Quotes of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on August 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
“There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question is: Why don’t the media — the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin’s Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records — want to dig into Obama’s background?
Who cares that Hawaii’s full state records would doubtless confirm what we already know about Obama’s birthplace? They would also reveal interesting facts about Obama’s life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn’t the press once in the business of interesting — and even not-so-interesting — news?…
The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented ‘transparency’: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?”
***
“But before liberals begin to smirk, here’s a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.
So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It’s a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they’re out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier — which is probably within the margin of error…
Tamryn then asked a good question: Back in the Bush Era, did any Democratic members of Congress avoid questions about whether ‘Bush Knew?’ On the spot, I couldn’t remember. But the truth is, they didn’t just avoid the question — they stoked the flames of conspiracy theories and in some cases embraced them.”
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 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
HE ISN’T LOCKING IT UP. He’s released what he has. The state of HI has the long form, and they’re locking it up because that’s what they do with birth certificates. And yes, any suit filed against him is going to have a response from DOJ lawyers because that’s what they do when someone sues the president.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I see no lack of obsession on every policy of Obama’s turning what they touch to lead.
This birth certificate issue just makes him that much more distrusted overall.
I say storm the building in Hawaii containing the original. Enough is enough.
Shy Guy on August 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Cite???
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM
That’s not true. I’ve talked to people who voted for him who now find this suspicious.
The longer this goes on, the more it reflects badly on him, not the people who question it.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Of course it’s locked up. No one can view it without his authorization. If he’s released what he has then what is the big deal with releasing the document the COLB was drawn from?
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Obama – willing to release terrorist but not his proof of eligibility, college records etc..
hmmmm
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Obama’s as pure as the wind driven
snowcoal dust.Cybergeezer on August 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I’ve no doubt there’s a handful of Obama supporters who now have a case of buyer’s remorse. But the vast majority of his voting bloc is emotionally invested in Obama in a way I’ve never seen, even Carter back in ’76.
flipflop on August 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Yes, BY THE STATE OF HAWAII like every other BC they have.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM
No.
The DoJ does not represent the President in personal matters. Neither does the Attorney General. This is a personal matter. DoJ or the AG getting involved is a violation of US Code.
coldwarrior on August 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Cite?? Source documents for this??
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Do you have a point, bullseye? And do you have that source for your claim that Dr. West retired at 46 years old?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Heck, after getting away with giving control of a hospital board to Rezko and getting a neato house in return, what is another violation of the law??
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Sure.
See how easy that was?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:57 AM
No, it isn’t. This isn’t Paula Jones. This relates directly to his office.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
You’re evading my question. If the document released has the same information as the document in Hawaii … then why 1) have it sealed, and 2) continue to waste government resources when the matter could be resolved in 30 minutes.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Because it is obviously convenient to maintain the status quo.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Pablo, that statement is meaningless when it comes to the Constitution. As I said before, Obama’s Birth Registration from Kenya was just posted this morning. It’s a real document. There is now no proof that he was born in any other hospital but Coast General Hospital.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/03118509265
It should have been obvious to anyone with just a few neurons to bounce signals around their skull that Obama was hiding something major when a mob of blind sheep were goaded into an Alinsky psychofrenzy of anti-birtherism last week
econavenger on August 2, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Is his withholding of his original birth certificate a matter of US national policy, authorized by Congress?
No.
Thus, this is indeed a personal matter, and Obama has lawyers already on his personal payroll who have been preventing the release of said document.
Using the AG or the offices of the DoJ to enter into this matter is crossing the line from official national policy matters into personal matters.
Going back to President Nixon, wherein Nixon called upon his Attorney General [Mitchell] to try to quash the Watergate investigation, it is shown that Nixon’s doing so was a case of extra-legality…and one of the charges in the articles of impeachment that were being drawn up against him at the time of his resignation.
coldwarrior on August 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM
It’s a photograph of, at least, a very convincing forgery.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM
And you know that how? Are you going to tell me that you know this is a fake, but that is 100% authentic?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM
No, it was campaign lawyers, paid with campaign funds. Now it will be DOJ lawyers, paid with your money. If he wasn’t POTUS, the suits would be moot. Therefore, they relate directly to his office.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM
My point is that I find it extremely amusing that you demand sources and cites from everyone on every single issue. Things that have been cited ad nauseum before
HOWEVER
You don’t seem to think that the POTUS, a guy controlling one of the largest economies, has control of a half million megatons of warheads (and no, to save you time I am not going to cite a reference for that).. a guy who has numerous holes in his history and may very well be ineligible.. Well, Pablo doesn’t believe he needs to show anything.. simply amazing and amusing…
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM
It doesn’t matter and we have to learn this. There is no scandal that can bring him down…only the issues and a good solid republican party.
Letting the media run with this is just stupid…even if you were right it just wouldn’t matter.
He isn’t Palin, he is a democrat and president…the first black president at that. You are going to lose lose lose everytime.
We are making headway and this issue was being saved just for this to make republicans look like idiots. It worked.
tomas on August 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM
THe document has been authenticated as best as can be and submitted to a California Court.
No matter what, it’s the best proof we have for any birth location and is far more convincing than the original Kos photoshop that Obama submitted to America.
econavenger on August 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM
They’re ALL sealed. ALL OF THEM. There is noting unique about this.
One, they love birthers. And two, this.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:10 AM
That is interesting. Can you state the controlling law for that?
I seem to remember that Sarah Palin had to have a defense fund because of the numerous nuisance ethics complaints filed against her.
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 10:10 AM
That would be true a year from now … it’s probably useful to get these things hashed out well before the real campaign gets underway.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:10 AM
What does that mean? Where did it come from and how has it been authenticated? Submitted to a court means nothing, btw.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Pablo,
Obama’s birth was obviously registered in Hawaii to qualify him for citizenship. No one is disputing that. He simply was not born in a Hawaiian hospital that anyone can prove. There are zero witnesses and zero documentation of an actual birth.
Obama Fail.
econavenger on August 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
In page1 of comments, progressoverpeace on August 1, 2009 at 10:11 PMrefers to this page Because people might not understand what is being said, I have copied the relevant source code here. Ya have to admit, it’s “interesting” that this information no longer appears on the page, but only in the source code. I’ve added the little … to try to keep WP from actually obeying the code.
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Well, me and every court that has heard the matter. I like the House bill to require verification. I don’t like wasting time when the law is not on my side.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:13 AM
well my attempt didn’t work but what you see above is embedded in the source code of the page, but as progressoverpeace on August 1, 2009 at 10:11 PM mentions, it’s commented out so that those just viewing the page and not the source code, can’t see it anymore. Why?
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Hard to prove.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM
From my standpoint, even if there were a real Kenyan document like that, it is far more likely that a forgery would make it to the web than the real thing. “Fake but accurate”?
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM
It hasn’t been heard in court yet. One of the cases was shelved by one of the SCOTUS clerks.
In most of the cases they were dismissed on the claim that the plaintiff didn’ have standing.
The other case, with Major Cook’s TRO was rendered moot by the simple expedient of withdrawing his deployment orders
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Who cares what any of these loons believe – that really doesn’t matter.
All that matters is the truth, Barack Hussein Obama was birthed in the State of Hawaii and George W Bush never attacked his country.
PERIOD, let the naysayers go to therapoy or hell, whichever feels more like they belong.
AprilOrit on August 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Didn’t this letter cause anyone to wonder what was up? First of all, all the Obama-loving media and websites had to scramble to change the name of the hospital that Obama was supposedly born in from his last story. But the second point is: Who writes public letters to their “birth hospital” to establish birth instead of releasing the proof?
Obama Fail.
econavenger on August 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
It depends on what we want to believe. We can take him at his word, that he was born in 1965 and living with his grandfather in Hawaii in 1969 as a 4 year old and sitting on his grandfather’s shoulders and waving at the Apollo Astronauts, OR we can believe the undocumented documented-story which would make Obama an insane liar for concocting his 1965 identity and not fit for any position of trust.
There is also a third option and that is that neither A nor B are true and Obama is having a difficult time keeping straight the various identities that he has created for himself or have been created for him by his handlers.
Buddahpundit on August 2, 2009 at 10:19 AM
So much wrong with that statement, so little time.
The Attorney General is not the personal attorney of record for the President of the United States. The AG represents the United States. AG Mitchell was asked to act as “attorney” for Nixon and instructed to use the DoJ to stop the investigation of the Watergate break-in as well as the Elsberg matter. A gross misuse of an Executive Department.
Obama has personal lawyers, and a White House Attorney who is charged with representing the President…not the Nation.
What national policy directive is involved in failing to authorize the release of the original birth certificate? What matter of law enacted by Congress is involved in preventing the release of this document?
None.
Thus, any use of the DoJ or the Attorney General in this matter is an extra-legal activity.
Check the details of the Sacramento/Americorps matter, as an example, and the use of the DoJ in that. The firing of the IG is small potatoes when one looks at the totality of the Sacramento case. Using the DoJ in the Sacramento matter is far more eggregious.
On a practical point, should the President be able to use the AG and the DoJ as his personal legal team for matters not related to national policy or enacted law…what is to prevent any President from ever being charged for any crime or misdemeanor let alone found to be guilty of anything?
coldwarrior on August 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Controlling law about the various uses of DOJ lawyers? No, I can’t state that. Can you? I don’t know that there is one. They do what the Administration tells them to do.
As it turns out, that’s the one ethics complaint that stuck. She could not have the defense fund as Governor (personal gain from her official office), and the decision on that recommended that the State pay her legal fees.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM
By the way, I must have missed something. Which court actually heard the arguments. You know, not a pretrial hearing but a full court case with discovery, witnesses, oaths, cross examinations etc??
I’ve heard the phrase “Discovery is a bitch”…
bullseye on August 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM
You’re still evading my question. It isn’t the State of Hawaii that’s preventing the documents release … it’s Obama.
My question is … if it’s the same thing as the COLB then why?
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Yes, he’s the personal lawyer of the US Government, which includes the POTUS in his official capacity.
A very different matter, and an abuse of resources.
He’s not asking the DOJ to “fail to authorize” the release of anything. The DOJ cannot “fail to authorize” because they cannot authorize.
The suits must be directed at the office of the President to claim that he’s ineligible to hold it. It only matters if you sue the BHO the POTUS, because private citizen BHO would get a summary dismissal for lack of a meritorious claim every time. We will be paying for the defense of those suits. Count on it.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
MSM = Dumpster Divers that’s the state of the 4 estate.
Folks were on our own…has anyone checked out the radio stations being shut down in Venezuela?
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/2/worldupdates/2009-08-02T081142Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-414808-1&sec=Worldupdates
Just Saying this administration loves them some Hugo Chavez and his buddies.
Dr Evil on August 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM
we’re on our own, more coffee please.
Dr Evil on August 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM
They have it. Go ask them for it. Then tell me again that they’re not preventing its release. Hawaiian law prevents releasing it, and they’re abiding by that law.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Those are not the only cases. See Berg, Keyes, etc…
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM
There’s been no final decision. That was the opinion of the investigator, not the final finding of the Personnel Board. So you’re incorrect … it didn’t “stick”.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
This describes perfectly a significant reason that I have no faith at all in Bama.
The guy won’t come over with his birth certificate. Of all the really innocuous things there can be about his qualifications to be POTUS (the college transcripts and financing are of more interest to me), I don’t know of one.
And he claims to be so “clear” and “transparent” simultaneously.
His pattern of not knowing what the facts of a matter are (such as the Gates affair) but spewing hard opinions about said matters cause me to wonder who this man really is, what he really knows and what he imagines.
Both of these threads take his credibility into negative terrain. He’s lying about something, if I don’t know the depth of it and all the subjects.
If Bama wants credibility, he can start by releasing basic data about his past. If he is afraid to do that, then his present and future have to be doubted.
You can’t get anywhere else from here. Claiming honesty means nothing. Prove it, prove all the acolytes right. Go ahead, Bama.
Harry Schell on August 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM
That’s bullcrap. Hawaii could release it if Obama gave the ok … that’s who’s keeping it “locked up”.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Funny how Chavez propaganda stations get called “publicly owned”.
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
You’re right, I am incorrect on that.
See how easy that was?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM
This appears to be a very good fake, but has some troubling aspects. 1. as noted in the comment section, Kenya didn’t become a republic until Dec. 1964 (as best as I can find quickly at least). 2. why would a 1961 birth not be verified until 1964? 3) why would O’s father be listed as resident of Hawaii?
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM
In all likelihood this has something to do with blood typing …
His not releasing both the BC and medical records lends credence to this plausible scenario…
They, (his real father) and Ann duped Obama Sr .into marrying Ann…
He found out later and divorced her…
Who’s his Daddy?? That’s the real question…
I have a hard time, now, believing Justice Roberts would swear him in knowing he was a dual citizen…
Ummm…they did muff that didn’t they…makes one think what hell is really going on…
I just want to see the documents…
jerrytbg on August 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Hawaii could release it. Because they’re in possession of it. But they’re not releasing it. Because their laws prevent it. So they’re keeping it locked up. Obama, who does not have it, is not keeping it locked up. He’s just not authorizing Hawaii to stop keeping it locked up, which he could only do because they have it. Locked up.
Bullcrap, I know.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM
He “knows” the hard-left world-view. He has very little imagination. He won.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM
My questions are easy too. Obama claims his COLB is an accurate representation of what’s on his BC on file. If that’s the case, what possible advantage is he gaining by being secretive? People already question his motives for not releasing any other records he has … this just makes it worse.
The number of Obama doubters is growing, not shrinking.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM
The document is, iirc, a an official copy (like the COLB). The 1964 date is when the copy was issued. There is a small discoloration about 1/3 of the way down the document — like a stain. If it’s a forgery, it’s a beautifully done job.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM
He needs to be doubted regardless. If I had watched him being born in Honolulu with my very own eyes, I still wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Does that make sense to you? The list of his doubters grows daily in part because of his secrecy pertaining to this. If he had released other records then you may have some point, but he hasn’t, and won’t release anything.
Don’t you find that odd in the least?
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
This one states 206 Radio stations are on the block. The Obama Administration is cozy with these thugs like Chavez et al. The Good News, the folks to the south of us, like to party Revolution Style :)
http://current.com/items/90582285_dozens-of-radio-stations-shut-down-in-venezuela.htm
Dr Evil on August 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I answered that. You quoted it. That you don’t want to accept the answer doesn’t mean I haven’t given you two of them.
Again, I’d rather see his transcripts. But he isn’t going to release them, and he isn’t required to. Now what? Like the song says, you can’t always get what you want.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The list of doubters grows daily because he’s doing a horrific job. That will be useful information in 2012.
Most people don’t do conspiracy theories. This one is no different.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM
http://current.com/items/90582285_dozens-of-radio-stations-shut-down-in-venezuela.htm
A “Special Bill Against Media Crimes” was introduced before the National Assembly this week, Cabello said, adding that he hoped the bill would pass.
RCTV, another independent station that criticized Chavez, lost its broadcast license two years ago. It had to go off the public airwaves and transmit solely on cable.
Other TV stations hung on to their frequencies by adjusting their editorial line, the Reporters Without Borders press organization said in its 2009 World Report.
Venezuelan officials have repeatedly denied any political motives. Chavez has labeled as “terrorists” any TV station owners who criticize the government.
Of course it isn’t political…..remember the soup nazi no soup for you. Venezuela no non regulated government radio for you the radio nazis
Dr Evil on August 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM
These updates on venezuela are very informative, so thanks. The only surprising thing to me is that Chavez had not got around to this already … it’s interesting how slowly he is able to tighten his grip. Would have been different under RR.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Kata,
Kenya was in transition to a republic in 1963 when the Constitution was written and may have made document changes from that point forward. That part is still being investigated.
From what I’ve seen discussed already, in 1964 I guess there was a divorce and Obama custody was in question. Also his mother returned to the states and might have needed documents. So much more to be learned, but why would a forger even bother with 1964 when they could just forge his birth year as we think it should be?
econavenger on August 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM
No you didn’t. Putting the onus on Hawaii is a cop out. Obama is the sole proprietor of his BC. Hawaii merely stores it. It can be released to the public with a phone call.
Nation calls for Obama to release birth certificate … Obama says he would but Hawaii says they must keep it locked up! Says Bush is making them do it! Obama says he’s honest and transparent except when he’s not!
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM
If it was only the birth certificate issue,I don’t think there would be this much interest. But it is combined with the lack of transparency regarding ALL of his other records that makes one wonder. What IS he hiding? Why can’t we see the smartest man in the worlds college transcripts? Why can’t we see how he paid for his education? Who paid for his jaunt around the world “when he was just a poor college student”? What did he do and where did he go during his missing years? Never, and I will say that again… NEVER, have we known so little about one who is doing so much to alter our country.
Why isn’t everyone curious?
libertylady on August 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Rather than questioning his birth in Hawaii, wouldn’t it be more important to determine the definition of “natural born citizen”? It has been my impression that to be natural born, you must be born in the US to US Citizens. His father was not a US citizen and that is why he held dual citizenship at his birth. (His own admission) Just my thoughts.
antiquechick on August 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Cause “Everyone” has a life. ;-)
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The reason the word “conspiracy” exists is because someone had to coin a word to describe conspiracies.
I understand his actions are growing doubters … I’m specifically referring to his refusal to release what he says is the same information already released.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I’m curious LibertyLady, but I don’t believe there is a legal issue to see college transcripts, who paid for what etc. There is a Constitutional requirement as far as the B/C (and any other document concerning citizenship)is concerned.
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Guess what? I can multi-task with the best of them! You ought to try it sometime.
libertylady on August 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM
He won.
That’s one of the few signs that he is street-smart even if he’s not the world’s greatest genius. There is a video of him speaking about the US constitution when he was an illinois senator. It’s quite clear that as a constitutional lawyer, he realizes that the constitution is just a piece of paper … unless enough voters care.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM
You can keep saying that but it doesn’t change the fact that the document you seek is located in an office of the State of Hawaii.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM
From the DoJ official website:
Mission: To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
From the same site:
The Attorney General:
“The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world’s largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.”
Giving advice on governmental matters is not the same as providing legal representation. Giving specific advice to the Presdient on ongoing personal legal matters is the purview of the Office of White House Counsel.
coldwarrior on August 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Only females “multi-task” … besides, by “everyone” I meant “excluding those of us obsessed enough to post to hotair on sunday morning”.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM
>
Who said you need a legal reason to be curious? He is the leader of the free world and I do want to know more about him. I read both of his books (before the election) and I made an educated decision NOT to vote for this man. I thought he was in desperate need of counseling – too many emotional needs unmet.
libertylady on August 2, 2009 at 11:03 AM
A cursory look at the many despots of the past 100+ years will show a very direct impact of father abandonment issues on the majority of such despots.
coldwarrior on August 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Gotcha! :-)
libertylady on August 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Nope, don’t need a legal reason to be curious. But do need a legal reason to demand. Some of us are demanding proof that he meets “natural born citizen” requirements as set forth in the Constitution.
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
you’re a dude ?
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
And that answers the question of why Obama won’t release it how exactly? Especially if it’s the same info as in the COLB?
Try this … Pablo applies for a small loan and brings a photocopy of his drivers license. The loan officer says he’d like to see his actual drivers license to validate the copy. Pablo says it’s locked up at home. The loan officer says that’s great but I’d still like to see it to verify this copy. Pablo says his house won’t release it, because well, it won’t. The loan officer begins to question the authenticity of Pablo’s copy and Pablo becomes irate, demanding to know why the loan officer won’t believe his copy. The loan officer says the matter can be quickly resolved by showing the actual license but Pablo continues to insist only his house can release it and begins to call the loan officer a conspiracy nut … and on and on.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM
My husband certainly hopes I’m not…. What did I say to sound dudish?
libertylady on August 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM
He doesn’t according to the link posted this morning in this thread.
However, when this birther stuff first got going there were detailed examinations (no I don’t remember the links) of what the “natural born citizen” requirement really is and claims that it had been modified in a way (only one parent required) that he would satisfy it … but that the modification happened in 1964, after his birth, … and then the question arises as to whether the change applies to those born earlier … extremely confusing.
He won.
It’s probably more useful at this point to try to ensure he doesn’t repeat his “win” …
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM
was a joke on “gotcha” … (first time or second ?)
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Is anyone aware that FactCheck.org is funded by Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania?
moonsbreath on August 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
The writer seems to have made a vast understatement. Men “get a bit kooky” when the use of a single, large budget is at stake, and they get more and more crazed, whether they’re in or out of power, as that single budget increases to a trillion and then trillions of dollars. The Americans ignored their federal constitution and ruined their federal orders; the sh1t-government with which they replaced it seems likely to ruin them and itself.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
mentioned upthread, iirc
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I answered that here. You quoted my answer here. How many times do we need to do this?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I remember stories that claimed some journalists and politicians were given authority to look at the long-form birth certificate at the Hawaii Department of Health. Who would have authorized this viewing of the original birth certificate, Obama or Hawaii?
Buddahpundit on August 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Exactly. From my previous post on yesterday’s thread that didn’t make the Big Page.
Until SCOTUS Defines NBC
Was Obama born in Kenya? No!
His father was a Kenyan, though!
Even Fight the Smears says so.
Is he eligible to be President? I don’t know.
(And neither will anyone else) until SCOTUS defines NBC.
Obama released his COLB
As proof of his birth in Hawaii.
To determine his eligibility,
I guess we’ll have to wait and see
Until SCOTUS defines NBC.
Axlerod, Gibbs and Daily Kos
Use press releases and internet posts
To ridicule “birthers” as nuts and jokes.
But it’s all no more than keyboard strokes,
Until SCOTUS defines NBC.
Documents, transcripts, and records under seal.
What is it that he won’t reveal?
To transparency promised, I appeal.
Still, we won’t fully know the deal,
Until SCOTUS defines NBC.
What is an NBC you ask?
I challenge SCOTUS to that task.
A tin-foil hat or Usurper’s mask?
No decisions made without the facts
Or until SCOTUS defines NBC.
singer on August 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Don’t think it will happen before 2013 … better to win in 2012.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:21 AM
You answered nothing. All you keep saying is Hawaii seals all of them. Hawaii doesn’t have primacy over Obama’s birth certificate … Obama does, and a quick phone call can end the matter.
My question is and always has been … if the inforamtion on his COLB is supposedly the same as his BC, then why won’t he release it?
Saying Hawaii seals everything isn’t an answer.
darwin on August 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I have my driver’s license in my possession. My state does not have my driver’s license in a vault. I have it, on me. It is not, as you would say, locked up. What my state does have, and I do not, is my original birth certificate. I believe they keep it locked up. If you were to go ask them for it, they wouldn’t release it to you. And apparently, that would be my doing if I follow your logic correctly. The other funny thing is that they wouldn’t release it to you even if I asked them to. When I had to get a COLB, I was living in California. They wouldn’t send me a copy. One of 3 people had to show up in person, me or one of my parents.
You see, states don’t just hand out BC’s, even if you tell them it’s OK to pass yours around.
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM
This is a Teachable Moment! Let’s have a Beer and Talk about this.
BigMike252 on August 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM
He’s not going to make the call.
I was on your side earlier in the thread but Pablo has made it pretty clear that he understands your point.
gh on August 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Sotomayor probably will define NBC.
katablog.com on August 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Here, I’ll type it slowly this time, and in bold italic caps.
O B A M A L O V E S B I R T H E R S. A L S O , T H I S.
Did you get it that time or shall I tell you again?
Pablo on August 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »