J.D. Hayworth: Where’s the birth certificate?

posted at 3:37 pm on January 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via HuffPo, looks like that DSCC memo about making this an issue in the midterms is already paying off. You’re a good soldier, Chris Matthews!

This isn’t going to be a huge issue between him and McCain — there are plenty of other things Maverick can attack him over — but now that Hayworth’s taken the bait, only the very dumbest left-leaning reporter or debate moderator would fail to press the two of them on this subject. Which means more ink for a fringe issue that’s not going anywhere (Obama would be nuts to produce the certificate at this point given the political mileage he gets from it) and plenty of opportunities for the media to convince centrists that the “teabagger” movement is, in its entirety, all about paranoia over Obama being a foreigner. Why Obama’s official state certification of live birth isn’t good enough continues to elude me, but so it goes. I hereby denounce myself for being a RINO. Exit question: FreedomWorks isn’t targeting McCain in the primary? Hmmmm.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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 2 3 4 5

Look, I don’t like the dude either. I think he is destroying our nation and trying to turn us into little Venezuela. But if we want to thwart his evil plans, we can pick a better argument than whether he is a natural born citizen or not.

mizflame98 on January 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Whether or not you like the dude is irrelevant to the matter of his citizenship status at birth. The idea that we all need to have one lockstep issue to challenge Obama on and dismiss all other matters is fallacious.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Why isn’t the onus on you to prove you’re right?

Fact is, a third of the GOP is pro-birther, but less than 10% of the public (including the GOP) is pro-birther. That alone makes your claim a bit harder to believe.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I just PROVED my point. In Virgina, in Massachusettes, and New Jersey the Democrats used “birtherism” charges in their ads to discredit the Republican nominee – yet in each case those nominees won by releatively comfortable margins.

You can’t produce any evidence to support your claims that “birthers” hurt us. All you can say is that “one third” of the GOP are birthers and not that many Americans are – and you relate that somehow to the fact that it hurts us. News Flash – Ronald Reagan was a Conservative Republican but … MOST people who voted for him weren’t.

Now PROVE your point.

And while you’re at it – riddle me this …

I believe that Obama is a natural born citizen but I want him to produce the birth certificate just like you and I have to when we get a job.

Does that make me a birther?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

–Hey, why don’t you two go get a room?

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:03 PM

James O’Keefe could do the video shoot.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Birthers remind me of Amway distributors – “Oh yeah any day now, this is gonna get big, you just watch. You will see who was right”

All the while, everyone else walks away shaking their heads.

I would take them more seriously if they actually were more accurate. Was he born in Hawaii to only one parent, or was he born in Kenya? Birthers have said both. Also said he lost his citizenship as a kid, which you can not do either. Or said he took some college program for non-citizens, but have put forth no proof of that. Or that a poor woman traveled to Kenya on a propliners to have a baby.

firepilot on January 27, 2010 at 5:09 PM

That’s your best? My condolences to your wife.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Heh. It’ll take more than that to irritate me TRC.

Weak.

portlandon on January 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Another link with more pictures, since the first one isn’t working.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I hope you’re right, but I believe most of the public sees Truthers and Birthers as the same. I’m perfectly fine with being proven wrong though.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Well, you’re most likely right if you only consider the public that is in neither group.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

They seems awfully bitter!!:)

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Clinging to their guns and … oh wait…

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

*sigh*

Okay, in many states, in the federal workforce, to get a passport, to get a background clearance, to get a job, a official certification of live birth is most of the times – not accceptable.

Call us color us weird, stupid, knuckle dragging one strap overall wearing moonshine sipping retards – but – gosh – I dont know – guys mom was overseas for most of her pregnancy, has a Dad who was never a resident here, all of his relatives are foreigners – gee silly us

Maybe we should let Chavez run – he was born in America

EricPWJohnson on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

It may or may not be a legit issue but it will get no traction whatsoever. We are stuck with Obama until 2012 and the birth conspiracy issue is tilting at windmills. There are lots of areas where he is weak so go for those.

ldbgcoleman on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The misinformation that has been displayed so far on this board is incredible. Some of you have made statements that are just simply incorrect, yet you post them with such conviction, almost like you were constitutional scholars. I would recommend that before you make yourselves look the fool, you do some research on the subject and at least argue from a perspective of interpretation of the founders intent as opposed to what you read on Huffington Post.

Obama’s birth place has yet to be confirmed, at least by any document that has been produced, which, by the way, is restricted to a digital reproduction on a web site. Secondly, the claim that the State of Hawaii has confirmed anything is incorrect. Their statements have been very carefully couched by legal council and falls short of confirmation. Lastly and most importantly, even if, and I emphasize “if” he was born in Hawaii, there are circumstances that could still disqualify him from the POTUS entitlement.

Like it or not, those are the facts.

Syd B. on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

I’d like to see the mothaeffin certificate. Is that wrong?I can’t “photocopy” my birth certificate and present it to my employer – I have to have a CERTIFIED actual copy of the thing with the state seal. Why doesn’t the President have to produce this?

He did produce a certificate, and it was the copy given to him by Hawaii.

I believe the dude is a U.S. citizen – yet I get called a “birther” and a “conspiracy theorist” just because I’d like to see some equity here between what the President has to produce – and what I have to produce for my employment. Yet – YOU DEFEND the elitist standard.

You want to be treated the same as the president? Good luck with that.

And no, I’m defending no elitist standard. I’m merely siding with Justice Roberts, who I believe knows far more about the issue than you or I. If that makes me elitist, so be it.

And not only that – you equate guys like me with “truthers” – people who think Bush attacked America. Somehow my asking for a bit of equity here makes me as bad as those guys.

Thanks.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Those people were just asking for something too. Some of them aren’t even asking if Bush killed people. Some of them sound completely reasonable.

However, nonpartisan voters find them all repugnant and see birthers as no different. That’s not my fault.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM

So Obama might be our first transgendered president? That’s not entirely surprising, but it doesn’t make him ineligible.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Uh … that’s not part of the code. That’s the editorial opinion of the web site. You know the difference, right?

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

So, you’re claiming that everything else on that website is accurate except that one sentence. Gotcha.

mizflame98 on January 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM

So, you’re claiming that everything else on that website is accurate except that one sentence. Gotcha.

mizflame98 on January 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I don’t care about that website. You lost me.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Well, you’re most likely right if you only consider the public that is in neither group.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Isn’t that where the vast majority of independents are?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM

That’s not working either.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I will just add that I’m glad he’s the President, because he sucks, and the people advising him are insane, and the people who voted for him are idiots, and they can all spend another decade in the political wilderness when this is over in 2012.

But let the record show, he is lying about something, if not everything. He is probably a Muslim. He is definitely a bastard, and his father is likely Frank Marshall Davis. His going to Chicago was no accident; his father set him up with the local machine, and he is as chummy with Ayers as he is with Valerie Jarrett. He is a big phony and an ideologue.

chunderroad on January 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Jimbo, if you were trying to be funny by posting those “links” to Obama’s birth certificate you win the prize of the day.

Those were funny.

ConservativeTony on January 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Isn’t that where the vast majority of independents are?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Perhaps. Are you talking about independents?

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Yeah, I know.

mizflame98 on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM

JD should have gone with the Palin theme when she was asked the same question: that the American public has every right to question their elected representatives but that she herself had no interest in pursuing the matter personally.

technopeasant on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Obama is a deceiver, a dissembler
His Mom trousers are alight
From what pole or banner
Shall they dangle in the night?

What infernal serpent
Has lent him his forked tongue?
From what pit of foul deceit
Has all his hiding sprung?

What red devil of mendacity
Grips his sick soul with such tenacity?
Will not one in a nation he so cruelly showers with lies
Put a court order between his empty eyes?

PercyB on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM

He is probably not eligible to hold public office, either, but we’ll just assume he is, I suppose.

chunderroad on January 27, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I just PROVED my point. In Virgina, in Massachusettes, and New Jersey the Democrats used “birtherism” charges in their ads to discredit the Republican nominee – yet in each case those nominees won by releatively comfortable margins.

That doesn’t prove anything. Did any of those candidates embrace the birther charge in any way shape or form?

Brown was accused of turning rape victims away from hospitals, but that doesn’t mean Mass. voters hate rape victims.

You can’t produce any evidence to support your claims that “birthers” hurt us. All you can say is that “one third” of the GOP are birthers and not that many Americans are – and you relate that somehow to the fact that it hurts us. News Flash – Ronald Reagan was a Conservative Republican but … MOST people who voted for him weren’t.

America is a center right country, so you’re not really proving anything with Reagan.

Besides, you don’t actually want me to prove this. You haven’t made it possible for me to do so.

Now PROVE your point.

After you prove yours please.

And while you’re at it – riddle me this …

I believe that Obama is a natural born citizen but I want him to produce the birth certificate just like you and I have to when we get a job.

Does that make me a birther?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I wouldn’t think so, but I don’t make the rules. I imagine most people would still lump you in with them just as they lump the “just asking questions” people in with the full blown Truthers.

Also, I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I’ve never had to produce my birth certificate when getting a job. Maybe it’s a Texas thing, but I’ve only needed it a few times including getting married and getting my passport, which Obama has.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I hope you’re right, but I believe most of the public sees Truthers and Birthers as the same. I’m perfectly fine with being proven wrong though.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM

I don’t agree. The truther thing will never be put to rest. There is no smoking gun, and there never will be, so the conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their web. The birther thing could be put to rest tomorrow, but for some inexplicable reason President Obama doesn’t want his birth certificate seen by the public. They are quite different, I think.

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Jimbo, if you were trying to be funny by posting those “links” to Obama’s birth certificate you win the prize of the day.

Those were funny.

ConservativeTony on January 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

–Tony and Esthier, I have no idea why my links work sometimes and not others. Go to http://www.factcheck.org and put “Born in the USA” in the search engine on that site’s first page.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Because he doesn’t support Palin. Duh!

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM

At all?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM

So Obama might be our first transgendered president? That’s not entirely surprising, but it doesn’t make him ineligible.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Did I claim that or are using typical leftist dumb-play tactics? Here is the claim again: The Hawaii COLB can’t even be used to prove gender at birth. It’s true and you need to deal with the fact that Hawaii admits that the statistics denoted on their COLB aren’t necessarily the vital statistics the person was born with. That makes the COLB worthless as a court document for establishing vital statistics at birth, and no judge would allow it after this case is made.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Perhaps. Are you talking about independents?

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Mostly. I’m talking about people who decide elections. Isn’t that the main point here? If this will hurt us electorally?

I don’t agree. The truther thing will never be put to rest. There is no smoking gun, and there never will be, so the conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their web. The birther thing could be put to rest tomorrow, but for some inexplicable reason President Obama doesn’t want his birth certificate seen by the public. They are quite different, I think.

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I’m honestly not sure that releasing the certificate would end this. It could be faked. In fact, if you don’t believe the Hawaii official who verified its existence, then why would you believe the document (if released) is real either? The same person you don’t trust could have forged it.

I wish he’d released it for transparency’s sake, but I’m not convinced it would have changed things.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:21 PM

FYI: factcheck.org is a service of the Annenberg Foundation. Past employees of the Chicago office include Bill “The Bomber” Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

kingsjester on January 27, 2010 at 5:21 PM

–Tony and Esthier, I have no idea why my links work sometimes and not others. Go to http://www.factcheck.org and put “Born in the USA” in the search engine on that site’s first page.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Ah, I’ve seen that one already.

And it is a certificate that includes the state seal. Isn’t that what you wanted HondaV65?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:22 PM

He did produce a certificate, and it was the copy given to him by Hawaii.

He produced a BIRTH CERTIFICATE? Holy me! What are we arguing about then??

IYou want to be treated the same as the president? Good luck with that.

Can you read? I’m asking for HIM to be treated like you or I.

And no, I’m defending no elitist standard. I’m merely siding with Justice Roberts, who I believe knows far more about the issue than you or I. If that makes me elitist, so be it.

Wait – in one breath you laugh at me for asking the President to be treated like the rest of us – and in the next you claim you’re not defending an elitist standard? Oh … yeah – that’s coherent alright.

Those people were just asking for something too. Some of them aren’t even asking if Bush killed people. Some of them sound completely reasonable.

Sounds like you have more respect for them then you do those of us who just want Obama to be treated the same as the rest of us. Are you a Huffpo troll?

However, nonpartisan voters find them all repugnant and see birthers as no different. That’s not my fault.Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Show me the poll that says nonpartisans find them “REPUGNANT” … and yeah – I want to see that word in the poll since you’re making the claim brah.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I know nothing. I was not there. I did not even get up the day that Barack Obama was born. I could not have seen over all those Elephants anyway.

OberfeldwebelSchultz on January 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM

At all?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM

You’ve mastered nuance. “At all” would be going to far. I support her ideas. I love the fact that she’s a working mom. I would have loved the GOP to have a qualified woman on ticket with McCain. I just don’t she is is.

She has lots of time to expand her base and ideas. I think she’s an obvious contender. I’m just not that into her or her sycophant-base.

Between Obama and Palin, it’s been a banner year for sycophants.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM

And it is a certificate that includes the state seal. Isn’t that what you wanted HondaV65?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:22 PM

No … I couldn’t use a “certificate of live birth” to get my job. I couldn’t use it to get my security clearance either.

Are you saying he doesn’t have a Birth Certificate?

Justify to me why I have to produce the real article – and he, being the leader of us all – doesn’t.

And then look at me tell me you’re not defending elitism – and do it with a straight face!

LOL

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Though I haven’t tried your links most often those links have been placed at the ends of sentences such that those links often end with a period. That punctuation placed at the end of a link may cause trouble with some web sites and web browsers.

viking01 on January 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Skip that for the moment and leave it on the back burner.

Obama has not declared war against Pakistan, yet he is bombing it without Pakistan’s permission. He is conducting war crimes in his “Afghanistan War” by ignoring the sovereign rights of Pakistan with his drone attacks that kill innocent civilians the same as the Nazi German terrorist rocket bombs that blasted London civilians indiscriminately from overhead. That is grounds for prosecution and impeachment.

maverick muse on January 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Did I claim that or are using typical leftist dumb-play tactics?

Are you asking me what you claimed, because that doesn’t seem wise.

And seriously, straight out with the leftists canard? No one can disagree on this site without suddenly being a liberal. This isn’t even a disagreement over policy issues.

Here is the claim again: The Hawaii COLB can’t even be used to prove gender at birth. It’s true and you need to deal with the fact that Hawaii admits that the statistics denoted on their COLB aren’t necessarily the vital statistics the person was born with. That makes the COLB worthless as a court document for establishing vital statistics at birth, and no judge would allow it after this case is made.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Justice Roberts is a judge, and he was fine enough with it to swear Obama in as president.

Obama’s certificate includes the fact that he is a male (not that it’s relevant to his presidency) and is enough for him to have been able to get a passport with and is the only thing Hawaii releases upon request.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Mostly. I’m talking about people who decide elections. Isn’t that the main point here? If this will hurt us electorally?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:21 PM

First of all, I only saw your part about truthers being perceived as the same as birfers by the majority of the public.

Now you’re talking about independents. I’m not an independent and I don’t know a lot of them, so I can’t speak for them.

I would say that truthers would probably not see themselves as the same as birfers and vice versa.

As far as avoiding fringe groups in order to win elections, first, who decides fringe? Second fringe is nothing new. Democrats and Republicans have been winning races while there were fringe groups operating on their side of the aisle.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM

I think they’re making a mistake, just as they did naming Limbaugh “the face of the GOP,” just as they did attacking Fox News (now the most trusted news source in America), and just as they did with their strategy to belittle “teabaggers” (a vile phrase the president himself used!). They are about 0 and 10 in the strategery department, and I think this is another misstep. It is the democrats who are now giving legitimacy to this issue. They plan to ask every GOP candidate about it every chance they get. I hope those candidates are smart and turn it around on them: “Gee, Mr. democrat, your party seems awfully obsessed with Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. You sound concerned that there might be some deception there. Maybe if you had him produce it, you — and we — could move on to other things.”

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Very smart comment, and my sentiment exactly.

chunderroad on January 27, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Factcheck? Sorry, if I want facts regarding Obama’s birth certificate, I’ll look elsewhere. WND seems like the best site for those who are interested in the truth–whatever that truth may be.

ConservativeTony on January 27, 2010 at 5:29 PM

NO SINGLE VOTER is turned off by birtherism.

NO ONE that was going to vote gop, holds off on gop because of birthers.

NADA

ZILCH

so get over it and let the birthers do their thing!

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Pssss..Chrissy…your network is failing. Your ratings stink.

Want more millions of dollars in your next contract?

Get an issue like this birther stuff and crack it wide open.

Or just get the reason He never released it.

He owes you that much, doesn’t He?

IlikedAUH2O on January 27, 2010 at 5:31 PM

There is more to a candidate than what he claims as his platform. Ideological purity tests fail because they only consider the candidate’s ability to nod his head at the appropriate times.

Hayworth really is an idiot. The only thing he’s ever been qualified to do is look dumb and friendly while he reads the sports news. Credit where it’s due: he was pretty good at that. In the extremely unlikely event that he gets elected there will be another Abramoff-type scandal because he’s just too stupid not to get involved. There will be some corrupt power-broker looking for a Senator to keep in his pocket, and Hayworth will come running like a big, dopey dog.

He’s not worth the mess he’s going to make in the house.

RightOFLeft on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM

All caps are the hallmark of substantive commentary.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Beck is answering the questions, now.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

That said, I would have answered the question from a media stand point.

Exactamundo. I think answers need to be thus: “I think the bigger question is, why does that issue have such legs? It’s because a large segment of America rightly senses that the establishment media failed in its duty to properly vet Mr. Obama and gave him a gigantic pass on some very real concerns about his background, including his unsavory associations. We are into the second year of his presidency, and we still do not know who this man is. I have no issue with where he was born, but I do have questions about what he did with his adult life. The MSM seems to have no interest in those questions; therefore they created this swamp, and I believe they own it.”

ObjectionSustained on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

NO SINGLE VOTER is turned off by birtherism…..

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM

–You’re right. A lot of voters are turned off by birtherism.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

AZ Rep. John Shadegg, FANTASTIC CONSERVATIVE FIGHTER, is retiring from Congress. Get HIM to run for Goldwater’s old senate seat that McCain won’t relinquish. Goldwater had the good grace to retire and endorse the promising young McCain. Even McCain’s father the Admiral retired.

It isn’t as if Arizona doesn’t have strong conservative Republicans.

maverick muse on January 27, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I conceed Gary that I was wrong on the Article II Section 1 because I forgot about the 14th Amendment. But if you look above at what I posted in reference to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, you’ll see that it doesn’t matter if his father wasn’t an American or if Obama was born in Kenya.

mizflame98 on January 27, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Go back and read Title 8 again. S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Notice a key phrase “natural born” is nowhere to be found. Past that…ever heard of the phrase “anchor baby?” Two illegals can sneak in. One is pregnant. The baby is born on U.S. soil. The baby is a U.S. Citizen, by birth, even though both parents are not, and are in fact here illegally. The baby is NOT, however, “natural born.”

However, if both parents were naturalized..the baby IS “natural born.”

Again, this concept pre-dates the Republic.

gary4205 on January 27, 2010 at 5:34 PM

And seriously, straight out with the leftists canard? No one can disagree on this site without suddenly being a liberal.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Did I say you are a liberal or did I say you were using their dumb-play tactic? It looks like you just used the leftist dumb-play tactic to shield yourself from the charge of using the leftist dumb-play tactic.

There are a lot of people who I believe are pretty conservative who are nonetheless in lockstep with Enemy Camp Chris on this matter.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Factcheck? Sorry, if I want facts regarding Obama’s birth certificate, I’ll look elsewhere. WND seems like the best site for those who are interested in the truth–whatever that truth may be.

ConservativeTony on January 27, 2010 at 5:29 PM

–WND has run enough half-truth (or, in some cases, leaks that turned out to be no-truth) stories over the years that I consider it to be a grade or two up from the National Enquirer.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Justice Roberts is a judge, and he was fine enough with it to swear Obama in as president.

Obama’s certificate includes the fact that he is a male (not that it’s relevant to his presidency) and is enough for him to have been able to get a passport with and is the only thing Hawaii releases upon request.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Again, for me personally, it isn’t an issue of his legitimacy to serve. He’s the president. Undoing that would tear the country apart. I simply find the ongoing questions about the birth certificate, college records, passport records, etc., to be legitimate questions that go to the man’s veracity. I want an honest, decent, moral president. When virtually all the records of his past are sealed, it seems that I have a president with something to hide. I have the right to be interested in pursuing what that is without being ridiculed as some kind of a nut. Come on. You wouldn’t accept this kind of deception and secretiveness from your 12-year-old child. Why accept it from the leader of the free world?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I have seen Obama’s long form Birth Certificate. It says he was born at Coast Province General Hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. The Dr who signed the BC is James O W Ang’awa.

The COLB he has posted online is a forgery, as several document experts have proven. The Post & Email has a recent story on the COLB forgery.

A forged HI COLB and a story that contradicts the facts is enough to ‘prove’ a Hawaiian birth to some. These people probably also believe Sun Yat Sen was born in Maui because he has a birth document that says so. If he was alive today, they would say that the father of communist China was eligible to be POTUS.

Mr Purple on January 27, 2010 at 5:37 PM

hayworth was jobbed by mathews.
chrissy had his minion research JD to find something he could nail him with.
as you’ll notice, JD tried to get off the point, but mathews kept drilling.
typical msbs hack job.

look, lots of clear thinking folks want to see the ‘full’ birth certificate.
sure there are lots of other topics, but the certificate issue remains relevant.
get over it and stop freaking out over it.

jimmer on January 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Justice Roberts is a judge, and he was fine enough with it to swear Obama in as president.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Interestingly, he administered the oath TWICE to The Precedent, because he feared the first oath wasn’t valid since they had messed up a couple of words. Funny, for that small a technicality he felt it necessary to cause a temporary stink and administer the oath a second time (not done often – ever that I can think of) to make sure that it was a valid oath and the office was legally assumed. But, for the question of whether The Precedent is even eligible to take that oath (if he isn’t, then the oath isn’t valid or binding. it’s meaningless), some people are scared to even have it really checked and verified, which should be a slam dunk, anyway.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM

–You’re right. A lot of voters are turned off by birtherism.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:33 PM

WHO????

Gosh yall are driving me batty. you won’t tell me WHO exactly is being turned off by birtherism. what potential voters (that we actually had a chance at) are now anti-gop for life????

Answer: no one.

No one thinks “gosh i’d vote for the gop if it werent for the birhters” NO ONE does that.

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:41 PM

The BIRTHERS look bad?

He only spent about two million dollars on this nonsense.

The One could feed approximately 2,000 Haitians for ninety days on the taxpayer money He wasted playing games over his records.

Or pay heating bills for a couple of thousand of Americans this winter.

IlikedAUH2O on January 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Can you read? I’m asking for HIM to be treated like you or I.

It’s “you or me”. The easiest way to figure that one out is to remove the other person from the sentence. I mean, you’d never say “to be treated like I” right?

Wait – in one breath you laugh at me for asking the President to be treated like the rest of us – and in the next you claim you’re not defending an elitist standard? Oh … yeah – that’s coherent alright.

I’m not laughing. I’m actually a bit sad that this is still such a hot topic.

Are you a Huffpo troll?

I’ve been here for over three years. It’s really not my fault you don’t know who I am. I’m not all that shy here.

Show me the poll that says nonpartisans find them “REPUGNANT” … and yeah – I want to see that word in the poll since you’re making the claim brah.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM

1. I really thought I’d picked an identifiable enough name so that people would know I’m a chick and not a brah.

2. You know there is no such poll.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

NO SINGLE VOTER is turned off by birtherism.

NO ONE that was going to vote gop, holds off on gop because of birthers.

NADA

ZILCH

so get over it and let the birthers do their thing!

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Totally false. Plenty of people, particularly swing voters, do not have enough grasp on the issues and so they vote based on personality, subjective impressions, and their feeling of who gives off an air of sensibility. Endorsing insane conspiracy theories turns these people off.

Moreover, if you are a consistent Republican who always either votes Republican or stays home each election, then their votes count twice as much as yours.

RINO in Name Only on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

There are a lot of people who I believe are pretty conservative who are nonetheless in lockstep with Enemy Camp Chris on this matter.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM

And surprising people, at that. But, it’s kind of like conservatives who are scared to say that Dept of Educ should be abolished. They know that it doesn’t belong at the federal level, but they are terrified that people will laugh at them if they actually say it.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

That makes the COLB worthless as a court document for establishing vital statistics at birth, and no judge would allow it after this case is made.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Justice Roberts is a judge, and he was fine enough with it to swear Obama in as president.

Obama’s certificate includes the fact that he is a male (not that it’s relevant to his presidency) and is enough for him to have been able to get a passport with and is the only thing Hawaii releases upon request.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Justice Roberts was not adjudicating a court trial regarding the Constitutional requirement that every potus must be a natural born citizen.

Roberts was the new boy on the block, and caved in to peer pressure and the massive expectation to “just do it” and swear in the illegitimate candidate who illegitimately won the 2008 potus election via ACORN fraud and illegal massive international funding that occurred with NO journalistic integrity of exposure from the socialist media powerhouses. So Justice Edwards isn’t perfect, and chose not to start his new Chief Justice career taking on more than he wanted to in the fight for Constitutional integrity. What’s new?

maverick muse on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Are you saying he doesn’t have a Birth Certificate?

Nope.

Justify to me why I have to produce the real article – and he, being the leader of us all – doesn’t.

I have no idea why you have to produce it. If you were born in Hawaii, you wouldn’t be able to.

And then look at me tell me you’re not defending elitism – and do it with a straight face!

LOL

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM

How do you know if my face is straight? It could easily be crooked.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM

I think Roberts would have sworn a ten year old in as long as the case never came up for SCOTUS consideration. I’m sure Roberts sees a lot of things going on of questionable constitutionality, but he can’t travel the nation with a machete to right all these wrongs.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:46 PM

She has lots of time to expand her base and ideas. I think she’s an obvious contender. I’m just not that into her or her sycophant-base.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM

I can relate to that.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:46 PM

The BIRTHERS look bad?

He only spent about two million dollars on this nonsense.

IlikedAUH2O on January 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Speaking of Obie and money, has he announced that he gave the Nobel Prize cash award over to the Government yet? Another of the magical mysteries that is the Chicago Jesus. This money is disappearing into his bank account(s) right in front of our eyes.

RickZ on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Why Obama’s official state certification of live birth isn’t good enough continues to elude me, but so it goes. I hereby denounce myself for being a RINO.-Ap

Weeell,
if “Treacher” couldn’t enlighten you,
guess you’ll remain in the dark –till
the chickens come home to roost!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Totally false. Plenty of people, particularly swing voters, do not have enough grasp on the issues and so they vote based on personality, subjective impressions, and their feeling of who gives off an air of sensibility. Endorsing insane conspiracy theories turns these people off.

Moreover, if you are a consistent Republican who always either votes Republican or stays home each election, then their votes count twice as much as yours.

RINO in Name Only on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Which is why that when Trutherism was at its peak (2006, 2007), Bush’s approval ratings SOARED out of sympathy? And the GOP held congress based on anti-truther sympathy, right?

Right?

Oh… wait…

I’d like you to tell me what the kind of person you are imagining looks like. What’s their job, income, part of the country they live in? Who says “ah, i WAS voting gop, but now i’ll choose the TOTALLY OPPOSITE political philosophy cause the president i already dont like is being questioned”

Who fits this bill?

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

–WND has run enough half-truth (or, in some cases, leaks that turned out to be no-truth) stories over the years that I consider it to be a grade or two up from the National Enquirer.

Jimbo, all you have to do is search “fact checking factcheck” on any search engine but Google.

ConservativeTony on January 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Now you’re talking about independents. I’m not an independent and I don’t know a lot of them, so I can’t speak for them.

I see independents and the public as one in the same. I didn’t mean to change the subject there.

I would say that truthers would probably not see themselves as the same as birfers and vice versa.

Certainly, but they’re the most biased.

As far as avoiding fringe groups in order to win elections, first, who decides fringe? Second fringe is nothing new. Democrats and Republicans have been winning races while there were fringe groups operating on their side of the aisle.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM

While they’re operating on their side, sure, but not while embracing them and their ideals.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM

DEMO ON HOW MEDIA SPINS ALLEGATIONS WITH NO CLEAR FACTUAL SUPPORT

DEM CRACKPOT ISSUE = INVADE IRAQ FOR OIL = GOP LOOSES VOTES
GOP CRACKPOT ISSUE = BIRTH CERTIFICATE = GOP LOOSES VOTES

IlikedAUH2O on January 27, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Did I say you are a liberal or did I say you were using their dumb-play tactic? It looks like you just used the leftist dumb-play tactic to shield yourself from the charge of using the leftist dumb-play tactic.

Wow. What a circle. But again, you’re asking me what you said. You should really be more sure of yourself.

There are a lot of people who I believe are pretty conservative who are nonetheless in lockstep with Enemy Camp Chris on this matter.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I’m just not one of them.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:51 PM

REMOVE O FROM LOSES. I WAS THINKING OF LOONS TOO MUCH. SORRY.

IlikedAUH2O on January 27, 2010 at 5:52 PM

I think Roberts would have sworn a ten year old in as long as the case never came up for SCOTUS consideration.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2010 at 5:46 PM

“I swear he looked not a day under 50. Very clean shaven, though. I respected that.” — John Roberts …

Just kidding.

I just found the readministration of the oath to be so interesting, especially within the context of the contested eligibility and refusal to release anything. It was really perfect.

I can imagine what the people of the future are going to say when they study this time period. Our generations of America are not going to be held in high historical esteem … to be overly charitable.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:52 PM

While they’re operating on their side, sure, but not while embracing them and their ideals.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Well, with the two discussed fringe groups, sure it could be a bad strategy move to embrace either.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Obama’s numbers are falling like rocks! His own supporters are turning on him! Democrats are in danger of losing tons of seats! The country is veering right once again!

SO LET’S BRING UP THE BIRTHER BULLS**T AND F**K IT ALL UP! YAYYYYYYY!

MadisonConservative on January 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM

+ 1 billion (one has to think expansively nowadays)

Nichevo on January 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Roberts was the new boy on the block, and caved in to peer pressure and the massive expectation to “just do it” and swear in the illegitimate candidate who illegitimately won the 2008 potus election via ACORN fraud and illegal massive international funding that occurred with NO journalistic integrity of exposure from the socialist media powerhouses.

maverick muse on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

So the man was bullied into doing something he didn’t think was right? Do you actually have anything to support this? And if this is true, what makes you think he’ll ever change his mind?

Why accept it from the leader of the free world?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Who says I do? I didn’t need this to prove to me that the man can’t be trusted.

However, he’s legally sealed these documents, so bringing it up (unless you’re doing so only to make the point that he has sealed so much of his past) doesn’t help anyone.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Interestingly, he administered the oath TWICE to The Precedent, because he feared the first oath wasn’t valid since they had messed up a couple of words. Funny, for that small a technicality he felt it necessary to cause a temporary stink and administer the oath a second time (not done often – ever that I can think of) to make sure that it was a valid oath and the office was legally assumed. But, for the question of whether The Precedent is even eligible to take that oath (if he isn’t, then the oath isn’t valid or binding. it’s meaningless), some people are scared to even have it really checked and verified, which should be a slam dunk, anyway.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Doesn’t this go against your point? If Justice Roberts was so interested in making sure everything was done the way it’s supposed to, doesn’t this make it less likely that he’d let in a fraud, not more?

I agree. Roberts is a stickler. And I trust him.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Well, with the two discussed fringe groups, sure it could be a bad strategy move to embrace either.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM

So we agree then? Cause that’s my only real point here.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

So we agree then? Cause that’s my only real point here.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

I guess. My point would be not to worry about birfers or truthers or whatever you have, because at the end of the day, the winning politician will not be appealing to them or complaining about them. If that’s your point, then we are in agreement.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I guess. My point would be not to worry about birfers or truthers or whatever you have, because at the end of the day, the winning politician will not be appealing to them or complaining about them. If that’s your point, then we are in agreement.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I don’t worry about them, but if I were running for office, I also wouldn’t pick up their talking points.

Or if I did, I’d frame it as a transparency issue by simply saying that it is odd that McCain had to go through so much to prove he was eligible and that Obama didn’t but that I believe Obama to be our legal president. I’d end it with a comment about how it’s the current lack of transparency however that has me far more worried.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I don’t worry about them, but if I were running for office, I also wouldn’t pick up their talking points.

Or if I did, I’d frame it as a transparency issue by simply saying that it is odd that McCain had to go through so much to prove he was eligible and that Obama didn’t but that I believe Obama to be our legal president. I’d end it with a comment about how it’s the current lack of transparency however that has me far more worried.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Yeah, then we’re in agreement.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

It’s “you or me”. The easiest way to figure that one out is to remove the other person from the sentence. I mean, you’d never say “to be treated like I” right?

Since you’re a stickler for grammar, I’m going to venture that you’re a stickler for etiquette as well; after all, what is grammar but fidelity to the rules as they are understood at that time?

As such, I think it’s poor etiquette to be an online grammar cop. It displays a certain smug, self-righteous elitism, as if one’s opinions are more valid because he or she expresses them more eloquently, or as if one’s opinions are less valid if expressed in a less sophisticated manner. Barack, is that you?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Yeah, then we’re in agreement.

MeatHeadinCA on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Cool.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The DNC must be hoping and praying JD beats McCain in the primary. I would not even be surprised if they were to give money to his campaign.

DarkKnight3565 on January 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Why is Matthews asking? If it hurts Hayworth, it helps McCain. Why’s Matthews trying to help McCain?

Eren on January 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Doesn’t this go against your point? If Justice Roberts was so interested in making sure everything was done the way it’s supposed to, doesn’t this make it less likely that he’d let in a fraud, not more?

I agree. Roberts is a stickler. And I trust him.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

There’s a pretty big difference in scale between readministering the oath and refusing to administer the oath. I was just noting how inconsequential and meaningless technicalities (flubbing a couple of words) were raised to the level of requiring a readministration, while legitimate requirements (that are simple for anyone to produce or prove) were intentionally ignored.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Since you’re a stickler for grammar, I’m going to venture that you’re a stickler for etiquette as well;

That’d be a bad venture.

As such, I think it’s poor etiquette to be an online grammar cop. It displays a certain smug, self-righteous elitism, as if one’s opinions are more valid because he or she expresses them more eloquently, or as if one’s opinions are less valid if expressed in a less sophisticated manner. Barack, is that you?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Yeah, that should have been your first clue that I’m not into etiquette. But then after having been insulted repeatedly on this thread, I figure the debate’s already been brought down into the mud.

I know it’s rude to correct grammar, but I don’t do it because I’m smarter than others. I do it because it’s how I make my living, and I’m more attune to it than most people. And if they keep calling me an idiot, I feel they want me to treat them like one. I’m a stickler for the Golden Rule.

I don’t correct the grammar of people who stay above the fray, because they’ve made it obvious that they prefer to respect others, even those who disagree.

I’m not excusing my rude behavior but just explaining it.

But it certainly hasn’t escaped my notice that you’re calling me out for this but haven’t said a word about the insults thrown at me.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:14 PM

The one making this an issue is Obama himself by having spent up to this date over 1 million dollars to fight having to produce it…

I’d be for anything that got this guy out of office before January 2013!

CCRWM on January 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM

There’s a pretty big difference in scale between readministering the oath and refusing to administer the oath. I was just noting how inconsequential and meaningless technicalities (flubbing a couple of words) were raised to the level of requiring a readministration, while legitimate requirements (that are simple for anyone to produce or prove) were intentionally ignored.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 6:14 PM

And I’m agreeing with you. If Roberts cares so much about something so small, I would find it incredibly hard to believe he wouldn’t also care about something of far greater consequence.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I’d be for anything that got this guy out of office before January 2013!

CCRWM on January 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I don’t support anything that would make Biden president.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Which is why that when Trutherism was at its peak (2006, 2007), Bush’s approval ratings SOARED out of sympathy? And the GOP held congress based on anti-truther sympathy, right?

Right?

Oh… wait…

No, I never suggested Obama’s approval ratings would be affected one bit. Swing voters won’t start liking Obama, they’ll just start disliking Tea Partiers.

I’d like you to tell me what the kind of person you are imagining looks like. What’s their job, income, part of the country they live in? Who says “ah, i WAS voting gop, but now i’ll choose the TOTALLY OPPOSITE political philosophy cause the president i already dont like is being questioned”

Who fits this bill?

picklesgap on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Like I said, swing voters. You just gave a near perfect description of them. They can have any job, any income, and be from any part of the country. All that is required is that they don’t have much of a political philosophy at all, a trait that probably describes a majority of the population. Of course, they generally won’t be people who severely dislike Obama, though they may have a mild dislike. By their very nature, they will be people who aren’t happy with him, and are ready to vote for a reasonable alternative, but aren’t so angry that they’ll vote for Anybody But Obama.

RINO in Name Only on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

And I’m agreeing with you. If Roberts cares so much about something so small, I would find it incredibly hard to believe he wouldn’t also care about something of far greater consequence.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I’m sure he cares quite a bit. This issue has just terrified people from the start.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM

And while you’re at it – riddle me this …

I believe that Obama is a natural born citizen but I want him to produce the birth certificate just like you and I have to when we get a job.

Does that make me a birther?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 5:08 PM

It makes you someone who doesn’t understand the job requirements for being president. There is nothing in the constitution, or any law for that matter, that says the president must prove his citizenship or his age.

If you think that in the future, those considerations should be changed, you could try to make that argument. But most people will be unmoved because most people find it implausible that someone who is not a citizen could become president without anyone finding out. Until someone proves that that has happened, no one will care, and most people will think you are playing the “I’m just asking questions” game that the truthers are so fond of, and that everyone else finds laughably transparent.

RINO in Name Only on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I’d be for anything that got this guy out of office before January 2013 ASAP, legally!

CCRWM on January 27, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Let me be the first,
to second that emotion!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I’d rather have Biden… Can’t picture him going all over the world apologizing for the greatest country there is… Spending us into ruin, giving terrorist the same rights as our troops and on and on and on…

CCRWM on January 27, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Again, for me personally, it isn’t an issue of his legitimacy to serve. He’s the president. Undoing that would tear the country apart. I simply find the ongoing questions about the birth certificate, college records, passport records, etc., to be legitimate questions that go to the man’s veracity. I want an honest, decent, moral president. When virtually all the records of his past are sealed, it seems that I have a president with something to hide. I have the right to be interested in pursuing what that is without being ridiculed as some kind of a nut. Come on. You wouldn’t accept this kind of deception and secretiveness from your 12-year-old child. Why accept it from the leader of the free world?

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Personally, I think I’d like to know where everybody stands on this issue, as a country. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. Requirements for being POTUS can only be changed with an amendment. So, if everybody’s ok with, “Oh well, he PROBABLY is a citizen” then I want to name them and shame them. E Pluribus Unum. If the “One” is not even from here, I have a lot of revenge to plot for being ridiculed as a birther.

Califemme on January 27, 2010 at 6:34 PM

On watch… Yes… Get rid of him legally..

CCRWM on January 27, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I’m sure he cares quite a bit. This issue has just terrified people from the start.

neurosculptor on January 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM

I can’t imagine it’s something that scares him.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:39 PM

I have no dog in the fight, yet when I hear commotion I want to investigate. Real or not, the whole “birth certificate” issue has served as the tab to a can of worms, leaving more questions than answers.

There is so little documentation from Obama. No college and graduate school transcripts, no thesis, no editorials, no papers at all, except an “autobiography” that he supposedly penned and a rather lame poem written in college. Something smells.

The constant and deafening ridicule towards the “birthers” by the Left adds to the doubts because name-calling is the tactic of those who either know they can’t win with facts, or want to prevent further investigation.

Romans34 on January 27, 2010 at 6:41 PM

RINO in Name Only on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

Califemme on January 27, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5