Birthers get another lifeline
posted at 9:30 am on December 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
When the Supreme Court denied cert to Leo Donofrio, most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest. Not so fast, as Dave Weigel reluctantly notes. Justice Antonin Scalia has referred another lawsuit to conference covering much the same ground in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and the Birther movement has another brief reprieve:
Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. …
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Indeed, as the docket report shows, Ginsburg rejected Wrotnowski two weeks ago, at least for injunctive relief. Scalia didn’t provide an injunction, but instead of following the example set by Donofrio, he referred the case to conference. That seems a little unusual, since Wrotnowski appears to plow the same ground as Donofrio, which is that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because his father was a British subject, even though Obama was born in the US.
Hot Air readers already know our deep skepticism regarding these lawsuits. Barack Obama was born in the United States of one native-born American citizen (his mother), which should satisfy all but the bitter-enders of this election. Both Wrotnowski and Donofrio concede these points.
So why did Scalia send Wrotnowski to conference? Like Dave, I doubt that it’s to get a unanimous ruling on these challenges to Obama’s standing that will end all of the pointless legal battles. In any case, if Donofrio didn’t get four votes, there’s no reason to think that Wrotnowski will do any better — but it seems that Scalia and Thomas have made themselves the go-to guys on the court for all legal challenges to Obama’s election.
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I actually agree with you here. And it really IS the job of the Electoral College to vet the potential President Elect.
However, I have serious doubts that will actually happen since he has already claimed the title of President Elect before the Electoral College has even certified him. There is a lot that stinks about this whole situation.
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM
No I mentioned the email
Where did you get that info? It was not on the link you provided.
Where did you get that info? It was not at the link provided, plus it seems to contradict the article which claims Okuba’s statement was made by telephone and email, not at some kind of press conference.
Finally, if Fukino wanted to say that Obama was born in Hawaii, why didn’t he say that in the official statement? All he said is that he has it in his files. I guess the fact that he has it in his files could imply it, but you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME anything.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM
It’s also the job of the states to verify that anyone appearing on the ballot for the Presidential race is actually qualified to be there. Otherwise, the election is fraudulent.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You’re turning this into a criminal argument based upon one of my examples.
I am arguing that if he does not present proof of his claim, as required by the Constitution, then he is ineligible for public office. That’s it.
If something is required for employment, you present it or you don’t work there. This isn’t that hard.
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
So, let me see if I understand you – anyone can appear on a state ballot running for the Presidency. Is that what you’re saying?
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Now there I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I see that as more pure arrogance rather than some sort of sinister plot. He’s working on a cult of personality, and he has to maintain it.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM
As the man who will soon be sworn in to the high office of President of the United States and who will without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion take the oath of office stating, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“, I have decided to immediately grant complete and unabridged public access to my birth certificate to verify my eligibility to be your new President.
- Barack Obama
No wait a minute! Yes Michelle, I remember now. What was I thinking? I take that all back. It is henceforth and for all time stricken from the record. I will be a new kind of President. My subjects will henceforth refer to me as Your Majesty or The Exalted One, and so I don’t need to swear alligence, unless I have my fingers crossed, to any fracken outdated defective Constitution written by a bunch of old fracken dead fool racist white men birther punks.
- Barack Obama
MB4 on December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Um, yes, provided they meet the horribly variant rules from state to state. They do it every four years. The electoral college doesn’t bother with them because they know which candidates have a chance of winning.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Wow! Just wow. You think it’s fine for states to have candidates on the ballot who could never assume the office they’re running for – though the state doesn’t have to mention that to any voters.
You live in one strange world.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I do get it. Just bcs the law is inconsistent doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enforced as long as it’s a law.
Yes-these inconsistencies should be cleaned up, which is what I would hope all this attention would someday do.
I think many of our laws are repetitive &/or inconsistenst or even outdated. But they are still the law. So the crap needs to get cleaned up & cleared up, or the $hit will go on forever bcs people love their loopholes.
Badger40 on December 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I hadn’t considered the implications of that argument.
However, I would argue that the ballot access was submitted by the parties and that each party met the rules as required by each individual state. I don’t believe that the states vet the individuals on the ticket unless you are running as an independent.
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I believe that the D’Onofrio case goes after the SecState for not following Jersey law that she must verify the eligibility of Presidnetial candidates before allowing them on the ballot. She may have taken the party’s word for it, but that isn’t good enough and was not the requirement. That’s my understanding, and certainly seems sensible.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism’ and I can say with conviction that we conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Ever good American should line up and kick Barack Obama and his anti-Constitutionalist supplicants right in the ass. [updated]
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on December 9, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
NO AP YOU GOT IT WRONG, THEIR REALY BIRTHERS AND TRUTHERS
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You would think so.
Alana on December 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Ok, after reading that, I’ve got a serious headache…
Its the last Supreme Case that I’ve found having to do with “Natural Born”.
Chinese guy, born on American soil, of Two Chinese Parents, who, by law and treaty at the time could NOT become Naturalized citizens…
Talks about “Natural Born” in the reasoning, but stops short of declaring him a Natural Born Citizen…
In fact, the dissent even talks about it….
Grrrr….
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM
You wouldn’t have reason to disbelieve me if you are a trusting fool. As far as the proper authorities argument, well now that just hasn’t happened in the Obama birth certificate issue has it? And that’s the whole point of the exercise. We the people believe that the ‘proper authorities’ check these kinds of things. On this issue we have found out that not only did no legal authority actually check as to Obama’s birth but there is no body, organization or individual that has standing to do so.
Doesn’t that concern you in the least?
JonPrichard on December 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I didn’t say it was fine. I said that’s how it is. And again, while they could never assume the office, that’s far more to do with their chances for election than their citizenship status.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM
They seek it here, they seek it there
The Constitutionalists seek it everywhere
If you should see it, please do give a yell!
That demmed elusive Obama birth certificate that could cause all kinds of Hell
They seek it here, they seek it there
The Constitutionalists seek it everywhere
Oh, Barry, how the Constitutionalists do implore you
Simply to take it out of your lock box or from under your bed
With all your hiding
It’s going to be such a chore to look ahead!
They seek it here, they seek it there
The Constitutionalists seek it everywhere!
Barry gives the Constitutionalists nothing but frustration
Sink me! He’s a spoilsport
Each and every demmed revelation
He and his lawyers have been able to cut short
They seek it here, they seek it there
The Constitutionalists seek it everywhere
Is it in Hawaii or in Kenya
One thing we know for sure
The country sure seems to be going to Hell!
PercyB on December 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Considering I’ve never seen Dubya’s or Clinton’s birth certificate, no.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
LOL, just hit meh… under this, which appears to be the operative Supreme ruling… If the Supremes take this case as defining Natural Born as being born here… and as it argues that being the ONLY criteria…
“IF” Obmama was indeed born in Hawaii, he is eligable…
But McCain, is not… as the Canal Zone was foreign soil, by treaty, at the time of his birth, and Congress had not enacted anything prior to his birth saying otherwise…
How… interesting…. LOL….
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Here is the Hawaii Revised Statute that would allow Kenyan Obama to get a Hawaiian Birth Certificate:
The news reports have the cite wrong but it exists. Obama could have been born in Kenya and have a Hawaii Birth Certificate.
I have developed into a full fledged birther!
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Neither of those two had a non-citizen parent. And it should be noted both men publicly and proudly offered up copies of actual birth certificates. You may recall that Clinton’s was shocking because he was born a bastard.
JonPrichard on December 9, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Scalia and Thomas are making a huge mistake playing with the lunatics. It’s going to be the one of the little factiods known by the upper-middle Democratic voters and will do quite a bit to keep the Democrats on the voting reservation. It will be like how the upper middle class Democrats may not have really understood much about the Bush Administration, but they did know that the Bush Administration and the Congress were spending money like drunk sailors. They used the Republican’s profligate spending as their major defence against any criticism leveled against economic policy of the Democratic party. (Example actual conversation I had: I said minimum laws hurt the poor, and he said Republicans don’t understand the economy since they do so much wasteful government spending.) In this case, original intent jurisprudence is going to become a mockery.
Incidentally, this very much related to why moderation is a good idea. Scalia and Thomas have become such extreme rightist that they are repudiating the political common sense of conservatism to embrace the birther lunacy.
thuja on December 9, 2008 at 2:29 PM
And Obama’s father was not, so that means Obama was born in Hawaii…
question, you said revised, what was it in 1961? Loser, the same or more stringent?
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM
How do you know, had you seen their birth certificates?
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Um…when was this?
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Right. That is why I find it so counterproductive and counterintuitive that Obama would defy the discovery process in so many cases. This would be the simplest end to all the lawsuits.
Marine_Bio on December 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Um, actualy Obama senior had been a legal resident of Hawaii for at least a year… it says RESIDENT, not CITIZEN.
and his Mother had been as well.
What we don’t know (to be fair), is in this case, what they put down as place of birth.
But then, thats what Discovery is all about… which is what most of us want to allow in this situation… ie… to find out.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM
The Dow is dropping today due to Obama’s birth certificate.
getalife on December 9, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Want to hear a Hoot?
IF (big if) Obama was born in Kenya, and his parents were married, he would not be a citizen of the US, as his father was not a citizen, and his Mother was not old enough (19) to pass on that citizenship….
BUT, if Obama and his Mother were NOT LEGALY MARRIED? and he WAS born in Kenya, as illegitamate he DOES inherit from his Mother automaticly….
Oh what a tangled web we weave… LOL…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM
OK. No one ever said it always make sense!
LOL
Marine_Bio on December 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM
You are being an advocate. Thus, your mind is not open to the possibilities. To get a birth certificate, Obama Sr. did not need to be a citizen of the US or even a resident of Hawaii, all that he needed to do was “declare” that Hawaii had been their legal residence for the past year. Then poof, Kenyan Obama Jr. is given a Hawaii birth certificate.
So, it is possible. Was there fraud by his parents in securing him a birth certificate in Hawaii? Stranger things have happened. A look at the actual birth certificate would not be dispositive, but would certainly answer a lot of questions. The delivering doctor whose name would be on the actual birth certificate could be tracked down. 1) Was the doctor delivering babies in Honolulu in 61 or 2) is there no record that a doctor by that name ever existed?
If the birth certificate showed 1 (above), I’d be satisfied on the location of birth question, but I’d still like to see the court address the question of whether a dual citizen is eligible for POTUS.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Happy birthday. Yes, you do not have to be born in Hawaii to be born in Hawaii.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM
As others have said, the benefits of American citizenship are many. There need have been no grand conspiracy to erase any impediments to the Presidency. There need have been only the desire to make the boy Obama a citizen. It’s done every day of the year.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Who is the advocate? Looks like you keep leaving little details that are important. No where does it state all he had to do was “declare”, proof was needed. Caveat is what was deemed appropriate in 1961?
No disagreement here.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM
My point is that, I would think, offering options on the ballot, which could never be realized, would fall under each state’s own laws against fraud. I mean, assuming a state has a bait-and-switch law that applies to venders, as more than a few states do, that would seem to apply to offering candidates that are ineligible. I only pick the bait-and-switch specifically, because that makes the case seem obvious (though I assume there would be other anti-fraud statutes that would take care of the same sorts of problems).
As to chances for election, a state really can’t make, IMO, that assessment in their determination of who gets on the ballot (I would assume). There are minimal thresholds in all(?) states, to be sure, in the petitions that have to be supplied to begin to qualify for the ballot (and I guess the major parties might get some sort of exemption on this) but no one can ever really know what the final voting will tell, even if some candidate is extremely unpopular or not well known.
To me, it seems that a state putting a name on a ballot (even just representing the slate of electors that would be sent, as in the case of the Presidential race) is guaranteeing to all voters that that candidate is eligible to occupy that office. Otherwise, there can be no real trust in the process. And, while one ineligible candidate might not affect the election, that cannot be guaranteed. What if an ineligible candidate, who never gets close to winning, destroys an eligible candidate in a debate and costs him/her the election? (for just one example) It would do no good to try and fix everything afterwards, since what’s done is done, besides it would be impossible to measure the effect that the ineligible candidate had on the electorate.
This is just how I figure it.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM
If someone, anyone had come up with one example where this has happened, over the millions of birth since 1961, I would be more open. Just once to show it could happen, and that their indeed a low standard to prove your birth.
But the fact is, with all the research, all the blogging, all the investigation…no one has turned up one case of this happening, not one. You would think one innocent case, one time in the past 50 years and millions of birth (every birth gets one of these) someone would have come forward and said “Hey, it happened to me”…but not once in at least 50 years.
It shows to me, the system is at least 99.999999999% correct, and that .0000000001 would have been Obama?
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
LOL.. yeah, cause someone is going to come out of the woodwork and admit that they are NOT a US Citizen.
This is exactly why we need discovery, to look into the records and procedures, and find out how this law interacts with COLBs.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Where what happened? That someone obtained a Hawaii birth certificate fraudulently? Why would someone come forward and admit to that when there is so much at stake?
Or are you saying that Obama’s claim to be a natural born citizen must be true because no one else has ever come forward to say they claimed natural-born citizenship, when in fact, they were a citizen on some other basis?
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM
sorry. didn’t copy. It takes me that long sometime to compose my thoughts :)
Thanks for the great work btw.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM
No prob… at this point the whole thing would be amusing, if it was not so important…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 3:28 PM
But it is not fraudulent, it is within the system…you can have a father and mother that are residents for over one year…have the child born in Caifornia, and have it legally still be a citizen but the birth place as Honolulu, but it never happened. That is where you guys get goofy, you only think that if you are not born in Hawaii, it must be a foreign country.
The birth place doesn’t have to be a foreign country, it can still be the U.S…but even if in another country (like a military family) can still be a U.S. citizen…but that has never happened, one has not been found.
The odds of it happening to one person out of millions makes it very unlikely, almost impossible when you factor in it happened to be the one person who was President-elect.
You have a better chance at winning the lottery…or write down 7 numbers and that will be my phone number, the odds, if you were mathematically inclined, or objective, are extraordinary…but it would take a math or objective person to see the odds.
But to develop the odds, you would need an actual example to extrapolate the math…and there is no example. Right now the odds are 0%.
So I understand, I am trying to inject logic in a faith based belief…you guys won’t believe, you have too much invested, but others will see just the mathematical odds and see it would be so improbable I doubt you could calculate them.
But if just one example came forth, then we begin to understand the possibility.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Last week I was just another guy living my life. This week I’m a looney bitter-ender. Maybe HA should ban all reference to this Constitution thing. Then, if the natives are still restless, you could ban any reference to the rule of law or anything to do with laws. It might cut into your ad revenue but what good is money without ideological purity?
snaggletoothie on December 9, 2008 at 3:59 PM
They’re “constitutionalists, not extreme rightists. Of course, I can see how you would confuse the two, being liberal and all. Only a lefty could define an effort to uphold the constitution as extreme right in nature. While Ruth is playing politics, somebody has to do their job.
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM
BARACK OBAMA = NOT MY PRESIDENT
TheMightyQuinn on December 9, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Hey… did you know that this Doc is not even good enough to get a Hawaii DRIVERS LICENSE?
They want an “origional Birth Certificate”.
Just went and looked…. and its because this Doc does not meet the Requirements of the Real ID Act.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM
C’mon folks, do you actually THINK a court will do the right thing? Have any of you actually BEEN to court? Try winning a case Pro Se and see how valid the courts are.
Just remember, the Democrats consider; “It’s ONLY the Constitution” and Obama said himself; “The First and Second Amendments were obsolete soon after they were ratified.”
Maybe Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, maybe he was but he SURELY, according to his Selective Service Registration, has never validly registered with Selective Service, which is a FELONY.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
nelsonknows on December 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM
right2bright
Before I looked into this matter myself, I thought the birthers were nutz. Obama produced his birth certificate. End. Of. Story. It must be true because FactCheck.Org tells me so.
But then I learned that there is a difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate. Then I learn that Obama will release the COLB, but not the birth certificate although he could if he wants to. Then I learn that a baby born outside of Hawaii could get a Hawaii birth certificate even if not born in Hawaii if the parents declare they were residents of Hawaii for a year. Then I read that official statement from the State of Hawaii that says everything BUT THAT Obama was born in Hawaii.
This is like the search for God. He gives you the power to reason, shows you no sign of his existence, then damns you to hell if you don’t believe in him.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM
It looks like Bob Owens is on the Obama Selective Service Application.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/2/
Again, Obama’s Selective Service application is FRAUDULENT.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
nelsonknows on December 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Last time I checked being a felon wasn’t a bar to serving as president- although one would hope that it was.
Interesting how we’re about to hand over the nuclear launch codes to a guy who can’t even get a Driver’s License with the documentation he’s provided.
There’s so much smoke coming off this guy I’m starting to think maybe he isn’t real at all but rather a figment of the main stream media’s imagination.
Browncoatone on December 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM
You got your facts confused and mixed up.
But bottom line, and I linked it and quoted it…the official spokesperson stated that Obama was born in Honolulu…she sent an email confirming that and an interview confirming that.
That is the official spokesperson for Health and Services of Hawaii.
Now others, like romeo, do not believe what is quoted or stated, but the fact is, on the record, and official made that statement in response to the question. Does that mean Obama was born in Hawaii, and the answer as a definitive affirmative.
And you can use your certificate of birth to get a drivers license from Hawaii…another internet rumor.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Uh oh. Now the gang at HotAir is going to have to think up a whole new smear-name for the “Registrationers”.
Rug … Sweep … All gone.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Hey Nelson,
Did you ever email Bob Owens with Debbie’s link? If so, what did he say?
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Hopefully this will embarrass you to the point that you will admit that you are a nutcase…
emphasis mine…the certified birth ID card is what Obama has.
Yes the State Certified Birth Certificate is the same (there is an original, what you want to see, and a certified, what Obama has) as what Obama has…oh my, you are stretching….
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Not the id but the state certified birth certificate is what Obama has.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Look. The guy’s a fraud in a lot of ways, some we already know, more we will come to know.
Still wouldn’t make a diff. to the media or Obama voters. The ones I know were willfully stupid, or actively anti-capitalist and anti-American– not merely innocents misled.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Yeah, I know. I was just making a funny and blowing off some steam.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
As crazy Sarah Palin lapses inexorably back into obscurity, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Lord above for the emergence of the Birthers, who bring much-needed levity to these trying times.
benny shakar on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I have had my doubts as to Hawaii having a difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of birth, so I did some searching and found this
http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/vrl/dlgeninfo.html#senior
Under “Proof of Name, Birth, Date, Etc.” it calls for a certified birth certificate.
Further down under “Requirements for Application for Commercial Driver’s License” Proof of Status it calls for a certificate of birth.
This indicates to me they are not one and the same.
txsurveyor on December 9, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Yeah, I know. I was just making a funny and blowing off some steam.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM
That damn Governor wouldn’t even abort the brat. Crazy religous bigot hunting bi*ch (if she had him at all, hint hint.)
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 5:09 PM
You speak the truth … unfortunately. If anyone cared about any of his multiple frauds, they would just go right to the campaign contributions/credit card scheme. But no one even cares to talk about that, anymore. It doesn’t get more overt.
I’ve lost all confidence in our populace, any of our institutions and any of our “representatives” or public advocates. I see little but cowardice, avarice and stupidity.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Not embarrased at all, because the Certificate of Live Birth is different under Hawaii law than a Certified Birth Certificate… because, under the US Real ID Act, the Certificate of Live Birth does NOT proove Identity, as it can be changed.
On another page, which I am now too lazy to go look at, it specificly tells people to remember to bring their ORIGIONAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Well benny, you always have your gov. selling senate seats to be proud of.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I looked and the definition I provided is accurate. They only request the certified, not the original.
The certified and the certified ID,is acceptable for Social Security, drivers license, state welfare, passport, etc. It is all listed.
Perhaps you looked at another and got confused, but look at the state sites they will detail what I said.
But, it won’t matter to you…you won’t believe it even if they tell you, because you don’t know who and when it was posted…it will never be enough for you…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Those of you who think it is tin hattish to think there is something up with Obama blocking out parts of his life, really have to get over your Obamasexualism. As for the claim that the Certificate of Live Birth that is issued by Hawaii is sufficient proof of “the one’s” citizenship status, keep in mind that Obama’s sister also has a COLB and she was born in Indonesia. So much for that argument.
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 5:55 PM
That’s what I have been asking for…hers says she was born in Hawaii, but she was actually born in Indonesia?
Is that what you are saying?
Here is what Romeo and the rest are looking for, and what I have been demanding to see if it actually happened.
Link please, this is great…and from the same family.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Of course you realize that if this is from “techdude”, or some other hoax site…or that you don’t have a link, and you don’t have a pic of her actual COLB, that makes you look like a fool and a tool…you know that right?
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Interesting, for 5 bucks he could just ask for a letter of verification of his Hawaii birth…
But even more interesting is this….
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
Apparently a couple of affidavits whould suffice for this…
or this…
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/amendment.html
Where for the bargain price of $3.00 you can ask them to amend your Birth Cert.
Wow… this just keeps gettin better and better….
Still lookin though…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Yaaaaawwwn…look what your buddy quoted, his 1/2 sister has a COLB that shows she was born in Hawaii, but was actually born somewhere else, but nobody has any copies or actually seen it, but it exists, and is real, but no one has a picture or has seen it, but it is real….
BTW your ID act is for, I think, people born after jan1, 2009…I don’t think that applies to Obama.
Nice try…but desperate…
look at the restrictions for stating you are a resident for one year, read the hoops you have to jump through to have what you say is common place, but has no proof has showed up.
The paperwork is ridiculous, now I see why no one has shown what you claim…it is nearly impossible. Great security….
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Tried to get a kid a drivers license lately? I have… its the new standard for Government IDs.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I don’t know if there’s any truth to the story that Obama’s original long form birth certificate indicates he was born female, but I for one wouldn’t care.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Is seems that the Certificate of Live Birth is the Verification of the contents of the actual birth certificate and to be fair to the birther skeptics, the Verification indicates a Hawaiian birth. The questions for the birthers is 1) could the Hawaiian birth have been falsified by Obama’s parents? and 2) if the birth certificate can be amended for 3 bucks, was Obama’s amended and if so, what was crossed out and changed. All these questions could be answered by the birth certificate, but the COLB provides no light on any of these questions.
Also, none of this impacts the question of whether a dual citizen can be POTUS, or whether stepdad could or did renounce his citizenship.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 7:04 PM
That’s a scary comment and conservatives being dismissive and agreeing with this statement must not know these two gentlemen. They aren’t right wing hacks and if you put the jurisprudence of Ginsburg and Souter over them then I’d check myself first!
Example of Scalia smack down of Souter:
“To Souter’s three and a half pages, Scalia offered eleven pages of retort. He also hinted to his real concern: that Souter’s opinion would give comfort to foreign abolitionists. He wrote:
There exists in some parts of the world sanctimonious criticism of America’s death penalty, as somehow unworthy of a civilized society. (I say sanctimonious, because most of the countries to which these finger-waggers belong had the death penalty themselves until recently – and indeed, many of them would still have it if the democratic will prevailed.) It is a certainty that the opinion of a near-majority of the United States Supreme Court to the effect that our system condemns many innocent defendants to death will be trumpeted abroad as vindication of these criticisms. For that reason, I take the trouble to point out that the dissenting opinion has nothing substantial to support it.”
Example of Scalia smack down of Breyer:
Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the “arrogance” of U.S. judges who seek to decide politically charged questions involving gay rights and the death penalty by citing international law.
The conservative judge sparred Thursday with Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a rare televised debate at American University on the role of foreign judgments in deciding Supreme Court cases.
Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including those decriminalizing gay sex and banning the execution of the mentally retarded.
“What you’re looking for are the standards of decency of American society,” Scalia said. “What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?
“Doesn’t it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?” he said, arguing that elected legislatures should make those decisions.”
Don’t forget that they’re the ones holding our water at SCOTUS. You’ll be very sorry to see an Obama replacement, believe me!
Sultry Beauty on December 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM
This is why there is so much confusion…you can’t amend it for $3.
You just don’t send in $3 and amend it, there is a process…that is what is failed to mention in all of these posts…people post what they want and others, like you, attach themselves to these “facts”.
You should see what is required…but then if you did, you wouldn’t be a birtherist…you would leave the cult.
Anything that is amended, must me left on and crossed out, and there is more then that…but there was no “cross out”. Remember, but you keep forgetting you fool, the official state spokesperson stated in an email and interview that Obama was born in Hawaii.
And show me the amended COLB, it should have the crossed out areas.
Sheesh, you guys are weird and scary…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Where is your authority that the COLB would contain the crossed out material? I do not know it for a fact, but I doubt that it would. It seems the purpose of the COLB is to summarize the contents of the original document and leave out information that one may not want it to include. What would birthers, or any skeptical person, think if Obama’s original BC indicated Kenya as place of birth under that section but was amended later to claim Honolulu as place of birth? That would raise legitimate questions. What would you think if the BC showed Honolulu as place of birth but the delivering doctor was a fictitious name of a doctor that never existed?
Of course, if he bothered to produce the BC and it showed a place of birth of Honolulu and named a legitimate doctor as the deliverer and was not amended, this whole controversy would be over.
On that statement by the Hawaii Health Department, the official statement was only that they were in possession of the original and that they were not asked by anyone to treat its release any different. It was conspicuously silent on place of birth. Then another alleged spokeswoman claimed the official statement said something concerning his place of birth, when it clearly did not say anything about place of birth. Games are being played. The official statement did not say he was born in Hawaii. The spokeswoman did not say he was born in Hawaii. She said the statement said he was born in Hawaii when the statement says no thing. It’s called plausible deniability. If it’s not true no one is lying, the spokeswoman just misinterpreted the meaning of the official statement.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Which official federal government position is supposed to verify that a candidate is eligible?
Why hasn’t this issue been put to rest beyond a doubt by that official?
If this has been done, would someone please provide a link.
That is the story I’d like to see actually covered.
Instead we see ridicule and derogatory remarks thrown at those simply asking for the proper government authority to do their job.
cryptojunkie on December 9, 2008 at 9:18 PM
By, “most of us” you mean “those who aren’t paying attention”. ALL of those who HAVE been paying attention, you know, RESEARCHING, knew all along that this wasn’t any where NEAR the end. In fact, if this one isn’t heard, it still isn’t the end. There were, at last count, 17 lawsuits in 17 states pending, including Alan Keyes’. Nope, we’re just gettin’ started. Gee, maybe HA ought to start paying attnetion now? Ya think?
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 PM
You can file a thousand frivolous law suits, it does not make your silly fantasy any more valid.
Squid Shark on December 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM
If a person were to sue for a ballot claiming the right to vote because he’s an American citizen would his claim be dismissed out of hand because it’s “frivolous”? Or would a court have to rule whether he was or was not, in fact, an American citizen?
Look, it’s not like the constitution hasn’t been violated before. Senators Henry Clay, John Eaton, and Armistead Thomson Mason all served in the Senate in direct violation of Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution. The constitution will survive this- it’s made of paper not glass.
But that doesn’t mean we should just dismiss it out of hand.
Perhaps what we need is a Constitutional amendment that would detail who decides who is qualified for the presidency so that this kind of thing won’t end up on the USSC’s docket again. It seems to work for the senate.
Browncoatone on December 10, 2008 at 2:51 AM
It sounds like the work of the electoral college, the body already designated to do this very job but the constitution.
Squid Shark on December 10, 2008 at 6:12 AM
Yes, the President-Elect must be certified at that level, however, that does not obviate the fact that the states have their own responsibilities, by individual state law, to verify that the candidates that appear on their ballots are eligible. That is the basis of the D’Onofrio and Wrotnowski (or whatever his name is) cases and, I would imagine, many of the other state cases, though some seek to stop the electors from being sent until verification is assured. If all these fail then there is still, as you mention, the federal responsibility (and ultimate one) to verify his eligibility.
progressoverpeace on December 10, 2008 at 6:33 AM
And any good liberal, only a good liberal, would believe that the EC would do an examination of The One. Like Bwarney Frwank and Dodd watched out for bad mortgages.
IlikedAUH2O on December 10, 2008 at 6:33 AM
The fact that you don’t know, or will take the time to find out that amended COLB must have the information amended struck out and kept on the certificate, shows you have no knowledge or willingness to have the truth.
Listen, you and Romeo and a couple of dozen wacko’s can keep believing, and we will keep laughing at you…
You guys can post whatever, and not feel any real blow-back for being so crazy…but I guarantee, if you had your lively hood, your reputation, your families reputation on the line, you would not be stating these things.
Other words, the beauty for you is you can be as crazy as a loon, and it doesn’t matter…
right2bright on December 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM
BHO has Patrick Fitzgerald rumaging through his skeleton-filled closet. I hope Fitzgerald hurls those bones into the bright light of day.
I found this to be interesting. Could be BS or not. You decide.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/12/rahm-and-blago-discussed-bribe.html
infidelgranny on December 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3