Obama: You can disagree with me without questioning my citizenship

posted at 4:10 pm on February 4, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Breitbart, a lecture on civility from the leader of a party whose elder statesmen have lately started dropping “teabagger” references into their fundraising e-mails. It’s newsworthy as a rare example of The One addressing Birthers directly and as proof of how useful this dopey controversy is to him, letting him take the high road — during a speech about faith, no less — vis-a-vis opponents looking to discredit him by all available means. The citizenship line is delivered almost as an afterthought, but I doubt it was unscripted: Remember, Birtherism is part of the Dems’ midterm strategy, to frighten indies into believing that the GOP’s too fringe-y to be trusted with governance. Expect more in this vein from The One as November approaches, especially if the economic recovery is sluggish. In that case, nothing less than full Bambi victim mode will do.

Exit question: Are there more Republican Birthers than there are Democratic Truthers? Hmmmm.


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

mrsmwp on February 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I’m trying to figure out which word triggered the moderation. Pretty uptight about this around here it seems. I wonder why.

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM

mrsmwp, mostly I’ve been spending a lot of time researching this issue. I’ve been spending time lately on the blogs, trying to figure out whether the people in our nation have any will to see our laws enforced. MOst people don’t care. Sigh.

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM

mrsmwp, mostly I’ve been spending a lot of time researching this issue. I’ve been spending time lately on the blogs, trying to figure out whether the people in our nation have any will to see our laws enforced. MOst people don’t care. Sigh.

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Where have you been conducting most of your research?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 10:33 PM

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM

I’m sure you’ve been to Citizen Wells. They are very attuned to anything regarding the eligibility issue.

Don’t despair, many people do care. Sometimes it’s so hard to keep explaining the same stuff to these people. Otherwise rational people here just become insane denouncing the “birthers”. It’s really unbelievable. It frightens me that so many don’t seem to be concerned that there is even the remotest possibility that we may have elected a person to the presidency who is constitutionally ineligible.

mrsmwp on February 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Privately. But what I can report so far is at my blog, which I created one night hoping that John Charlton would be able to link to the documentation in the article he was going to print the next day.

There’s a lot of refining and some adding I’d like to do if I could figure out how to edit posts to add hyperlinks in WordPress. Sigh.

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM

They won’t even show us his grades for pete’s sake (which must be gawdawful or he’d have his buddies bragging about them on his behalf).

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why there is no birth certificate for this dude? I’m just sayin.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Obama: You can disagree with me without questioning my citizenship

Great strawman. People aren’t questioning your citizenship; they’re questioning your natural-born status.

Which may have less to do with the so-called birth certificate and more to do with your parentage and the chain of citizenship allegiance(s) accumulated from birth to the present.

RD on February 4, 2010 at 10:58 PM

He seems to be laboring under the delusion that, if he was elected, he would never be questioned or challenged.

UltimateBob on February 4, 2010 at 4:21 PM

This is the first time it’s ever happened, you racist!

LOL!

Seriously, he’s gotten a pass all his life. I hope he has very bad dreams.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 10:59 PM

rmel80

You couldn’t be more wrong. Your line of illogic = Biden is a moron, so we shouldn’t bother enforcing the law. Good one. And yes, pointing out my spelling error refutes my entire argument…

If you’re biggest concern in this whole matter is all the trouble it would stir up if it where true you really are WEAK. Who cares if the cause is righteous. Or just. Or true. It might be tough. Maybe you are a conservative. But you’re also unwilling to stand up for those beliefs. Rule of law seems to be a major foundation of conservative principles. Ignoring it out of fear or laziness is to betray the very things you claim to believe. How sad. How WEAK. How anyone can believe that letting an illegitimate President continue for another 3 years is better than the legal alternatives is beyond me. When did political gain or the difficulty ahead ever matter in doing what’s right?

chicagojedi on February 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Anyone else wish to add to the list????

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on February 4, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I question his ability to manage finances. Until his book royalties started coming in, I heard that he and Michelle racked up a load of credit card debt. They’ve always lived above their means, so this is consistent behavior on his part.

America can’t write a bestselling autohagiography, Barry. What’s gonna save our bacon after you sell it to the Chinese?

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Thanks, Birther idiots!

DaveS on February 4, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Well at least you didn’t call us retards. That’s something to be grateful for.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM

There’s little doubt, in my mind at least, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. It’s a little difficult to get birth announcements in the local paper, unless of course you have a time-machine. However, I also believe that Obama too advantage of his travels when applying to college and getting scholarships as a “foreign student”. There has to be a reason that, “the most intellectual President” we’ve ever had hasn’t allowed his grade transcripts and his college records to be released. There is little written proof that he has the scholarship to prove his intellectualism. There’s also no proof that Barry Sortoro ever applied for a scholarship as a foreign student to Occidental College. There’s also no proof that the scholarship didn’t afford him other opportunities in Columbia and Harvard.

So, Obama wants to keep alive the birther issue because it takes away from the other issues he would have to explain. The other issues have little to do with his qualifications to be President of the United States, and everything to do with his character.

bflat879 on February 4, 2010 at 11:09 PM

And by the way, people can oppose his policies and still remark on his “faith” that he waves around when it suits him but then we’re not to discuss the fact that he and his family attended Wright’s “church” for over two decades and the implications of that long-term attendance.

KittyLowrey on February 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Yes, it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that a man can voluntarily listen to two decades of race hatred without noticing.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM

chicagojedi on February 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Well said!

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Anyway, looks like progressoverpeace skittered away. Shocking.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 9:52 PM

LOL. What did you want a reply to? This:

Anyway, if you think the reasoning which allowed the court to find standing in these shadowy civil rights cases that you refuse to cite was so bad, why are your relying on similar reasoning yourself?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 7:45 PM

You answered your own question – though you don’t understand it. What more is there to say to you?

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:24 PM

What more is there to say to you?

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Explain why the plaintiffs in the birther cases have standing. That’d be a start. Do you know what “standing” means, or do I need to explain it to you again?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Also, cite an equal protection case where the plaintiff(s) did not have standing, or more generously, cite a case where they didn’t have standing as you would define it (however that may be).

It’s painfully, painfully obvious you have absolutely no legal education, and that you get your talking points from nutty blogs. If I were you I’d opt for your previous strategy and skitter away again.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

Umm….did you even read your own link? The only language that really supports your contention is in the dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions are not binding.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Did YOU read it? And if you did, was your pea-brain able to comprehend it? That’s a serious question.

You are the one under the impression that,

…[United States v. Wong Kim Ark] directly address that question, and there the court held that children born in the United States to alien parents are considered natural born citizens.

when in fact it did no such thing. The issue before the courts was whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a 14th amendment citizen, not whether he was natural born. The language of Gray’s that you and your ilk point to for your case is, when deconstructed grammatically, awkward and confusing at best. It’s hardly something you would want to hang precedent on, as you have tried to do.

The fact remains that we have not been given an adequate definition of “natural born” from the courts, regardless of what you think the Wong Kim Ark case proves.

2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Explain why the plaintiffs in the birther cases have standing. That’d be a start. Do you know what “standing” means, or do I need to explain it to you again?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I already pointed out several of the standing issues the last time you asked me this. You weren’t happy with the injury to ones vote as being important – though I’m sure you would jump on a voting rights case in a second if it were one of your pet protected minorities.

You seem to think that just repeating the same questions is some form of actual debate. It isn’t.

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:42 PM

It’s painfully, painfully obvious you have absolutely no legal education, and that you get your talking points from nutty blogs. If I were you I’d opt for your previous strategy and skitter away again.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

As opposed to the nutty lefty blogs you get your talking points from?

People who live in glass houses…

2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:42 PM

I’m not joking at all about this, but I question why NO woman on this earth has had come forward saying she had relations with Barry (or any previous girlfriends for that matter) considering he’s become the most famous man on earth. You know, college, in the community organizing circles, the mountains of Pakistan? Nada. Weird, huh? The only clue we have to his sexuality is that guy they disappeared–Larry Sinclair.

RepubChica on February 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM

That never occurred to me – and with fame/notoriety being such a valuable commodity among Americans nowadays, you’d expect it, wouldn’t you?

Likewise the people he snorted coke with. Haven’t heard from them, either.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:46 PM

bflat879 on February 4, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I’d be willing to bet money those announcements did not come from the state DOH. Local registrars? Maybe. Most likely the hospitals themselves.

But it’s almost certain that Obama was not born in a hospital. To see why, look at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

And there’s always the issue of why he posted a false COLB (as confirmed by the DOH and by the impossible combination of certificate number and filing date) if everything was on the up-and-up for him to have a birth announcement in the paper.

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 11:47 PM

As opposed to the nutty lefty blogs you get your talking points from?
2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:42 PM

I don’t read lefty blogs. I don’t have “talking points”. I’ve just been reciting basic rules of civil procedure. Those are talking points?

I already pointed out several of the standing issues the last time you asked me this. You weren’t happy with the injury to ones vote as being important – though I’m sure you would jump on a voting rights case in a second if it were one of your pet protected minorities.

You seem to think that just repeating the same questions is some form of actual debate. It isn’t.

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:42 PM

I explained in detail why there’s no legally cognizable injury in your hypo on the previous page. Do you have a response?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Here it is again….

I have actually, read several of them. Each has been dismissed, with prejudice. Individual voters may have had their votes rendered “worthless” IF Obama were not a citizen. But that’s not what they’re claiming. They’re claiming that they need to have further proof that Obama is a citizen so that their votes are NOT rendered worthless. Which of course, is completely frivolous. It’s not an legally cognizable injury to say “oh, I may be injured if the defendant isn’t qualified, so the court should enjoin him to provide proof that he is qualified”. You’re simply saying it’s possible that you’re injured, and the court must act to remove that possibility. That isn’t a claim the law recognizes.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I don’t read lefty blogs. I don’t have “talking points”.

In other words, to quote Barack Obama, “I am not an ideologue.”

Yeah, and Richard Nixon wasn’t a crook…

2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:51 PM

when in fact it did no such thing. The issue before the courts was whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a 14th amendment citizen, not whether he was natural born. The language of Gray’s that you and your ilk point to for your case is, when deconstructed grammatically, awkward and confusing at best. It’s hardly something you would want to hang precedent on, as you have tried to do.

Dude, if you think that language is awkward and confusing, you haven’t read many Supreme Court cases.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Dude, if you think that language is awkward and confusing, you haven’t read many Supreme Court cases.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Is that it?

2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Apparently saying that you must have standing in order to bring a suit is a “lefty talking point”.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:53 PM

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM

You’re right. We have as much standing today as the Tea Partiers had in Britain. No sense trying to resolve anything through legal means since it’s none of our d@mned business if the government of the USA becomes a dungheap. We haven’t invested anything into this country, God knows, so why should we think that we have a VESTED INTEREST in the country that belongs to the ruling caste?

What do the words “petition the government for a redress of grievances” mean? As long as the government is screwing everybody equally none of us has any gripe to make? It’s only if the government is PARTIALLY-bad that there’s a problem. As long as they are entirely rotten through and through, nobody can claim a particularized injury?

Well, they got what they wanted. They are so thoroughly, absolutely, entirely rotten through and through that none of us can do a thing but roll over and die. How’s that?

justincase on February 4, 2010 at 11:54 PM

I explained in detail why there’s no legally cognizable injury in your hypo on the previous page. Do you have a response?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:47 PM

No, you didn’t. You put out a list to be checked and then claimed that no one met it. Do you even understand how to reason?

I did answer you, however, on several fronts, to which you … finally … responded with:

Anyway, if you think the reasoning which allowed the court to find standing in these shadowy civil rights cases that you refuse to cite was so bad, why are your relying on similar reasoning yourself?

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 7:45 PM

which I just pointed out to you is where a normal person would stop. Don’t bother pestering me on these cases. You can look them up yourself.

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:56 PM

That presumption could be overcome by other compelling evidence. However, I have not yet seen any such compelling evidence. Then again, no one has been able to conduct discovery or issue subpoenas. So, who knows, maybe there is some compelling evidence out there yet to be discovered. Anything is possible.

You do not need to put on a tin foil hat to keep an open mind.

tommylotto on February 4, 2010 at 4:54 PM

How about Stanley Ann’s passport records? He was born wherever she was in August of 1962.

disa on February 4, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Dude, if you think that language is awkward and confusing, you haven’t read many Supreme Court cases.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Is that it?

2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Yep. SCOTUS cases (especially ones that old) rarely articulate a clear holding. I’ll gladly “hang precedent” on this…

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

It’s certainly stronger than anything you can cite. The best I’ve seen from your side is dicta, and dissenting opinions.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Don’t bother pestering me on these cases. You can look them up yourself.

neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhttt.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:59 PM

There is NO WAY a thinking person could claim that our military men and women don’t have standing to find out if they are following lawful orders. They stand to lose everything that is sacred to man if their Commander-in-Chief turns out to be an enemy in sheep’s clothing.

This country is nuts. Freaking nuts.

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Apparently saying that you must have standing in order to bring a suit is a “lefty talking point”.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:53 PM

I was referring to your obvious leftism in general, which you display regularly at this site, and which forms your distorted opinion on every issue you come across, not least of all the one set before us.

Specifically your rigid interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is typical of the propaganda spewed by the pro-Obama crowd.

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM

No, to the left no one has standing to demand the offical checking of information that should be public knowledge, from the point of candidacy the same sort of way that doctors must publicly display their diplomas and certifications in their offices. No one has standing to demand information that would take all of twenty minutes to get together and less than $20. Information that the Constitution, itself, calls for on the most fundamental level – direct Constitutional language. They make it sound as if this case would take 32 years, cost trillions of dollars and take all the judges in the universe. These are simple documents that everyone has laying around somewhere, within pretty easy access. Everyone.

It’s amazing how they see such high hurdles of standing to get very simple information that should have been already gotten by someone official to ever establish eligibility. Crazy, really.

neurosculptor on February 5, 2010 at 12:08 AM

It’s certainly stronger than anything you can cite. The best I’ve seen from your side is dicta, and dissenting opinions.

crr6 on February 4, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Not really. I could just as easily cite Law of Nations. Or even George Mason:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”

We can keep going if you want.

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Specifically your rigid interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is typical of the propaganda spewed by the pro-Obama crowd.

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM

How’s that? If anything I’m interpreting the case broadly, not “rigidly”. You think there’s a limited holding, while I view it more expansively.

crr6 on February 5, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Not really. I could just as easily cite Law of Nations. Or even George Mason:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”

We can keep going if you want.

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:11 AM

But the court explicitly chose to adopt the English common law on the subject. So in this case, the English common law, did become the law of these states.

crr6 on February 5, 2010 at 12:13 AM

I am still waiting to see his college grades, SAT and LSAT scores.

albill on February 4, 2010 at 4:55 PM

I’m still trying to figure out how he was accepted into an Ivy League school without a foreign language. The rest of us schmucks had to learn at least one.

disa on February 5, 2010 at 12:13 AM

It’s amazing how they see such high hurdles of standing to get very simple information that should have been already gotten by someone official to ever establish eligibility. Crazy, really.

neurosculptor on February 5, 2010 at 12:08 AM

“High hurdles of standing”? Wtf are you even talking about? It’s the same standard as always, you just need to show an injury in fact. Should we change the standard just for you? Just stop. Seriously.

crr6 on February 5, 2010 at 12:15 AM

neurosculptor on February 5, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Wanna know what’s craziest? Showing the documentation is supposed to be routine procedure according to the Hawai DOH’s own administrative rules. Any secretary of state in the country could have asked for and received a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate in order to place his name on the ballot.

But nobody knew that because DOH Director Fukino hid until a year after the election was over the Administrative Rules which were supposed to have been public all along. AS a result of those rules finally being published, a LOT of illegal activity in Hawaii has been revealed.

That’s point #1 of 11 at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 12:17 AM

But the court explicitly chose to adopt the English common law on the subject. So in this case, the English common law, did become the law of these states.

crr6 on February 5, 2010 at 12:13 AM

No. The majority and minority in this case did not disagree over the law but over historical fact. My contention, and that of the dissent, was that they had their history wrong.

In any case, the ruling given by the majority was that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the 14th amendment, not that he was natural born.

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Seriously. Look at the Hawaii DOH’s Administrative Rules.

ANY PERSON HAS STANDING to receive a non-certified abbreviated copy of Obama’s birth certificate – complete with all the markings required on a certificate (certificate number, note of any amendments or of what evidence was offered for amendments or delayed filing, stamped markings for altered or delayed birth certificate, etc)

The DOH is fighting hand and tooth to say that their rules don’t say it. But it’s right there. “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b, 2.5(b)(2)

http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

But like I said before, nobody knew this because these rules, which are required by Hawaii statute to be publicly available at all times, were HIDDEN by Fukino until early November of 2009.

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 12:24 AM

I’m still trying to figure out how he was accepted into an Ivy League school without a foreign language. The rest of us schmucks had to learn at least one.

disa on February 5, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Haven’t you heard? Affirmative action babies don’t need a second language. Well, except for maybe ebonics…

2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Being labeled a Birther does matter. If you’re trying to get people to see things your way it doesn’t help if people think you are bat-crap crazy.

rmel80 on February 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Sort of like why John McCain wouldn’t follow up on Obama’s background and associates (Wright, Ayers, etc).

Does it ever occur to you that while McCain may have indulged himself by behaving like a gentleman (he sure as hell didn’t care much about winning), he did the American people a disservice by allowing his opponent to go unexamined.

You know that quote about doing nothing and permitting great evil etc etc.

disa on February 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM

He’s hiding a LOT from us.

disa on February 5, 2010 at 12:39 AM

It’s newsworthy as a rare example of The One addressing Birthers directly and as proof of how useful this dopey controversy is to him, letting him take the high road — during a speech about faith, no less — vis-a-vis opponents looking to discredit him by all available means.

Well if certain left-leaning bloggers at HotAir and elsewhere had raised questions about his college transcripts or the rest of his background info then us ‘birthers’ wouldn’t have to act as citizen journalists and do your freaking job for you.

To me this is proof positive the tactic is working. The people are being heard – even as the media co-ordinates an effort to smear those who simply seek truth.

The pressure is mounting, his approval rating is plummeting, there is more talk about the BC issue now than there was 6 months ago when the media was still refusing to address it in any form whatsoever.

Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia and other states are considering legislation that would require validating candidates and their eligibility for POTUS.

Nobody wants to discuss Sun Yat Sen or the laws that allowed him to receive a Hawaiian birth document even though he was born in China. The same loopholes that Sun Yat Sen and others used were still in place in 1961.

The fact remains a Hawaiian COLB is not proof of a Hawaiian birth. End of story. Anyone fully versed in the facts would have to admit that. It is undeniable truth.

Mr Purple on February 5, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Umm, the quote was from BARACK OBAMA’S BOOK DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.

mrsmwp on February 4, 2010 at 6:28 PM

I was not referring to the quote in Obama’s book. I was speaking in more of a general sense.

I notice that many so-called birthers seem to have done a substantial amount of research about the issue. You, for instance, have these very esoteric details ready to fire off. There are many others like you, some even more passionate.

Why then, with all of the resources and spotlight dedicated to authors, bloggers, citizen journalists, whistle-blowers, thrill-seekers, White House party-crashers, etc, is your movement still so marginal?

A glitch in the Matrix?

The Race Card on February 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM

Some one, please, just put out the name of the hospital in Hawaii where this guy was born to take the “Birther” club away from him. If he can work birther sarcasm into his speech at the national prayer breakfast, you know he use it over and over and over and over and over and….

you get the picture.

olesparkie on February 5, 2010 at 8:04 AM

No. The majority and minority in this case did not disagree over the law but over historical fact.
2Brave2Bscared on February 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Jesus Christ. If the majority and the dissent agreed about the law, there wouldn’t be a majority and a dissent. It’d be a unanimous opinion.
Join progressoverpeace in the dunce corner.

crr6 on February 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Hawaii Government record keeping has been criticized on a number of issues because it is important what your heritage is in determining your standing in the community to perpetuate the ‘Plantation Mentality’.

If President Obama was to run for President as an actual citizen of Hawaii, not Illinois. He would need more than A Certificate of Birth to show his connections to the good ol boy network.

The documentation offered as proof of citizenship is nothing more that a piece of paper that you pay a fee to obtain after submitting enought information to enable the Health Department to issue it.

It is imperative to follow his mother’s actual travel while pregnant. If she gave birth to Obama overseas in an Indonesian country and Indonesia honors the fathers nationality as the child’s citizenship he is Indonesian. However, if his mother returned to Hawaii as soon as possible and simply paid the required fees to register his birth in Hawaii would allow him to declare his citizenship as an American. However, unless Indonesian laws have been changed, he remains a citizen of Indonesia.

MSGTAS on February 5, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Obama, shut up. If you are a citizen…. prove it. I can prove mine and I’m proud of it. Why would you not be proud of yours??? By the way, while you are at it how about a look at your college transcripts. Oh, maybe you are not proud of that either? What are you proud of or did your wife already answer that one. You are a dirt bag!!

highninside on February 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Marginal in the media? Because they were threatened if they reported on this. See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

Marginal in the law? Because the people entrusted to enforce the laws won’t. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

Marginal among the people? I don’t believe it is marginal. Considering that everything that anybody knows has been by word-of-mouth, I think it is phenomenal that Obama himself has had to try to ridicule away the people’s concerns.

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM

If he can work birther sarcasm into his speech at the national prayer breakfast, you know he use it over and over and over and over and over and….

you get the picture.

olesparkie on February 5, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Awwww. You mean that pesky issue that every major news outlet including blogs like Hot Air refused to discuss is becoming an issue and you don’t like it?

Darn those birthers who didn’t just go away and die because they were ridiculed! Darn those pesky facts and laws they keep citing! How in the world did facts and law stand up against ridicule?

There is still time to make this a moot point before the election. Just pressure him into releasing his BC (and while he is at it, those college transcripts we should have seen before we voted).

Mr Purple on February 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Some one, please, just put out the name of the hospital in Hawaii where this guy was born…

Take your pick.

First Answer: Queen’s Medical Center Honolulu

Charter School’s The Rainbow Edition Newsletter, Vol 2. Issue 3, November 2004 written by Bennett Guira, a colleague of Maya Soetoro.

Barack Obama was born on August 4,
1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama lived here with his
parents Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham
until they divorced when he was two. Obama
moved back to Hawaii when he was ten and
lived with his grandmother Madelyn Dunham
and half-sister of our very own, Maya Soetoro.
They both attended Punahou School together
when they both lived here.

Second answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Source: Maya Soetoro (Obama’s half-sister); fours after the Rainbow interview

On Febuary 18, 2008, in Vol. 13, Issue 49 of Star Bulletin, in an article by Laurie Au:
Obama’s half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who has been
campaigning aggressively in Hawaii and on the mainland,
shared stories of her older brother’s childhood as a way to
connect to local voters.”This is a place that’s been relatively unchanged for him, and so much of who he is was born here,” Soetoro-Ng told a crowd of about 200 people eating “OBAMAsadas.”

“He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women &
Children, two blocks up from where our grandmother still
resides … the place where he used to stick orange peels under his bed, where it got all dried out and … nasty.”

DanaSmiles on February 5, 2010 at 3:02 PM

You can disagree with me without questioning my citizenship

Where’s the fun in that? Hey Precedent Narcissist, what’s it like to have over 300 pictures of your jug eared mug plastered on every wall in the West Wing?
Do you find comfort in that? Is it a small recompense for not being a “natural born citizen”?
 
For the record, YES, I will question your citizenship right up to the moment you and your sorry excuse for an administration are Tarred, Feathered, and run out of MY White House on a rail.

Blacksmith8 on February 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Mr. Baby in Chief… I question your motives. I do not trust you enough to accept anything that comes out of your mouth as being the truth. You sir… LIE. And I definitely wonder what your motives are.

RalphyBoy on February 5, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Birthers were wierd from Day 1, nevermind now.

But he’s wierd, too, to call attention to such a small group of odd-balls.

AnninCA on February 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Jeff Kuhner had a 3-hour radio show on Obama’s eligibility today. He started out the show thinking “birthers” were stupid and ended the show by saying that we shouldn’t accept the label “birthers” but should call ourselves patriots and Constitutionalists. He said there is something wrong going on and he wants to investigate further.

It’s a shame we’re such an embarrassment to thinking people. lol.

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Sounds interesting. Got link?

NightmareOnKStreet on February 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Mr. Baby in Chief… I question your motives. I do not trust you enough to accept anything that comes out of your mouth as being the truth. You sir… LIE. And I definitely wonder what your motives are.
RalphyBoy on February 5, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Mr. Baby in Chief- lol!! I prefer calling him “King Baby”

NightmareOnKStreet on February 5, 2010 at 8:26 PM

NightmareOnKStreet at 8:16PM

Here’s the thread on Free Republic where it was discussed. I think bgill did a running commentary of the content towards the end at least.

I don’t think they have the audio archived yet at the radio’s site.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2445071/posts?page=302

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Here’s the website for the radio station:

http://www.freedom570am.com/

justincase on February 5, 2010 at 9:34 PM

This is the recording of the program:

http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/8/8/4/7/185470-174880/Media/kuhn%20ob%202_01_c.mp3

justincase on February 6, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Birthers were wierd from Day 1, nevermind now.

But he’s wierd, too, to call attention to such a small group of odd-balls.

And my father and thousands of other brave men and women have fought and died so people like YOU could have the ‘right’ to say ignorant s@#t like this. You’ve added nothing to the discussion, just tried to offend those you disagree with. Typical liberal bs.

DanaSmiles on February 6, 2010 at 8:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4