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: 1 2 3 Next »
Perhaps. But if it means a presidential candidate actually has to prove his citizenship then the court’s actions are justified.
Browncoatone on December 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM
There is a very simple way to clear this up.
Senator Obama…….
NeoKong on December 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Birthers to the left of me, Birthers (Excitable Andy) to the left :)
BJ* on December 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Heaven forbid the guy with the launch codes be forced to prove his citizenship!
Browncoatone on December 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
This case isn’t about his certificate of birth, that has been determined to be legally correct and accurate as the actual birth certificate.
I think this has to do with Obama, McCain concerning the terms “natural born citizens”.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 9:43 AM
This would all go away if Obama would show his birth certificate.
I am skeptical of this, but why wont he show it? Why did he fly to Hawaii and have his birth certificate sealed? Why all the secrecy?
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama probably doctored his citizenship to go to good schools for free as an alien. Back then, he probably thought it wouldn’t matter later in life. Lets hope the entire issue gets smoked out.
saiga on December 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Sigh…
Once again, with feeling…
Leo Donofrio’s case was NOT about Obamas birth Certificate, its about whether a dual citiazen (British/US) is a Natural Born Citizen under the Constitution.
It also goes after McCain’s birth in Panama, and the Socialist candidate Roger Colero (who is a resident alien, and on the ballot in FIVE STATES).
To lump Leo Donofrio with Berg, is a true injustice…
But I’m sure it will drive a lot of posts.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Yawn.
perroviejo on December 9, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Is it possible they want the court to define, once and for all, just exactly what “Natural Born Citizen” means? There seems to be some confusion on that issue.
MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 9:51 AM
I in no way think Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii but I agree completely with Ace that its not about being a truther, its about congress picking and choosing what part of the constitution they apply and don’t apply.
All of these lawsuits I agree don’t have standing, just because you’re a citizen. But Alan Keyes as someone running for the presidency I believe does have standing in his suit for proof that Obama meet the minimum consitutional requirements to run for the highest office in the country.
And I don’t care, congress can and would change the meaning of natural born citizen to make it fit Obama even if it shows some irregularities. I just want them to uphold the constitution.
broker1 on December 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM
sigh, no matter how many times you repeat this lie, it does not make it true.
Your “proof” has been debunked so many times its pathetic, and the statement you use to “proove” this would be adsolutely inadmissable in a court of law.
Until this is prooven by COMPENTENT authority, which it has not, it will remain an issue in some eyes…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 9:53 AM
See, “Birther” causes problems. I hear birther, I think Andrew Sullivan and his Trig conspiracy theory. We need something a little more distinguishable.
Oh, and *facepalm* to any posters who are still holding out hope. Obama’s being a non-citizen is as likely as the rise of the NAU and the January 19th national emergency where Bush takes office indefinitely now that everyone’s figured out it was really HIM THAT DID 9/11 OH DON’T YOU SEE THE TRUTH MAN????
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Thank you ED and Allah for treating those of us who would like to see this issue resolved like a bunch of mindless a@#es.
Hey he won, i don’t like it but he won. We need new leadership and the republican party with rise again.
But why do you guys have to degrade us by calling us birthers or truthers.
We just want to know he is natural born, and that is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very easy to prove.
Its not like we are saying he is a secret terrorist, and he wants to convert us all to Islam.
we just want to see a vault copy of BC.
Is that really so bad that you put us on the level of 9/11 truthers. really!
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
It seems to me,
That if a person doesn’t have to show his birth certificate to become president,
Then,
I don’t have to show one, when I apply for another driver’s license… Or another Social Security number.
right?
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
sorry (with) should be WILL
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
It doesnt take much either to get a duplicate birth certificate. I lost mine and went online, paid to have one issued and received it in a week.
Heck..you need 2 proofs of birth to apply for anything..public assistance, social security, driver’s license, etc. Shouldnt you have to show one to be POTUS?
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I wouldn’t mind HotAir being skeptical about Proofers (birth certificate) or Definers (dual citizenship and the definition of ‘natural born citizen’) if you, at least, were pursuing and writing about the absolute need for investigations of the clear campaign fraud that we all know went on. We do all know that what BHO did with AVS is totally illegal and worse – and that is but one piece of the most dishonest and fraudulent campaign I have ever seen.
But you people have acted as if that actual fraud never went on (a fraud hundreds of times larger than the Watergate slush fund and an entree to foreign cash – another big no-no) and, instead, are spending all your efforts trying to smear and insult people who just want the Court to handle the basic eligibility certification that, obviously, no one else in the US bothered to do.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Simple.
Because the birth certificate has been provided, and you people called fraud. The onus is on you to prove it is such, but you claim the onus is on others to prove you wrong. That is the essence of a conspiracy theory.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Regis, I’d like to call a friend…
I’d like to call…
Mr. Obama…
Well, AT&T, let’s get Mr. Obama on the phone…
God forbid that anyone should be denied access to the courts of one’s country regardless of how kooky others may feel of the merits of your argument.
And of course Mr Obama could make all of this go away today if…
turfmann on December 9, 2008 at 10:01 AM
If SCOTUS punts, history will record that they never answered a nagging question. Best possible result, given the election: SCOTUS hears the case, fisks it good and proper. (Or tells a lower court to demand an affidavit from Hawaii on the existence or non-existence of the birth certificate). Second best: SCOTUS hears the case, rules that Obama is not qualified to be president. Second worst case, IMO: SCOTUS refuses to take it and the question goes into the history books unanswered. Worst case: SCOTUS takes the case, gives it a half-hearted laugh, and rules.
njcommuter on December 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM
What is next? Are they going to claim that since he was born by C-section that is was not natural? (And no I do not know how he was born, just making a point.) The man was born to a mother who was a US citizen. The state of Hawaii says he was born there. This seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Dawnsblood on December 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Ed: I liked it better when you were the Captain and sailed your own ship. However, after several months I’m happy you are finally starting to read the actual court cases. The “birthers” or the “truthers” as you now call “us” don’t care what HA, MM, LGF, NRO, Strata-sphere, and the rest of the “so called conservative” webmasters using the RNC RINO talking points are on this subject matter.
We still have a constitution and the USSC will sooner or later determine “us” (i.e. we the people) have standing in front of the court.
luckybogey on December 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Look, all the evidence points to Obama being born in Hawaii, which is the only pertinent issue because if he is born in the US then he is a US citizen- no matter who his parents are.
It still confuses me to no end why Obama doesn’t just present a certified copy of his birth certificate thereby shutting everybody up about it.
It’s not that hard to get a copy, and if I need one to get a drivers license, why shouldn’t a man have to present it to get on the presidential ballot.
Understand- I fully believe that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen, I just don’t get why he doesn’t end this nonsense when it would be so easy too.
Sackett on December 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Actually I had never heard of this other case before and only knew about the one filed by Berg, which was why I was confused when the media reported this challenge was ended. If fact when the media reported about the dismissed cased, they had a line in the articles that stated Bergs case was still in the works, yet everyone including you seem to declare it ended.
JeffinSac on December 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Strange. That’s what the same people who claimed the NAU was imminent said when the same people you listed wouldn’t buy into that crap either.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Enough of this already. Now it’s going to get spun to make the conservative justices look bad.
forest on December 9, 2008 at 10:05 AM
People have the right to have access to our courts whether anyone agrees with the issue or not.
Blake on December 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Has Obama shown a certified birth certificate?
All the news reports I’ve been able to find have said that he provided a birth certificate issued by the hospital- not the official one provided by the state.
I don’t know about Hawaii, but in my state, hospital issued birth certificates are explicitly not accepted as proof of citizenship.
If he has shown a certified birth certificate, I’d sure like to be pointed to somewhere that shows it or has a news report on it, as I’ve been looking everywhere for it just so I can show it to people and get them to give up this nonsense and admit that Obama is a citizen.
Sackett on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
<blockquoteSimple.
Because the birth certificate has been provided, and you people called fraud. The onus is on you to prove it is such, but you claim the onus is on others to prove you wrong. That is the essence of a conspiracy theory.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
BULLSH&^
He has not shown a vault copy of BC, he has shown a Certification of Live Birth.
If you believe him to be Natural Born, then why would you not want to see it also. Like I posted on last tread yesterday, showing the Vault copy of the BC should be the evidence both sides want to make the other side look like they are crazy.
But your side don’t care. You except a form that would not get your kid into little league in some states. Go figure. We’re just dumb a&&
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I thought “Journalists,” including bloggers, were inherently curious types.
Doesn’t anyone wonder what’s on a birth certificate, that’s worth $100,000 to conceal?
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
So Scalia and Thomas are just sort of messing with us?
Either the case has merit or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t have merit, then Scalia and Thomas are rubes.
If it does have enough merit to be referred, then exactly what is the bitch against birthers?
I personally have no doubt Obama is a fellow citizen. I just don’t understand the eagerness — and it really is transparent — of the ruling class to lower the bar for Obama. It smells like appeasement and the Obama camp is milking it because they will find this tactic useful in coming battles. Give the black guy a pass. You don’t want to start trouble, do you?
jeff_from_mpls on December 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I had to provide a certified copy of my birth certificate to join the military. The future commander in chief could at least be held to the same standard. Just show the damn BC and end this nonsense once and for all.
And while you’re at it, let’s see your entire medical records, school transcripts, donor records for contributions under $200, and all the other records you promised…
rbb on December 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Slow down! Slow down! My popcorn maker is lagging a bit!
Jazz Shaw on December 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Amen! He has hidden a lot from us. Once again, why the secrecy?
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
You making fun of my spelling? Big bully, LOL
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
No, I was pointing out the argument you made which, by the way, left me in stitches.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Doesn’t anyone wonder what’s on a birth certificate, that’s worth $100,000 to conceal?
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I don’t think anybody is concealing anything. I think Obama is using this episode to establish the fact that he gets a pass on the rules whenever he wants.
Amazingly, conservative bloggers have let him get that foot in the door.
Don’t come crying when Obama uses this exact same ploy in the future. It’ll have different content, but the same dynamic. It’s the tactic Hillary used to play dumb about the 1,000 FBI files. Chuck Colson did prison time for 1 FBI file, but Hillary just shrugged her shoulders, “I forgot, and I don’t owe you an explanation.” And she got a pass, because she’s a girl. Obama’s getting a pass. He’ll use the ploy again.
jeff_from_mpls on December 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Oh, well then. We certainly don’t want to look bad.
Like so many other posters have said: this controversy is easily put to rest: produce the %&*#$% birth certificate and this argument is quashed forever. How hard is that logic to follow? Just do it.
What’s 0 so afraid of? That we might find out his parents were never legally married? Oh the horror!! This is a guy who maintains long-term associations with, to put it mildly, people of questionable reputation and background. Mere appearances are the least of 0′s concerns and priorities.
NTXLass on December 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I agree with Ace on this issue.
Spirit of 1776 on December 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Sadly, I agree. You are adrift, CAPT.
crash72 on December 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Think long and hard on this, all of you (MM, Capt. Ed, AP, LGF’s Charles Johnson, and I don’t care how many other right-wing bloggers).
Obama has to fulfill the requirement stated in the Constitution, now in dispute (hence the need of Supremes to interpretation), even if he is elected by the people.
Supremes punting the ball IS derelection of their duty. It is what they are required to do: interpret the Founding Fathers’ intent.
If you don’t like the wording, there is a proper process to remedy that.
When you (Ed) complain about some other laws/rules being broken, you don’t have too much credibility any more. WHO gets to decide which set of rules/laws apply or not apply?
This whole mess should never have happened if all candidates get the same properly vetted process. Same thing could happen in the next election, if ‘media’ gets to decide they want to ram an foreign born transsexual or some such on us.
Sir Napsalot on December 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Didn’t you hear? Possible embarrassment trumps Constitutionality.
After all, conservatives would be treated so well otherwise, but this demand that for Constitutional eligibility to actually be examined and certified … that’s just crazy talk.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I continue to be floored by those who ridicule those that want to see a copy of OB’s birth certificate containing a seal. We’ve made the argument why a Certificate of Live Birth doesn’t suffice. BTW, my Certificate of Live Birth from CA did not suffice for my Military ID or my passport. I had to pay for a certified copy from the state.
Why on earth is it unusual or weird for the American people to ask to see a document that provides proof of requirements in the Constitution?
In these days of photoshop and faux journalism that HotAir and Malkin expose all the time, why are you so expecting now? We know BO isn’t beyond lying. We know that fraud was a regular part of his campaign from the voter registrations to the campaign contributions. Why do you think he’s beyond this?
katablog.com on December 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
1. “Deep skepticism” about these lawsuits is not something you – Ed, Michelle and AP – have some sort of monopoly on.
*I* have “deep skepticism” about these lawsuits.
Yet Hot Air has called me and other readers all kinds of names, including “birthers,” and implied we are weirdo fringe loons, simply because we are interested in having these issues clarified and the Constitution upheld.
2. “most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest”
Most of you name-callers, you mean. Those of us who are concerned about this already knew there were more cases coming up, and what’s more, know the elementary difference between the cases.
Conclusion: Try researching and reporting the developments of an issue prior to calling a large portion of your readership names. When you are behind the curve of your readership, it looks especially bad.
Alana on December 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Well, BOZO, I am tired of you saying I am lying, when I post for you to read a quote from an official from Hawaii.
Take it up with her, not me…she is the official spokesperson and was quoted both in email and verbally this:
When you find a higher authority saying that what she said is materially wrong then quote it.
Meanwhile to say I am posting a lie, is getting tiresome…show me where she did not state this.
You don’t like the quote (it completely undermines your argument), so you say people who state it are lying…well I wonder what that makes you? It is an actual statement from the official that should make that statement.
No back off you idiot, and quit throwing out vindictive statements that do nothing but make you look foolish…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
BREAKING: OBAMA ACTUALLY ALIEN JESUS
Go to ObamaAlientruth.org
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Ditto. 300 million people who live and die under the Consitituion simply shouldn’t accept that someone who does not fulfill Constitutional requirements is set to take office.
This is not the same thing as contesting hanging chads or promulgating conspiracies about WTC implosions. IF you think it is, say how the “illogic” matches up between each case, instead of casting argument-closing aspersions. Until then, please respect the legitimate questions about a person who has gaping holes in his bio.
Western_Civ on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
And she rejected basic hygiene more than two decades ago.
Was that necessary? No… but that’s how I roll, sorry.
RightWinged on December 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Where’s W’s birth certificate? Heck, where’s mine?
RayinVA on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
FYI, referring it to the full Court is a way to get rid of applications. If they don’t refer it, the applicant will just keep sending it to other Justices. This way, they can all reject it at once. It’s standard procedure.
Scalia and Thomas don’t need to refer it. They could just accept to hear oral arguments if they thought four justices would want to hear the case. Since they have only referred the case, it’s likely it’s meant to speed up the process of denying it.
MrX on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
ditto.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
So much disinformation… so little time…
There are TWO distince issued in play here, but most Right Pundits continue to lump them together.
Berg, a 9/11 truther, and suspect character, has audio tape of Obama’s Grandmother saying he was born in Kenya. As the Ceritificate of Live Birth shown on an pro obama website (but not produced to any competent authority), can be modified during adoption proceedings, and can even be issued to people not born in Hawaii, it is not definitive proof in a court… they would during discovery ask for the origional Birth records.
If Obama was indeed born in Kenya, under the law at the time he is NOT EVEN A US Citizen (under law, his mom would have to have lived in America for 5 years after the age of 14, ie be 19 years old, to pass citizenship through her).
Thats one issue…. Berg’s case…
WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN Leo’s now TWO cases, in front of the Supremes.
Under the Constitution, you have to be a “Natural Born Citizen” to be President. At the time this was understood to be a US citizen, and ONLY a US Citizen. As there were TWO legal ways to become a citizen at birth… be born on US Soil, or be born the offspring of an American Father… they determined that to be President you needed to meet both criteria… to ensure that the President was ONLY a US citizen.
Obama’s father, at the time of his birth, was a British Citizen (Kenya was not a country yet)… so at BIRTH Obama WAS a British/US citizen by law, and thus under the origional intent of the “Natural Born” clause, not eligable to be President. Does not matter WHERE Obama was born for Leo’s case, as that is NOT the issue.
Please folks, keep the two straight, as so many even RUNNING Blogs are not.
OH, and just as a final point, Leo’s case has NOT been dismissed. It is listed on the Supreme Court docket as Emergency STAY denied, but Case still Pending.
“
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I’m 95% convinced Obama is a natural born citizen, but I’m 100% convinced that there’s something on his birth certificate that he doesn’t want us to see. I think we have a right to know what it is.
Kafir on December 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I suspect, he was born a female, named Barbara, and had a sex change at some point.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
jus’ sayin’
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
The Birth Cert/citizenship might not matter. The Feds just took Illinois Gov Blagdove Buugoogvo Whatever, his name is, into custody.. Seems that among other things, he was trying to sell Barryo’s senate seat.
Talk about a freaking constituional crisis. I Wonder what happens in Blagovidich adn Retzho start singing the same song about BHO. ??
I had discussed this with my kid when it looked like Retzkjo might name obama (and I really think the McMansion deal should be indictable).. We could end up with the winner of the election sitting in a jail cell on innauguration day…
bullseye on December 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Birthers? Oh the drollery.
I had to show my BC to play little league baseball. Why is it a problem for this clown to show his brth certificate to fulfill a constitutional requirement and erase all doubt in the minds of those he serves? And why does Ed think he has to mock people who want to see it?
Apparently the SCOTUS thinks it’s at least important enough to look into.
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Really? What birth certificate?
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Why whats so funny about that? and don’t laugh to hard, you have to add and subtract numbers today for people or you company, would not want you to mess up!
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM
And at some point that’s doing damage to the country.
Sorry, dude, but liberals forfeited the right to feign indignation about damage to the country long ago. And after all, we’re just asking questions don’t you know ….
What a hypocritical douchebag.
Blacksheep on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
What if SCOTUS tells him to produce his BC and he refuses on privacy grounds?!
Oh man, what fun would ensue. Please SCOTUS, please please please!!!
Akzed on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
This one.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
BERG is irrelevant. But he did start asking questions, and they have not been answered. As a US citizen he has every right to expend money and effort in pursuing this in the legal system, and he has. Berg asked for a long list of documents, not just the vault copy of the birth certificate, and while I would have been satisfied if Obama had provided the COLB and a couple of the other ones requested (it was a very long list), Obama has not complied with discovery requests, which is extremely curious. That curiosity is what fuels the fire on this one. Why not comply? I’m sure there may be some who would never let this die, but I think the vast majority of the people asking why he hasn’t complied would stop if he did.
Ultimately this is not the same as 9/11 trutherism. It may have been placed in that realm, thanks to Berg prescribing to that faulty belief, but this really lies in the hands of Obama to resolve, whereas the 9/11 truther stuff has multiple means of resolution.
Take for example, the stupid thermite argument for why there was molten metal at the site, simple stoichiometry applies, so 2Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2Fe has a piece of the debunking, and that means there needed to be tons of aluminum in combination with tons of RUST. The law of conservation of matter would preclude this from being possible, if the common sense meter doesn’t do it.
Now, take for example the whole natural born citizen argument. Obama has not been forthcoming with the discovery process in MULTIPLE lawsuits, and for whatever reason his records are sealed. From my simplistic perspective on this one, birth location trumps having parents from another country, or else the illegal immigrant anchor baby meme is a myth. As such, this should be the EASIEST way for him to eliminate these lawsuits. Obama is the one who has the control on how this will be resolved.
At what point does Obama’s non-compliance with legal requests for discovery become an issue for the people who want to dismiss this as “birther”, “proofer” or any other label?
The related tangential questions are how well do you think that would work for you to refuse discovery in a courtroom and why does Obama get a pass for this with so many people?
How many times of full compliance would it take to dismiss this forever with 80% of the people who find this highly unusual, like me?
(By the way, it is one time for those like me.)
Marine_Bio on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
By the way….
I believe MM has written in support of Obama’s eligibility to be President as a “natural-born citizen,” and that (I hope I do justice to her here) those who think otherwise are engaging in “Truther” conspiracy theories. I’d like to know why she beileves this, but cannot find it on her blog. Can anyone provide a link?
manwithblackhat on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Okay, news flash for folks: I’m not an accountant. It was the first option selectable when I made my blog, and I didn’t put in my real profession because I’d rather not have my job at risk in this town by people in my company being sore about my politics.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Dude, don’t tease me like that. :D
NTXLass on December 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Actually? We don’t. Especially in a world where you pretty much believe he is a natural born citizen. He’s met the litmus test. Anything else on his birth certificate would be his private business. Why should we have that info if it doesn’t have new insight into this “question” (it hurt me to even type that word about this “topic” ugh, there it goes again).
DeathToMediaHacks on December 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
This is amazing…he has a certificate of birth with the state seal, with a signature, and deemed accurate. It is the same certificate of birth that every Hawaiian is issued. Every one…
Now one “self described” expert (that right, no history or real work experience, but self described), looked at the scanned photocopies and determined they didn’t look right.
That is what all this is based on, a non expert, saying he is an expert.
Hawaiian officials, the most knowledgeable, has stated he was born in Honolulu…
Here is the court case:
Judge: Who is your witness…a self described expert that says he has vast knowledge, with no known credentials, but he blogs a lot…
Judge: And who is you witness…The official spokesperson for the Health and Services Department of the State of Hawaii. She officially speaks for the dept. in all matters and has over a 15 year history of exemplary service to the State of Hawaii.
Judge: and what does your witness say…he says it is a forgery based on looking at a website photo of a scan of the original. There was only one fold (oops later there were two), no seal or signature (oops the seal and signature was on the back as they should have been), the border on wesite post of the scanned image was blurred…
Judge: and what does you witness say…That is was accurate and that Obama was born in Honolulu as the certificate of birth states. Based upon my superiors personal analysis of the original birth certificate. They found no anomalies, and I am stating as an official of the State of Hawaii that he was born in Honolulu.
Gee, I wonder who has the stronger case…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I’m getting a little sick and tired of Hot Air stating that BO was born here and there is no there, there.
How does MM know this? Is MM trying to curry favor with the MSM? On what is Michelle relying on to draw this conclusion, an obscure classified ad in a Honolulu newspaper? Why not just shine a little sunshine on this and make it go away?
I want definitive proof that BO is constitutionally qualified to be President. I am entitled to, and demand it. I had to do it when I became a citizen (produce an actual Birth Certificate) but he gets a pass?
epluribusunum on December 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Very simple, I will continue to call a LIE your assertion that this statment means anything.
She, as Hawaii officials have said time and time again, in every other interview, cannot release that information, or say he was born in Hawaii.
She is interpreting a statement made by a competent Official, saying she said somthing SHE DID NOT. Hearsay evidence, implicating an Official in an illegal act.
And worst of all, we have the source quote, where the origional Official very carefully did NOT SAY WHAT THIS SPOKESMAN, WHO MAY HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN THERE, ILLEGALY SAYS SHE SAID!
Yeah, illegal statements based on hearsay, from someone who has NOT seen Obama’s birth cert, certainly makes that statemnt TRUE AND INCONTRAVERTABLE FACT!
But please, continue to call this PROOF… its become amusing…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Clearly, the Proofers (people with anti-Birther Derangement Syndrome) are more than happy to stay obsessed with Birthers.
Christien on December 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
During Ed’s weekend NARN show, he talked about Art 1 Sec. 6, and how “legally” Hillary isn’t able to actually serve as SOS. So I commented in the chat that he is willing to carefully interpret and follow the constitution when it comes to this issue, but not Art 2, sec. 1. I guess he wants to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should be “legally” enforced.
rslancer14 on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
You mean the Certificate of Live Birth?
Not a Birth Certificate.
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Don’t be silly. We can’t be satisfied with a certificate of birth! What we need is a birth certificate!
Wait…
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
My understanding, according to my wife who’s a former state prosecutor, is that these conferences just mean that the SCOTUS believes that they have jurisdiction. In other words, they’re sort of mandated to have a conference and figure out if they want to hear the case or not. Which brings up the question of why Souter and Ginsburg refused to schedule a conference.
Scalia and Thomas are just saying the SCOTUS has jurisdiction and needs to figure out what to do with these cases, not that the cases necessarily have merit. Ragging on Scalia and Thomas is idiotic here. Scalia and Thomas are the one’s that are actually doing their jobs properly in this matter while Souter and Ginsburg are playing politics.
eyedoc on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
A certificate of live birth is not a true birth certificate. Also,didnt I read in the previous thread that they hand these out without seeing a real one?
I need to find that.
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I find it incredible, the amount of misinformation that has been passed around on this subject and openly repeated by the MSM. I don’t know how many times I’ve read about the fact that Obama has already released his BC, which he hasn’t and the fact that the Hawaiian Health Dept have confirmed that the information on that BC was accurate, which they haven’t.
Firstly, the Certificate of Live Birth, (COLB)which the Obama people want everyone to believe is his BC, was released in gif format on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website and subsequently, on sites such as KOS and other far left sponsers. This is supposed to be the be all-end all proof? Please. Of course, being released on a web site, Obama cannot be held responsible for its accuracy. Funny, this same document was never presented in court by his three sets of legal teams. That would be a different story.
Secondly, the Hawaiian Health Depts only said that they confirmed that they hold a BC in their data banks, as per Hawaiian State requirements. Not one word was uttered about the info that appeared on the gif form COLB.
If you read the coverage on the Donofrio case, it is dismissed as frivilous and in fact, the wording is almost universal. Has Obama’s camp provided the talking points to defend their position?
Some of you make this out like its a conspiracy to deny Obama his presidency. What exactly is the conspiracy? The issues with Obama’s past, specifically the sealing of info, the highly questionable COLB document, the grandmother’s claim that she was at his birth in Kenya, the Kenyan Ambassador to the US, claiming that he was born there, Obama’s admitting that he was a dual citizen, his spending huge sums of money on a legal battle to avoid producing his BC. If these things don’t raise doubt, then what would it take to spark a concern in you that there might be something amiss?
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
See my above post.
Either way, it’s still an official document showing that Obama was born on US Soil to a US citizen.
You know, they were just talking about this on the radio, and the host said “we’re going to go from Bush did 9/11 to Obama isn’t a citizen”.
Think about that.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Madison,
It was just a joke, relax.
kara26 on December 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Paranoid about defending the Constitution, and proud of it!
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
What really peeves me is that if this controversy were about a republican president, the same people who are ridiculing those of use who are asking that proof of citizenship be provided would be demanding the same thing of the republican president elect. But, also, you wouldn’t get any argument out of the conservatives because they wouldn’t tolerate someone of either party pulling off such a scam. The capt, allah, and all of the others would be saying, “Sure Mr. Republican president elect, you should show your original birth certificate and put this to rest.” But, for some reason, it’s so easy for them to allow a pass when it’s a democrat. It’s the same old story, rules don’t apply to democrats and wimpy republicans don’t fight hard enough to enforce them.
Bikerken on December 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Thanks for continually bringing this discussion back to the issues at hand.
rslancer14 on December 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Madison–That’s not a Birth Certificate. That is a Certificate of Live Birth. Different creatures. The later is not acceptable in many situations. Including by the military. They require a Birth Certificate.
Under the Constitution (or various legal interpretations thereof), it would seem that an actual Birth Certificate needs to be produced by Obama. Every other candidate that I’ve ever heard of has produced a BC. If you can name one who has used a CoLB, please show me. I’d feel better, at least.
nukemhill on December 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
…and you are following a “self described” expert, and Berg who wants to take Bush to court for masterminding 9/11.
That is who you are following? You put them up against an official who made an official statement?
Her statement stands as a testimony to you birtherists absolute cultist behavior…the technical name is koo-koo heads.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Under Hawaii law a COLB can be given to a child born outside of the US, if one of the parents was a resident of Hawaii for at least one year prior.
Under Hawaii law, the info on a COLB can be modified during adoption processes. Obama was by some accounts adopted by Soetoro, and went by Soetoro’s name in Indonesia.
Under Hawaii law (and once again, we don’t know this but its possible), Barry Soetoro’s COLB information was again modified during a further adoption process, for his grandparents… or by becoming emancipated from Soetoro… as he changed his name back to Barrak Obama.
or… also under Hawaiin law, you can request your OWN COLB info modified if you no longer have a Parent/child relationship with an adopted parent…
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Apparently you missed the official statement from the spokesperson that Obama was born in Honolulu…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
- Liberals, regarding the PATRIOT Act, 2001
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM
You know what’s funny. I was just reading the Hot Air entry on the Governor of Illinois, and I realized I was reading it with new scepticism.
Considering how Hot Air has bungled the coverage of this issue – i.e., not knowing what it’s about, not understanding the distinctions of the cases, and calling people who are concerned about it loons and so forth – I realized that I’m now reading the other articles on Hot Air with the understanding that they might not be very accurate, either.
Not good, Hot Air.
[originally posted in wrong thread]
Alana on December 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM
There was no such official statement, notwithstanding that the various web sites have reported to the contrary. You’ve been hoodwinked.
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Yes, apparently I did. Could you please provide that statement. Take your time. I’ll wait.
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Funny, in all this conversation, and all this research by experts…no one has ever found a birth outside of Hawaii, but registered as born in Hawaii…never. Of the millions of certificate of births, no one has ever shown a material mistake or inconsistency from the original birth documents…never.
We are talking about millions of examples, and not one supporting instance.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I just finished the John Adams HBO miniseries (Thanks, Netflix!), and the one thing that stuck out most to me about our 2nd president is the fact that he stuck to his principles, no matter what the cost. It could have cost him his life in the Boston Massacre trial, It cost him a second term as President, etc.
And one of his principles is that we are a nation of Laws, not Men.
Do I think Obama is a natural born citizen? Sure! But it sets a dangerous precedent for us to neglect our diligence in upholding the US constitution.
That is why Obama should go public with his actual Birth Certificate, not a head-fake “Certificate of Live Birth.”
And for those of you who compare this to a child of illegal immigrants, or some other scenario… Get a grip! We’re talking about the office of President of the United States! Shouldn’t we hold it to a slightly higher standard?
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
First, let’s get one fact clear. The Hawaiian officals did NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. They said there was a form on file and that they have seen it. Period. Obama in Dreams of my Father says,
Where is _that_ birth certificate? Could it be of Kenyan origin? Kenya is said to have sealed all records on Obama. Now why would Kenya have any records on Obama to seal?
In his book, Obama even questions the marriage of his parents and says there were no records, no photos, no known family members who attended. Maybe his parents weren’t legally married? Just speculating.
Just too many unanswered questions about the guy and inquiring minds want to know THE TRUTH.
swampy on December 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
And whats really funny? This particular case goes after McCain as well.
According to the Birth Cert shown on Hannitys website, he was born in Colon Hospital, which still exists. Its a civilian Hosptial that would be in the Canal Free Zone.
In 1937 Congress passed a law that people born in the Canal Free Zone, are US Citizens, and Grandfathered said Citizenship back to those born after 1904 (treaty shenanigans were in play about what was US Soil).
Problem is, that McCain was born in 1936. So, under the prevailing law WHEN he was born, the Panama Canal Zone was NOT considered US soil, thus he only meets ONE criteria of being a Natural Born Citizen (born of a US Citizen Father).
Congress passed a non binding Resolution saying THEY thought that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen… but its a non binding resolution… not law…
Whole thing is still open to adudactation by the Supremes… we could very well have had TWO guys on the ballot, neither of whom met constituional requirments (under the origional definitions) to be President.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Captain Ed:
I know that you, Michelle and others feel this is a non-issue. And clearly you take great pains to say that you think that people discussing this are fools or charlatans.
As currently structured, there is no way for anyone to create their own topics on HotAir or MichelleMalkin. So why do you insist on posting open threads about this and then basically saying anyone who responds is a fool? If you don’t want people who support the premise to discuss it then don’t open the topic.
Just saying.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
The constitution allows for children of servicemen and diplomats, even if not on US soil, a natural-born citizen status.
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
So if I have Donofrio’s argument right: A natural born citizen is only a person who 1) was born on U.S. soil, and 2) born to a non-foreign father.
So Obama is ineligible because his father was a citizen of U.K. at the time of his birth. Thus Obama jr. was born a dual U.S. and U.K. citizen.
Assuming arguendo that this definition of is correct (which ignores the SCUS opinions in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): and Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), my question is: Are Obama’s daughters Natural Born Citizens? If they are born in the U.S. but their father was a dual citizen at the time (without his apparent knowledge or consent) then aren’t they also dual citizens. Therefore, they are not “natural born citizens” and thus ineligible for presidency. And likewise, their children are ineligible as well and anon.
And the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment also seems to differntiate between only two types of obtaining citizenship: by birth and by naturalization. That amendment does not allude to any further extra requirement that differntiates a “naturally born” from a citizen by birth.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
What then, was the purpose of the Hawaii law. Are you suggesting no one availed themselves of it?
Also, what is your objection to the request that Obama release his original long form birth certificate, the one, or a photostat thereof, produced at his birth? I have mine, as well as the newer, more modern versions.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Didn’t take long did it?
You want the whole statement?
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »