Breitbart, Farah argue Birtherism at Tea Party convention
posted at 1:00 pm on February 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Dave Weigel has been covering the Tea Party Convention in Nashville for the Washington Independent, and earlier today walked into an unplanned but heated debate between World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah and Andrew Breitbart. Farah claimed that the Tea Party movement was partially fueled on the notion that Barack Obama isn’t really a native-born citizen of the US. When WND reporter Chelsea Schilling asked Breitbart- to comment on Farah’s speech, he criticized the attack and said the Tea Party movement would do better to focus on substance. Weigel asked Farah for a response, which led Farah to start an argument:
I told Farah that his speech was getting negative attention already, and that Breitbart, who’d taken the stage after him, had criticized the “birther” parts of the speech. Farah shook his head and walked over to Breitbart in what seemed like an attempt to debunk my question.
“Andrew is my friend,” said Farah. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…”
Breitbart raised his eyebrows. “I’m dumb to do what?”
“Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”
“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart, pointing to Schilling. “I was talking to you. And I was saying that I disagreed on the birther stuff.”
“OK, well, did you know that Dave Weigel from The Washington Independent was”–
“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart. “She was asking me if I thought it was was to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they’re all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue–”
“It is a winning issue!”
“It’s not a winning issue.”
I know Dave a little from a few meetings at events that he’s covered, and whether or not he’s “socialist” — I’d say center-left having read his work, but usually very fair — it didn’t make any difference to whom Breitbart spoke. If Breitbart was rebutting Farah’s argument, then Farah needs to address the argument, not question Breitbart’s motives in choosing Dave, which isn’t what Breitbart did. He was challenging the birth-certificate issue to Farah’s own WND reporter, and Farah leaped to an incorrect conclusion.
Moreover, Breitbart is entirely correct, and perhaps even understated the case. In the earlier exchange with Schilling, she said that her boss was asking Obama to prove something rather than disprove Birtherism, to which Breitbart responded, “When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?” But in fact, Obama did do just that when he released the Certification of Live Birth in June 2008, in response to an entirely different question. That may have been the first time a Presidential candidate has ever done so, and the COLB is a document that could get Obama a passport, a driver’s license, and a Social Security number. It’s all the legal proof required. If that wasn’t enough, Obama’s political opponents found contemporaneous records of his birth in the Honolulu Advertiser from August 1961.
The wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts over the last three months did not come from people questioning Obama’s birthplace. They resulted from grassroots opposition to the Obama-Nancy Pelosi policy agenda. Scott Brown won the seat held by the Kennedys and their cronies for almost 60 years by pushing back hard against ObamaCare and the counterterrorism policies of the White House. If anything, the continued focus on Birtherism at these rallies undercuts the mainstream nature of the opposition to the Democratic agenda and allows the media to paint it as a paranoid mob obsessed with conspiracy theories. Not only is it not a winning issue, it will hang like an albatross around the necks of conservatives who tacitly or expressly link themselves to it.
The American public rejected the birth-certificate argument in November 2008. We now have much better and more rational arguments to make against Obama and his allies in Congress. Let’s stay focused on those issues, where we have much stronger footing with a disillusioned electorate.
Update: HA commenter Knucklehead says that Carl Cameron at Fox reported a few minutes ago that other Tea Party organizations will hold a presser later today to condemn Birtherism and distance themselves from it. That sounds like a healthy decision. Also, be sure to read the rest of the exchange between Breitbart and Farah in Weigel’s article; it actually went downhill from there.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Posted by Romeo13 above…
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM
If this was such a constitutional issue and not about the election, all of you birthers would long ago raised the issue with previous candidates, or even raised it alone just on its merits.
But instead this issue is magically discovered only when its a candidate you are suspicious of. So do not act like its not about the election and its only about the Constitution.
Obama can be beat in the arena of ideas, and going off on a lark thinking you found some technicality that has escaped everyone else, is not going to help us, as evidence as how the DNC is bringing this up on their own to embarrass people and make Republicans look like extremists, to the independents.
Birthers = Amway distributors “Oh you just watch, any day now this is going to be big, and you will see how wrong you are. Every day we are bigger and bigger”
Although neither ones realize how they are laughed at later on
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Was Rep. John Mingham of Ohio a founding father? I asked for writings by founding fathers in order to understand their intent with regards to Natural Born Citizens, not someone who amended the constitution. After all, not all amendments were right.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM
As opposed to a candidate that they are NOT suspicious of?
With logic like that you must be a liberal.
BTW, the issue WAS raised with John McCain regarding his birth in Panama and he deal with it openly. I guess that doesn’t feed into your martyr complex regarding Obama so lets just ignore it.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.
Unless you can insert the words “British/American dual citizen” where Jay uses the words “natural born citizen” and believe the wording of this letter still makes any sense, Obama can’t possibly qualify as eligible. It is precisely Obama’s at-birth citizenship status that Jay wanted disqualified from presidential eligibility.
Buddahpundit on February 6, 2010 at 8:01 PM
No, what you are asking for is something that provides Obama with a Get Out of Jail Free card.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Actualy… these issues were raised prior to the election… in a law suit…. which was dismissed because under the State law it was filed under, it missed a deadline for filing.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Well if it was some major Constitutional issue, then YES, it should have been raised long ago to apply to EVERY Presidential candidate, rather until waiting until its one that is really not liked, I mean since it is such an issue about the Constitution and all.
And yes, the usual Ad Hominem attack, that anyone who differs MUST be a liberal…yawn…
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Right because we all thought Reagan was really an Irishman!
This is the same silly logic that has airport security frisking granny’s instead of Middle Eastern men.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 8:13 PM
So it is your assertion that British law trumps American law in American courts, and British determinations of citizenship can disqualify persons born on American soil of their “natural born” status? Because it was neither the US government, nor Obama’s mother, nor Obama himself who filed, and the filing could not be made to the US government.
I have more respect for American sovereignty than that.
Suppose next year Madagascar decides to declare all people on the planet born in 2011 to be dual Madigascarian/whatever citizens. Would that exclude all Americans born during 2011 from being president of the US?
After all, they would all hold dual citizenship….
notropis on February 6, 2010 at 8:18 PM
You mean like NJ attorney Leo Donofrio sued to have 3 (THREE) candidates: John McCain & Roger Calero, a Nicaraguan citizen as well as Obama removed from the ballot in Oct. 2008.
Get your facts straight, firepilot.
NightmareOnKStreet on February 6, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Oh, yeah, and how do you think that logic would sound to our founding Fathers?
notropis on February 6, 2010 at 8:20 PM
No. I’m asking for the truth. I’m tired of the propaganda and smear campaigns from the left AND the right.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Friends don’t let friends fall into the grasping clutches of graverobbers like Joe Farah and the Mailing Listers at WorldNut Daily!
Why do you people think they pimp extremist issues like Birtherism? Because Farah believes in them? Balogna! Farah is pimping the issue to suck the blood, vampire-like, from the young conservative rubes who buy into his scams.
Then, once he has your name and email address, he sells the mailing list to the BeClowned G.O.P., or even Axelrod if the price is right.
Joe Farah: he would sell your name to Downfall Hitler for the right price.
victor82 on February 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Just look at the oath of citizenship:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2009]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR337.1]
[Page 835-836]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER I–DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PART 337_OATH OF ALLEGIANCE–Table of Contents
Sec. 337.1 Oath of allegiance.
a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise provided in the Act and after receiving notice from the district director that such applicant is eligible for naturalization pursuant to Sec. 335.3 of this chapter, an applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States the following oath of allegiance, to a copy of which the applicant shall affix his or her signature:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
That should pretty much tell you what our Founders and our federal government really thought about split allegiances. It couldn’t be much clearer.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM
The fact is Mr. Jay doesn’t even address dual citizenship at birth disqualifying someone as a natural born citizen. Schwarzenegger is considered a foreigner. Obama isn’t.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM
Deanna on February 6, 2010 at 7:23 PM
Obama will be the one to define the parameters of “presidential records”, not you. And he defines them as sealing all of his records, because he is the president.
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 8:25 PM
1. Did the founding fathers write that oath of allegiance?
2. Why would Obama have to take an oath of allegiance if he was born in Hawaii?
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:26 PM
Come on. Citizenship can’t be forced on any adult and it is pretty simple to figure that we extend other nations the same citizenship priveleges that we extend to our citizens and their children, within a reasonable range of application. But once an American citizen loses his/her citizenship, the children are no longer automatic US citizens, unless they are actually born in America. We extend to other nations the implied right to place its citizenship on those born on its sovereign territory, but not to dispense it at random. If a country does that, then the question becomes one of whether an American ever accepted that citizenship – used it in some way or affirmed it.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM
THE REALITY IS that most people who have raised questions about Obama’s eligibility for Presidency ARE or HAVE already if not from the gate done as much (“fold[ed] belief and determination to defeat him into the larger…”).
What’s the problem in my view and experience is that some among the Right continue to belittle, malign, attack, you name it, people who question the eligibility.
Who is keeping this an agitation method is Media Matters, Obama and other Democrats and the Liberals among the GOP by fighting imaginary enemies among the Right.
I’m finding the whole lot to be objectionable. Breitbart has a great argument, as usual, but he also won’t support inquiry into the issues themselves as to Obama’s eligibility.
It’s a political GAME issue by both Right and Left or at least SOME on the Right with the Left and the Left is exploiting this.
Because all the aversion to so much as tolerating anyone who raises these issues, among the Right, is what the Left does and wants to accomplish…and the Leftwing of the GOP are eager to fall victim to their stupid desires to destruct voter unity on the Right
If there’s nothing there there, if Obama’s academic records, all his defining documents for his (mostly) entire lifetime are just fine and dandy, then release them or most of them to public review. As in, what’s to object to being “transparent.”
Farah is obsessed with this issue of Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency — so what, it’s still a free country last I checked as to what we do with our thoughts and questions — so inviting him to speak at the Tea Party convention was a foregone conclusion that he’d talk about…the one issue he’s obsessed with and about … and so he did so.
What I’d like to see stopped immediately is all the snarling about the questions (obama’s eligibility issues) by the Right, and I find that most of those doing that are the most Leftwing on the Right, the Libertarians.
I truly appreciate and respect Breitbart, I realize that this issue has been reduced to a POLITICAL one but so what, what’s the harm in allowing people to inquire about all the rest that follows?
The Constitution guarantees we as citizens, voters have certain Rights of self-governing, so why complain when people try to exercise those Rights?
I could list a number of other issues that I would, personally, prefer to never hear again from some on the Right, but, well, I try to allow others some room to voice their opinions and then either refrain from denigrating them or just pass on by.
What I can’t stand is all the slamming by the more Liberal people in the Right about those who so much as raise these issues of Obama’s eligibility. Again, I write, if there’s nothing wrong or out of order there, why not just make his records public? What’s so outrageous about that? Most Americans would welcome the possible result that he isn’t, indeed, a faker as to his eligibility.
And I think the issue is solely as to his “natural born” citizenship, not necessarily any argument about his alleged Birth Certificate. As I understand Hawaii’s history, where Barack Obama alleges he was born, anyone could and many did obtain the very same document as Obama claims to have, simply by filling out a form and “swearing” to being truthful, without so much as any other documentation needed as to birth, where, win.
Hawaii for years issued those Certificates of Birth to anyone who walked in, filled out a form, paid a filing fee and signed the form while ‘swearing’ they’d done so truthfully, even for a child who was as old as one year at that time, without any medical records, no other documentation, just walk in, fill out the form, pay the fee, and someone typed up the Certificate of Birth per what was on the form.
This is fact, not fantasy. So although the questions surrounding Obama’s Constitutional eligibility may be irritating on a “political gaming” board, strategy-wise, the questions are not unreasonable that anyone in the Presidency be substantiated as being Constitutionally eligible to be so.
It’s not a lightweight nor “progressive” (as some here allege) perspective to ask for so much as this and in Obama’s case, so far, there is more reasonable doubt about his eligibility than there is proof of such.
Just release his academic records for starters and perhaps some explanations as to why he’s forbidden such from being public. I mean, what could be so awful, he got D’s and F’s in junior high? I think many people already assume he did, but it’s not disqualifying for the Presidency, if so, not based upon the Constitution, anyway.
The emotional intolerance by some on the Right (all of them the most Left or Liberal in my experience, on the Right) about this is ghastly. If you don’t like the questions, at least allow others their inherent privilege of asking them and asking for Congress to substantiate what’s-what.
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Do you have any proof that Obama lost his US citizenship? Did his mother lose her citizenship?
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:33 PM
Pretty close. I don’t think it’s changed much over time.
I didn’t say he did. I put the oath there so that you could see what we demand of those being naturalized, which goes to how we think about dual citizenship. We don’t allow it of naturalized Americans. It was never allowed of natural born Americans, before just recently, in historical terms.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:33 PM
When you find one that was created during the time of our founding fathers, get back to me. Meanwhile, in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty and you birthers have yet to produce any proof that Obama is guilty of lying about his birth or citizenship.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:35 PM
You are having a really hard time understanding when the logical flow of the argument. I was explaining how part of OUR automatic citizenship by birth works, to illustrate what we would reasonably allow other nations to do with respect to conferring citizenship that we would respect and honor.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:38 PM
You have to allow other nations to have the same policy as your nation has. That is what the Law of Nations was all about. We recognize that other nations have the same rights in this regard. This isn’t some new age lefty policy, it was a principle the Founders believed in. We never wanted a tug o war with other nations for citizens.
Buddahpundit on February 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM
So, you think the modern oath is stricter than the original oaths of allegiance were? Are you out of your mind?
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Apples and oranges. How we treat foreigners who are granted cizenship is not the same as a person who is born in this country and has no control over what another country does because of the nationality of that child’s father.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Precisely. It is fifteen months too late. And it helps their side.
AshleyTKing on February 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM
You’re killin’ me.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Nope. You were the one who said that the founding fathers had a specific idea in mind with regards to someone born with a dual citizenship. I’m holding you to finding the writings of any founding father talking about the eligibility of a person born in the US that has a dual citizenship at birth and by adulthood holds only the US citizenship to be considered a natural born citizen and thus POTUS. You threw out that argument, I’m waiting for you to back it up.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:42 PM
What could also be quite likely given the information available so far is that Barack Obama was born “out of wedlock” and the Grandparents were working toward covering the social stigma of their daughter, Obama’s mother.
So they went about ensuring forms, placed a classified ad, maintained some acceptable (at that time of Obama’s birth, when out-of-wedlock births as also interracial births were socially a big problem) story that didn’t ruffle social taboos or harm their social and business reputations, nor that could harm their daughter’s.
Barack Obama — him, himself, in his own words, by his own volition — on his own during the Pres. campaign said publicly (I watched a video of this, I don’t have a link now but I clearly recall watching and listening to Obama deliver this statement on a video early on in his campaign for the Presidency, at a townhall sort of campaign appearance) — anyway, EVEN OBAMA SAID ABOUT HIMSELF THEN this:
“…if it WAS released (his Birth Certificate, emphasis is his), a lot of people would be…uhhh…embarrassed by what is on it…”
So that establishes:
(1.) Obama KNOWS he has NOT “released” his (actual) or legitimate Birth Certificate (thus the Cert. of Birth only, which is a recent document, not any Birth Certificate, either)…
(2.) Obama KNOWS there is “something” on the Birth Certiifate that is not on the Cert. of Birth…
(3.) Obama KNOWS (that means, he’s conscious of some manipulation of his information) that the two documents differ (Birth Cert. would be “embarrassing” to “people” while Cert of Birth is OK to read on internet).
So this substantiates in my opinion his intentional withholding of some pertinent information that defines who he is.
And that leads me to “just” wanting to know what that is, what’s the big deal, why not release his records, let the public know who he “REALLY” is — ’cause he’s admitting that he’s not being candid about that.
These are reasonable questions about a guy who occupies the U.S. Presidency. And the fact that he’s got some clouded personal history is a problem for me as an American because it emphasizes that he’s not a trustworthy individual, that he’d intentionally create, project and defend (at great lengths) whatever it is he’s so keen on hiding from the American public.
What could that be? Why hide all the academic records? Why limit his “personal story” to his two books and those only? We’re to believe what also could very well be fantasy posed as fact? Why? Why not the defining records of his life?
You know, it could “just” be he was a failing student, he was born out of wedlock. But these are not Constitutionally disqualifying characteristics, so what’s the big issue in hiding this information that might prove/disprove any or all of that?
And why the heck do people mock the inquiries?
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM
I think the modern oath is irrelevant because Obama didn’t have to take an Oath Of Citizenship because he was born in the US.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Because they are afraid of what might be found! If it IS revealed they would be required to make a decision they don’t care to make.
The other part of it is being embarrassed. To hell with the Constitution and the rule of law. It’s the David Frum’s of the world who desperately want to be part of the in crowd and are willing to play the liberal game to achieve that.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Because you need to have some proof to warrant an official inquiry. So far I haven’t seen any.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Instead of guffaws, why don’t you put up or shut up. Otherwise, you’re throwing at the wall and hoping for something to stick.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Argh…I wasn’t going to engage on line-item arguments but this one, I thought I’d try to offer more opinions before running:
A U.S. citizen has to actually declare their citizenship not wanted or to, rather, “remove” or cancel U.S. citizenship, you have to become a citizen of someplace else and then denounce the U.S. and the U.S. then cancels you as a citizen.
It can’t be done casually, you don’t lose U.S. citizenship by just moving or residing somewhere else. But who knows what Obama’s mother’s situation was at his birth as to residency, at this point…since the only testimony by living people in that regard is from some relatives of Obama’s alleged father IN KENYA who have (many times) said they witnessed his birth there.
I don’t know, all I’m saying is that that’s the ONLY TESTIMONY made by any living human being, about his birth. The only testimony otherwise is what Obama has said he thinks about himself and since he was minutes old after birth, I’m assuming what he “knows” about his own birth is what he has been told to believe by others (grandparents, likely as not).
So going by testimony by living persons, the only thing we have is that testimony from the people in Africa…
BUT, the mother after his birth moved and resided in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen (I believe because she married a citizen there and lived there for a while — I’m guessing she did so).
Indonesia does NOT recognize “dual citizenship” (or didn’t at that time) SO that suggests highly that Obama’s mother did, in fact, resign her U.S. citizenship…it’s a reasonable guess…
Obama was declared while living there also to be a citizen of Indonesia. So I don’t know in what jeopardy that’d place his alleged U.S. citizenship BUT, like I wrote, Indonesia didn’t recognize “dual citizenship” so it’s probable that Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro (he was legally adopted in Hawaii by Mr. Soetoro who married his mother) were, indeed, solely Indonesian citizens.
Obama later returned to Hawaii and just went about his life there while living with his grandparents.
So what I am guessing (suggested highly by circumstances) is that he ASSUMED to pass as a U.S. citizen and no one ever questioned him or that.
So he continued on with the assumed citizenship issue ironed out, while it very likely was not.
The Constitutional citizenship requirements are twofold for the Presidency: be a citizen of certain length of age and residency in the U.S. **AND** be natural-born.
Natural-born means one is not naturalized, has not forfeited U.s. citizenship (even if born here) and was born to U.S. citizens geographically on U.S. soil or now, as it’s been recently amended, be born of U.S. citizens on U.S. territory (military base).
This later “revision” was amended under guise by mostly Democrats to so they claim accommodate John McCain having been born on that Panama military base.
What it was was to squeak in an accommodation that would allow Barack Obama — of NON natural born status — to occupy the Presidency: it rewrote, redefined the term “natural born” to mean born on U.S. territory.
I am nearly sure that anyone of Barack Obama’s mysterious weird contortions of where he was, who he was, why and travels elsewhere on mysterious (unidentified as yet) passportts disqualifies him from the Presidency per the Constitution.
He may very well have been born in Hawaii but his mother was seventeen and not capable of conferring any citizenship to him accordingly (not an adult herself) AND his father was NOT a U.S. citizen. So right there he’d be on shaky ground per that “natural born” requirement.
The Democrats made a deal of out presenting their “help” to deem McCain a “natural born” citizen and in that legislation, they rewrote the terms of what that was. Which, in fact, was what Obama was after…
These are important issues, not to be ridiculed. I think the GOP, certain media types on the Right, among mostly Libertarians, are really wrong to ridicule this issue. It’s reducing the Constitution to mush.
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM
I’d imagine arguing with a birther is like arguing with a truther. Best not to bother and kick birthers straight in the nuts on sight.
meandchi on February 6, 2010 at 9:04 PM
No, the proponent “has to” have proof of eligibility.
There’s been abundant proof that Barack Obama does not qualify per our Constitution for the Presidency. Everyone’s ignoring that proof and making these redundant statements as you just did: where’s the proof?
The proof is abundantly already exposed. There’s more information establishing REASONABLE DOUBT about Obama’s eligibility than there is or has been as to him qualifying for the Presidency.
I just reiterated just a bit of such. Rather than accept this as reasonable doubt, you/others just ridicule anyone who raises this “proof.”
Breitbart, bless his courages heart — I like and admire him — is off on Left field on this issue. He’s actually doing more to service the Media Matters Madness than nearly anyone on the Right as to media. And why is Breitbart so emotionally upset about these questions? Just answer the questions. I don’t get all the emotional upset and calling of names and such, makes no sense, indicates great defensiveness by those who react like that.
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:04 PM
If you don’t like being called an idiot or worse, stop calling other people — who are polite and posing reasonable concerns — names.
It’s that name-calling and denigration that indicates a problem by those of you who do so.
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:05 PM
You’re right. None of these who condemn the questions and issue overall have anything to define or explain why they’re routinely so emotionally derisive about this.
It does reveal people on shaky intellectual ground, and it reveals people who seem to think it’s about “them” “winning” some argument rather than an exploration and discovery of facts.
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:07 PM
there is exactly ONE place where the founders talked about “Natural Born Citizen”… vice citizen, or natualized citzen…
They clearly differentiated between those two categories, somthing you will not admit.
Please post somthing that gives a LEGAL specific definition to “Natural Born Citizen”… vice citizen… or Native Citizen… or Citizen born on our soil…
Because I MUCH earlier posted the Supremes, saying that definition was in DOUBT…. while you continue to argue that there is not difference.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Anyway, Palin’s on, I want to listen, good evening and I doubt writing opinions on Page Five of HotAir comments is going to make much impact on anyone at this rate…
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:08 PM
But Breitbart is wrong on this one…
Lourdes on February 6, 2010 at 9:09 PM
So, we extend to another nation the privilege that a child born to a US citizen, on US soil, is somehow NOT a natural born US citizen, but only if they (the other nation) say so?
I don’t remember anything like this anywhere in the Federalist Papers….
notropis on February 6, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Just sticks and stones, buddy.
meandchi on February 6, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Actualy, to get on the ballot? all you have to do is sign a form saying you meet the requirments. NONE of the States actualy bothered to check on his birth cert… or this would not have been an issue.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM
When those of us who DID bring it up 15 months ago we were told it was already settled or it wasn’t important – by the same people who are now saying the time to address this was 15 months ago.
Mr Purple on February 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM
what you miss, is that at the time, citizenship flowed through the FATHER… the two ways of getting citizenship were thourgh the soil, and through the FATHER.
Not PC today… but under the standard of the people who wrote the Constitution, and more importantly, those who RATIFIED the Constitution under the Definitions of the day… Obama does not meet that standard.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 9:16 PM
You seem to believe that the Founders were willing to accept multiple allegiances by people born here but not citizens who were born elsewhere and became naturalized here.
If the Tea Party drafts a platform or a list of principles, the one on the top of the list should be:
All US citizens must have 100% allegiance to the United States of America. Dual citizenship will no longer be recognized and those who have this form of citizenship and fail to renounce in front of a federal judge all foreign loyalties within a grace period will have their US citizenship automatically and permanently revoked.
They have to draft this plank or the next movement will put the Tea Party out of business within a couple of years. Mark my words.
Buddahpundit on February 6, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Róger Calero was born in Nicaragua, ran for President and was put on the ballot in five states.
But of course it’s just crazy for ‘birthers’ to think this could really happen. /s
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 7:55 PM
I distictly remember the day that Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Gov. Of California that it was discussed how he could never be POTUS because he was not a “natural born citizen”.
It has been discussed with regard to other politicians (besides McCain who was already mentioned here), why not O?
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on February 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM
victor82 on February 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Proof? Back up your smears! I have known of Farah for at least 12 years, possibly longer. I first became aware of him through the “Zola Levitt Presents” program and then I became aware of his articles. The late Zola Levitt was my pastor of sorts and he vetted everyone on his show and newsletters. You can try to lie about someone but you should keep in mind that some people here know the truth.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on February 6, 2010 at 9:28 PM
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Why can’t we see his passports? Did he hold British, Indonesian or both when went to Pakistan in the early 80′s.
And how did he get there on a US passport if there was a travel ban to Pakistan from the US at that time. I think passports and student records will show that barri was representing himself as a foreigner. Show us the records!
Also, to mizflame or anyone else interested in definition of ‘natural born’. http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 9:29 PM
It’s the David Frum’s of the world who desperately want to be part of the in crowd and are willing to play the liberal game to achieve that.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Yes, and anyone who thinks that being an abortion lusting, perversion and pedophile pushing, terrorist coddling, communist dictator loving crowd is “in” and “hip”, (and I agree with you, sharrukin, there are those that do, some even on this thread), then the faster they join them instead of staying in denial and not admitting their admiration for these creatures while draining conservative time and exposing infighting for barri to use as a distraction, the better.
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 9:37 PM
p.s. mizflame. You must refer to statutes on the books and in force when barri was born, not “current” law, as you quoted earlier.
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Several points
You do not forfeit citizenship, or lose it if a parent renounces citizenship. US Citizenship is ONLY something you lose, if YOU renounce it, after the age of 18, in a prescribed manner. Just because another country may not recognize US citizenship, they can not cancel it on your behalf. You must be over 18, and go an embassy or consulate, and on your own, renounce your citizenship. Where some of you think that a parent can do it for you, or another country can cancel your citizenship for you, well sorry, but thats utterly wrong
Neither can your parent either. And nor does your parent have to be a US citizen. Look at all the Mexican, and even South Korean women that come to the US to give birth, just so their kid can be a US citizen.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 9:43 PM
And that was right around at election time. If it was such a daunting Constitutional issue, you all would have been shouting about this for decades, and demanding that everyone of them personally gave you their birth certificates in super dooper extra maxi long form.
And by suing John McCain, shows not only a birther but a moron too.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Amen.
NightmareOnKStreet on February 6, 2010 at 9:46 PM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656
Heres one document showing his citizenship as Indonesian – His elementary School registration in Indonesia. He has never refuted it as bogus. Enough proof that he should release his documents to dispel these “conspiracy theories”
BTW – also shows his religion as Islam and his name as Barry Soetoro. Clear as glass isn’t it? The transparency is breathtaking!!!
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 9:47 PM
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 9:48 PM
This is another one of the birther myths that make us have a hard time taking any of you seriously. PROVE there was this ban on US citizens going to Pakistan. Many of you say this, but I have NEVER seen any reference or proof. Pakistan was a pretty big ally of ours then too, we were giving them quite a bit of aid and ammo at that time.So prove there was this travel ban, bet you cant.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Those who have
nothing to hide
HIDE NOTHING.
NightmareOnKStreet on February 6, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Ed, you refuse to see any evidence. I’m fed up with you.
The Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is amended, which means that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries since they do not have note of the amendment.
That’s a starting point. If you won’t deal with this then there is no hope for you. Period.
The DOH has confirmed that the COLB’s you keep citing are actually forgeries. Now what are you gonna do about that? Will you correct your article? If not, why not?
More info at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 9:51 PM
victor82 on February 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM
You’re an idiot.
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 9:51 PM
And BTW, the evidence I give in the blog is STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH. It is what the Department of Health actually says in their official, legal responses to legal requests for documentation – many of them my own requests.
It’s not Factcheck. It’s not somebody’s speculation. It is straight from the mouths of the people who supposedly said the Factcheck COLB was genuine. In fact what they said was the exact opposite. Why is nobody interested in the DOH now that they are whispering to private individuals that everybody interpreted them wrong?
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Birther issue aside, I am not with people who allow the left to decide what should be a topic for legitimate debate based on a fear of being ostracized by the media. We on the right fall for this nonsense all the time. Breitbart himself proclaimed \”you are not allowed to do that anymore\”. Well, some folks have questions about Obama\’s past, it isn\’t as if he hasn\’t given people a reason to be suspicious.
echosyst on February 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Enough of this.
OBAMA is to blame for this controversy. Not “birthers”, or conservatives, or republicans.
He could have put it to bed. The MSM could have put it to bed.
It lingers. It always will.
Browndog on February 6, 2010 at 7:36 PM
BIGGEST TRUTH ON THIS THREAD!
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM
No he doesn’t. The Supreme Court has ruled on it as well as other courts, so there is plenty of legal precedent out there that does set parameters. Nixon and Clinton are good examples, as well as GWB. But you just keep believing what you want, I’m sure you can post a link to the exact wording of the order for me that says all his records are sealed.
Deanna on February 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Fukino’s statements were intended to deceive people into thinking that secretaries of state COULDN’T see Obama’s birth certificate unless he authorized them to see it. In fact, the Administrative Rules say they could have received a certified copy of his original birth certificate if they had asked to see it in order to put his name on the ballot.
The reason Fukino could get away with those deceptions is because she illegally hid the Administrative Rules for over a year – until the window of opportunity for secretaries of state to get routine disclosures of the birth certificate was already past.
That is just the beginning of her deception and outright illegal actions. Because the Administrative Rules have now been released as they were legally required to have been all along, we can see what various statements mean. And those revelations are absolutely DEVASTATING to Obama.
But hey, as long as Fukino was able to screw everybody until it’s too late, I guess everything’s OK, huh? (Not directing that to you; I know you know better)
More info on what we know – from the horses’ mouths (e-mails you can see yourself) – at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Sooo…. one branch of the fed Gov says the people are not allowed to question another branch of the Fed Gov?
Why am I so NOT suprised?
Romeo13 on February 6, 2010 at 10:05 PM
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Obama couldn’t have gotten away with any of this if our law enforcement system was even minimally functional. Please see http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:06 PM
We don’t need Obama’s birth certificate.
We need our birth certificate: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The short form and the long form.
Breitbart’s right; Don’t Get Fooled again.
btw, the “natural born” provision was not anti-immigrant. It was anti-dictator, so that no Napoleon could invade and rule.
Noel on February 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Disagree. Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
unclesmrgol on February 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM
No, the courts said just the opposite. You are familiar with the facts in the Nixon and CLinton cases aren’t you? They tried to use execcutive privilege and were over-ruled by the courts.
Deanna on February 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Noel on February 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Neither our Constitution, nor our Declaration of Independence, nor any laws we hassle over and get passed make one iota of difference if nobody enforces them. Obama and his people have been committing crimes to cover for what we now can be almost certain about Obama’s records: they are not adequate to provide legal proof of anything. They are the same standard of evidence as every illegal alien in the country may have.
And all our government systems have been covering for him. Please check out http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
If anybody doesn’t understand what I’ve posted there please ask. This blog was made in a hurry so that I could post documentation and to see if the American public even cares enough about lawlessness for me to justify spending the time to document this stuff.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM
It should be pointed out to Breibart that a political party must certify that its candidate is constitutionlaly qualified to be POTUS.
It should also be pointed out to Breitbart that due to a ACORN suit, John McCain went to great lengths to prove his constitutional qualification. McCain released not just birth certificate but also hospital records. McCain hired lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen to render an opinion based on the records, which was that McCain was (and is) qualified under the U.S. Constitution. A Senate Resolution was passed stating that McCain was qualified. That is what an American war hero from a great American military family did out of respect for the U.S. Constitution. And what did the former community organizer Obama do? Withhold his original birth certificate and litigate.
It may be that this issue is not a winner. But it is an issue. Obama should have been required to do the same as McCain did.
Phil Byler on February 6, 2010 at 10:14 PM
If all the evidence for questioning barri’s records that has been presented today still has others on this thread calling names and emotionally acting out then they are:
A. Really dimwitted and have not done or do not understand the research that they themselves should be doing before speaking about the myriad of legitimate legal, constitutional and ethical questions regarding one of the most puzzling, underhanded and fervent cover-ups of a President’s entire life, or,
B. Is a conscious or sub-conscious wanna-be leftie, thinks deep down that lefties are “cool” and afraid of being lumped in with “birther” dorks. Stupidly use the left’s labels against people who are they are supposedly on the same side with.
As far as anyone who discusses this complex subject who shows themselves to be embarrasingly babyish with their name calling instead of discussing facts – well, they will be ignored by me, and I am sure most of the more mature minded posters here.
P.S. Al Capone could not be bagged on the “issues”, i.e., mafia king-pin, drug pusher, pimp, gambling racketeer and murderer. No, Elliot Ness was smart enough to bring him down with a garden variety charge that he made stick: tax evasion. If through revealing barri’s records (that he has spent over one million to keep secret) we can show barri to be the liar and fraud of epic proportions that we know he is, then, regardless of whether he is a citizen or natural born, we can take him down on that instead of the “big” issues. Barri can be our very own Al Capone.
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 10:14 PM
So you expect them to give up an issue which will probably help them? They get mileage out of it, the longer it goes on. If they can paint conservatives to be a bunch of crazies who question the citizenship of the President because they did not vote for him, why should they give it up?
Maybe you did not notice, but the DNC is actually using this as an issue to paint Republicans as all being birthers. Obviously they feel no need to shy away from it.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Disagree. Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
unclesmrgol on February 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM
WELL THEN IT IS DECREED SO. Good enough for me. Good night everybody.
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 10:18 PM
tigerlily, I remember making that very point about Capone several months ago. Very appropriate, don’t you think, seeing as how they’re both from Chitown? Teehee.
We should call ourselves “Nessers” ;)
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on February 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Neither our Constitution, nor our Declaration of Independence, nor any laws we hassle over and get passed make one iota of difference if nobody enforces them. Obama and his people have been committing crimes to cover for what we now can be almost certain about Obama’s records: they are not adequate to provide legal proof of anything. They are the same standard of evidence as every illegal alien in the country may have.
And all our government systems have been covering for him. Please check out http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
If anybody doesn’t understand what I’ve posted there please ask. This blog was made in a hurry so that I could post documentation and to see if the American public even cares enough about lawlessness for me to justify spending the time to document this stuff.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Your blog is really well done! Easy to read, facts are backed up and it’s easy on the eye. Keep going and more power to you.
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 10:21 PM
unclesmrgol, where have you been? You obviously are all-knowing and you could have put this to bed a long time ago.
/
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on February 6, 2010 at 10:22 PM
I had my disagreements with Palin over the word police thing, but she really nailed the speech and Q+A tonight. She got lefties’ heads spinning. She hits hard.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
justincase, I read your blog the other day. Fascinating! Great work and thanks.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on February 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
They are going to call us names and make fun of us?
Gosh, then we should just do something that they won’t make fun of, or tease us about!
If only conservatives act as the MSM wants they will avoid being painted as a bunch of crazies!
Thanks for the great advice!
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Oops. Wrong thread.
neurosculptor on February 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Maybe you did not notice, but the DNC is actually using this as an issue to paint Republicans as all being birthers. Obviously they feel no need to shy away from it.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Ohh the DNC is setting the argument and you want to follow their line out of fear of ridicule. I see. The DNC has not served the interests of the American people in over a generation. I don’t care what the DNC thinks or does. Let them frame the argument and give it more publicity. Let even more people see how ridiculous it is that this man is spending vast sums of money to hide his very basic records and let the American people wonder why would he do that. I HOPE the DNC tries to run with that argument.
allahallahoxenfree on February 6, 2010 at 10:25 PM
This is what needs to happen. Last year angry citzens showed up at the townhalls, this year it needs to start with CNN (not worried about MSNBC as they are doing a good job digging their own graves.)
It saddens me to say this, but at this point in time it really wouldn’t matter if Obama had been born to Communists in Russia. The LSM would just bury it or not report it. Look what they’ve done with whole Czar issue. Nothing.
Even if it turned out that Obama wasn’t a citizen the Dems have a majority in the House and the Senate. Does anybody really think they are going to vote to impeach the first black POTUS?
IMHO it’s the corruption & his school records that will be his undoing not the birth certificate.
redridinghood on February 6, 2010 at 10:29 PM
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 10:17 PM
The American people are by and large fed up with a corrupt, unaccountable government. When the corruption and cover-up of this issue become clear to the average people, they will NOT be amused.
Why this is not a side issue: http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com
To see what this has to do with Obama’s birth certificate click the link at the end of the article.
If people can get the wide-angle view of the way our government has screwed us on this – just as they screw us on EVERYTHING – it will reframe this whole issue, just like a few leaked e-mails regarding climate change have reframed that issue so that the people who were previously being called “conspiracy theorists” were vindicated. If the facts can get out, the dems will wish they had never tried to pain the “birthers” as crazy.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:29 PM
It would severely damage the credibility of the Democratic Party and bring much of what they say under suspicion. In addition Obama wouldn’t get another controversial bill passed.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 10:33 PM
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Thank you. I had my sister & 2 friends read it. None of them are familiar with the subject matter and said they got lost in it. Some of it is technical and boring to the average person. I’d like to explain it all better but wanted a concise summary so that people could see the big picture. Any one point would make a good single article, but it’s only when you see it all together that the dots form a picture – and a picture that changes everything once you see what’s going on.
These people are playing us for fools. They are making a mockery out of the rule of law. Regardless of what happens to Obama and the democrats, if we care so little about the rule of law then we deserve what we will get – and it will make Al Capone look like Mother Theresa.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Proof? How about Obama’s OWN ADMISSION that he was a DUAL citizen at birth because he was, like his Kenyan-born father, a British citizen, governed by the British Immigration Act of 1948. See page 26 of Obama’s AUTObiography “Dreams of My Father”.
So what’s your next move? Are you going to call Obama a liar? Then we may actually find ourselves in agreement…
NightmareOnKStreet on February 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Not sure if any of you have paid attention to elections, but the number of Democrats and Republicans is not that much different. Its the undecided, the “independents” that make the difference. They gave Obama the benefit of a doubt, and they also overwhelmingly voted for Scott Brown too.
Its not about name calling, its about trying to make their opponents (Republicans) look like crazies, to the independent and undecided voters. If Obama and the Dems can get the independent voters back, they will keep power. If they lose them, they will lose Congress in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012.
I have heard all these Birther allegations for over two years now, and it hasnt gotten any traction with anyone besides yourselves. And I have seen though multiple completely inaccurate statements (Pakistan travel ban, parents can give up a kids citizenship, foreign country can cancel someones foreign citizenship, etc) and seen Birthers fall for completely fake certificates, just because it fell into what they wished for.
Leaving behind the issues that we have been winning with (especially fiscal issues where Obama is EXTREMELY VULNERABLE) and going with Birtherism to try and have the election nullified, well that is the DNC and Obamas wet dream. It is not going to happen.
firepilot on February 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM
justincase:
Let’s say there is something potentially disqualifying in Obama’s long form. He’s not going to give it up. You’ll have to get it from State of Hawaii. How likely is that? Then we’ll have a huge court battle or impeachment, completely polarizing the country and in a best case scenario, Joe Biden becomes president.
When Joe Biden becoming president is your best case scenario, you might need to re-think your plan, son. Just sayin’.
In the mean time, you will have convinced many independents that you care more about winning than their needs.
We need to beat Socialism, not Obama. And you don’t beat Socialism with Birtherism. You beat it with Reaganism.
Noel on February 6, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Is that true? That there was an ACORN birther suit against McCain? I didn’t know that, but the notion is funny as hell and I don’t know why the Republicans wouldn’t have used it against ACORN by now if it was true, since they claim to be so against birthers. We know Obama himself is the king of the birthers for sponsoring the senate debate on McCain’s eligibility.
Buddahpundit on February 6, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Because you need to have some proof to warrant an official inquiry. So far I haven’t seen any.
mizflame98 on February 6, 2010 at 8:56 PM
>>>>
Here you go: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Hint: The Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office told me they could not investigate the issues and evidence I raised BECAUSE THERE WERE CRIMES INVOLVED. They have full subpoena power and the right to search state offices without a warrant…. and they refused to investigate because there are crimes involved.
This is like Homeland Security refusing to investigate Abdulmutallab because they know he’s a terrorist.
That’s why my article is called, “Red Flags in Hawaii”.
How anybody could say this is not alarming is beyond me.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM
We need to beat Socialism, not Obama. And you don’t beat Socialism with Birtherism. You beat it with Reaganism.
Noel on February 6, 2010 at 10:41 PM
>>>>
None of the “isms” make any difference if none of the laws are enforced. Please look at http://www.butterdezillion. wordpress.com to see what I’m talking about and click on the link at the end of the article to see what Obama’s records have to do with a face being sewn onto a soccer ball.
justincase on February 6, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Well first, there’s this thing called the truth that some of us are addicted to. Bad habit I know, but it’s hard to kick once you try it.
Second; who said we should abandon fiscal responsibility?
Third; the election will never be nullified and that would damage the Democrats if they have a serving President who everyone KNOWS was put in power by Democratics playing fast and loose with the truth and the Constitution.
sharrukin on February 6, 2010 at 10:48 PM
LOL as all hell. Scott Brown is the biggest birther in the senate. Didn’t you hear what he said about Obama’s claims about his early family life? “I doubt it”, or something like that was Brown’s comment.
Buddahpundit on February 6, 2010 at 10:50 PM
No he doesn’t. The Supreme Court has ruled on it as well as other courts, so there is plenty of legal precedent out there that does set parameters. Nixon and Clinton are good examples, as well as GWB. But you just keep believing what you want, I’m sure you can post a link to the exact wording of the order for me that says all his records are sealed.
Deanna on February 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Are you kidding me? I don’t know what Supreme Court cases you are referring to, or how they would apply to barri’s executive order sealing all his records, but let’s start with just a few examples of obama’s flagrant disregard of the law.
A. obama violated 150 years of established bankruptcy law by using OUR tax dollars to pay off Chrysler and GM unions while literally stealing from the secured bondholders of those corporations as he used OUR tax dollars to give to unions to purchase G.M. and Chrysler along with the U.S. Govt. He FIRED the head of G.M. None of this is constitutional and in fact is criminal.
B. What about barri making public our top secret interrogation techniques, and then letting the enemy know that we won’t be using them anymore, and we’ll be sticking with the Army Field Manual techniques, just in case they were wondering if they ever got caught by us or anything like that. Can you say “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”? How about “treason”?
C. His website during the campaign was disabled purposely, allowing no firewall to stop foreign contributions. Criminal, again.
D. Even though most banks have paid back TARP funds, obama is trying to double-hit them, claiming they havn’t paid it back, and trying to tax it out of them and use it for his own personal nationalization efforts. This is in direct contradiction to the LAW written for TARP that says the monies paid back by the banks will be used to pay down our debt. Makes tricky Dick look like a piker.
I’m just getting started.
Let’s think about KSM being tried in New York, getting all the privileges of a US citizen, costing billions in security and lost business in the area, while civil discovery puts the lives of our intelligence men in the field in jeopardy and gives away our security secrets. All this done in contravention of the congressionally and judicially approved military tribunals where KSM was just about to plead guilty and request execution. Treason again, barri.
Barri should be impeached on any one of these grounds, and there are countless others. Who will enforce the law against this rampaging communist? Who has done so to date?He is pulling off the biggest heist in our history; draining our treasury and siphoning billions to ACORN and “neighborhood groups” with the trillion dollar stimulus that can’t be accounted for, plans to rig the census, a budget that is going to bankrupt the country and on and on.
You really must be joking, aren’t you? Where have you been for the past two years?
tigerlily on February 6, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next »