Video: Birth certificate Truthers demand action from GOP congressman

posted at 8:30 pm on July 20, 2009 by Allahpundit

The congressman in question? Mike Castle of Delaware, whom you’ll remember for his mavericky maverickness in voting for Obama’s cap-and-trade monstrosity. He got an earful about that too — watch the second clip below — but it’s the Truther spectacle in the first vid that’s getting media attention, natch. Expect these people to play the same role at GOP primary events in 2012 that 9/11 Truthers played at Democratic rallies last year, occasionally cornering the wary candidate with a video camera to ask if he/she “supports a new investigation” and receiving the same vague, wary assurances that of course he/she will be happy to “look into it.” Still, I wonder: Will they disperse and hassle all the candidates equally or, a la Ron Paul, will one candidate catch their fancy and coopt the entire subgroup? I hope Huck and Palin, as the “true conservatives” in the race, are ready to field some awkward questions.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 5 6 7 8

The fact that Britain would honor a claim to British citizenship based on his father’s legacy does not make him British. He’d have to confirm that choice. Go ahead and ask for a certificate.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Obama’s own website admits he is a British citizen. You don’t “confirm” it.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

faraway on July 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Constitution had a “present company excepted” clause. Something to the effect that all those alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were exempt from this requirement. I forget where GW was born, but it didn’t matter.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Would traveling under an Indonesian passport when he was 18, or applying and/or receiving foreign student aid mean that he renounced his US citizenship? What about being adopted by an Indonesian?

I actually don’t think he ever WAS an American citizen, unless he naturalized. But the questions are valid, and the evidence requested in these lawsuits address those questions.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

George Washington was born in Virginia.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Which of those in “present company” would not have been natural-born citizens if being born on American soil automatically made them natural-born citizens?

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

… from Britain’s perspective. The British are willing to treat Obama Senior’s children as British. That has no bearing on American citizenship. To lose his American status, he’d have to accept the British status and renounce the American citizenship that was his birthright.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Me. Born on Malta.
Dad from NY, Mom from FL.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

All those who were US citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible for the presidency, as well as natural-born citizens being eligible.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Anyone in the 1780′s who was born in Scotland, Ireland, England, the West Indies, Canada…

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM

docken, you can’t make up your mind.

The fact that Britain would honor a claim to British citizenship based on his father’s legacy does not make him British. He’d have to confirm that choice. Go ahead and ask for a certificate.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM

The British are willing to treat Obama Senior’s children as British.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Facts are so confusing. Try to stay on point.

faraway on July 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Bridgetown at 1:37

I meant of the Founding Fathers. They put in the Constitution that a person who was a US citizen at the time of the Constitution’s adoption would also be eligible to be president, along with natural-born citizens.

So I’m trying to think of what Founding Father would be a citizen of the US when the Constitution was adopted but who wasn’t also a natural-born citizen.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM

If people born those places were OK to be president then, why wouldn’t they be OK to be president now? What’s the difference, in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

His mom was a US citizen. Therefore, he is. It doesn’t matter if he was born on Mars. Are you people retarded?

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Krydor if you don’t like “World Nut Daily”, try :

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.theobamafile.com/
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/

Just a few other sites, oh and wouldn’t you agree Barry should have been fully vetted BEFORE the election?

jollybird on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM

yeah, I realized that right after I hit ‘submit’
was hoping u wouldn’t notice my stupidity. LOL

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Not retarded at all…but what’s so hard about releasing documentation as proof? Is HE retarded?

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Constant Parrhesia, the law at the time said a person had to be a US citizen for 10 years, with 5 being after the age of 14, in order to pass US citizenship to their offspring born outside the country. Ann Soetoro was too young to pass citizenship on to Obama. Only the place of his birth could do that.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM

lol, Bridgetown. My mind is getting fried so I always hit “Enter” with my tongue in my cheek, hoping and praying nothing too goofy comes out.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM

His mom was a US citizen. Therefore, he is. It doesn’t matter if he was born on Mars. Are you people retarded?

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

My father was a US citizen, and I was born as a US citizen on foreign soil, and I’m barred from running for POTUS. If Obama was born in Kenya, he is also barred.

atheling on July 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Wow, you people are whackos. Terrorists.

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM

My father was a US citizen, and I was born as a US citizen on foreign soil, and I’m barred from running for POTUS. If Obama was born in Kenya, he is also barred.

Yeah, you would be incorrect.

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM

lol, be afraid, be very afraid

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

None of this talk matters because NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE MAN WAS BORN.

When we get that question answered, we can continue a debate.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM

DocKen, I guess what I’m wondering is what you base that definition on? Is that going by what the English Common Law said when the Constitution was passed? What definitions were the Founding Fathers operating with when they wrote the Constitution? What concerns did the writings of the day express regarding who should be eligible to be president?

At the very least the issue needs to be clarified by the courts. We have secretaries of state who are required to verify eligibility but no definition of the terms or how one would actually verify eligibility. That is foolish, wouldn’t you agree?

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Now HotAir readers are terrorists. Where do you trolls come from? Is Olby running a troll school?

faraway on July 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Wrong. Requires being born in America and never having renounced citizenship. Britain’s willingness to recognize him as British is not the same as his having renounced U.S. citizenship.

Incorrect, Ken. If someone renounces their American citizenship, then they just aren’t American anymore. If they take on another citizenship, in any way, then they are no longer a natural-born American, though they are still American. But this definition has never been established and the SCOUTS needs to rule on it. The fact that you are talking about rnouncing US citizenship shows that you have your ideas confused as to what is being discussed. I can hold 12 different citizenships without renouncing my American citizenship, but I would no longer be a ‘natural-born’ American, just an American.

You blur this intentionally? My daughter, until 21, could claim Canadian citizenship. [she won't] That does not mean she is somehow magically not American, nor natural born American.

If she ever gets Canadian citizenship, then she is no longer a natural-born American.

I get the argument. You are just wrong unless you can show he renounced.

Silliness. If he renounced then he’s not even a citizen, let alone ‘natural-born’.

But what I’ve been hearing is that his Kenyan father somehow automatically excludes him from being a natural born American.

Yes. Chester Arthur certainly believed that. His father was not a naturalized American at the time of Arthur’s birth (in America) nad Arthur lied about it and destroyed all the paperwork he could, because he was under the impression that he did not qualify as a ‘natural-born’ American, even though he was born an American in America.

Review anchor baby case law. Born in the USA means natural born citizen. Period. Full stop.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

That’s just wrong. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You seem to think that American and natural-born American are the same thing, which is why you keep ranting on about renouncing American citizenship.

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Calm down and stop repeating stupid things. I am not an American. My wife is an American. My daughter was born in Tampa. She is a natural born U.S. citizen. It is pure B.S. to keep repeating that a Kenyan father cannot have a natural born U.S. citizen child. What the h@ll do you think anchor babies are? If the bamster was born in Hawaii then both his parents could have been martian, he would be a natural born citizen. [FIFY]

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM

.
DocKen, Sorry, but you’re wrong. Do not confuse “citizen” with “natural born citizen at birth”. Anchor babies are the former, NOT the latter.
.
And it’s a MOOT POINT because in 1961, when Obama was born, there were no “anchor babies”.
.
Obama’s own site says his “birth was GOVERNED BY THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT OF 1948″.
.
~~~~~~~~~~ONLY ONE QUESTION REMAINS~~~~~~~~~~
.
******How can a natural born citizen of the United States be governed – at birth – by British law?****

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM

It’s not just his birth certificate that is an issue:

“WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104495

Toutoune on July 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Review anchor baby case law. Born in the USA means natural born citizen. Period. Full stop.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

That’s just wrong. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You seem to think that American and natural-born American are the same thing, which is why you keep ranting on about renouncing American citizenship.
progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM

.
progressoverpeace, thank goodness, some reasonable people are here to educate all these misinformed (new?) folks who seem to have been waiting to pounce on this subject

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Hey Ed or Allah, what’s up with this???????????

.

HotAir’s TOP PICKS
(as of right now)

322 Comments “Finally: Ron Paul kinda sorta comes out as a Truther”

287 Comments “Commerce Secretary: America needs to pay for China’s emissions”

234 Comments
“Video: ObamaCare may fund abortions”

182 Comments “Obama hiding the budget numbers until August recess”

289 Comments
“Obama says talking time over, but has no clue what’s in ObamaCare…”

.

627 Comments “Video: Birth certificate Truthers demand action from GOP congressman”
.
~~~~627!! What’s it take to get a promotion to Top Picks??~~~~

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Hey Ed or Allah, what’s up with this??????????? (WITH CORRECTION, SORRY)

.

HotAir’s TOP PICKS
(as of right now)

322 Comments “Finally: Ron Paul kinda sorta comes out as a Truther”

287 Comments “Commerce Secretary: America needs to pay for China’s emissions”

234 Comments
“Video: ObamaCare may fund abortions”

182 Comments “Obama hiding the budget numbers until August recess”

289 Comments
“Obama says talking time over, but has no clue what’s in ObamaCare…”

.

BUT NOT FOR:

627 Comments “Video: Birth certificate Truthers demand action from GOP congressman”
.
~~~~627!! What’s it take to get a promotion to Top Picks??~~~~Hey Ed or Allah, what’s up with this???????????

.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I was wondering the same thing.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Call me a troofer if ya want, but I still insist on sticking to the Constitution (natural born citizen, Age 35 or older). Tell me if you know any of the answers to these questions:

When did Obama submit documentation to prove his status? To whom? At what office? Was it time stamped? Is it on file, paper or electronic? What documents were accepted? What documents are considered acceptable proof? Short form certificate [which says nothing compared to long form (BO submitted short)]? Were they originals or certified copies? Who was the person who received the documents? Who makes the call that they are legit or acceptable? Who is their supervisor? If there is a challenge, what is the review body?

Cute how Hawaii’s birth records are private documents who need the permission of the person (BO) to get access to.

All this is basic sh!at for lawyers, for example. Everything that is pleading-related is on-file with the court (public documents) and it can be identified by who accepted it, and when. Most are e-filed as well. VERY easy to verify, if necessary. Not to mention (for example) all the b.s. involved in buying land,, all the signatures and certificates and notaries and originals before money changes hands, but President Barack Hussein Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho just shows up to run the nation and we skip the background check on the most basic qualification- Age 35 or Older, natural born. How HARD is that? Why hasn’t anyone really shown if HE met his burden (it’s Obama’s under the U.S. Const.) If troofer-haters took a tenth of the scorn they have for troofers and put in on the Messi-uh, we’d have an answer.

If he really ain’t qualified, the recent soldier that opposed his orders has a really good point, don’t he? And if we just rushed in a unqualified man to office, will he stay there? Should he be impeached? By Democrats?

This goes not just for BO, but for all Presidential candidates. Period. Is natural-born confirmation done before the primaries, after, or after the popular election, before the swearing in?

Tell me how easy it is to find the answers to this. I tried. It isn’t.

Anyone want to post legit links to govt. offices, lists of field documents at court records offices, etc? Love to see ‘em.

Saltyron on July 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The lady speaking to Rep Castle was so emotional that I wondered in passing if she were drunk.

I still agree that it is rather strange and somewhat suspicious that a president would not permit his birth certificate, his educational records, or his medical history to be known to the public.

alice on July 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Where’s W.’s birth certificate?
Where’s Clinton’s birth certificate?
Wheres pere Bush’s birth certificate?
Where’s Reagan’s birth ceritifcate?
Where’s Carter’s birth ceritifcate?
Hell, where’s George Washington’s birth certificate?

Where’s YOUR birth certificate birthers?

Apologetic California on July 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM

I have a certified copy of mine. 12/27/1977, McKeesport Hospital, PA. What to see it?

And your right, it goes for ALL presidential candidates. Can you tell me how well a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT is enforced?

Now ask that of Obama, and tell me the answer.

Saltyron on July 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

I’m not sure who they’re so afraid is going to call them a “Birther site”.

It would be interesting to see a poll of who does or doesn’t think Obama should release his birth certificate. The longer Obama delays and the more Rush mentions it and folks like Lou Dobbs find out how easy it is to pull the wool over people’s eyes, the more people will be seeing this isn’t a lunatic fringe issue.

What’s upsetting to me is the people who refuse to look with their own eyes.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I was wondering the same thing.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM

.
bridgeton, I’m sure we’re not alone. Our question deserves at least a “Hmmmmmmm….” or “DUDE…” dontcha think?
.
!!~~C’MON ALLAH OR ED, FAIR IS FAIR- PUT IT UP THERE “Top Picks”- it has 2 or 3 times as many comments as the others I listed above.~~!!

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Apologetic California on July 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Are any of those people fighting court cases to keep the documents sealed?

I was born in Malta. Lost my original BC years ago. I could not get married, get a license, get a house, etc..Until I went through the pain of dealing with the social security office and PROVING which hospital I was born in on Malta. It took a while. It was a pain in the behind.
But I have a ‘new’ ‘original’ birth cert. now.
The fact that I had copies of my Original didn’t even help in my getting my new one issued.
I had to jump through hoops. But, see there was a paper trail of my birth. It took some doing, but I got it done.
Obama should too. I don’t hold nearly as an important position as he does, but I was forced to do it.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I guess they’re afraid they’d be looked at as CRAZY TERRORISTS if they put it up.

That’s pretty pathetic.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM

I’m not sure who they’re so afraid is going to call them a “Birther site”.

It would be interesting to see a poll of who does or doesn’t think Obama should release his birth certificate. The longer Obama delays and the more Rush mentions it and folks like Lou Dobbs find out how easy it is to pull the wool over people’s eyes, the more people will be seeing this isn’t a lunatic fringe issue.

What’s upsetting to me is the people who refuse to look with their own eyes.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM

.
Totally agree. Well said. Doesn’t it deserve a promotion to HA’s Top Picks at least?

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

crr6 on July 20, 2009 at 9:52 PM

I make no claim. I simply want to see the long form original birth certificate. Obama has the burden to produce such evidence under the US Const. to show natural born citizenship. The BC is the best evidence of this.

There will always be a loony that makes “claims” about anything. I simply request that Obama meet his Constitutional requirement.

Saltyron on July 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM

You know, I think that most of the Hotair commenters are reasonable. There is only a vocal minority who refuse to be sensible about this. The fact that our bloggers are part of this minority skews it, but I would guess that Hotair splits something like 90-10 in people who want this case heard versus those who want this issue to just go away without resolution.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I’ll repost something I put up at Ace.

This is a letter from John Jay to George Washington on the inclusion of the natural-born requirement in the Constitution (July 25, 1787):

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Dual/multiple citizens, which didn’t exist for Americans at the time of the writing, would certainly qualify as “foreigners” to the Founders, as Jay was obviously not contemplating the idea that someone who was not even an American citizen could become President. What Jay was referring to was that the Commander in Chief should be someone who was born American and had never been anything but American. Anyone who thinks that ‘natural-born’ citizen was not meant to avert exactly this circumstance of a dual-citizen becoming President is operating under a dangerous misunderstanding of the Founders’ intentions and the uniqueness of the American system of governance.

(h/t to luckybogey for mentioning this letter earlier in this Hotair thread)

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

It would be interesting to see a poll of who does or doesn’t think Obama should release his birth certificate.

I asked for a poll months ago, but it ain’t gonna happen.
The HotAir crew are afraid of the blogosphere seeing the results and labelling HotAir and it’s readership as looney nutjobs.

txsurveyor on July 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM

The HotAir crew are afraid of the blogosphere seeing the results and labelling HotAir and it’s readership as looney nutjobs.

txsurveyor on July 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Why are we labeled as looney nut jobs, anyway? I don’t get it.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I cannot understand why there is nobody able (or willing, in many cases) to verify the man’s constitutional qualifications.

txsurveyor on July 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Why are we labeled as looney nut jobs, anyway? I don’t get it.

bridgetown on July 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM

For the same reason we were labeled as racists and bigots, again by other so-called “conservatives”, because of our opposition to any sort of Shamnesty.

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Natural Born Citizen Theory:
Hypothetical: United Kingdom enacts a law that states that all residents born in its former colonies are UK Citizens. Does that mean that all persons born in the U.S. are now inelgible to hold the office of President.

If not, then how does the foreign country’s laws (The U.K.’s Law you put forward) counteract the U.S. constitution.

In theory, any american who has at least one grandparent that was born in Ireland can become an Irish Citizen. (Irish law conveys irish citizenship upon grandchildren of those that emmigrated.) That does not mean that every 1st or 2nd generation Irish American is not a natural born citizen.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM

…If not, then how does the foreign country’s laws (The U.K.’s Law you put forward) counteract the U.S. constitution…

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM

.
Utter nonsense. Since when would any laws of another country govern citizens of the U.S.?? You are making a false argument.
.
But it serves a purpose- in 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth, (according to his own website) Obama’s father (&thus his son) were governed by British law (British Nationality Act of 1948) therefore they owed allegiance to Britain- which brings the point full circle. A U.S. President was never intended to be born under allegiance to any other nation. Please do some reading.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM

txsurveyor on July 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM

They sure verified, asked, questioned, MCain’s!

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/02/29/the-situation-room-is-mccain-eligible-to-be-president/

Barry Soretoro ???? I don’t get it either.

jollybird on July 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Constant, whether his mother was a US citizen is immaterial, if, by the laws in place at the time, citizenship was granted based on his father’s nationality, and he was not born in the US.

If he was actually born in the US, then he is a natural-born citizen under our laws.

If he was not, then he is not, but is a usurper of the office.

Perhaps you should find out the basis of the discussion, before calling others, who obviously do know, names?

Siddhartha Vicious on July 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm… ED OR ALLAH WE ARE STILL WAITING & WONDERING…..
The needle has only moved up on one of the “Hot” topics below, THE REST ARE DEAD. TIME TO SWITCH OUT ONE???????
.

HotAir’s TOP PICKS
(as of right now)

322 Comments “Finally: Ron Paul kinda sorta comes…”
287 Comments “Commerce Secretary: America needs to pay… ”
234 Comments “Video: ObamaCare may fund abortions”
182 Comments “Obama hiding the budget numbers…”
318 Comments
“Obama says talking time over, but has no clue…”

.

BUT NOT FOR:

647 Comments “Video: Birth certificate Truthers demand action from GOP congressman”
.
~~~~647!!!! What’s it take to get a promotion to Top Picks??~~~~Ed or Allah, what’s up with this???????????

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Good point. Similar to what I was trying to say. The U.K. can pass any law it wants to — the question has to be answered under US law. And it has been answered. There is a legislative definition for natural born.

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

This site is accurate enough. I don’t see one word in the relevant legislation that says “unless you post on your website that your Dad was travelling under a British passport.” The point is, by law, Natural Born has a meaing established. We don’t get to make up disqualifiers, out of thin air, just because we don’t like the guy.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM

krydor, we try to stick with logic and facts here. I know you love Alinsky.

ALINSKY RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational.

Ridicule from imbeciles doesn’t work here.

faraway on July 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM

But it works so well inside their own minds! Isn’t that reality?

econavenger on July 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Utter nonsense. Since when would any laws of another country govern citizens of the U.S.?? You are making a false argument.
.
But it serves a purpose- in 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth, (according to his own website) Obama’s father (&thus his son) were governed by British law (British Nationality Act of 1948) therefore they owed allegiance to Britain- which brings the point full circle. A U.S. President was never intended to be born under allegiance to any other nation. Please do some reading.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM

I’m failing to see your logic. You acknowledge that laws of another country do not govern U.S. Citizens. Assuming that Obama was born in the Hawaii, then he is at least a U.S. Citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the laws of another country do not counteract the U.S. Law underwhich he was born and granted citizenship.
Thus, the U.K. Law holds no power over Obama as a U.S. Citizen. Your conclusory statement “Obama’s father (&thus his son) were governed by British law” does not lend any weight to your argument.
You must either 1) assert that Obama was not born in Hawaii; 2) overlook the citizenship granted under the 14th amendment by virutue of his birth in the United States; or 3) believe that U.K. statute trumps the U. S. Constitution.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM

If he was actually born in the US, then he is a natural-born citizen under our laws.

If he was not, then he is not, but is a usurper of the office.

Perhaps you should find out the basis of the discussion, before calling others, who obviously do know, names?

Siddhartha Vicious on July 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM
.
FIFY. Natural born is the highest standard of citizenship (not naturalized, not native, not by conveyance) and required (at least in 1961) “…parents who are citizens of and reside in the U.S…” PARENTS= 2.
.
If we are still talking about Obama- look no further than <a href=”“>HIS OWN WORDS!!!!
~~~~NO NEED TO LOOK FOR “EVIDENCE” OR “PROVE” ANYTHING. BY HIS OWN ADMISSION… he is NOT ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Bingo.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM

1st definition — anyone born in the USA.

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *

Why do you cling to being wrong?

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM

.

What part of “NATURAL BORN citizen at birth” is giving you the most trouble? !!
.
~~~”Ordinary/plain” citizenship can be aquired in many ways (through naturalization, conveyance, etc) and is suitable to meet the eligibility requirements of all but 2 offices of the U.S. government. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF CITIZENSHIP- NATURAL BORN- WHICH ONE CANNOT “AQUIRE” AND THAT IS RESERVED FOR THE TWO HIGHEST GOV’T OFFICES.
.
CITIZEN DOES NOT = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

This site is accurate enough. I don’t see one word in the relevant legislation that says “unless you post on your website that your Dad was travelling under a British passport.” The point is, by law, Natural Born has a meaing established. We don’t get to make up disqualifiers, out of thin air, just because we don’t like the guy.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM

First of all, being a citizen at birth is not the same as being a natural-born citizen, as it was meant in the Founders’ Constitutional requirement, which is why I supplied you with the reasoning that the writer of that clause provided to George Washington. Now, usconstitution.net might say so, but that doesn’t make it so. The term ‘natural-born’ has never been defined to the extent necessary and that is a job for the SCOTUS, not usconstitution.net.

If you think that the Founders intended for multiple citizens to be eligible to be President, then you are just nuts.

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM

The lady speaking to Rep Castle was so emotional that I wondered in passing if she were drunk.

I still agree that it is rather strange and somewhat suspicious that a president would not permit his birth certificate, his educational records, or his medical history to be known to the public.

alice on July 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

The lady speaking is pure 100% certified loon-poon, drunk or not.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Nightmare…

What part of “NATURAL BORN citizen at birth” is giving you the most trouble? !!

No part. This is nowhere defined as highest except in your fevered imagination. The laws we have define it primarily as someone born here, unless under diplomatic immunity, and not under our jurisdiction. There are many other definitons to widen this, such as born on US soil abroad such as an army base. Read the section 1401 above. What part of “he was born here so no matter what you want to prove about his dad, unless you can prove he himself was not born here then you got nothing” don’t you understand? The state of Hawaii won’t certify a live birth of anyone not born in Hawaii. Look, he probably was registered as a bastard, and his massive ego doesn’t want that part of the public record. But unless you can discredit the Hawaiian birth, he is natural born, as defined by law, and required by the constitution.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM


NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM

1st definition — anyone born in the USA.

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Why do you cling to being wrong?

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM

.
DocKen, please come up to the board and point to where, in this sentence, you SEE THE WORDS “NATURAL BORN”.
.

…who are “citizens of the United States at birth…

.
Then return to your seat and write “I must stop disrupting the class with my idiocy.” 1000 times.

.

I do not “cling to being wrong”, project much? BUT WHAT I DO CLING TO ARE my guns and my religion.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Krydor on July 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM

They are dangerous to WE THE PEOPLE AND A SITTING PRESIDENT.

And HA should not be jacking up these loons anymore that they already are. Somebody will do something they think is patriotic – and – then it will reflect on the reasonable law abiding faction of the GOP.

We look like assh*oles with these crazies running around ranting and raving about Urban Legends and pure bullsh*t.

His BC has been revealed, he was born here, he’s the President, it’s all be proven.

Like the Far Left was with 9/11 and Bush – these loons just do not want to accept the truth.

I have come to the conclusion that what this group really wants to say is, “why is this n**ger in the White House?”

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

NightmareOnKStreet, progressoverpeace

My guess is that this was a test post on this site since Lou and Rush mentioned the subject matter and M&M has not given her “green light” yet. Note Trackbacks are not working either on this post. Look at the start of the comments and certain “insider” commenters for the answers. I called one of them out on “being incorrect” and did not get a reply.

It is also obvious to me there is an agenda on the “birther” issue, Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul on several “mainstream” conservative blog sites. I’m 12th generation and my ancestors were a part of the original Patriot Party in the 1600s.

Ref: Birthers get another lifeline, By Ed

luckybogey on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Except immigration laws at that time stated to be a natural born citizenship of the United States required at least one parent had to be a resident of the US for at least 5 years following their 14th birthday. Obama’s mother had him at 18. They changed the laws later which allows for ‘anchor babies’. Personally, I think they should change it back, but that is another argument.

The point I am trying to make here is regardless of where he was born (and I imagine probably Hawaii), he does not legally satisfy the requirements of the natural born citizen requirement and does not qualify to hold the office of the President of the United States and therefor, according to the 20th and 25th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Vice President would become President.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM

No part. This is nowhere defined as highest except in your fevered imagination. The laws we have define it primarily as someone born here, unless under diplomatic immunity, and not under our jurisdiction.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM

You are just lying. ‘Natural-born citizen’ is not defined in any of our laws. You think that being a US citizen at birth is the equivalent of being a ‘natural-born citizen’, but it is not. As I said, see the John Jay letter I provided you with above. And stop lying about what is said in our law. There were no American multiple citizens at the time of the writing, so the Founders only spoke of American citizenship in exclusion of all other.

As I said before, several times, though you like to ignore it and make pretend you didn’t see it:

If you think that our Founders intended to have multiple citizens eligible to be President, then you know nothing about this nation or its founding and basic principles.

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM

luckybogey on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

It’s clear that these folks know they have no leg to stand on (certainly in terms of their arguing that this should not even be heard in court) and they have worked their way into having to defend the idea that multiple citizens (citizens of the world, essentially) are eligible to be President. It’s just crazy.

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Look, I don’t think you get the reasoning behind the requirement. The US was to be a unique place, unlike any other nation. Those who were present at her birth, who lived throuigh the revolutionalry war and who participated in the constitutional ratifications were considered tempered and true. They could be trusted with any office, even the presidency. After that founding generation, all other presidents would have had to be born U.S. citizens. This dual citizen or multi-citizen canard of yours has no bearing. The requirement is that they be born US citizens. If through the circumstances of their parentage or the desires of another government they are also at the same time regarded by other countries as citizens of those nations that is of no concern at all to the first and only constitutional question. Were they born in the US, or outside of the US in such circumstances that they are none-the-less regarded as US citizens from birth. The founders’ reasoning was that if they had not lived through the revolution then they needed to be one of us from birth so that they could have a primary loyalty to what makes us special. But natural born is no magic mumbo jumbo. It has a simple factual reference. Primarily, were you born here? Or on an army base, or a territory, or other such qualifying place of birth or manner of inclusion. Until the law is struck down by a court, it is assumed to be valid. We have the law, and if bambi was born in Hawaii, he qualifies. Because. he. was. born. in. the. USA.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Constant Parrhesia on July 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Incorrect. Please see my earlier post regarding immigration laws in 1961. I have quoted it here for your convenience.

Except immigration laws at that time stated to be a natural born citizenship of the United States required at least one parent had to be a resident of the US for at least 5 years following their 14th birthday. Obama’s mother had him at 18. They changed the laws later which allows for ‘anchor babies’.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Watch & weep.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM

I have come to the conclusion that what this group really wants to say is, “why is this n**ger in the White House?”
AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

.
I’ve never, in my 3 1/2 years at HotAir said this, but you are WAY OUT OF LINE & DESERVE THE HAMMER.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Primarily, were you born here? Or on an army base, or a territory, or other such qualifying place of birth or manner of inclusion. Until the law is struck down by a court, it is assumed to be valid. We have the law, and if bambi was born in Hawaii, he qualifies. Because. he. was. born. in. the. USA.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Incorrect. The immigration law at that time states to be a citizen of the US one of your birth parents are required to be a citizen of the US for 5 years past their 14th birthday. Since Obama’s mother had him at 18, She fails to meet the requirement so therefor Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ but a naturalized one.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Your point is out of context. This requirement was for immigrant parents. The new citizen had to be a citizen for this length of time for her children to qualify as natural born. Obama’s mom was always a citizen. She could have had him at (her) age 12 and he would still be a citizen from birth. You are citing naturalization law and not the primary section 1401 defining who is a citizen from birth. I do not know of a court case revolving on this, but the intent was clear enough.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM

AprilOrit said: “We look like assh*oles ”

‘Nuff said. I can’t improve on that. Anybody who says it’s extreme to expect legal-level documentation for a pressing legal question looks just like you said you look, April.

Now stop projecting that onto the rest of us, who are still sane.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM

I’ve never, in my 3 1/2 years at HotAir said this, but you are WAY OUT OF LINE & DESERVE THE HAMMER.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM

WHY – BECUASE I AM CALLING THEIR BLUFF??

HOW ABOUT SOME TRUTH – FOR A CHANGE??

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Yeah. Nice. Still doesn’t matter. Legally, according to the immigration laws, Obama does not qualify as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM

progressoverpeace on July 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Stop calling me a liar unless you are sure I cannot find you. We can disagree civily, but a liar says what is not his honest belief. I have never misrepresented what I believe to be true.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Was that just temporary insanity or do you completely freak out and descend into a weird dark place like that on a regular basis? What is it about Obama that triggers your odd slavish devotion?

econavenger on July 21, 2009 at 5:22 PM

THAT IDIOT LOON-POON IN DELAWARE DESERVES THE HAMMER – FOR QUESTIONING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WINNING AN ELECTION FAIR AND SQUARE – WHO HAPPENS TO BE OUR SITTING PRESIDENT – WHETHER ANY OF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS BASED ON REALITY – NOT LIES, GARBAGE, INTERNET RUMORS AND INNUENDO.

ANARCHY SUCH AS THIS SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED – PERIOD.

I REFUSE TO APPEASE ANY SUCH NUTCASES – AND SANCTIFY THE PARANOIA OF MANIACS WITH NO DIRECTION.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM

NightmareonKStreet at 5:14

She’s very obviously trolling. I suppose every cop who pulls over a drunk Black and asks to see a license is also a Ku Klux Klan wannabe. The obvious conclusion is that only anarchists are holy.

Her elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor, apparently.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Ed, I think AprilOrit used the automatic ban language at 5:02.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Leo Donofrio wrote about the historical definition of the term natural born citizen as it may have been understood at the time of the writing and adoption of our Constitution:

The following was published in 1758. This definition, [from The Laws of Nations] added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

rslancer14 on July 21, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Let’s ignore her and she’ll go away if Ed doesn’t give her the boot. The only one looking like a screaming, mindless idiot who supports anarchy is her.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Was that just temporary insanity or do you completely freak out and descend into a weird dark place like that on a regular basis? What is it about Obama that triggers your odd slavish devotion?

econavenger on July 21, 2009 at 5:22 PM

I WOULD NOT TOLERATE THE FAR LEFT 9/11 WACKOS AGAINST GEORGE BUSH AND I WILL NOT SUPPORT THESE LOONS AGAINST A LEGITIMATE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAPPENED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AND WON.

NOR SHOULD YOU.

WHAT’S FAIR IS FAIR – HE IS A CITIZEN PERIOD.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Caplocks is not cruise control for Awesome… it is simply the typing of a ID-10T user.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Good reference, rslancer14. Thanks.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Let’s ignore her and she’ll go away if Ed doesn’t give her the boot. The only one looking like a screaming, mindless idiot who supports anarchy is her.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Hate to tell you – Ed agrees with me. Ed, Allah do not support this loon craziness.

But what’s fair is fair.

Why feed these unreasonable maniacs? Because I didn’t vote for Obama therefore I cannot accept that he won therefore I will support hair-brained internet rumors with the hopes that he will be booted out – when they are just rumors and will lead to nothing but a slew of frivelous lawsuits??

Yeah, right.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Except immigration laws at that time stated to be a natural born citizenship of the United States required at least one parent had to be a resident of the US for at least 5 years following their 14th birthday. Obama’s mother had him at 18. They changed the laws later which allows for ‘anchor babies’.
Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

I fail to see how the immigration law that you cite would overcome the 14th amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law whcih shall abridge the privilges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …”

Your argument about the law changing with regards to so-called “anchor babies” is false. The immigration law you cite to only governs births that occur outside of the United States. Any baby born in the United States is a citizen by act of the 14th amendment.

You may still make your argument regarding the natural born citizen status of Obama. I maintain that foreign laws cannot override the U.S. Constitution, but if you feel comfortable making such arguments, go right ahead. Question: If it is shown that he was delivered through Caesarean section, will you use that as proof that he was not “natural born”. “Tell thee, Obama was from his mother’s womb Untimely ripp’d.” /Macbeth sarc

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM

rslancer14 on July 21, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Interesting quote, and only useful if the legislation requires a judicial determination of founders’ intent. So far, the legislation has not been on a path for court interpretation. So what Donofrio thinks the founders mught have meant does not trump what the legislation defines. The first assumption by any conservative jurist is that the law as written is compatible with the Constitution as written. There has been no reason presented to the courts in case law thus far to think the legislation in section 1401 (above) somehow contradicts the Constitution.

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Caplocks is not cruise control for Awesome… it is simply the typing of a ID-10T user.

Wolftech on July 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Whatever. But these people refuse to “get it”.

it’s like the far Left spent 2000 and beyond wishing and hoping and praying for the arrest of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

It’s ridiculous. this is actually more riduculous because the birth certificate has been debunked.

These people just refuse to accept the truth – they can’t handle it.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM

NightmareonKStreet at 5:14

She’s very obviously trolling. I suppose every cop who pulls over a drunk Black and asks to see a license is also a Ku Klux Klan wannabe. The obvious conclusion is that only anarchists are holy.

Her elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor, apparently.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM

.
Next time she gets pulled over by a cop and asked for her license, she should give him a faxed copy and see how that goes over. Elevator? She has a pulley-system, at best.

NightmareOnKStreet on July 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM

NewJerseyBuckeye at 5:30PM

Did you see the reference by rslancer14 at 5:25? To know what these folks meant when they said what they did, we have to look at how THEY used the terminology.

That’s how Biblical scholars have to find out the meanings and connotations of words – by referencing each use of that particular word in the language at the time and using that to make the definitions.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Lol, Nightmare.

Well, she’s not offering any substance to talk about anyway. Just flames to try to get a rise out of us, and ad hominems. Typical troll behavior.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Ed, I think AprilOrit used the automatic ban language at 5:02.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Yeah – you would love to have me banned – you can’t handle anyone who cahllenges your craziness. If this site was all of your viewpoint all the time you would be happy.

I didn’t call anyone the N word, I said what some of these people think and believe and you know it.

That’s why you can’t handle it.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM

LOL Finally a statement I can get on board with…lets have some honesty, some truth…Mr. President you go first!!

stacy on July 21, 2009 at 5:39 PM

DocKen on July 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM

From the same link I posted at 5:25pm

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

rslancer14 on July 21, 2009 at 5:42 PM

They are dangerous to WE THE PEOPLE AND A SITTING PRESIDENT.

And HA should not be jacking up these loons anymore that they already are. Somebody will do something they think is patriotic – and – then it will reflect on the reasonable law abiding faction of the GOP.

We look like assh*oles with these crazies running around ranting and raving about Urban Legends and pure bullsh*t.

His BC has been revealed, he was born here, he’s the President, it’s all be proven.

Like the Far Left was with 9/11 and Bush – these loons just do not want to accept the truth.

I have come to the conclusion that what this group really wants to say is, “why is this n**ger in the White House?”

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Proven to whom? By what standards? I have seen nothing showing BO’s BC was reviewed and accepted as authentic by any credible source. Prove me wrong.

At this point I see a Prez who trumpets “Transparency” but does not practice it. No paper trail what so ever. See prior posts for docs missing. I’ve seen the Mud Stream Media stories about BO & My Belle’s date but no detailed background story on his life. Why not? I know more about SP then about BO. Why is that? (Hint, it has to do with MSM not doing their job in 1 case but not the other?) Why all the secrecy? Why spend vast amounts of money to maintain said secrecy? Why was Maj/ Cook’s order rescinded? Why did DOD push his firing? Questions after questions are piling up with no remotely satisfactory answer let alone any answer at all. At this point I have to go with Occam’s razor.

The burden of proof is BO, he needs to show he meets minimum qual’s to occupy office. I’m sure he has a czar laying around who can handles these types of issues.

BTW, take your racist innuendo and jam it in your donkey.

VikingGoneWild on July 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Lol, Nightmare.

Well, she’s not offering any substance to talk about anyway. Just flames to try to get a rise out of us, and ad hominems. Typical troll behavior.

justincase on July 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

As far as you are concerned anyone who disagrees with you or supports fairness for anyone who won the Presidency – even Barack Obama – is a troll. LOLOLOL

You have to be reassured of your viewpoints all the time.

I would feel the same way had Senator McCain won and this craziness would have come up – believe me – about his birth certificate as well.

It’s craziness to belabor something that has be proven time and time again.

I mean what is your point – like the Far Left was hoping about W and Cheney being tried and hung – you think this guy is going to be ripped from office because of all of this Toofer madness???

Yeah – real LOLOLOLOL ROTFLMAO Nightmare.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM

VikingGoneWild on July 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM

What’s this???

What about tbis do you guys not get? LOLOLOL

It is completely unfounded – it’s ridiculous.

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM

AprilOrit on July 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Speaking of Mr McCain, BHO and crew demanded that he show proof of eligibility during the campaign and Mr. McCain did, so why won’t Obama do the same?

stacy on July 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8