Video: America’s most trusted newsman takes on birth certificate Truth
posted at 5:40 pm on July 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
You think I’m kidding about the “most trusted” thing but I’m not.
Some canny reporter needs to ask Sarahcuda what she thinks of all this. No matter what she says, it’s huge news: Either she laughs it off, as she almost certainly will, and breaks grassroots hearts or she hedges and it’s on the front page of the Times. Exit question: Can one be a “true conservative” and a Birther skeptic?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Born Identity | ||||
|
||||
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
That is because nutbags eventually get over it. The 9/11 truthers and the Brithers, and the Trig-truthers are all going to eventually get over it or die off too.
Squid Shark on July 23, 2009 at 11:48 PM
This article is interesting too.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13040.htm
Using his half sister’s BC for the computer image.
She was born in Indonesia but received a Hawaiian BC through consular reporting of her birth/adoption. Could also explain how Obama got his BC.
Obama needs to prove he is a natural born citizen. While we may be constrained by Hawaii’s laws on BC not being public record and their release is only by family approval, other countries have their own methods of finding out information and they will use it against him, and against the US.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 23, 2009 at 11:50 PM
No kidding. Amazing, since those issues are totally fresh.
MadisonConservative on July 23, 2009 at 11:51 PM
My theory is that Obama is letting this crap percolate so that he can lump all of the Republicans into this Birther thing, and then everyone will think we are a bunch of lunatic fringers.
And Obama Checkmates us again.
Squid Shark on July 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I’ve always assumed that the distinction is being born a citizen, as opposed to immigrating to this country, and then attaining citizenship status. Of course, I had always assumed that either SCOTUS or Congress had, at some point, clarified this, until this election when, ironically enough, it affected both candidates.
Either way, though, it is clear that Barack Obama was born a citizen, and never renounced that citizenship. If that’s the case, and there is no law governing “natural born”, then the whole birther argument is moot.
JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Want to make a bet that after the Democratic National Convention where Obama leapt onto the national stage, or maybe even before then, that someone posing as a relative inquired using family research as an excuse, into Barack in the States, In Kenya, in Indonesia, Pakistan etc?
And I bet they asked a low level employee and that person barily remembers it or if he/she does that they are sweating bullets wondering who it was.
My sister in law is way into geneology research and it is suprising how easily those words open up birth,marriage, death, burial certificates around the globe.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 24, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Squid Shark at 11:59
If this country thinks a person is a lunatic because they expect legal-quality documentation for a legal question, then this country is beyond saving.
A document shown only for 17 minutes in a back room to only a few friends who put it in Photoshop and then post it online is no way to document the eligibility for arguably the most powerful position in the world.
Anyone who argues otherwise belongs in the banana republic or Mafia-land they’re sure to get.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:13 AM
journeyintothewhirlwind at 12:07
It would have had to have been before any of this came up. Somebody on Orly’s site said they contacted some professionals who are licensed to do genealogy work and so are able to get access to things other people can’t. As soon as he mentioned Hawaii to two different professionals they each told him that Hawaii’s genealogy records have been closed and then hung up the phone on him.
Some crazy stuff going on lately.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM
The documentation shown is good enough for me to get a passport. I can not get to my long form certificate, I was born 20 years after Obama.
Also the only certifying authority for the office of the presidency is the Electoral College. If you want “legal quality documentation” to be the standard, ask your rep to call a convention. Until then, Obama is president. Lets keep our eye on the ball people.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Nothing I like better than trusting a correspondence-course lawyer to handle a supposedly meritorious case like this.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Yeah. That Plame trial, over the idiotic idea that a “spy” who worked at Langley can have her husband write an exceedingly political op-ed in the New York Slimes, which is based on a position that she helped get him at CIA, and the fact that she works at CIA could never be expected to come out – to then accuse the wrong people of leaking it and spend a year in federal court hauling everyone in the administration before this pathetic grand jury, to then find out that it was Armitage who leaked it and that Powell knew, to then find out that Patrick Fitzgerald also knew the entire time, to have the government grind to a halt and constrain our war efforts over this ….
Yeah, they really got badly burned by that. Look at how Powell disappeared …
Squid, the left and the MSM are going to paint conservatives however they decide, no matter what we do. We happen to have the law on our side, in this one, whether one believes there is anything to the birth certificate issue or not. The birth certificate is officially required. Not images on the internet, but the real document that serves as proof – officially. He talks of holding different citizenships and at the very least his changing nationalities have to be examined, especially in light of his Pakistani excursion. Along these lines the SCOTUS needs to describe the operational definition of ‘natural born citizen’, since there currently is none. It’s up to them, but they really have to do it. And this is all merely by the law and common sense. We want the official verification, which has never taken place, and we are just following the Constitution on this. No conspiracy. No anything. I don’t know why you think that would taint your intellectual reputation. Who could be against this?
progressoverpeace on July 24, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I concur with the poll, I think Stewart is probably the most trusted anchor these days. He gives a relatively honest, no bull shit assessment of the news. I disagree with your surmised response, I don’t think a lot of young Conservatives cling to his every word. I watch him often and there are a plethora of his opinions which I disagree with or look at a situation from a divergent aspect. However, despite my differentiating viewpoints, I can still watch and enjoy his show.
Cr4sh Dummy on July 24, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Good Lt,
I think you need to loosen the straps on those premium, Delux Obama knee pads of yours, as they appear to be interfering with the blood-flow to your three remaining brain cells.
Besides, just think about the blisters you will be preventing.
:-)
Dave R. on July 24, 2009 at 12:31 AM
powerpro on July 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM
My understanding of the term “natural-born” means that a person who is born within the US, and who’s parents (parent, if mother only) were also born within the US, having lived within the US for at least 4 years prior to the birth – after reaching the age of 16 years old.
OldEnglish on July 23, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Thank you, OldEnglish. I posted the same thing this evening. When I got back later and read this thread, I was really impressed with people like Joe Pyne, Dave R., Vektek, powerpoint, Jim Treacher, justincase, etc., whose posts were well thought out, logical and respectful.
I was very disgusted with others, who shall remain nameless, as they deserve no honor for their personally insulting and condescending posts. There is so much ugliness comming from Obama’s side – now supposed conservatives are acting vicious like them. Maybe they are trolls.
I am not into fighting others on this thread, so stayed off until I saw your post, but cheered on those who have the stomach to keep up the good fight with some of these persistently nasty and weak argument posters.
As to your post, OldEngish: Some time ago, I read, on World Net Daily, I think, an article which stated the same thing that you just wrote – that there is a statute in effect which qualifies who may be a natural born citizen as you and I have stated should one parent only be a citizen. I know it may take some time to find the actual statute because I am not an expert searcher, but I’ll try google after this post.
Anywho, I think Obama’s mama lived outside of the USA after sixteen, and since Obama was born when she was 18 his mother could not have fulfilled the requirement to make him natural born even if he was born in Hawaii. This is a very interesting legal point, among many that have been made here – but who will take on the man that had his puppetmasters buy him the presidency for half a billion dollars?
Also, on World Net Daily there is an article about the very first executive order Obama signed being one that refers to any records that pertain to him and how he has the right as per his own executive order to keep them away from the public.
tigerlily on July 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM
No “we” do not have the law on “our” side. There is no requirement for a long form birth cert, COLB or anything of the kind in the Constitution or via statute.
The only “law” is that the Electoral College certifies the results and names the next president, which they did.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:39 AM
p.s. forgot progressoverpeace. your posts are spot on. Keep up your hot streak. Thank you. I always enjoy reading them.
tigerlily on July 24, 2009 at 12:41 AM
That business with the Senate taking it upon themselves to define McCain’s citizenship status should have been a red flag to the Republicans that some mischief was afoot.
I think the Republicans were willing to join the Democrats in flagrantly violating separation of powers because they were worried about McCain’s citizenship status and wanted any questions to go away.
Now, why would the judiciary sit there silent while this was going on? Again, politics. Leftists weren’t going to jump in to stop the Democrats who were behind the crime and they might have known what was up with the Democrat nominee’s citizen status. Conservatives thought McCain was being helped so they sat on their hands and let the crime happen.
The Constitutional problem with citizenship is the same problem with the census; it gave Congress the job of implementing it. So, of course, Congress thinks they can do anything regarding these two things and it is automatically Constitutional. And in the case of citizenship, they think they can define things about “natural born” when that wasn’t included in their duties of establishing a process for naturalization. With the census, they were supposed to develop the process by which a headcount was tallied. To a Congressman, that means “find out everything there is to know about these people”.
Buddahpundit on July 24, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Dave R. on July 24, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Dave R., just when I was going to sign off, along comes a post from you which puts you on another “list” of mine ;)
tigerlily on July 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM
pps. Also thank you tommylotto and TNMom and all those whose posts I have really enjoyed and learned from. Like J-Dad says – We are birthers. I am honored to have such intellectually strong fellow travelers.
God bless you all – yes, even you anti-birthers.
Good night.
tigerlily on July 24, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I still find it amazing, that people who describe themselves as “conservatives”, will take as the gospel truth, a scanned image from DailyKOS, that experts have deemed tampered with.
Amazing.
Rebar on July 24, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Obama was not born.
Good looked down upon us and saw how much we had suffered, and sent us his only son.
Then he realized what a bunch of a$$holes we are as a species and sent us Barack Obama.
BillaryMcBush on July 24, 2009 at 1:44 AM
I listend to it all and to sum it up, it was all we say so or they say so and nothing of nothing was produced to prove it. It’s all hearsay. He is taking a lot of poltical damage for something as minor as where he was born, unless there really is a problem with showing his real birth certificate. I figure he is betting that if he can kick the can far enough down the road that the collatoral damage will become so great that we can not afford to see it, or he makes the constitutional clause,or the entire document, and quiet possibly the congress and judicial system, irrelevent outside of his needs. After Honduras we can not say we did not see his handwriting on the wall.
Franklyn on July 24, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Yeah, NOBODY believes in JFK theories anymore.
….oh wait, yes, they do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
There just isn’t a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts and smear them on a daily basis.
Even the truthers haven’t faced this sort of co-ordinated media attack.
The story continues to grow with new court cases and more questions being raised. Just last week there was Obama, snopes.com, and the rest scurrying to change the name of the hospital they had ‘proven’ Obama was born at.
Whoops! I guess their ‘proof’ wasn’t so reliable the first time! Change!
On July 4th the Constitutional Grand Juries were organized to deliver indictments to the WH.
On July 18th 3 military officers charged him with Treason. I think he HAS to respond to that charge.
This is why these stories are gaining steam. The pressure is mounting.
You thought Obama was a little off his game last night?
Treason charges and the wheels coming off his disinformation express can do that to a person.
Mr Purple on July 24, 2009 at 3:20 AM
Not surprisingly, spot on.
Also well reasoned, and showing knowledge of the facts – unlike the supressers who cannot seem to accept any new information on the subject.
Completely agree with this release being totally under the control of the Obama camp. Every aspect from the choice of document to the outlet of release was chosen by Obama.
If you are trying to prove your eligibility for the most powerful position in the world you don’t release a short form birth certificate. That is just preposterous.
When John McCain’s NBC (natural born citizenship) status was being reviewed by the US Senate you didn’t see smears of ‘birthers’ launched at people who questioned his eligibility. The matter was taken seriously, and it was resolved to pretty much everyone’s satisfaction.
Why is there a completely separate standard for people who question Obama’s eligibility?
When you see the Pentagon revoke deployment orders rather than A) prove the CIC is legit or B) issue a court martial you really can’t just look at this whole scenario and say ‘oh – that isn’t suspicious at all’.
I read these comments and see people like justincase (and many others) commenting evenly, clearly, with facts and knowledge – and I see the people who attack the birthers with their fingers in their ears shouting insults.
I’ve only become more convinced by the suppressers that there is something being hidden here that would cost Zero his presidency.
Apparently the opposition to the birther movement is ignorant and unwilling to accept anything outside of MSM dogma. That tells me they got nothing – and the birthers have facts and evidence on their side.
Even the supressers ‘facts’ are accepted by the birthers for what they are. A COLB that doesn’t prove a Hawaiian birth, two inconsequential newspaper announcements that prove nothing, and a statement by Hawaii that verifies the birthers and the supressers versions simultaneously.
Sorry – but you look at the scoreboard and you gotta go with the birthers.
Mr Purple on July 24, 2009 at 3:56 AM
When the current bill being presented to verify a candidates eligibility by having them produce a birth certificate is discussed by 0bama supporters – they often turn the attention right away to the possibility of 0bama being forced to produce his birth certificate.
Their response is always an incredulous ‘you would ask Barack 0bama, the Pres_ent of the United States, to produce his birth certificate for re-election?’. I just saw an exchange like that on Dobbs or FOX recently.
Once again – the fear of presenting that birth certificate is there in the supressers line of questioning. You KNOW there is a fear to go there when it comes to 0bama.
Look what we saw thrown at President Bush. Allegations he ‘stole’ the 2000 election. He was in on 9/11. ‘Bush lied’. Bush and Diebold stole the election in 2004. Bush created Katrina. ‘The Assassination of George Bush’ movie.
Come on.
There should be no fear to go there.
The right wing should be embracing the birther movement.
I’m sure some of you secretly are – but publicly you want to play the PC skeptic for your own reasons (that cushy job at HuffPo perhaps, AP).
What did Bush in was BDS Gone Wild. I hate to admit it – but that’s the world we live in. Facts don’t matter, soundbytes do.
Hell ‘hopenchange’ got Zero elected, maybe ‘wheresthebirthcertificate’ can bring him down.
You can play the happy church going Republican who is above the BC fray if you please – I’m going for every opening.
If you want to play that role, just STFU and go sit in the corner for these discussions between people seeking the truth and willing to debate the matter with an open exchange of facts, opinions, ideas, and whatever.
Save your insults for the liberal trolls if don’t want a piece.
I really admire that woman who got on YouTube by saying Obama wasn’t a citizen (not the belief I hold). She is one hell of a lot braver and cares more about her country than the entire lot of you supressers combined.
Even if I think she has her facts wrong – she at least has the sense to suspect something is wrong here. That is more than I can credit the supressers with.
Mr Purple on July 24, 2009 at 5:06 AM
Many times the Army declines to fight this sort of situation because it is a waste of time and resources. I think they should have court-martialed him anyways since he specifically requested these orders with the intention of not Obeying them (IMHO).
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 6:40 AM
Who do you think you are kidding, you are a Birther of some stipe or another. “Opinion I Dont hold” my ass.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 6:44 AM
Bingo. Despite any controversy over whether he is a citizen, properly documented or not, he inhabits the Office of the President, and our oaths were taken to follow his orders and the orders of the officers appointed over us. The military folks who refuse to follow those orders do deserve courts martial, and especially the noob who volunteered to be called up for deployment and then renege once the orders show up. I despise that guy and his intentions. If you want to protest, file one. But then go and do your duty. Go where sent. The institution he is damaging is the Air Force, not the Presidency, with his ridiculous charges. And that is a bigger crime to me than winning the Presidency of the US while not fully, almost 100%, OK pretty damn close to surely, a US citizen with the proper birth and blood credentials.
If we can admire the story of a confirmed alcoholic who became President, and a poverty stricken young black Man who became a Supreme Court Justice, then we sure as Hell can give the benefit of the doubt to a guy whose Mom was nuts for any liberal cause, lived overseas to spite her parents, and who rose through hook or crook to become a Senator and President of the US in spite of his upbringing. I don’t like the guy and I despise his political beliefs. But I will still follow his orders until he is no longer President of the US. Get on with the real protests folks. The birth certificate thing is childish.
Subsunk
Subsunk on July 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM
That is an interesting argument. However, it has never been addressed to the SCOTUS leaving it an unanswered question. However, I seriously doubt the equal protection clause was intended to modify the “natural born” qualification, and if it was, it would not be limited to just citizens at birth. If equal protection is to apply to all citizens, why treat naturalized citizens as second class citizens. Is barring Arnold from POTUS an equal protection violation? Because if the 14th was intended to apply to the natural born qualification, that would be the result.
tommylotto on July 24, 2009 at 7:46 AM
LOL
“You suppressors”
Yes, indeed. We’re keeping the REAL TRUTH from you about BO’s birth certificate (for what reason, I’m not sure). And you thought we were on your side this whole time!
MUWAHAHAHA!
AllahP – our suppression conspiracy is working like a charm!
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Suppressor? The Nirthers are beginning to sound like Scientologists. Good Lt and Madison Conservative are hereby designated as SPs (Suppressive Persons). By the beard of L Ron Hubbard, I command you to quit suppressing those documents!
packsoldier on July 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM
NEVER!
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM
While the electoral college does vote and confirm a President, they are supposed to do so as within the Constitutional requirements for the office.
I actually have a theory about those denigrating people who call us names… consider that many of those same people are liberals or RINOs… why would they band together to attack us with the same names?
I believe that they don’t want to see the Constitution enforced, because it will come back to haunt them if RINOs take back control. They are not looking for justice under the law, but a return to power.
dominigan on July 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM
That’s right. None of us dispelling the birther conspiracy lunacy care about the rule of law.
Only making sure liberals and RINOs gain power.
We’re “in control” of and we’re “suppressing” the “truth,” and only “real conservatives/real Republicans” are concerned with Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Booga booga!
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:11 AM
I want to believe you. Really. And I’m not saying that the Stewart clip wasn’t sorta funny. BUT isn’t it possible that the messy birth certificate detail emerged after the viable cantidate was found?
I’m just sayin….
Ernest on July 24, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Possible? Sure. It is also possible that I’ll be struck by lightning today when I walk outside for lunch.
That is not at all PROBABLE, however. In fact, it is such a remote possibility that it is a statistical certainty that it won’t happen.
And the Birthers, like the 9-11 Troothers, are always “just asking questions.”
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:22 AM
There are different motivations for all those groups ignoring this obvious issue. There are those who support Obama — nuff said. There are those who may not necessarily support Obama, but are sheeple and believe the MSM mantra that this issue was conclusively determined long ago (which it wasn’t). There are those who see a possible issue, but are afraid to swim up the MSM stream only to be embarrassed when Obama turns out to be qualified (Allah?). There are those few who want to defeat Obama on the merits of his ideology, not on a technicality. There are those who see it as a borderline potentially legitimate issue, but one that given political realities under no plausible circumstance will it ever result in Obama’s disqualification and therefore not worth pursuing because it expends political capital on a fools errand (Ace?).
I happen to love a constitutional crisis. The Clinton impeachment and Bush v. Gore made for great TV. I would love to see wall to wall coverage of the Obama qualification trial — forbidden love, under age sex, midnight flights, mystery documents altered or forged, interpretation of 18th century laws, and the validity of the most powerful man in the world in the balance. What is not to like?
tommylotto on July 24, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Obvious to whom?
My motivation is that it’s insane and that there is absolutely NO evidence to support any of its claims or its accusations.
So far in this thread, we who do not huff the Birther fumes have been called “suppressors” and “sheeple.” That’s, of course, what 9-11 Truthers call anybody that shoots down their conspiracy theories.
Are you now a mind-reader in addition to a Birther?
If there was a technicality here, this would have more merit. There IS NO TECHNICALITY – Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born US Citizen. Get. Over. It.
It is a fool’s errand – not because it is a legitimate issue but unpopular and distracting, but because it’s a baseless, evidence-free conspiracy fantasy put forth by professional conspiracy-huxter whackjobs who are nuttier than squirrel sh*t.
Now you know why I referred to it as a fantasy – that’s what this little passage is. Pure fantasy.
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Ever noticed how most every conspiracy is that way? That by opposing a conspiracy, that you then often get accused of being a part of it too? That Republicans who do not take the Birthers seriously, do not want the constitution enforced?
Its like that with Chemtrails too. I wonder how long before ODS gets even worse, than some on the right will start saying aircraft contrails are an Obama chemtrail plot.
By going on chemtrail board and opposing them, they accuse me of being part of the chemtrail conspiracy.
Why does Obama NEED to prove it? You wanting him to show is, is not the same as Obama NEEDS it proven. As many others have said on here, The Birthers are a benefit to Obama and his policies. Imagine if all that time, effort and money went into factually actually opposing him, instead of time spent delving into birth certificates.
Besides, I wonder how many flights on DC-7s and Lockheed Constellations it would have most likely have been to get from Hawaii to Kenya. 707s and DC-8s were still not very common.
This just strikes me more and more of conspiracy theorists throwing so much unrelated things against the wall and hoping something sticks, in order to remove him.
Its either that Obama was not born here,
Or if he was, that he is not a citizen anyways because of a foreign parent,
Or that he was Indonesian citizen,
Or maybe that he is actually a Kenyan citizen,
And that not showing (insert Document of individual Birther preference) is Proof of any or all of above.
firepilot on July 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM
It’s a classic characteristic of all conspiracy theories and their adherents.
You don’t agree with the baseless conspiracy? Well, logically,
A) YOU’RE PART OF IT
or
B) YOU’RE SHEEP WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT’S ‘REALLY’ GOING ON AND YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED BY THE AGENTS OF THE CONSPIRACY TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH
Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Funny, I just listed a whole bunch of reasons someone would oppose exploring this issue, right here
and none of those reasons involve being part of a conspiracy. As I have repeatedly said, the Kenyan theory is probably false, but possible, and in our system of justice warrants discovery and a judicial finding. The “dual citizen as natural born citizen” legal question is an unanswered question of law and I defy any of you to cite to any definitive authority that conclusively answers that question.
tommylotto on July 24, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Because Obama said so.
For Good Lt and the rest, that all the authority they need.
Rebar on July 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM
There are only two camps. Citizens who feel that Obama should release his basic documents so we know what the deal is with this person who is in control of our country…and the other camp is those who urgently want Obama to suppress those basic documents.
Buddahpundit on July 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
YES
painfulTruthDisciple on July 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM
What makes the issue really cloudy is the fact that his father was a Kenyan citizen who schlepped around, had several wives, and numerous children who had no real roots. That’s why so many people can claim being a half brother or sister of the President.
Just for fun, consider the movements of his father and mother prior to his birth. They were in Kenya prior to his birth with the intention to return to U.S. prior to his birth. Unfortunately, he was born in Kenya to an American (Hippy Dippy) mother. But, official relations with Kenya did not allow registering and recognizing births in Kenya with an American parent as being a U.S. citizen. Thus, shortly after birth his mother flew to Hawaii to register his birth to an American citizen thereby making him a citizen of U.S.
MSGTAS on July 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Actually, it appears that justice is warranting those making the accusation are to prove their discovery. And that is consistent within our system. The onus is never up to the accused to prove their innocence of any charges against them. The whole innocent until proven guilty process. This includes the dual citizenship issue. If a compelling case can be made, by all means, make it, present it, and pursue it.
Unfortunately, and again, the onus does not fall on the president to prove these allegations false. Not in any court of our law. His refusal is only relevant in the court of public opinion.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Barring Arnold from POTUS is not a violation as he was born elsewhere. The fourteenth does not relegate him to second class as due process is consistent with the Eligibility clause in Article II.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Don’t tell us, tell the Founding Fathers.
OMG, you guys, Obama is an unprecedented political genius! No matter what he does, it’s all part of his master plan. And no matter how you react, you’re just falling into his trap.
So just shut up. Shut up, or the people who’ll make fun of you no matter what will make fun of you. The people who’ll condemn you no matter what will condemn you. No matter how calmly and rationally you lay out your case, the people who seem to think of themselves as calm and rational will screech “Birther!”
Shut up.
Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Because she had the foresight to know that in 40 plus years hence, her lil tyke would run for POTUS? Too bad her foresight didn’t see his refusal to release the Long Form (or what have you) and all that hassle could have just been avoided.
I find that very strange.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Again, we aren’t at the trial yet. Right now, we are at the point where the Cambridge cop asks the Harvard scholar to show his drivers license. The onus doesn’t fall on the cop to prove the Harvard Scholar doesn’t live there.
Buddahpundit on July 24, 2009 at 11:07 AM
On the other hand, I don’t believe the Founders ever properly took on the Long Form vs COLB argument.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Exactly. Until this happens, he is not legally obliged to show us anything. Shady as heck, but there it is.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
So “proof” is whatever is most convenient and least embarrassing. Just trust Obama.
Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM
He’s not on trial (yet), this is a job qualification.
If someone gets a job based on the claim of a college degree, and it turns out that they lied about it, isn’t that cause for termination? Most reasonable people would say yes.
Fact is, the “proof”, a photoshop from DailyKOS, is highly suspect. Those that think it’s gospel truth are the ones who are crazy in my opinion. The original document is required to lay the matter to rest.
Rebar on July 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I feel quite certain that, despite her hatred for the land of her birth, she knew where her bread was best buttered, and wanted the same for her offspring.
It just so happened that her actions allowed Obama to benefit in later years.
OldEnglish on July 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I don’t suggest any person trust Obama. I have also been careful to state that I’m offering no proof of any kind, either way.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I understand. At this point, on these grounds, the case has not been compelling enough to proceed a suit for impeachment or removal. No court of law has issued any demand on his part to show anything new to the public…yet.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Neither are the people who are asking for the evidence. Which does not seem to be to your liking.
Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Squid Shark at 12:21
You took your COLB to a back room and showed it to some friends for 17 minutes while they photographed it, had them put it in Photoshop and then post it on the internet, and then you told the passport folks to look online if they wanted any stinkin’ proof of your identity?
And they gave you a passport?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Subsunk at 7:30 am
If you’re an officer, as Major Cook is, you took an oath to the Constitution. Where does that come into play?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Squid Shark at 12:22
If she’s the only one who objects to a magic seal that doesn’t bend no matter what the paper it’s on does and lines of print that disappear (along with a myriad of other things that require more technology to reveal), then more power to her.
Doesn’t say a whole lot for the others though, does it?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Squid Shark at 12:39
The Twentieth Amendment says that a president (not the president-elect so this is presumably AFTER the electoral vote) who “fails to qualify” cannot have the office.
What do you think that means?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM
After Honduras we can not say we did not see his handwriting on the wall.
Franklyn on July 24, 2009 at 1:53 AM
>>>>
+1000
I nominate this for post of the year.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Good Lt at 9:38
When you say there is “no evidence” to support the questions the “birthers” have you are being either dishonest or blind.
1) The magic seal and disappearing ink on the Photoshop-generated COLB’s Obama posted online.
2) Obama saying two different hospitals were his birthplace.
3) Obama’s grandma and a Kenyan ambassador both on tape saying Obama was born there.
Those are 3 items of evidence which I can see and hear with my own eyes and ears. There’s much, much more which require some trust of the people who are presenting the argument, but these are things anybody can see and hear for themselves.
How can you keep saying there is “no evidence”? You can say you think the evidence can be explained away by this or that (and I would LOVE to hear somebody explain it to me in an accurate manner, without obvious BSing), but to say there is no evidence is just plain wrong.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Ummmmm…..
From the National Archives:
Amendment XX:
I think it means exactly what I said. The EC certfies the election and qualifications of the President.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM
We defend the Constitution and follow the orders of those appointed over us. In this case, the Constitutionally elected and affirmed President of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama. Major Cook does not get to make interpretations on the constitution without getting his butt court martialed.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Well, in our legal system, you first make allegations in a Complaint. This is the pleading stage. Then the defendant gets to challenge your pleading as being legally insufficient assuming the truth of the allegations.
Once you get beyond the pleading stage, then you enter the discovery phase. This is were the plaintiff gets to serve subpoenas and take depositions and accumulate all the evidence necessary to prove the case. The plaintiffs in these cases have never been permitted to get to this discovery stage, because they have not gotten past the pleading stage. The cases have always been tossed out as lacking standing. The cases have not been found to lack legal merit other than the person bringing the case was not the proper person to assert it.
So, the plaintiffs have not yet been able to conduct discovery. They have not yet been given an opportunity to prove their case. We have Obama’s prima facia case, and that’s it. The effort to rebut has been frustrated by legal technicalities.
tommylotto on July 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM
anuts at 10:46
I haven’t been able to verify this, but I understand that Obama had to sign some sort of document saying he was eligible for the office of president.
Given the discrepancies that have shown up regarding his birth record, there is just reason for law enforcement to investigate whether Obama perjured himself when he signed that document. If we can find a law enforcement body that will do their job Obama WILL be required to prove his innocence of the crime of perjury.
Unfortunately, it won’t be the FBI. It won’t be the Attorney General. If a US Attorney did it they would be fired like Walpin. It won’t be Chicago law enforcement. It won’t be Hawaii law enforcement. It won’t be any local law enforcement body. And someone questioned whether state AG’s can subpoena documents from another state. If they can’t, then it won’t be any state AG.
Who’s left?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:04 PM
anuts at 11:04AM
Why would she have to envision him running for president? She might just have wanted American welfare. Especially if she had intended him to be born in America.
If it’s true that she registered Indonesian-born daughter Maya Soetoro as Hawaiian-born, then why are we crazy to suggest she might have done the same thing with Kenyan-born Barack?
I’ve heard that allegation but don’t know how anybody would verify it as true so the jury’s still out on that one. What is beyond doubt is that Hawaiian law would have given her the ability to do so.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I know you are just arguing from your own opinion and interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to some binding Constitutional jurisprudence, so none of this has any bearing on whether or not the “dual citizen is not a natural born citizen” has any legal merit, but accepting your argument that the equal protection clause which applies to all citizens applies to the POTUS qualification, then the equal protection clause must eliminate all those qualifications — age, residency and natural born status, because if all citizens are assured equal protection, then why can’t a 25 year old citizen be POTUS? Why can’t a citizen living overseas? Why can’t Arnold? If a distinction between naturalized citizens and citizens by birth is permitted by the equal protection clause, then why can’t there be a distinction between natural born citizens with sole allegiance to the US and dual citizens at birth with divided loyalties?
tommylotto on July 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Squid Shark at 11:57
Touche’. I’ll give you that one. It does say president-elect.
What are the qualifications the Congressional certification is supposed to verify? What does “qualified” mean and what steps would be required to legally verify those qualifications?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Squid Shark at 12PM
Would an officer in the US military have any responsibility if there was evidence in the public domain that the person elected to be Commander-in-Chief was actually Hugo Chavez?
How does the military protect the US against DOMESTIC enemies?
At what point does the UCMJ require a soldier to do some personal checking beyond “just following orders”?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Squid Shark, thank you for correcting me on my inaccuracy regarding the 20th Amendment.
If I had posted my own printed-up version of the Constitution and had it photographed, put in Photoshop, and then posted it online, would you have trusted my version implicitly?
Or would you have wanted to see legal verification of what the Constitution actually says?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Also, Squid Shark, the questions I asked at 12:18 are not easy to answer. I don’t expect you to answer them. It may take a lifetime before a person has fully answered them. But those are the issues at stake.
The worst thing that could happen is if the military became a place where asking those questions is automatically considered insurrection.
We place a huge burden on our military. I can’t possibly say how much I respect and appreciate what our military does for us. It’s not supposed to be a political task but when it reaches the upper levels there is no question that it is a political minefield that has to be navigated. It shouldn’t be that way.
The SCOTUS has said there are very few people who have “standing” – that is, who have enough at stake for them to be able to question the Constitutionality of how the government functions. Not only have military officers been given the standing, they have also expressly been given the DUTY to be the voice for we, the people, who can’t on our own “petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
It stinks. But our military is one of the checks and balances put in place over the rest of government when they screw the American people by unConstitutional actions. In this case, by Congress certifying a president who has not been specifically FOUND to qualify for the job.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Incorrect in the extreme, one of the things that sets our military apart is that they DO NOT take the interpretation of the Constitution in their own hands, that is how you end up with…Latin America.
We defer to the properly constituted CIVILIAN authorities. In this case that is the Electoral College.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Our difference is not from what I like vs what you like. The birth certificate issue on his eligibility just seems to be weak on evidence, reason, and even logistics. That is only my opinion. His refusal to cooperate, although shady behavior (possibly for other reasons), doesn’t change that.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM
What if the civilian authorities are improperly constituted?
What does it mean when you make an oath to defend the Constitution? There will always be civilian authorities who are SUPPOSED to do everything. Why is that oath in there for the military?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Not one shred of evidence in the Public Domain is even remotely conclusive. Certainly not conclusive enough to justify a national guard major to tell the President to go suck an egg.
When that domestic enemy orders us to do something unlawful.
I have yet to recieve such an order.
You follow the lawful orders of the duly constituted civilian authority. Officers are required to make judgements all the time some things are, for lack of a better phrase, “above our paygrade”. Just as Ehren Watada is not allowed to make a “ruling” on the legality of the Iraq War, Major Cook is not allowed to make a “ruling” on Obama’s NBC status.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM
And Major Cook wasn’t taking the Constitution into his own hands. He was asking the civilian authorities to examine the question using legal standards of evidence because Congress failed to do that.
How do we, the people, MAKE our Congress follow the laws? Vote for somebody else next time? By then the damage is already done, and on some things it’s not possible to turn back the clock.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:46 PM
So what is the necessary path to continue and by whom? FOIA request? By anyone? I honestly don’t know.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:48 PM
So if Hugo Chavez was certified by our Congress to be president every US military officer would have to do what Chavez said, without question, as long as (for instance) his request that you invade Honduras and overthrow their government fit into his lawful “executive oversight”?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I don’t know.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Does an officer have cover for “just obeying orders” if the evidence only suggests that something is very, very fishy but isn’t “conclusive”?
The only time the evidence will be “conclusive” is when the trial is already done.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM
That’s a good point. On that, I yield.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM
anuts at 12:48
And there you have the reason why this case should be taken up even by people who believe Obama is probably eligible. If tapdancing lawyers can neuter the Constitution we’re all in trouble.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I believe the key is without due process. The explicit language in Article II constitutes (sorry for pun) as due process.
anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Straw Man, Chavez is clearly and conclusively not only not an NBC but is in fact a foreign leader who does not even speak English.
Conclusive. Also, the electoral college would not certify someone like him without massive fraud, military action, or open corruption.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM
And if barely-qualified, correspondence course lawyers are the only attorneys your side can gin up, you are in trouble.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Military courts assume that an order is lawful until the member proves it otherwise in court. Therefore the burden of proof remains with Mr. Cook.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Standing is not a “legal technicality”. Non-professionals have the tendancy to deem anything that they do not agree with as a “legal technicality”.
“Standing” is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. In essence “the question of standing is whether the litigatn is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or fo particular issues.” warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975).
The standing doctrine promotes separation of powers by restricting the availablity of judicial review. Standing “is founded in concern about the proper — and properly limited role — of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.
Furthermore in this instance, courts are even more careful and the “standing inquiry is especialy rigorous [because of separation of powers concerns] when reaching the merits of a dispute would force [it] to decide whether an action taken by onr of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819-20 (1997).
There is something amusing that so-called “true conservatives” are complaining about one of the most important checks on the power of the judiciary. Standing is an important check on the so-called activist judiciary. calling it a legal technicality and clamoring for the Court to ignore it should frighten “true conservatives”. Tactics may win battles, but strategy wins wars. Study the difference between “tactical” and “strategic”. Idiots.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 24, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Squid Shark at 12:56PM
So you’re arguing that it could never happen here.
You can look at http://www.veritasbelt.blogspot.com for a list of stuff that was never supposed to be able to happen in America. And that’s just what’s been done by Obama’s administration. I didn’t even include what Congress has been up to. And the list needs much, much more added as well.
I don’t think we have the luxury of saying, “It’ll never happen here.”
Roger Calero is from Nicaragua and made it on the ballots even where the SOS’s were required by state law to verify eligibility. It can happen here.
And both the communists and Islamofascists have openly said that this is their MO: to pose as legitimate Americans, build up a history in this country which dampens any questions, and then get in positions where they can destroy the nation from within. The war on terror has to be fought diligently in another way because the enemies hide as civilians. Our enemies have outright said they will hide as Americans by living among us.
That’s what several of the 9-11 attackers did. They were registered to vote. And the US military identified Atta’s group as suspicious a year before 9-11. They gave that info to the civilian authorities who trashed it. Oringinally they said they trashed it because it violated Gorelick’s “wall” between military and civilian law enforcement. But eventually they admitted that wasn’t the reason, since Atta’s folks weren’t US citizens.
The real reason was because Sec Defense William Perry didn’t want Able Danger’s other “leads” to be followed up on – which would have shown (as was shown by FOIA requests Perry was eventually forced to obey) that Perry’s own company sold dual-use satellite technology to a company owned by the wife of the Chinese military commander. Congress had already issue the Cox Report saying that Chinese front companies needed to be investigated and the Thompson Report saying that Clinton’s sell-out to the Chinese should be investigated. Reno just refused to investigate and nobody could MAKE her do anything about it.
IOW, the DOD axed the little guys who were exercising due diligence in order to CYA for the head honcho, Sec Def Perry.
I’m sure it was all non-political and Constitutional and all. The only problem was that in order to cover up a crime, the US military hid evidence which could have prevented the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans in the single most deadly act of war against the USA.
Can you tell I’m upset about this? You damn right I’m upset. I think I’m justified in being upset.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Since you are now showing your colors as a Truther too I am even less inclined to take you seriously.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Believe what you want. The Supreme Court wouldn’t touch this for political, not legal reasons. This mess is nothing more than a distraction from the reality of a president who hates everything America stands for and seeks to undermine our constitutional republic and replace it with an ultra-racist and socialist ideology to achieve his idea of fairness.
This cannot be done without tearing down the capitalist, free-market system first. “Traitorous” is an overused term with little meaning anymore, but I don’t know what else to call it.
SKYFOX on July 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM
It’s all in the record. If you don’t know about Able Danger you’re obviously not going to listen to me.
Fine. Do the CYA crap that gets Americans killed. Because playing politics with the US military has never cost us anything.
Shaffer was threatened with insubordination charges if he kept insisting on trying to tell the FBI to investigate Atta and cohorts. Which action would have violated his oath to the Constitution and to defend America against foreign and domestic enemies – disobeying his dear leader, or letting politics kill 3,000 innocent Americans?
What would you have done? Having the information which could save 3,000 people but being told by your superior to throw the information – and the American lives – away. Which would you do? Should Shaffer have been court-martialed if he went ahead?
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM
And I am not a 9-11 truther. Maybe you didn’t notice my references to Islamofascists’ MO and to Atta.
But it sure gives you an easy excuse to not have to listen, doesn’t it? Mighty noble of you.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:23 PM
As an entirely snarky aside, wasn’t it the Democrats who established the standard that it wasn’t the nature of the evidence that demanded an investigation, but the seriousness of the charge?
If they want to embrace Alinsky tactics, they should face them in turn. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they want to set up the rule that all that matters is the seriousness of the charge, make them “live up to their own rules”.
If O wants to trumpet transparency, force him to be transparent. Leftists complain non-stop about hypocrisy, as if that is the worst thing thing one can do. This is a prime example of hypocrisy on their part.
Political Juijitsu. Embrace their alleged standard and use it against them.
VekTor on July 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Which Americans are being killed by my following the presidents orders?
How would President Biden be any better for the country exactly?
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:26 PM
\
Short answer, yes, everyone who disobeys a direct order should be court martialed. That is where he presents his proof that he had before the Triunal for assesment.
Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM
The ones who love America. Oh – wait, they’re just being castrated. I guess that’s not so bad.
Better dead than communist red.
justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »