Pawlenty: Obama was born in the USA

posted at 10:55 am on March 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

On Morning Joe today, Mika Brzezinski asked Tim Pawlenty to assess the strength of one of his potential rivals, Donald Trump, and the former Minnesota governor tried at first to remain positive, calling Trump “talented” and “interesting.” When it came time to assess Trump’s apparent platform of birth certificates, Pawlenty was decidedly less positive:

Tim Pawlenty says Donald Trump needs to get off the birther circuit.

In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the former Minnesota governor said there are more serious concerns to weigh.

“I, for one, do not believe we should be raising that issue,” Pawlenty said. “I think President Obama was born in the United States.”

Whatever momentary interest there was in this subject should have been abandoned long ago, preferably when Obama released the certification of his birth from Hawaii, or when the contemporaneous birth announcements were discovered by Hillary Clinton’s oppo researchers, or when the state of Hawaii twice declared the certification accurate.  The same is true for the cottage industry that has surfaced over whether Obama had a ghost writer for his memoirs. Those kind of questions might arguably have resonated when Obama was an unknown, but clearly they didn’t.  Voters chose Obama anyway in 2008, and those “strategies” are far less likely to succeed four years later.

Obama’s two-plus years in office provide plenty of reasons to oppose a second term.  Serious candidates should be focused on serious issues.  Trump is obviously not serious, but is doing a near-parody in an attempt to grab as much of the limelight as possible.


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 6 7 8

Do your adopted children have Amended Birth Certificates?

Yes.

(You know, like under the entry of “Birth Father” perhaps?)
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Perhaps not.

You know, like there is no entry called ‘Birth Father’ or ‘Adoptive Father’ on their amended birth certificates. The entry is simply ‘Father’ – that would be me.

Of course none of this matters. Neither a ‘Birth Father’ entry, nor ‘Adoptive Father’ entry, nor even a ‘Father’ entry on birth certificates, is required for my children to be eligible for POTUS:

“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Magnus on March 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Should this happen, I suspect you are correct.

For example, Rebar has already declared something along this line:

I think they are going to release something that will be purported to be “as good as” a long form birth certificate – and if you don’t accept it as such, well, they’ll call you a “birther”.
Rebar on January 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM

One final summary of DiogenesLamp:

Take the conversation back to the 18th century:

(1758) Wrong again fool. Link to prove you’re wrong.

Don’t take the conversation back to the 18th century:

The only tactic left is obfuscation and misdirection, which rukidding me is attempting to do by diverting the conversation back to the 18th century.

It’s just one guy lying:

I am NOT alleging a conspiracy. It’s just ONE GUY LYING.

Got it? ONE GUY LYING.

It’s more than one guy lying:

No, silly the fallacy is believing the State dept of vital statistics won’t lie to you. Is that so hard to understand?

Follow the court cases:

Vattel’s definition of what a natural born citizen is was first codified into American Common Law in the Supreme Court decision of THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)

This definition has been again codified into American Common Law through the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

Don’t follow the court cases:

All this proves is that whoever wrote this is an ignorant moron.

Don’t pay any attention to decades later court cases.

Defend the Constitution:

This man’s argument does NOTHING to address the Article II intent which was to PREVENT foreign influence in the office of the Presidency.

Don’t defend the Constitution:

You are right about that. Passed by trickery without the consent or only with the Extorted consent of the Southern States to which it mainly applied,

Stop childish tactics:

You really ought to stop these childish type tactics. Even IF you are an ideologue or getting paid to do this, you must realize how silly you look when your intellectual dishonesty is pointed out.

Start childish tactics:

Sorry, got interrupted. Where was I?
Oh Yeah…
Brave Sir Rukid ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Rukid turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Rukid!
I’ve shortened “Rukiddingme” to Rukid. It fits the ballad better. :)

Mama always said birther is as birther does.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:28 PM

As a HA commentor since 2006, let me congratulate DiogenesLamp, Rebar, Emporer Norton & others who are not among the cult of Obama’s blind believers.

.

Excerpted from Leo Donofrio’s site (U.S. Supreme Court Justice)Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black
.

…[I]n 1866, John Bingham, known as the “father of the 14th Amendment”, who was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, also stated on the House floor:
.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

.
According to United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.
.
Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
.

<strong>“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

.
QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
.
ANSWER: IT’S NOT POSSIBLE.

.
.
Please, if you’re interested in real research, take the time to read LEO DONOFRIO’s whole article linked above. (Or better yet his whole blog DEVOTED TO OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY dating back to PRE-2008 ELECTION & the insightful, well reasoned comments section. It is a refreshing change from this seemingly unmoderated blog which consistantly allows personal attacks and other Terms of Service violations)

NightmareOnKStreet on April 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

If you refuse to show where I have been unassertive with you after making such a charge against me, it proves that you‘re guilty of your accusation yourself. Refute that! :) ?

Bizarro No. 1 on April 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM

LOL what are you, a 6-year old?

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I asked you to give me an example of where I had been unassertive with you. Not only was what you posited not a legitimate example of that (I see you believe it’s logically ok for you to call others childish when you find it fitting, but no one has the right to do the same thing to The Mighty rukiddingme, for you are Perfection personified!!! Also, how is pointing out your childishness a sign to you that I was trying to stifle debate? You’re lost, and have no idea what you’re doing!), you accused me of being coercive before I made the comment you used as evidence to support your contention. Are you really this stupid? Why don’t go and try again, toddler? :)

You are an infantile hypocrite who can’t abide criticism because your fragile ego crumbles so easily, and you are a horrible debater. I saw the signs before I first posted to you; I am glad you interacted with me so that I could make your flaws more apparent to you. I do enjoy watching smug, dumb people like you flail when confronted with unpleasant truths about you wish didn’t exist! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 2, 2011 at 1:58 AM

I asked you to give me an example of where I had been unassertive with you.

You were given an example.

Are you really this stupid? Why don’t go and try again, toddler? :)

You now have another example.

Not only was what you posited not a legitimate example of that (I see you believe it’s logically ok for you to call others childish when you find it fitting,

I see you believe it’s logically ok for DiogenesLamp to tell one to stop ‘childish type tactics’ while DiogenesLamp is engaged in same.

but no one has the right to do the same thing to The Mighty rukiddingme, for you are Perfection personified!!!

I was not aware of this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Also, how is pointing out your childishness a sign to you that I was trying to stifle debate?

Pointing out yours is a sign to me that you were trying to stifle debate.

You’re lost, and have no idea what you’re doing!),

That’s okay, I have been found and I have an idea what I am doing!

you accused me of being coercive before I made the comment you used as evidence to support your contention.

This was your comment:

Never trust people who use coercive tactics in order to try to kill a conversation.
Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Here is one example of your coercive tactics used in order to try to kill a conversation.

You are an infantile hypocrite who can’t abide criticism because your fragile ego crumbles so easily, and you are a horrible debater. I saw the signs before I first posted to you; I am glad you interacted with me so that I could make your flaws more apparent to you. I do enjoy watching smug, dumb people like you flail when confronted with unpleasant truths about you wish didn’t exist! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on April 2, 2011 at 1:58 AM

I was thinking the same thing about you.

rukiddingme on April 3, 2011 at 3:50 AM

So you CAN use the internet! So why are you so ignorant then.

Yes, it was used to refute your assertion regarding Vattel’s writings of 1758 and the 1883 translation that you presented as being a 1758 English translation.

The link showed the Date of the First edition. 1758. That was the only bit of information we needed to concern ourselves with. As I’ve taught you, the founders spoke french and they USED the french version. Your quibble that someone on the internet posted a later version does nothing to disprove the salient point. The Edition USED by the founders was French.

Were you being intellectually dishonest or merely ignorant in doing so?

I grabbed the first link I found which listed the original date of publication. THAT was the only bit of information relevant to the discussion.

By the way, how about answering whether your Adopted Children have FALSE information on their Amended Birth Certificates?

There is no false information on the amended birth certificates of my children.

Now I suspect that you and I have a different understanding of the meaning of the word “FALSE” as used in this context.
If their amended birth certificates do not contain EXACTLY the same information that was present on their original birth certificates, then the amended birth certificate therefore contains FALSE information.

I suspect that you are using sophistry to assert that since that you are their “Father”, then the category of “Father” means you. That is only correct if you are indeed the “birth” Father. It is NOT correct if you are the “adopted” father. The adjective “Birth” is implied because it is a “Birth” Certificate.

No response? I thought not.
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Now you know you can think and be wrong at the same time.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that I am wrong about this. You are DODGING the question with sophistry.

It makes NO sense that you could have adopted children without changing the accurate information on the children’s birth certificate.

DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Do your adopted children have Amended Birth Certificates?

Yes.

(You know, like under the entry of “Birth Father” perhaps?)
DiogenesLamp on March 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Perhaps not.

You know, like there is no entry called ‘Birth Father’ or ‘Adoptive Father’ on their amended birth certificates. The entry is simply ‘Father’ – that would be me.

Of course none of this matters. Neither a ‘Birth Father’ entry, nor ‘Adoptive Father’ entry, nor even a ‘Father’ entry on birth certificates, is required for my children to be eligible for POTUS:

The adjective “Birth” is implied for the category of “Father.” It is a “Birth” Certificate. Everything associated with it is implied to be regarding the “Birth.”

You are intentionally deceiving us with silly mind games and dodges.

“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Argument from Authority? The part you overlook is the “Allegiance” part. In order to posses “Allegiance” you have to swear it or be born into it. If you must swear it, you were not “natural born” into it.

Ergo, you must have parents which have declared their “Allegiance” prior to the birth.

DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:18 PM

One final summary of DiogenesLamp:

Take the conversation back to the 18th century:

(1758) Wrong again fool. Link to prove you’re wrong.

Don’t take the conversation back to the 18th century:

The only tactic left is obfuscation and misdirection, which rukidding me is attempting to do by diverting the conversation back to the 18th century.

It’s just one guy lying:

I am NOT alleging a conspiracy. It’s just ONE GUY LYING.

Got it? ONE GUY LYING.

It’s more than one guy lying:

No, silly the fallacy is believing the State dept of vital statistics won’t lie to you. Is that so hard to understand?

Follow the court cases:

Vattel’s definition of what a natural born citizen is was first codified into American Common Law in the Supreme Court decision of THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)

This definition has been again codified into American Common Law through the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

Don’t follow the court cases:

All this proves is that whoever wrote this is an ignorant moron.

Don’t pay any attention to decades later court cases.

Defend the Constitution:

This man’s argument does NOTHING to address the Article II intent which was to PREVENT foreign influence in the office of the Presidency.

Don’t defend the Constitution:

You are right about that. Passed by trickery without the consent or only with the Extorted consent of the Southern States to which it mainly applied,

Stop childish tactics:

You really ought to stop these childish type tactics. Even IF you are an ideologue or getting paid to do this, you must realize how silly you look when your intellectual dishonesty is pointed out.

Start childish tactics:

Sorry, got interrupted. Where was I?
Oh Yeah…
Brave Sir Rukid ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Rukid turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Rukid!
I’ve shortened “Rukiddingme” to Rukid. It fits the ballad better. :)

Mama always said birther is as birther does.

rukiddingme on April 1, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Taking things out of context is not childish. It is a special kind of deceit that only a malicious adult mind can do with any degree of competence.

I have already concluded that you will resort to dishonesty to “save” your argument. This is just more evidence of same.

Besides, you said you were done, so I decided to bait you back into the argument. Seems like it worked too! :)

DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM

As a HA commentor since 2006, let me congratulate DiogenesLamp, Rebar, Emporer Norton & others who are not among the cult of Obama’s blind believers.

NightmareOnKStreet on April 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Thanks. I make every effort to understand the truth, then I make every effort to protect it. We all have this task ahead of us.

DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM

The part you overlook is the “Allegiance” part. In order to posses “Allegiance” you have to swear it or be born into it.

Madison agrees with you:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

Ergo, you must have parents which have declared their “Allegiance” prior to the birth.
DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Nope. This guy was not required to swear into his “Allegiance”, he was born into it.

Besides, you said you were done,

Yep.

I used it as bait to confirm my suspicion that you would make a specious argument that I am not the father of my children.

Seems like it worked too! :)

rukiddingme on April 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM

The part you overlook is the “Allegiance” part. In order to posses “Allegiance” you have to swear it or be born into it.

Madison agrees with you:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

You argue that being born on some particular piece of dirt makes you loyal to the government of that piece of dirt.

That is a SILLY argument.

Ergo, you must have parents which have declared their “Allegiance” prior to the birth.
DiogenesLamp on April 3, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Nope. This guy was not required to swear into his “Allegiance”, he was born into it.

The trouble with you is that you play games with the meaning of words. Another indication that you are a Liberal.
Armando was born with no Duty or Responsibility to this country. He CHOSE to show allegiance to this country, but he was not born into it.

Besides, you said you were done,

Yep.

I used it as bait to confirm my suspicion that you would make a specious argument that I am not the father of my children.

Seems like it worked too! :)

rukiddingme on April 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM

It showed that you play sophistic games with words. You know EXACTLY what I mean, and yet here you are PRETENDING that you are being honest.

You said you adopted children. A man cannot adopt his own children, they are already his.

Therefore, you are NOT the father listed on the BIRTH certificate. (Notice everything ON a birth certificate has the implied adjective “BIRTH” associated with it?)

You are the father listed on the AMENDED birth certificate.

You fully well know the difference, yet you present them as the same. This is DISHONEST conduct, and I am going to call you down on it every time I see you until you cease doing it and admit the obvious fact.

Only an affidavit is proof. Print-outs of state records only reflect what someone decided to put in there, and it is not necessarily the truth.

DiogenesLamp on April 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8