [Jon] Klein writes, "It seems this story is dead- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." Klein asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn't produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Pres. Obama's original birth certificate. Well then. That's that. There IS no "real birth certificate" on file for ANYONE born in Hawaii, just an avalanche of "COLB" documents that are more than valid enough to get a passport, become a senator, or become President of the United States.

Now, I just bring this up, because it seems this is rarely ever mentioned and exists as the one "hold up" for nut jobs to cling to. I was thinking, "Now, this would ONLY really be a useful conspiracy theory if it were utterly incapable of being disproved.

1. Obama's mother, grandfather, and grandmother dead - CHECK
2. All original Hawaiian Birth Certificates destroyed - CHECK
3. Growing list of fabricated "discrepancies" or "sealed" information - CHECK
4. Growing list of news organizations scratching their head - CHECK
5. Ample supply of angry, delusional citizens who think questioning something means it must inherently be questionable. - CHECK

For humor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html

~ CB

[beatzfreak]

Well then. That's that. There IS no "real birth certificate" on file for ANYONE born in Hawaii, just an avalanche of "COLB" documents that are more than valid enough to get a passport, become a senator, or become President of the United States.



Hence, "The Birther Bill", requiring anyone running for POTUS in the future to produce a copy of their original birth certificate. Would Obama then not be eligible to run in 2012?

H.R. 1503 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1503/show)
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

[Ugg]

Hence, "The Birther Bill", requiring anyone running for POTUS in the future to produce a copy of their original birth certificate. Would Obama then not be eligible to run in 2012?

H.R. 1503 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1503/show)

The bill would be quickly struck down by the courts. Mainly because all Hawaiians would then be barred from running for president.

[szark]

Of course, that bill doesn't actually state that it must be a copy of the candidate's original birth certificate. I would assume that Hawaii would consider the COLB documents to be a valid birth certificate, and that the "Birther Bill" as currently worded would have to allow that as valid documentation.

[Counterfit]

You can still get a notarized paper copy of your Hawaiian birth certificate though, right?

[Cleverboy]

Hence, "The Birther Bill", requiring anyone running for POTUS in the future to produce a copy of their original birth certificate. Would Obama then not be eligible to run in 2012?
H.R. 1503 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1503/show)The bill would be quickly struck down by the courts. Mainly because all Hawaiians would then be barred from running for president. I'd definitely say that the wording would be that the document need to be considered "equivalent" to a valid birth certificate in your birth state. This clarifies everything, because if a federal standard of "birth certificates" is established, invalidating many documents considered equivalent locally (especially when said local has eliminated paper documents), then it immediately becomes of issue of disenfranchising states (states rights).

So, anyone thinking a "federal" level measure will appear that can invalidate what each state considers equivalent to a birth document for their own citizens, I would think that person doesn't appreciate the gravity of the road they're traveling on.

~ CB

[MyDesktopBroke]

Birthers on The Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1o1p_ly7Yw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehuffingtonpost%2Ecom%2Fmike%2Dstark%2Felected%2Dbirthers%2Don%2Dthe%2Dh%5Fb% 5F245507%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded)

It is from the extremely left leaning Huffington Post, so I guess there could be a number of interviews that were not included in the video, but the fact that there are this many US representatives, who, you know, shape the laws of America, that actually refuse to acknowledge two birth records (Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements + Obama's actual birth certificate) is somewhat shocking.

[leekohler]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/birther-boom/

I'm sorry, I'm sick of this s***. The Republicans are quite simply insane. Anyone who backs this pack of fools deserves what they get. That's OK, let them keep going. They'll never be in the White House again if they keep it up, which is fine by me.

[yg17]

Bill Maher summed it up quite well last night: "I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma"

[leekohler]

Bill Maher summed it up quite well last night: "I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma"

It's just like when Clinton was president. The right wingers show their insanity like nobody. These politicians should be removed from office right now- they're not fit to serve.

[Zombie Acorn]

Has he still not produced a birth cert? I thought this has been going on forever. Why not just give them what they want and make them look stupid.

[skunk]

Why not just give them what they want and make them look stupid.They already look stupid enough. Why bother?

[LizKat]

Why should he produce a birth certificate?

The longer this goes on, the stupider it makes the Republican National Committee look. Can't keep its base this side of the sanity checkpoint, can't put a lid on a BS story, can't get its own media to remember that its mission is to drain the swamp and get mainstream voters interested in electing a Republican to House or Senate in 2010, etc., etc., etc.

This is not an embarrassment for the Democrats. It's another death knell (as if they lacked enough) for the Republicans.

[Macky-Mac]

Has he still not produced a birth cert? I thought this has been going on forever. Why not just give them what they want and make them look stupid.

he did....they refused to believe it was real

[Zombie Acorn]

he did....they refused to believe it was real

not much you can do but ignore then, it's going to be one of "those" conspiracy theories.0

[BoyBach]

It's a good job that the USA isn't in a recession and fighting two wars at the moment, so that the politicians can concentrate on the really important issues.

(I'd be livid if one of these idiots was supposed to be representing my interests in Washington.)

[Zombie Acorn]

It's a good job that the USA isn't in a recession and fighting two wars at the moment, so that the politicians can concentrate on the really important issues.

(I'd be livid if one of these idiots was supposed to be representing my interests in Washington.)

Most likely repubs, they aren't allowed to participate in anything important at this point anyways unless they are far left leaning.

[skunk]

There are almost no "far left" Democrats, let alone "far left" Republicans.

[yg17]

(I'd be livid if one of these idiots was supposed to be representing my interests in Washington.)

Unfortunately, one of those idiots, Roy Blunt, is running to represent my interests in 2010.

I'm also sure my wingnut congressman, Todd Akin is one of those birther idiots, but unlike Blunt, he hasn't come out and said it, yet. I hate this state sometimes. At least my other senator (Claire McCaskill) has some sense.

[Zombie Acorn]

There are almost no "far left" Democrats, let alone "far left" Republicans.

I would consider most repubs left. Last 2 terms were failures of epic size.

[Macky-Mac]

There are almost no "far left" Democrats, let alone "far left" Republicans.

this question doesn't have anything to do with birthers so it's a tad off topic, but who do people in the UK vote for when they want to vote for a "far left" party? Didn't Labour used to be considered a socialist party?

[.Andy]

I would consider most repubs left. Last 2 terms were failures of epic size.

Definitions;

Left - stuff I don't like, ends up not working (inevitable), or I don't agree with.
Right - a political ideological utopia that can't fail (people can only fail it by being too left -see above).

[BoyBach]

I would consider most repubs left. Last 2 terms were failures of epic size.

Most Republicans 'left'? Good grief, some of them would have made Il Duce blush.


this question doesn't have anything to do with birthers so it's a tad off topic, but who do people in the UK vote for when they want to vote for a "far left" party? Didn't Labour used to be considered a socialist party?

There a number of Socialist political parties in the UK. Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party...

[Macky-Mac]

....There a number of Socialist political parties in the UK. Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party...

we have a bunch of those too.....but none of your mainstream parties have a "far left" any more?

[Zombie Acorn]

Definitions;

Left - stuff I don't like, ends up not working (inevitable), or I don't agree with.
Right - a political ideological utopia that can't fail (people can only fail it by being too left -see above).

I don't like either, I like ideas on both sides but nothing in the complete package. I truly believe McCain and Obama would have done the same agenda thus far.

[BoyBach]

we have a bunch of those too.....but none of your mainstream parties have a "far left" any more?


There are still some 'Old' Labour in the 'New' Labour Party, but they have no power or authority beyond giving the government the occasional bloody nose in parliamentary votes.

All three main parties are centre-right to varying degrees.

[leekohler]

I don't like either, I like ideas on both sides but nothing in the complete package. I truly believe McCain and Obama would have done the same agenda thus far.

Really? I don't. Not with Palin in the White House too. And there is no such thing as left wing in politics in this country. There's center-right and far-right. There isn't anything else.

[Macky-Mac]

.....And there is no such thing as left wing in politics in this country. There's center-right and far-right. There isn't anything else.

well, it seems he's even further to the right than anybody else so that makes EVERYBODY left wing compared to him :p

[mgguy]

Of course, democrats have no wing-nut conspiracy theorists in their fold. Reverent Wright and his democrat audience, Barack Obama among them, didn't really mean it when they preached in their church gathering that the US government was somehow behind the bombing of the World Trade Center. Besides, that suspicion is much more reasonable and plausible than the extreme and outlandish questioning of Obama's place of birth.:rolleyes:

[.Andy]

Of course, democrats have no wing-nut conspiracy theorists in their fold. Reverent Wright and his democrat audience, Barack Obama among them, didn't really mean it when they preached in their church gathering that the US government was somehow behind the bombing of the World Trade Center. Besides, that suspicion is much more reasonable and plausible than the extreme and outlandish questioning of Obama's place of birth.:rolleyes:
Both are ridiculous conspiracy theories.

[BoyBach]

Of course, democrats have no wing-nut conspiracy theorists in their fold. Reverent Wright and his democrat audience, Barack Obama among them, didn't really mean it when they preached in their church gathering that the US government was somehow behind the bombing of the World Trade Center. Besides, that suspicion is much more reasonable and plausible than the extreme and outlandish questioning of Obama's place of birth.:rolleyes:


To which you should say: "Can the juveniles go back to nursery school, please, so that the grown-ups can do some politics, there's a good boy/girl."

[.Andy]

To which you should say: "Can the juveniles go back to nursery school, please, so that the grown-ups can do some politics, there's a good boy/girl."
This is quite a wonderful backhander given the following thread :D!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=574529

[Eraserhead]

Of course, democrats have no wing-nut conspiracy theorists in their fold. Reverent Wright and his democrat audience, Barack Obama among them, didn't really mean it when they preached in their church gathering that the US government was somehow behind the bombing of the World Trade Center.

He didn't say they were behind it - he said they were responsible. The difference is that the latter allows them to be responsible by having bad foreign policy which led the extremists to want to attack the US which is a more reasonable statement.

[.Andy]

They didn't say they were behind it - they said they were responsible. The difference is that the latter allows them to be responsible by having bad foreign policy which led the extremists to want to attack the US which is a more reasonable statement.
I wasn't aware of this. But looking it up he did indeed. He never said anything of the like mgguy asserted. It looks like mgguy has been mislead himself or was lying.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,"

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost"

[Signal-11]

he did....they refused to believe it was real

Almost by definition, a conspiracy theorist refuses to believe the evidence.

No amount of proof will satisfy these nuts. Original certificate? Obviously a forgery. Birth announcement in the paper? Tampered microfiche. Doc who delivered the kid? They got to him, too.

[Cave Man]

Bill Maher summed it up quite well last night: "I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma"

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/billmaher/youtube/bill-maher-birthers.htm

[yg17]

Almost by definition, a conspiracy theorist refuses to believe the evidence.

No amount of proof will satisfy these nuts. Original certificate? Obviously a forgery. Birth announcement in the paper? Tampered microfiche. Doc who delivered the kid? They got to him, too.

Obama could release a video of his mother giving birth to him in front of the Statue of Liberty with a doctor wearing red, white and blue scrubs and the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background and they still wouldn't believe it.

[mgguy]

A sizable percentage of the public believed that the US government had a direct hand in the 911 bombings, according to results of a Zogby opinion polls. My guess is that the majority of these folks leaned more left than right in their political affiliations, though the poll didn't breakdown the results by party.

One poll was conducted in July 2006, and was sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University. It surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. The poll asked:

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them". Finding:

59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"[12]


Another poll was done in November, a 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question:

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely? Finding:

32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"

Conspiracy theorists abound, indeed.

[nutritious]

would this citizenship talk go away? Obama has already provided plenty of proof, and I'm sure the FBI/CIA or whatever does background checks on anyone possibly running for president, let alone someone who won the election. It's a waste of time.

[Signal-11]

would this citizenship talk go away? Obama has already provided plenty of proof, and I'm sure the FBI/CIA or whatever does background checks on anyone possibly running for president, let alone someone who won the election. It's a waste of time.

You are obviously not a true American patriot.

[.Andy]

A sizable percentage of the public believed that the US government had a direct hand in the 911 bombings, according to results of a Zogby opinion polls.
That's not what either of the polls say you posted. The questions you posted don't even necessarily relate to conspiracy theories :confused:.

My guess is that the majority of these folks leaned more left than right in their political affiliations, though the poll didn't breakdown the results by party.
You really are completely blind with your partisanship. Just read this sentence again. I don't know where to start. You really are just making things up. Which makes me wonder if I should believe any of the rest of your post whatsoever without double-checking it.

One poll was conducted in July 2006, and was sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University. It surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. The poll asked:

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them". Finding:

59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"[12]
The question is compound - participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them. The majority of the answers are "not likely". "Somewhat likely" and "very likely" could explain people that thought the government took insufficient steps to stop them. Something that's not that far-fetched given the fact that there really wasn't much in the way of action on the day before the attacks. Not a conspiracy theory.

Another poll was done in November, a 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question:

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely? Finding:

32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"

Conspiracy theorists abound, indeed.
Again this isn't a conspiracy theory. It relates to incompetence and insufficient action. Conspiracy theory would be if they conspired to carry out the attacks or carried out the attacks themselves.

You've got one post in this thread already that's a complete fabrication of the truth. Now you've got this one where you make assertions and post "evidence" that by no means backs it up.

[leekohler]

That's not what either of the polls say you posted. The questions you posted don't even necessarily relate to conspiracy theories :confused:.


You really are completely blind with your partisanship. Just read this sentence again. I don't know where to start. You really are just making things up. Which makes me wonder if I should believe any of the rest of your post whatsoever without double-checking it.


The question is compound - participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them. The majority of the answers are "not likely". "Somewhat likely" and "very likely" could explain people that thought the government took insufficient to stop them. Something that's not that far fetched given the fact that there really wasn't much in the way of action on the day before the attacks.


Again this isn't a conspiracy theory. It relates to incompetence and insufficient action. Conspiracy theory would be if they conspired to carry out the attacks or carried out the attacks themselves.

Not to mention the fact that we already know that the Bush administration was warned about the risk of attacks, but chose not to focus on terrorism. That is well documented.

[yg17]

A sizable percentage of the public believed that the US government had a direct hand in the 911 bombings, according to results of a Zogby opinion polls. My guess is that the majority of these folks leaned more left than right in their political affiliations, though the poll didn't breakdown the results by party.=

The difference is, that even if these conspiracy theorists were Democrats (and you provide no proof of party affiliation and just pull it out of your ass), the party doesn't embrace these morons. There are no elected Democrats in congress making the claim that the government was behind 9/11.

If you get time, do me a quick favor. Go to Daily Kos, and make a blog post claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy and see how quickly you're banned. I give it 15 minutes max. Now, go to Free Republic and make a blog post claiming that Obama wasn't born in the US and see how quickly you're banned. That's right, you won't be, you'll get hundreds of comments laden with racial slurs of people agreeing with you and will be hailed a hero. Unlike the right, the left shuns their conspiracy theorists and does a good job of shutting them up.

[Eraserhead]

Not to mention the fact that we already know that the Bush administration was warned about the risk of attacks, but chose not to focus on terrorism. That is well documented.

Exactly, and that makes it perfectly reasonable to agree with the people who thought the US government didn't do enough to stop 9/11.

[it5five]

...the left shuns their conspiracy theorists and does a good job of shutting them up.

This is even assuming the truther conspiracy stems from the left, which in my opinion it doesn't. Rather, in my experience, it seems to come from the far-right anti-government Ron Paul supporters.

[mgguy]

You really are completely blind with your partisanship. Just read this sentence again. I don't know where to start. You really are just making things up. Which makes me wonder if I should believe any of the rest of your post whatsoever without double-checking it.

I didn't make anything up. I gave my "guess" along with a statement of fact. My exact words were: "My guess is that the majority of these folks leaned more left than right in their political affiliations, though the poll didn't breakdown the results by party." Making things up would have been more like saying the poll showed that the majority were democrats when it didn't. If conjecturing is indicative of blind partisanship, I'm afraid many in these forums would be walking into walls.

The question is compound - participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them. The majority of the answers are "not likely". "Somewhat likely" and "very likely" could explain people that thought the government took insufficient steps to stop them. Something that's not that far-fetched given the fact that there really wasn't much in the way of action on the day before the attacks. Not a conspiracy theory.

I think those who believe that the "government" either participated in the attacks or did nothing to stop them (implying that the government knew about the attacks beforehand and could have done something to stop them) might be going farther out on the nut-case limb than those who continue to question Obama's birthplace (which BTW I do not).

Again this isn't a conspiracy theory. It relates to incompetence and insufficient action. Conspiracy theory would be if they conspired to carry out the attacks or carried out the attacks themselves.

Conspiracy would also include agreement among those in "government" (wow, that's a lot of people) to remain silent about something they knew about or to take no action to stop it from occurring. Again, this is a lot more to have to swallow than a claim that it is possible that Obama may have been born out of country. I personally give no credence to either accusation.

[leekohler]

Conspiracy would also include agreement among those in "government" (wow, that's a lot of people) to remain silent about something they knew about or to take no action to stop it from occurring. Again, this is a lot more to have to swallow than a claim that it is possible that Obama may have been born out of country. I personally give no credence to either accusation.

A lot of people in government were warning the Bush administration about a terror attack before 9/11. The administration didn't take those warnings seriously enough. That's well-known. Here's an article from Time. It's long, but gives a lot of insight into what went on before 9/11.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story4.html

[mgguy]

A lot of people in government were warning the Bush administration about a terror attack before 9/11. The administration didn't take those warnings seriously enough. That's well-known. Here's an article from Time. It's long, but gives a lot of insight into what went on before 9/11.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story4.html

Thanks for the citation. This was a good read. However, as I understand it, it alleges only that the Bush administration was given a fairly general warning about upcoming terrorism by Al Qaeda, not a specific warning about the 911 bombings per se. To imply that evidence of the former proves the latter is not reasonable. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Bush knew the bombing was going to happen and did nothing to stop it because he/they wanted an excuse to wage broader countermeasures against terrorism including the war in Iraq.

The only point I am trying to make here is that those who espouse wild conspiracy theories or make outlandish claims that have political repercussions reside on both sides of the political aisles. Wingnutism is not solely a republican phenomena.

[leekohler]

Thanks for the citation. This was a good read. However, as I understand it, it alleges only that the Bush administration was given a fairly general warning about upcoming terrorism by Al Qaeda, not a specific warning about the 911 bombings per se. To imply that evidence of the former proves the latter is not reasonable. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Bush knew the bombing was going to happen and did nothing to stop it because he/they wanted an excuse to wage broader countermeasures against terrorism including the war in Iraq.

It wasn't premeditated, but they definitely used 9/11 to get support for the Iraq invasion.

[mgguy]

It wasn't premeditated, but they definitely used 9/11 to get support for the Iraq invasion.

There is a HUGE difference between allowing a suspected bombing to occur to create a basis for going to war and using 911, which was not know beforehand, as a reason to invade Iraq. This doesn't need further explanation.

[.Andy]

I didn't make anything up. I gave my "guess" along with a statement of fact. My exact words were: "My guess is that the majority of these folks leaned more left than right in their political affiliations, though the poll didn't breakdown the results by party."
Which is a completely made up "guess" founded on absolutely nothing but your unwavering partisanship for your political sportsteam.

I think those who believe that the "government" either participated in the attacks or did nothing to stop them (implying that the government knew about the attacks beforehand and could have done something to stop them) might be going farther out on the nut-case limb than those who continue to question Obama's birthplace
Absolute nonsense. Thinking that the government was insufficient in it's efforts to stop terrorist attacks is a completely natural thought process that many people would go through. It happened. People thought the government should have been better informed/acted more urgently to any intelligence. This is of course subjective but it of no means a conspiracy theory or thinking that 911 was an inside job.

(which BTW I do not).
But you did. You even posted a thread about it (see below). You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen. Again you only thought this because of your own partisan feelings absolutely stop you from looking at anything objectively and critically. Here it is again for everyone's enjoyment, catchy little rhyming slang and all.

Say it ain't so, BO.
Given the clamor for candidates to make information about their education, health, and history publicly available, I was surprised to hear that several items of information on Obama the media and others have requested have not yet been made available (see list below). Say it ain't so, BO!

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
13. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=574529

[mgguy]

Which is a completely made up "guess" founded on absolutely nothing but your unwavering partisanship for your political sportsteam.

I believe your intolerance for someone offering an opinion about something, even when they make it clear that that is what they are doing, might likely be due to your own unwavering partisanship, but that is just a guess. Oops, I've done it again.:rolleyes:

Absolute nonsense. Thinking that the government was insufficient in it's efforts to stop terrorist attacks is a completely natural thought process that many people would go through. It happened. People thought the government should have been better informed/acted more urgently to any intelligence. This is of course subjective but it of no means a conspiracy theory or thinking that 911 was an inside job.

You seem determined to twist my words, so let me quote them again here: "I think those who believe that the "government" either participated in the attacks or did nothing to stop them (implying that the government knew about the attacks beforehand and could have done something to stop them) might be going farther out on the nut-case limb than those who continue to question Obama's birthplace." Note the parenthetical qualifying the situation as one in which the government could have done something to prevent the attacks (which are specific not general) but didn't. To orchestrate an avoidance strategy of this alleged magnitude would involve some level of coordination and agreement, hence my use of the word conspiracy.



But you did. You even posted a thread about it (see below). You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen. Again you only thought this because of your own partisan feelings absolutely stop you from looking at anything objectively and critically.

No I did not. This thread was closed before I had a chance to add anything beyond my introductory post. I have never said what you are alleging here. Please quote where I have made any specific comments about Obama's history and citizen status.

Let me also point out that you are again guessing, this time about the motivation for my thinking and also about what I might be feeling, neither of which you have a clue about. I personally don't care if you continue to do this, but you have set the standard here and therefore perhaps you should follow it.

[Macky-Mac]

.....No I did not. This thread was closed before I had a chance to add anything beyond my introductory post. I have never said what you are alleging here. Please quote where I have made any specific comments about Obama's history and citizen status.......

actually you posted again the next day before it was closed

[mgguy]

actually you posted again the next day before it was closed

I did make one more short post before the thread was closed, but it was about McCain, not Obama. So, no, I didn't add anything about the subject under discussion (in this case Obama) after my introductory post. Nice try though. I am glad you took the time to read the earlier thread.

[Macky-Mac]

I did make one more short post before the thread was closed, but it was about McCain, not Obama. So, no, I didn't add anything about the subject under discussion (in this case Obama) after my introductory post. Nice try though. I am glad you took the time to read the earlier thread.

ah well, you claimed you didn't have a chance to post any more before the thread was closed....but in truth, you did post more despite your claim....you just didn't choose to clarify anything about your birther post that started the thread

[.Andy]

I believe your intolerance for someone offering an opinion about something
No my intolerance is of blatant partisanship, making up things up willy nilly, and providing "evidence" that doesn't support the arguments you make. You've been shown up as dishonest and/or willfully misinformed on numerous occasions now in this thread alone. Yet you continue to dig yourself into a deeper and deeper.

[leekohler]

There is a HUGE difference between allowing a suspected bombing to occur to create a basis for going to war and using 911, which was not know beforehand, as a reason to invade Iraq. This doesn't need further explanation.

Where was I making this claim? Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. All I have been saying is that 9/11 did happen in part due to negligence and incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. That's documented in the article I gave you. That's the only point I was making. That, and the fact that it's possible people answered the poll you posted with that information in mind.

[yg17]

This is worth watching. David Shuster and Tamron Hall on MSNBC smack down head birther Orly Taitz after she compares them to Nazis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32274609#32274609).

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/yg17/o_rly.jpg

[rdowns]

This is worth watching. David Shuster and Tamron Hall on MSNBC smack down head birther Orly Taitz after she compares them to Nazis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32274609#32274609).



What a fecking nut job.

I'm pretty close to advocating replacing the stars in our flag to the face palm picture.



EDIT: Check out the subsequent segment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32274609#32274854

[BoyBach]

This is worth watching. David Shuster and Tamron Hall on MSNBC smack down head birther Orly Taitz after she compares them to Nazis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32274609#32274609).


:eek: Consider my gast utterly flabbered!

Does this women realise how absolutely ridiculous she sounds? I would bet a rather tatty £5 note that the people off camera were piddling themselves.

[Signal-11]

:eek: Consider my gast flabbered!

Does this women realise how absolutely ridiculous she sounds? I would bet a rather tatty £5 note that the people off camera were piddling themselves.

Nah, she's knows what she's talking about. She's a dentist, lawyer AND real estate agent.

[BoyBach]

Nah, she's knows what she's talking about. She's a dentist, lawyer AND real estate agent.


So she has lovely shiny teeth untainted by the vast quantities of ***** she talks for a living!? ;)

[leekohler]

Oh man- on the TV in our break room I saw that there were some problems with the alleged "birth certificate". Apparently, The town they listed on the certificate wasn't even part of Kenya at the time, it was in Zanzibar. Oops! :rolleyes::D

Also, they didn't even get what Kenya was called at the time correct either. Nice try, wackos! Back to the drawing board! :)

[LizKat]

Starting to look almost as good as FauxSnooze labelling Iraq as Egypt on that day back near the end of July... and leaving poor ol' Libya and Egypt with no names at all.

The birthers need a Faux graphics intern to help them out or it may take them past 2016 to get anywhere with their concept.

[leekohler]

Starting to look almost as good as FauxSnooze labelling Iraq as Egypt on that day back near the end of July... and leaving poor ol' Libya and Egypt with no names at all.

The birthers need a Faux graphics intern to help them out or it may take them past 2016 to get anywhere with their concept.

These people are truly amazing. I can't even believe that they still pursue this.

[Cleverboy]

These people are truly amazing. I can't even believe that they still pursue this. I'm just happy they have a goofy-ass name now. "Birthers". Yikes. Part of me wants desperately to believe they're simply mistaken and not malicious jerk-wads or malevolent malcontents. The problem is, that there seems to be a market for facts that can't be verified, or hearsay that morphs into different meaning. The whole Kenyan grandmother testimony... its just awful. Most disreputable sources cut the tape so that it leaves off all the intentional misleading and the corrections immediately following the so-called "sworn affidavit". My brain struggles to understand how anyone can push hard on a specious argument with a straight, earnest expression on their face.

Like this one for instance:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/02/log-into-cars-gov-and-turn-your-computer-over-to-the-government/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1/760538/-Beck-conspiracy-theory:-Cash-for-clunkers-site-lets-Feds-control-your-PC

~ CB

[Rt&Dzine]

The birthers. :D For a second I thought I was in that procreating thread.

[Axl Rose]

shes not even born here, who the **** cares what her opinion is?

[Dany M]

shes not even born here, who the **** cares what her opinion is?

Her location of birth is irrelevant.

I felt bad for her watching the video. I know she is wrong but she keeps trying to go to her point and Davis just interrupts her and doesn't seem to let go when she tells him to be quiet. Though she did appear sensitive she did not help her case well.

[OutThere]

The fact that this is even an argument absolutely blows my mind. http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif

[mgguy]

Where was I making this claim? Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. All I have been saying is that 9/11 did happen in part due to negligence and incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. That's documented in the article I gave you. That's the only point I was making. That, and the fact that it's possible people answered the poll you posted with that information in mind.

Fair enough.

No my intolerance is of blatant partisanship, making up things up willy nilly, and providing "evidence" that doesn't support the arguments you make. You've been shown up as dishonest and/or willfully misinformed on numerous occasions now in this thread alone. Yet you continue to dig yourself into a deeper and deeper.

You keep criticizing me for things and then doing them yourself. You claimed that I argued elsewhere that Obama is not a US citizen. You said: "You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen." Your statement is false and I called you out on it by asking you to quote a post of mine showing that I said this or argued that Obama is not a US citizen. You still have not done so. You are not only being dishonest but also hypocritical for setting standards and then not following them yourself.

[hulugu]

... My brain struggles to understand how anyone can push hard on a specious argument with a straight, earnest expression on their face....

It's the same mechanism that allowed people to engage in the hysteria that led to the Salem Witch Trials. It's as if there's a lever that disconnects the logical part of the brain without breaking the other proximate parts.

It's also no surprise that people like Orly Taitz also infer the "Main Stream Media" conspiracy, nor the Nazis. They're being persecuted for their beliefs, so much so that they're being made fun of on TV! Tomorrow it's Kristallnacht!

At this point, "Birthers" belong in the same psychological classification as UFO abductees, no amount of logic or evidence will convince them that their worldview is inherently flawed because, simply put, they are unable to recognize a reality different from the one they've built.

I consider it a litmus test, a political Rorschach. If you believe this nonsense you're not fit to be in office.

Frankly, I'm not [sure] if "Birthers" should be trusted with a microwave oven.

[.Andy]

Your statement is false and I called you out on it by asking you to quote a post of mine showing that I said this......you still have not done so.
Yes I have. I've posted the link twice now where you've asked the question. I'll quote you again for the third time as well as examples of when you pursued it;

You asked the question here;

Say it ain't so, BO.
Given the clamor for candidates to make information about their education, health, and history publicly available, I was surprised to hear that several items of information on Obama the media and others have requested have not yet been made available (see list below). Say it ain't so, BO!

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
13. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;

The difference is that who gave birth to Trig is personal and not legally or officially relevant,unlike Obama's citizen status which is relevant.

and here;
That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.

and here:
But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue.

Do you remember typing any of this?

[Cleverboy]

Frankly, I'm not [sure] if "Birthers" should be trusted with a microwave oven. Well, it IS a strikingly dangerous technology to place in the hands of the infantile.

~ CB

[BoyBach]

Frankly, I'm not [sure] if "Birthers" should be trusted with a microwave oven.


I do believe you may have stumbled upon the cause of this Birthers affliction. Maybe they've put their heads next to too many microwave ovens without wearing the proper protection resulting in some seriously frazzled brains.

Remember, kitchen appliances are not toys!

186478

[leekohler]

Yes I have. I've posted the link twice now where you've asked the question. I'll quote you again for the third time as well as examples of when you pursued it;

You asked the question here;


And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;


and here;


and here:


Do you remember typing any of this?

You've been busted, mgguy. ;)

[mgguy]

Yes I have. I've posted the link twice now where you've asked the question. I'll quote you again for the third time as well as examples of when you pursued it;

You asked the question here;


And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;


and here;


and here:


Do you remember typing any of this?

You are being dishonest here. You did not found any quote by me that backs up your statement about me that I said was not true. Your statement was: "You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen." All you can cite to support this wild claim is a post I made regarding why Obama had not made various documents available to the public during the campaign. The issue was over his apparent refusal to release information generally, not over whether he was born here. Note that his birth certificate appeared as #9 on the list. If his birth status was my concern, I would have listed that first or perhaps alone. Asking why Obama would not release information is not an accusation that he did not have it. I also asked why he did not release his college thesis and medical records, without any doubt that they existed and without drawing any conclusions as to what they might show. I raised the secrecy issue at a time that McCain had been criticized for initially not releasing his medical records.

Apparently, for political reasons and trying to win an argument, you used my statements that birth status is a legitimate issue (legally and politically) to try to prove I do not believe Obama is a citizen, even though I directly stated in this thread that I don't hold that point of view.

You have failed to provide any quotes of me saying that Obama is not a US citizen. The three little snippets you provide merely argue that Obama's citizen status was a relevant and legitimate question to be asked at the time. Around the time I said this, the Supreme Court had taken this issue under consideration. Certainly you can't believe that their considering this as a relevant issue worthy of being pondered indicates they thought Obama was foreign born, can you?

Normally I would have just brushed you off, but since you have questioned my honesty and motives here, I am compelled to respond like I have. It would be a lot easier if you were just able to admit that you could not support your statements. First you portray the "birthers" as extreme loons, and then you try to put me, and perhaps others who have a different political affiliation than you, into that category. There is just one problem: IT'S NOT TRUE. :mad:

You've been busted, mgguy. ;)

I think you should analyze what you read a little more before you pile on. As I have just shown, .Andy = failure in his attempts to show that I said what he claimed I said (see bolded statement above). I know it feels good to side with those you share points of view with, but if you give a fair reading of the quotes that .Andy has offered up, I think you would have to admit that he has fallen short here.;)

[.Andy]

You are being dishonest here. You did not found any quote by me that backs up your statement about me that I said was not true. Your statement was: "You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen."
You must have missed my post. I'll post it again.

You asked the question here;

Say it ain't so, BO.
Given the clamor for candidates to make information about their education, health, and history publicly available, I was surprised to hear that several items of information on Obama the media and others have requested have not yet been made available (see list below). Say it ain't so, BO!

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
13. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'
And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;
The difference is that who gave birth to Trig is personal and not legally or officially relevant,unlike Obama's citizen status which is relevant.

and here;
That pesky little thing called the Constitution makes it an issue.

and here:
But it is, or was, a legitimate issue to pursue.
Q.E.D.


Note that his birth certificate appeared as #9 on the list. If his birth status was my concern, I would have listed that first or perhaps alone.
This is not a rebuttal. In fact it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Irrespective of asking the question first or last on a list you still asked the question. To claim that you didn't ask the question because it was #9 on a list you wrote is absolutely and utterly asinine.

Asking why Obama would not release information is not an accusation that he did not have it. I also asked why he did not release his college thesis and medical records, without any doubt that they existed and without drawing any conclusions as to what they might show.
You asked all these questions because you were feverishly trying to fling mud and were hoping that there might be something awry in any of those records. And the hope that implying that the documents were being nefariously hidden (true or not) would somehow discredit someone you saw as an opponent to your favorite team. If you didn't think his birth certificate (as I said) might have been awry why even ask the question?

My guess is that you got excited and copy and pasted 'your' list word for word (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=1.+Occidental+College+records+--+Not+released+2.+Columbia+College+records+--+Not+released+3.+Columbia+Thesis+paper+--+'not+available'+4.+Harvard+College+records+--+Not+released+5.+Selective+Service+Registration+--+Not+released+6.+Medical+records+--+Not+released+7.+Illinois+State+Senate+schedule+--+'not+available'+8.+Law+practice+client+list+--+Not+released+9.+Certified+Copy+of+original+Birth+certificate+-+-+Not+released+10.+Harvard+Law+Review+articles+published+--+None+11.+University+of+Chicago+scholarly+articles+--+None+12.+Record+of+baptism--+Not+released+or+'not+available'+13.+Illinois+State+Senate+records--'not+available'&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) from the echo chamber of low quality right wing blogs with little thought or critical thought at all. And that's now coming back to bite you. You're trying desperately to distance yourself from these 'birthers' who are looking increasingly ridiculous.

[opinioncircle]

You must have missed my post. I'll post it again.

You asked the question here;

And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;


and here;


and here:

Q.E.D.



This is not a rebuttal. In fact it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Irrespective of asking the question first or last on a list you still asked the question. To claim that you didn't ask the question because it was #9 on a list you wrote is absolutely and utterly asinine.


You asked all these questions because you were feverishly trying to fling mud and were hoping that there might be something awry in any of those records. And the hope that implying that the documents were being nefariously hidden (true or not) would somehow discredit someone you saw as an opponent to your favorite team. If you didn't think his birth certificate (as I said) might have been awry why even ask the question?

My guess is that you got excited and copy and pasted 'your' list word for word (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=1.+Occidental+College+records+--+Not+released+2.+Columbia+College+records+--+Not+released+3.+Columbia+Thesis+paper+--+'not+available'+4.+Harvard+College+records+--+Not+released+5.+Selective+Service+Registration+--+Not+released+6.+Medical+records+--+Not+released+7.+Illinois+State+Senate+schedule+--+'not+available'+8.+Law+practice+client+list+--+Not+released+9.+Certified+Copy+of+original+Birth+certificate+-+-+Not+released+10.+Harvard+Law+Review+articles+published+--+None+11.+University+of+Chicago+scholarly+articles+--+None+12.+Record+of+baptism--+Not+released+or+'not+available'+13.+Illinois+State+Senate+records--'not+available'&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) from the echo chamber of low quality right wing blogs with little thought or critical thought at all. And that's now coming back to bite you. You're trying desperately to distance yourself from these 'birthers' who are looking increasingly ridiculous.

What's your point then?

[.Andy]

What's your point then?
If there's anything ambiguous there I'll be happy to explain it although I thought I'd gone to a bit of trouble to cross reference all my points with posts by mgguy.

If your post is just a low content dismissal then I guess you cleverly got me with your wit.

[leekohler]

You must have missed my post. I'll post it again.

You asked the question here;

And to back up my claim of pursuing it you;

validated the question here;


and here;


and here:

Q.E.D.



This is not a rebuttal. In fact it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Irrespective of asking the question first or last on a list you still asked the question. To claim that you didn't ask the question because it was #9 on a list you wrote is absolutely and utterly asinine.


You asked all these questions because you were feverishly trying to fling mud and were hoping that there might be something awry in any of those records. And the hope that implying that the documents were being nefariously hidden (true or not) would somehow discredit someone you saw as an opponent to your favorite team. If you didn't think his birth certificate (as I said) might have been awry why even ask the question?

My guess is that you got excited and copy and pasted 'your' list word for word (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=1.+Occidental+College+records+--+Not+released+2.+Columbia+College+records+--+Not+released+3.+Columbia+Thesis+paper+--+'not+available'+4.+Harvard+College+records+--+Not+released+5.+Selective+Service+Registration+--+Not+released+6.+Medical+records+--+Not+released+7.+Illinois+State+Senate+schedule+--+'not+available'+8.+Law+practice+client+list+--+Not+released+9.+Certified+Copy+of+original+Birth+certificate+-+-+Not+released+10.+Harvard+Law+Review+articles+published+--+None+11.+University+of+Chicago+scholarly+articles+--+None+12.+Record+of+baptism--+Not+released+or+'not+available'+13.+Illinois+State+Senate+records--'not+available'&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) from the echo chamber of low quality right wing blogs with little thought or critical thought at all. And that's now coming back to bite you. You're trying desperately to distance yourself from these 'birthers' who are looking increasingly ridiculous.


.Andy didn't fail at all. You got busted. .Andy didn't accuse you of saying Obama was born in Kenya. All he did was show that you questioned Obama's birthplace, which you did. This is why conservatives get slammed here. You guys constantly refuse to admit error and try to weasel your way out of it.

[mgguy]

.Andy didn't fail at all. You got busted. .Andy didn't accuse you of saying Obama was born in Kenya. All he did was show that you questioned Obama's birthplace, which you did. This is why conservatives get slammed here. You guys constantly refuse to admit error and try to weasel your way out of it.

Let's do this again. .Andy said the following and I asked him to prove it and he has not been able to: "You not only asked the question you pursued it for quite some time. You thought that the president elect might have made it all the way through university, becoming a lawyer, running for congress etc and not have been a US citizen." >>>> FAIL.

It seems like you and .Andy are the ones who are refusing to admit error.

[Cave Man]

Let's do this again. .Andy said the following and I asked him to prove it and he has not been able to:

Can you prove to us that you don't beat your wife?

Negatives are always tricky.