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 4 5 6 7 8

If you have evidence that refutes those facts, I would be most eager to hear them.

Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Guess not.

Too bad, it would have been very entertaining witnessing the verbal gymnastics involved in explaining away why Soetoro has a dead Connecticut man’s social security number.

Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

“Recycling” is in, don’t you know?

Really Right on March 30, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Lourdes on March 29, 2011 at 10:11 PM

That sounds vaguely familiar to me… do you know if the exchange is on youtube, by chance? TIA!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Ed,

What is serious is the obamanation’s legal tactics, along with the DNC, to fight — in various State and Federal Courts — producing his BC. Some say to the tune of $1 Million +. Why would the he and DNC do such a thing?

Gohawgs on March 30, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Just wait till people find the real truth behind Obama’s true birthplace.

Little did the 53% know that under his fake skin, there’s a space alien reptilian plotting to take over the world and eat humans.

Hollowpoint on March 30, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Just wait till people find the real truth behind Obama’s true birthplace.

Little did the 53% know that under his fake skin, there’s a space alien reptilian plotting to take over the world and eat humans.

Hollowpoint on March 30, 2011 at 2:00 AM

So Zero’s from Mars and Venus?
Who knew.//

annoyinglittletwerp on March 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM

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

Everytime they haul out Pawlenty, he manages to be less than promised.

Even if Pawlenty does not believe others should be raising the issue, it is none of his business if others wish to raise an issue, or discuss an issue. Free country.

I don’t care if Pawlenty thinks Obama was born in the US. What matters is whether, in fact, Obama was born in the US, and that is not resolved by feelings, or beliefs, but hard proof.

Personally, I am overjoyed States are installing laws to force hard proof of eligibility into the next election, because I do not want legal decisions based on hunches, or feelings.

The public does not deserve to be ridiculed for asking why the emperor does not have to wear clothes like everyone else.

Bush disgraced himself by refusing to uphold border and immigration law, on the pretext it was ‘good people’ breaking the law. While Bush labeled some Americans ‘vigilantes’ for daring to monitor border incursions, Bush was a true vigilante, a law unto himself to the great detriment of our society

Now we have Vigilante II in the WH. That’s enough.

entagor on March 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Even if Pawlenty does not believe others should be raising the issue, it is none of his business if others wish to raise an issue, or discuss an issue. Free country.

entagor on March 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Yes, you are free to be as big a loser as you can be. And no, T-Paw did not say he wants to try to stop you except by encouraging you to wise up. Put away your stupid “free country” canard because that, of course, is not the issue.

T-Paw is smart to disassociate himself from the likes of nutters, birthers and other ODS-afflicted lunatics. Good for him. A candidate that is too stupid (paging the Donald) to do anything but reject outright the scurrilous charges about PBHO’s legitimacy as our elected President deserves much worse than to simply lose a political campaign.

MJBrutus on March 30, 2011 at 6:49 AM

Jesus. Some of you are really too much.

Sorry, but on this issue, “the science is settled.”. As Ed accurately points out, there is evidence to establish Obama is a natural born citizen, there is no evidence demonstrably establishing otherwise. Don’t believe the evidence? Oh well: voters in 2008 did. They don’t care. Unless you somehow do what Hillary could not and produce a Kenyan birth certificate, you’re not going to change minds on this.

It isn’t a serious issue. And Trump continually harping on it is bad for us, specifically for THIS reason, as the media is forcing the serious candidates to deal with it, and generally painting conservatives as loons for believing it.

C’mon people. It’s not as if there isn’t a million and one serious, legitimate complaints of Obama that we can use to attack him on credibly. The media and Democrats (but wait, redundancy) would love for us to keep debating this one crank issue, though, because it distracts from all of those. They know that “Hey, Obama really screwed up the economy, didn’t he?” will hurt BHO in 2012. Insinuating the Birther crap isn’t going to win us an election.

Vyce on March 29, 2011 at 11:19 AM

+1

toliver on March 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM

entagor on March 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

“I, for one, do not believe we should be raising that issue,” Pawlenty said. “I think President Obama was born in the United States.”
Everytime they haul out Pawlenty, he manages to be less than promised.

Even if Pawlenty does not believe others should be raising the issue, it is none of his business if others wish to raise an issue, or discuss an issue. Free country.

I don’t care if Pawlenty thinks Obama was born in the US. What matters is whether, in fact, Obama was born in the US, and that is not resolved by feelings, or beliefs, but hard proof.

Personally, I am overjoyed States are installing laws to force hard proof of eligibility into the next election, because I do not want legal decisions based on hunches, or feelings.

The public does not deserve to be ridiculed for asking why the emperor does not have to wear clothes like everyone else.

I couldn’t agree more, however as the poster below you states, we do have bigger issues we can fry him with. It’s a real tough issue.

On the one hand, the main stream liberal media will continue to try and paint all the “birthers” as loons (as if ANY SANE PERSON should care what the main stream rabid liberal media says anymore-they have -9999 credibility) but evidentially enough people do, and sadly I’m talking about a lot of NAÏVE people on “our own side”. On the other hand it is a serious issue. Truth be told, a LOT more people have their doubts on Obama’s birth-the issues cannot be ignored anymore than the nose on your face, they just don’t want to be called “birther” (oh, the horror!) It disgusts and confuses me that so many of us GIVE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA THE POWER TO KEEP US DOWN. Then there is the recent social security Obama’s using-what’s that all about? Funny how we’re not hearing that carried in the main stream liberal media. This whole damn thing stinks, and none of it adds up.

Unfortunately in the end, we probably do have to put this in the back of our minds and not use it as a fighting issue. Of course you could say that ANY issue we attack Obama with, no matter HOW MUCH evidence you have, the main stream liberal media will either never cover, or spin and sugar coat as they do everything-so what’s really the difference? The difference I suppose is as long as we’re not “birthers”, we’re all “completely wrong but sane,” as opposed to “completely wrong and insane”-according to the left.

dave_ross on March 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM

How come I and everybody this in country has to provide a birth certificate except Obama?

Viator on March 30, 2011 at 8:13 AM

I don’t care if Pawlenty thinks Obama was born in the US. What matters is whether, in fact, Obama was born in the US, and that is not resolved by feelings, or beliefs, but hard proof.

entagor on March 30, 2011 at 2:31 AM

As I stated yesterday in a different thread, the burden for demonstrating eligibility is on the candidate, not the voter. And, in any case, the birth certificate is not necessary to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility if we look at the definition of “natural born citizen” that was traditionally accepted so universally that it wasn’t questioned when given on the floor of the U.S. House. Both parents must be U.S. citizens in order for someone born in the U.S. to be a natural born citizen. Obama does not meet that criterion.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM

How come I and everybody in this country could care less about Pawlenty ‘cept the RINOs running this site?

Levinite on March 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM

How come I and everybody in this country could care less about Pawlenty ‘cept the RINOs running this site?

Levinite on March 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Good question. It’s getting so we really have to beef up our discernment when looking for people to trust-real conservatives. Even Beck has disappointed on a number of occasions lately-most recently the “I don’t know what’s in Holder’s heart” crap after Holder’s clearly racist comment defending “his people” the Black Panther radicals. Of course this is another reason I like Levin-he holds our own accountable-including the “5PMer”

P.S.-I was gonna suggest Levin and then I saw your name, I’m guessing that implies a fellow Levin listener? If so good!

dave_ross on March 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM

As I stated yesterday in a different thread, the burden for demonstrating eligibility is on the candidate, not the voter. And, in any case, the birth certificate is not necessary to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility if we look at the definition of “natural born citizen” that was traditionally accepted so universally that it wasn’t questioned when given on the floor of the U.S. House. Both parents must be U.S. citizens in order for someone born in the U.S. to be a natural born citizen. Obama does not meet that criterion.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Don’t hold your breath waiting for thoughtful analysis of “natural born citizen” from Hot Air. They have done shoddy work on this from the very beginning and eventually they will be embarrassed by their naivete. Anytime they address the issue it’s to bash and make fun of crazy “birthers.”

There has been silence from Hot Air on the social security number question.

Hot Air has done no thoughtful analysis of why his mother petitoned the U.S. government in August of 1968 to have Obama, whom she identified as Barack Obama II (Soebarkah), removed from her passport and what that might mean.

Hot Air has never acknowledged the research on the 1961 newspaper announcements. Serious questions have been raised about them, but it’s crickets from Hot Air.

Hot Air has never taken the time to question the nomenclature used by Hawaii’s Dept. of Health. They have never acknowledged the distinction between documents that were “Date Filed by Registrar” vs. “Date Accepted by State Registrar.” They aren’t attorneys, so that may not seem like a big deal, but minute differences in verbage often make all the difference in the law.

Hot Air has ignored the tacit admission by Hawaii that Obama’s vital records were amended in the past few years (2006 or 2007 I believe).

Hot Air has ignored the questions surrounding the substantive differences between the two versions of the Official Certification of Nomination submitted to the states by the Dems. One claiming he was constutitionally qualified, the other that he was merely the candidate by acclamation. They have not bothered to compare the language in the Certifications used in the past for other candidates and the 2008 Obama Certification.

I could go on and on and on, but my point is made. An army of people have done research and raised legitimate questions that deserve answers. It used to be patriotic among Republicans to want to enforce the constitution. Now for merely asking legitimate questions you are made an object of ridicule and scorn. Rather than thoughtfully analyzing the evidence uncovered by “birthers,” writers like Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit mock them and turn them into a football for others to kick.

I realize some “birthers” have made outrageous claims that cannot be supported with evidence. But there is enough evidence to raise serious questions about the President’s lifestory and I would like to see thoughful consideration of those questions here, something that has never happened. Whether or not all of the open questions go to his eligibility remains to be seen. Neither I nor the proprietors of Hot Air know the answer to that. However, it is my legal opinion–yes I am an attorney and I have researched “natural born citizen” extensively–that even if he was indeed born in Hawaii (and I believe he was), our Founding Fathers would not have considered him eligibile for the presidency, but I will admit that is an open legal question the Court has never answered.

If Ed and Allah fear harming their standing in the conservative blogosphere by seriously entertaining “birther” questions, I suggest that instead of trying to get site hits, they would be wise to simply remain silent on all related issues. They haven’t done their homework, so they have made many false statements which has undermined their credibility. My guess is that a majority of Hot Air readers harbor at least some doubt about Obama’s biography. By remaining silent Hot Air won’t look like foolish when the truth is finally revealed (and that is inevitable) and they won’t alienate many readers in the meantime.

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Excellent post.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I would add that so-called “birthers” are wrong and making a serious tactical error to focus on the birth certificate–it leaves them hanging if he produces the long form that says he was born in Hawaii (which I believe). It does not matter what he produces, by virtue of having a non-American citizen as a parent, he is not a natural born citizen by definition.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM

I would add that so-called “birthers” are wrong and making a serious tactical error to focus on the birth certificate–it leaves them hanging if he produces the long form that says he was born in Hawaii (which I believe). It does not matter what he produces, by virtue of having a non-American citizen as a parent, he is not a natural born citizen by definition.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM

There is reason to believe he cannot produce a legitimate birth certificate. He says so in his book “Dreams from my Father.”

From Jack Cashill’s “American Thinker” article:

“On the occasion of his father’s death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. “Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.” “

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM
I would add that so-called “birthers” are wrong and making a serious tactical error to focus on the birth certificate–it leaves them hanging if he produces the long form that says he was born in Hawaii (which I believe). It does not matter what he produces, by virtue of having a non-American citizen as a parent, he is not a natural born citizen by definition.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM

From a purely political standpoint, I agree with you. However, since the dubious C.O.L.B. is in the public domain, some people will inevitably focus on it and the Hawaiian birth question.

The “birther” movement is much like Christ’s description of heaven found in the Gospel of John where He said, “In my Father’s house are many rooms…” We certainly aren’t some organized monolithic group. Some like me have focused primarily on what I view as the seminal question–natural born citizenship. Since so little is known about Obama with certainty, others have focused on everything and anything having to do with his past. I think it’s a legitimate exercise to study the life of any president, so I have no problem with it, particularly if they exose his lies. Many years ago I published an article on a particular aspect of Gerald Ford’s life and the magazine labeled me a “historian.” Were I to simply change the name in that piece from Ford to Obama, they would label me a “birther.”

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

+ 1 irreplaceable Constitution of the United States

Watching_Cloward-Piven on March 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

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.

If you don’t think it’s worth considering or talking about, then why are you posting about it? Spare us the lectures here Ed, if you use it to get hits, you are bringing this back to life just as much as anyone else.

Daemonocracy on March 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM

The “Birth Certificate” issue is important for one reason. The public “Gets it.”

Yes, the TRUE important issue is Article II “Natural Born Citizen” status. (which Obama does not have.) But till enough people are talking about it, most of the public will not understand it.

They UNDERSTAND the birth certificate. For that reason it is the most effective weapon to use against Obama.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I agree, in part. The problem comes when he produces the certificate and it states he was born in Hawaii. There is no way to then pursue the issue of natural born citizenry, because people will believe the case is closed.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

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.

If you don’t think it’s worth considering or talking about, then why are you posting about it? Spare us the lectures here Ed, if you use it to get hits, you are bringing this back to life just as much as anyone else.

Daemonocracy on March 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM

To analyze all things Obama properly, you have to remember you are dealing with the same sort of people who would have us question the meaning of the word “is.” Ed does not know how to parse the statements out of Hawaii. Ed has analyzed what he thinks they said, not what they actually said. Once you critically analyze what has and has not been said from Hawaii, you are left with an acknowledgment that Obama’s records have been amended and that his birth records have been seen. You have a new governor who obtained a warrant and attempted to get evidence, but came up empty. You are left with non-attorneys making legal conclusions (they claimed he is a “natural born citizen”) that cannot possibly be ascertained by an examination of any document or group of documents in the possession of the State of Hawaii. Legal conclusions are for courts, not clerks and not even governors.

Also, Ed took the newspaper announcements at face value without casting even the slightest critical eye. He has never discussed how such newspaper announcements are generated, which is without verification of the underlying facts being reported. To my knowledge he has ignored the work done by people who have flown to Hawaii and looked at them for themselves. He has ignored that fact that even if they are exactly what they purport to be, they do not prove anything. They are merely pieces of evidence that should be weighed and tested. He has ignored the fact that it has been reported that Hawaii maintained two different baby registers.

What does all of it mean? Who knows for sure? But no American child born in the modern era, even one born at home, should have as many discoverable anomalies as Obama.

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

I agree, in part. The problem comes when he produces the certificate and it states he was born in Hawaii. There is no way to then pursue the issue of natural born citizenry, because people will believe the case is closed.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

The evidence is against this happening. Obama “wrote” in his book “Dreams from my Father” :

On the occasion of his father’s death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. “Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”

(From the Jack Cashill Article in “American Thinker”)

The point is, Obama’s Mother couldn’t PROVE he was Barack Obama’s (Sr.) son. Ergo, No legitimate birth certificate.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

You are the most clear thinker i’ve seen in this comments section. Kudos.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Obama’s two-plus years in office provide plenty of reasons to oppose a second term.

Yes. As Palin has stated, this issue is a distraction.

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.

The Energizer bunny is jealous of the birther’s rabbit hole. Trump may be as well.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Hey rukiddingme, How do you respond to Obama ADMITTING he doesn’t have a birth certificate?

On the occasion of his father’s death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate.

“Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”

The quotes are from his book “Dreams from my Father.” He says his mother has NO PROOF that he is Barack Obama’s son.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

…Ed does not know how to parse the statements out of Hawaii. Ed has analyzed what he thinks they said, not what they actually said. … Also, Ed took the newspaper announcements at face value without casting even the slightest critical eye. He has never discussed how such newspaper announcements are generated, … What does all of it mean? Who knows for sure?
Stayright on March 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

“You ever see the back of a twenty dollar bill… on weed? Oh, there’s some crazy shit, man. There’s a dude in the bushes. Has he got a gun? I dunno! RED TEAM GO, RED TEAM GO.” Enhancement Smoker in movie Half Baked

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Actually, I believe he was born in Hawaii, just as advertised.

Great! No need to to see more documents other than the published COLB.

I also believe that he was legally adopted in Indonesia and had his name legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”, and his birth certificate was amended to reflect that.

Provide a credible link to the adoption papers on file in Hawaii, sent from Indonesia, requesting the name alteration to the original Hawaiian birth certificate.

I believe he attended college under the Soetoro name, which is why he won’t release those transcripts, and why he’s been using a fake social security number.

Using a fake social security number is tax fraud. The IRS is most certainly interested.

Report this immediately. If you receive a reporting reward, how about sharing half?

I believe sometime in college he started using the 0bama name, but he never had it legally changed, and now he’s in a real bind.

Using his name puts him in a bind?

So, does that still make be a “birther”, or is there some other clever name to disparage me with?
Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Let’s stay with birther, unless you prefer genius.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM

His social security number is demonstrably fake.

Having been used for 30 plus years, it is demonstrably real.

To ignore obvious fraud is what’s stupid, you must agree.
Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Yes. What does that have to do with his social security number?

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:42 AM

As I stated yesterday in a different thread, the burden for demonstrating eligibility is on the candidate, not the voter. And, in any case, the birth certificate is not necessary to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility if we look at the definition of “natural born citizen” that was traditionally accepted so universally that it wasn’t questioned when given on the floor of the U.S. House. .

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Yeesh. That’s pretty weak. You’re 1) assuming that the speaker believed each of the criteria he listed were necessary to establish natural born citizenship, 2) inferring from silence that the rest of the House agreed with the speaker’s definition, and 3) inferring from their agreement that the speaker’s definition was a “traditional” construction that was universally accepted, even though the debate was about a century after the Constitution’s adoption and there were (assuming full attendance) only about 300 people there.

Seems to me that the obvious construction is that it was meant to exclude naturalized citizens, especially considering that was, in fact, the definition at common law.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Why? The reasons are all listed in the link I provided. If you have evidence that refutes those facts, I would be most eager to hear them.
Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 8:49 PM

The IRS has all the evidence you need to refute those facts. Call them.

Guess not.
Would have been very entertaining witnessing the verbal gymnastics involved in explaining away why Soetoro has a dead Connecticut man’s social security number.
Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Guess so.

It will be very entertaining witnessing the verbal gymnastics involved in explaining away why his use of a social security number belonging to a dead Connecticut man failed to raise the suspicion of the IRS.

You have more than 30 years to explain. You may begin at your convenience.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Hey rukiddingme, How do you respond to Obama ADMITTING he doesn’t have a birth certificate?

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Since the State of Hawaii has his birth certificate, he should have checked with them before making this statement.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Since the State of Hawaii has his birth certificate, he should have checked with them before making this statement.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Correction. They have his “Birth Records.” Read the Statement by Fukino.

They don’t have his “Birth Certificate” because he doesn’t have one, as he admitted in his book.

He was telling the TRUTH about this in his book. That was before he knew it would disqualify him.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM

It’s nice that you have dreams.

Magnus on March 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Indeed.

Rebar on March 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Nightmare.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Correction. They have his “Birth Records.” Read the Statement by Fukino.

They don’t have his “Birth Certificate” because he doesn’t have one, as he admitted in his book.

He was telling the TRUTH about this in his book. That was before he knew it would disqualify him.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Well hold on there, lamp. Let’s assume you’re right and Obama only has “birth records” showing he was born in Hawaii but no long-form birth certificate. Why would take “disqualify” him?

I don’t see anything in the Constitution saying only a long form birth certificate is sufficient to establish eligibility. Why isn’t a COLB, or birth records” enough?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Why would take that “disqualify” him?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM

It does not matter what he produces, by virtue of having a non-American citizen as a parent, he is not a natural born citizen by definition.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM

“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.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Well hold on there, lamp. Let’s assume you’re right and Obama only has “birth records” showing he was born in Hawaii but no long-form birth certificate. Why would take “disqualify” him?

I don’t see anything in the Constitution saying only a long form birth certificate is sufficient to establish eligibility. Why isn’t a COLB, or birth records” enough?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I am GLAD you asked me that! The reason a COLB is no good is because it’s veracity cannot be established. A COLB is NOT proof of birth. It is proof that a State government CLAIMS there was a birth.

I can PROVE this. I am Adopted. I have a birth certificate (My Original, Signed by A Doctor) which PROVES I was born. I have another Birth Certificate (Amended by a Judge and Issued by the State) that CLAIMS I was born to people I really was not born to.

My original Birth Certificate has the Name of My REAL Mother and Father, and the State “Certified” birth certificate has the name of my ADOPTED Mother and Father on it.

My Original is PROOF of being born to American Parents. My “Certified” birth certificate is the State attesting to FALSE information.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM

“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.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Nobody gives a crap about your court cases, especially if they don’t conform to Article II original intent. Judges get things wrong too.

The issue at hand (at the moment) is whether Barack can even prove Jus Soli. In the REAL scheme of things he hasn’t even been able to prove THAT! Now we find this admission (in his book) that his mother does not have the documents to prove he was Barack Obama Sr.’s son, so I would say your boy is in real trouble over this.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I have to go. Be back in about an hour.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Nobody gives a crap about your court cases, especially if they don’t conform to Article II original intent. Judges get things wrong too.

Amusing. You used to care all about MINOR v. HAPPERSETT when you wrote your paper.

The issue at hand (at the moment) is whether Barack can even prove Jus Soli. In the REAL scheme of things he hasn’t even been able to prove THAT!

His birth on US soil has done that for him. Hawaii and SCOTUS concur.

Now we find this admission (in his book) that his mother does not have the documents to prove he was Barack Obama Sr.’s son, so I would say your boy is in real trouble over this.
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

His father has nothing to do with his eligibility.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I am GLAD you asked me that!
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Me too! But I’m a little disappointed in your response. Would you mind pointing to the Constitutional provision that says only a long-form birth certificate is sufficient to establish eligibility?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM

And you believe that if someone said something on the floor of the House that other members took issue with, they would be silent, based on what? Incidentally, history books in the 1950s and ’60s made this distinction, so it was more accepted than you would like to believe.

His father has nothing to do with his eligibility.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Yes, he does if we go by what has always been part of determining natural born citizenship (and the court case you cited mentions that British common law always considered as British subjects those whose parents are considered aliens when living abroad–I don’t believe we are obligated by what other countries believe, but it does demonstrate that the idea is not novel).

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Yes, he does if we go by what has always been part of determining natural born citizenship

According to whom?

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

The Lynch case is referenced in this SCOTUS case.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

According to whom?

Some (uncited) history books from the 1950′s and 60′s. Also, one guy in the House during the 19th century (although even there, it’s debatable as to whether he actually agreed with DrMagnolia’s construction).

I don’t mind people making novel legal arguments, but I do mind when they act as if those arguments are somehow commanded by history.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Amusing. You used to care all about MINOR v. HAPPERSETT when you wrote your paper.

The issue at hand (at the moment) is whether Barack can even prove Jus Soli. In the REAL scheme of things he hasn’t even been able to prove THAT!

Let me clarify for you. Nobody gives a crap about court cases right NOW. (Court Cases are not the topic at hand.)

His birth on US soil has done that for him. Hawaii and SCOTUS concur.

You have no unassailable proof that he is Born on US Soil. The allegations of state authorities do NOT constitute proof as their veracity is impeached.

Now we find this admission (in his book) that his mother does not have the documents to prove he was Barack Obama Sr.’s son, so I would say your boy is in real trouble over this.
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

His father has nothing to do with his eligibility.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Now you’re just being silly. If he wasn’t born to Barack Obama Sr., then he is NOT Barack Obama Jr. What’s more, any so called “validity” his COLB has is based on it being an accurate reflection of the records. If the Records provably do not reflect the truth, they he doesn’t even have THAT much validity.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Obama/Pawlenty ’12

maverick muse on March 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Me too! But I’m a little disappointed in your response. Would you mind pointing to the Constitutional provision that says only a long-form birth certificate is sufficient to establish eligibility?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

What a pathetic response. It demonstrates that you are aware you’ve been blown out of the water.

A Long form certificate utilizes a WITNESS to the birth. That is the ONLY acceptable proof of birth. EVER! State print-outs only reflect changeable state records.

A “Birth Certificate” is an AFFADAVIT by a WITNESS to the event. A “CertificaTION” is an acknowledgment that a record exists.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:48 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Hm. So you can’t find a Constitutional provision?

That’s odd. You guys keep telling us this is all about enforcing the Constitution.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I don’t mind people making novel legal arguments, but I do mind when they act as if those arguments are somehow commanded by history.
crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Agreed.

What is most amusing about those adhering to the ‘must have citizen parents to be natural born’ is their position results in only this guy being eligible, but not this guy.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

The Lynch case is referenced in this SCOTUS case.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 1:26 PM

All this proves is that whoever wrote this is an ignorant moron. The founders expressly REJECTED the Common law of England in this and other Specific instances.

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

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Hm. So you can’t find a Constitutional provision?

That’s odd. You guys keep telling us this is all about enforcing the Constitution.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:50 PM

My point is, your arguments have little objective basis in the Constitutional text or history. In light of that, it’s beginning to look as if you’re constructing the arguments ex post, in that they’re carefully tailored to make one specific President (Barack Obama) ineligible.

I hate to make that sort of bad-faith argument but…there it is.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM

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

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Isn’t that intent satisfied by preventing naturalized Presidents form ascending to the Presidency?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Hm. So you can’t find a Constitutional provision?

That’s odd. You guys keep telling us this is all about enforcing the Constitution.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Of course I can. It is implicit in the meaning. Proof equals compliance with Article II. No proof means No compliance.

The Constitution did not define the words “We” or “The” or “People”, but the meaning of the phrase is plain none the less.

You are being INTENTIONALLY obtuse. You know better, but you have invested too much effort into pushing your desired position. You are being intellectually dishonest, and you are demonstrating this dishonesty with your flippancy.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Let me clarify for you. Nobody gives a crap about court cases right NOW. (Court Cases are not the topic at hand.)

Some most certainly do. SCOTUS recently rejected this case.

You have no unassailable proof that he is Born on US Soil.

There is evidence to support the assertion he was born in Hawaii. It is you lacking any evidence he was not.

The allegations of state authorities do NOT constitute proof as their veracity is impeached.

Because you say so, naturally.

Now you’re just being silly. If he wasn’t born to Barack Obama Sr., then he is NOT Barack Obama Jr.

Cite the law that prevents a parent from choosing the child’s name.

What’s more, any so called “validity” his COLB has is based on it being an accurate reflection of the records. If the Records provably do not reflect the truth, they he doesn’t even have THAT much validity.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Hawaii has his birth records, for you that is not evidence.

It’s one huge conspiracy, that only you, your birther brethren, and WND have been capable of discovering.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Agreed.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I think at first they know that their arguments are somewhat tenuous, at the very least. But unless people like you and I come here, they’ll agree with each other over and over again to the point where they actually believe they’re correct.

Read the exchanges between them earlier this morning, before we showed up. It’s hilarious.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Of course I can. It is implicit in the meaning.

Ahhh ok. “Long-form birth certificate” is implicit in “natural born citizen.”

Proof equals compliance with Article II. No proof means No compliance.

So you think a government-produced and verified document (COLB) is insufficient proof for the government? Do you see why that’s odd?

You are being INTENTIONALLY obtuse.

Well I am kind of toying with you, yeah.

You know better, but you have invested too much effort into pushing your desired position.

I was going to say the same is true of you, but at this point I actually don’t think you know better.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Agreed.

What is most amusing about those adhering to the ‘must have citizen parents to be natural born’ is their position results in only this guy being eligible, but not this guy.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Yes, unbreakable rules are soooo passe. The founders took the best precautions they could to implement their principles and thinking. Just because their systemology doesn’t produce the best possible result in every possible iteration does not mean it is faulty.

I have no doubt that there are naturalized Americans with more loyalty to this country than “Natural Born Citizens.” People such as yourself come to mind when thinking of the later category. Americans, such as yourself (I assume.) willing to break the rules protecting us are more of a threat to this nation than are Naturalized Americans that believe our laws should be followed as written and intended.

The Founders made the Judgment call that people Born and Raised by American parents would likely show more loyalty to the nation than those who were not.

It was a good call, based on the performance of the Illegitimate Usurper now in office.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

My point is, your arguments have little objective basis in the Constitutional text or history. In light of that, it’s beginning to look as if you’re constructing the arguments ex post, in that they’re carefully tailored to make one specific President (Barack Obama) ineligible.

I hate to make that sort of bad-faith argument but…there it is.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM

You allege a “fact” not in evidence. The Constitution is NOT a list of words. It is a series of Principles made manifest in words. Words are a poor medium for expressing principles, but they are unfortunately all the founders had to work with.

The only reason that Barack Obama is the subject of this discussion is because he is the ONLY President that has ever managed to get past the requirement BECAUSE so many people were ignorant of it.

Chester A Arthur (The only OTHER President now known to have gotten past the Article II requirement) only managed it because his infidelity was not known at the time, and he did everything in his power to keep people from ever finding out about it.

Obama managed to fool the vast majority of IGNORANT Americans that he was eligible with the connivance of Nancy Pelosi, The State of Hawaii, and the Media. The rest of us who have been demanding Proof from the Beginning, were simply drowned out by the much larger Media voices (and the voices of people on our own side.) telling us to SHUT UP!

Now that the rest of the Country is beginning to figure out that something stinks, the issue is once again coming out into the public consciousness.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:16 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Adam Gadahn is eligible. Pfc. Armando Soriano is not.

Do you really want only Adam Gadahn on the ballot?

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Isn’t that intent satisfied by preventing naturalized Presidents form ascending to the Presidency?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

“Naturalized” is only a subset of those susceptible to Foreign Influence.” The founders were rigidly intolerant of ALL susceptibility to Foreign influence. They said so in their writings.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

“Naturalized” is only a subset of those susceptible to Foreign Influence.” The founders were rigidly intolerant of ALL susceptibility to Foreign influence. They said so in their writings.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Hm. So would a child be ineligible if one of his/her parents was a dual citizen?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM

The Founders made the Judgment call that people Born and Raised by American parents would likely show more loyalty to the nation than those who were not.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

They believed in this ‘more loyalty’ so much, instead of saying born of citizen parents, they had to write it in code.

By the way, James Madison disagrees 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.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Let me clarify for you. Nobody gives a crap about court cases right NOW. (Court Cases are not the topic at hand.)

Some most certainly do. SCOTUS recently rejected this case.

You ARE dense. From the context you should have gathered that the object of the word “Nobody” refers to the people engaged in THIS discussion, not the general public at large. (Who by and large are ignorant of all the goings on regarding this issue.)

You have no unassailable proof that he is Born on US Soil.

There is evidence to support the assertion he was born in Hawaii. It is you lacking any evidence he was not.

I have the evidence of his own Admission. You have the unenviable task of arguing that he was lying back then (1995 in his book “Dreams from my Father.” and telling the truth now.

The allegations of state authorities do NOT constitute proof as their veracity is impeached.

Because you say so, naturally.

No, because it IS so. I have two documents in my possesion that I can slap down on a table and PROVE that Birth certificate information can be and IS falsefied by the state.

Now you’re just being silly. If he wasn’t born to Barack Obama Sr., then he is NOT Barack Obama Jr.

Cite the law that prevents a parent from choosing the child’s name.

I don’t need to. By his own Admission, he is “Barack Obama jr.” If he is lying about his own name (as his book indicates.) then his credibility is already impeached. Again, you have the unenviable task of arguing that he was lying back then, but he’s telling the truth now.

What’s more, any so called “validity” his COLB has is based on it being an accurate reflection of the records. If the Records provably do not reflect the truth, they he doesn’t even have THAT much validity.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Hawaii has his birth records, for you that is not evidence.

Absolutely not. I am not so ignorant as to believe that those records MUST reflect the truth. I have proof in my hands that records sometimes lie. (My own two contradictory birth certificates.)

It’s one huge conspiracy, that only you, your birther brethren, and WND have been capable of discovering.

Naturally.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:02 PM

What conspiracy? It’s just one guy lying, Unless you count people like YOU covering up for him.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I think at first they know that their arguments are somewhat tenuous, at the very least. But unless people like you and I come here, they’ll agree with each other over and over again to the point where they actually believe they’re correct.

Read the exchanges between them earlier this morning, before we showed up. It’s hilarious.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I’m GLAD you showed up. I find it hilarious watching you two try to wiggle out of logical conundrums of your own creation. (“Cite the law that prevents a parent from choosing the child’s name.” Ha!) Carry on. I’ll stick around as long as I can. Is there another website that you like to frequent where we can argue this more? Let me know. I’ll show up and kick your ass there too. :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Of course I can. It is implicit in the meaning.

Ahhh ok. “Long-form birth certificate” is implicit in “natural born citizen.”

PROOF is implicit in the meaning. The only thing that equals PROOF is a witness affidavit. Unless a computer print-out from the state constitutes an affidavit from a witness to the event alleged, it is NOT PROOF.

Proof equals compliance with Article II. No proof means No compliance.

So you think a government-produced and verified document (COLB) is insufficient proof for the government? Do you see why that’s odd?

I don’t care whether a State Accepts it’s own fake documents or not. I don’t care whether various branches of the Federal Government accepts fake documents from the state either. What I DO care about is whether or not State Election officials accept Fake (or unverifiable) documents from other states, because it resulted in an unqualified Moron managing to get past Article II compliance.

You are being INTENTIONALLY obtuse.

Well I am kind of toying with you, yeah.

A bon chat bon rat. :)

You know better, but you have invested too much effort into pushing your desired position.

I was going to say the same is true of you, but at this point I actually don’t think you know better.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM

You’re right. I don’t know any better. I am advocating the best that I know, and that is the truth. I cannot say the same of you. I think you know the truth, (nobody can be that obtuse unless they are doing it on purpose.) but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

If you cannot accept the man’s (Barack Obama) own admission that he has no proof he is Barack Obama Sr.’s son, then you are indeed arguing a forlorn point.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Adam Gadahn is eligible. Pfc. Armando Soriano is not.

Do you really want only Adam Gadahn on the ballot?

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:18 PM

So many people get hurt by guns. Do you REALLY want people to have the “Right to keep and bear arms” ?

Free speech can contain “Hateful” speech. Do you REALLY want people to have “Freedom of Speech”?

No dude, I want to pick out the parts of the Constitution I like, DEMAND everyone obey those parts absolutely, and then throw away the parts I don’t like. You know, like you are advocating.

Someone hit this guy with a clue bat.

Here’s a novel idea! Why don’t we FOLLOW the rules, until we CHANGE the rules? (I think they call it an Amendment or something.)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

“Naturalized” is only a subset of those susceptible to Foreign Influence.” The founders were rigidly intolerant of ALL susceptibility to Foreign influence. They said so in their writings.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Hm. So would a child be ineligible if one of his/her parents was a dual citizen?

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Only if his name is “Barack Obama.” Geeze, pretend to not understand this stuff why don’t ya?

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:59 PM

You are being INTENTIONALLY obtuse. You know better, but you have invested too much effort into pushing your desired position. You are being intellectually dishonest, and you are demonstrating this dishonesty with your flippancy.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I don’t think she is intentionally obtuse–in my dealings with her, she has failed to comprehend every single sentence I wrote, then proceeded to lecture me on what I meant. I am at the point where I recognize those who pretend there is an “ignore” feature and skip by her comments (and rukiddingme is probably next) are demonstrating a wise use of their time and efforts. There is no point in trying to talk to someone who believes birth certificates were common at the time our Constitution was written (I suspect she is unaware that until the late 1800s, many people didn’t know they exact years of their own birth). This sort of person believes history began in the last century and nothing exists outside their understanding of things.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I don’t think she is intentionally obtuse–in my dealings with her, she has failed to comprehend every single sentence I wrote, then proceeded to lecture me on what I meant. I am at the point where I recognize those who pretend there is an “ignore” feature and skip by her comments (and rukiddingme is probably next) are demonstrating a wise use of their time and efforts.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I was actually wondering when you were going to throw this tantrum again.

I am at the point where I recognize those who pretend there is an “ignore” feature and skip by her comments (and rukiddingme is probably next)

There seems to be a high correlation between people who pick apart your feeble-minded reasoning, and people you wish to ignore. How odd.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM

They believed in this ‘more loyalty’ so much, instead of saying born of citizen parents, they had to write it in code.

By the way, James Madison disagrees 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.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM

James Madison was arguing for the seating of his political ally in the State House. Even not impugning his motives, James Madison is espousing one opinion in one particular instance.

The Constitution was written by Many founders, and even more importantly, was ratified by the individual States. George Washington inserted the Requirement of “Natural Born Citizen” at the urging of First Chief Justice John Jay. The Motion was accepted by the body and approved without comment. (by the way, the “Law of Nations” (the source of the “Natural Born Citizen” definition) was CITED during the Constitutional Convention. It was a well read reference book by the founders.)

Even by the Standard you cite (Jus Soli) Obama has not yet established his eligibility.

The existence of some sort of record in a state’s files is not proof of Jus Soli. An AFFIDAVIT is proof of Jus Soli.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

“Naturalized” is only a subset of those susceptible to Foreign Influence.” The founders were rigidly intolerant of ALL susceptibility to Foreign influence. They said so in their writings.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Diogenes,

If that’s the case, did the Founders intend to render ineligible someone who lived abroad for an appreciable period of time? What if they just traveled abroad? Finally, what if their parents traveled abroad?

I’m going to go assume you think the Founders didn’t intend foreign travel to render an otherwise eligible citizen ineligible, so what we’re really talking about here is a matter of degree, correct? And again, given the death of legal or historical support for your position, it seems that you’re drawing your line ex post in an attempt to render one specific person (Barack Obama) ineligible.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I don’t think she is intentionally obtuse–in my dealings with her, she has failed to comprehend every single sentence I wrote, then proceeded to lecture me on what I meant. I am at the point where I recognize those who pretend there is an “ignore” feature and skip by her comments (and rukiddingme is probably next) are demonstrating a wise use of their time and efforts. There is no point in trying to talk to someone who believes birth certificates were common at the time our Constitution was written (I suspect she is unaware that until the late 1800s, many people didn’t know they exact years of their own birth). This sort of person believes history began in the last century and nothing exists outside their understanding of things.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

There are people that WANT things to be true. I’ve run across many of them. It becomes a cognitive disconnect when they can continue to believe things in the presence of contrary proof.

I have submitted the evidence of my two birth certificates as proof that State records do not always reflect the truth, and I have submitted the admission by Obama in his book that he has no proof that his father is Barack Obama Sr.

There is NOTHING which can refute these points. The only tactic left is obfuscation and misdirection, which rukidding me is attempting to do by diverting the conversation back to the 18th century. (I don’t mind going back to the 18th century, but first you need to demonstrate why we should by refuting the points on the table.)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Of course you were, little one. Of course you were. In any case, there seems to be a correlation between an inflated sense of one’s intellect and liberalism. I know what my intellect is, and I know its limits. You, on the other hand, are free to bask in your own imagined sense of intellectual prowess. HA may be a lonely place for you, considering the increasing number of us who are using that “ignore” feature.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

There are people that WANT things to be true. I’ve run across many of them. It becomes a cognitive disconnect when they can continue to believe things in the presence of contrary proof.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

That may be the most ironic sentence ever written in the history of the internet.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:20 PM

I don’t mind going back to the 18th century, but first you need to demonstrate why we should by refuting the points on the table.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Hey, I like the 18th century (not that I was living then)–the Age of Enlightenment, although not perfect (what age is?) brought us this remarkable country. Imagine what these two would have produced? (Probably nothing, as they would have stood there while others were doing the heavy lifting and said, “You’re doing it wrong! I know better!”) The sad thing is, not only do they believe what they say, but they will never learn otherwise (see the PDF at the bottom).

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Diogenes,

If that’s the case, did the Founders intend to render ineligible someone who lived abroad for an appreciable period of time? What if they just traveled abroad? Finally, what if their parents traveled abroad?

I’m going to go assume you think the Founders didn’t intend foreign travel to render an otherwise eligible citizen ineligible, so what we’re really talking about here is a matter of degree, correct? And again, given the death of legal or historical support for your position, it seems that you’re drawing your line ex post in an attempt to render one specific person (Barack Obama) ineligible.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM

You are committing the fallacy of false equivalency. You are arguing that “Traveling abroad” equals the same thing as being raised by a foreign family abroad.

It does not.

As for drawing my line “after the fact”, I will assure you I was demanding compliance BEFORE THE FACT! I was astonished that it was even possible for this Lying crap artist to pull this off. Were it not for the INCOMPETENCE of State election officials in all 50 states, he wouldn’t have been able to manage it. This is why we are trying to pass laws to require proof of eligibility before someone can get their name on the ballot.

You believe in the law right? Or is it just the one’s you like?

Any objection to a law which requires an Affidavit of birth?

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM

There are people that WANT things to be true. I’ve run across many of them. It becomes a cognitive disconnect when they can continue to believe things in the presence of contrary proof.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

That may be the most ironic sentence ever written in the history of the internet.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 3:20 PM

More than you know. The person seeing Irony in it is so unaware of the irony! :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Hey, I like the 18th century (not that I was living then)–the Age of Enlightenment, although not perfect (what age is?) brought us this remarkable country. Imagine what these two would have produced? (Probably nothing, as they would have stood there while others were doing the heavy lifting and said, “You’re doing it wrong! I know better!”) The sad thing is, not only do they believe what they say, but they will never learn otherwise (see the PDF at the bottom).

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I suspect they would have been Torys and fled to Canada. Perhaps they are there now? :)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Perhaps, although they appear to be products of the post-1960s government school system. They learned to feel good about themselves, because who needs that pesky old thinking, anyway?

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Perhaps, although they appear to be products of the post-1960s government school system. They learned to feel good about themselves, because who needs that pesky old thinking, anyway?

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM

:)

Don’t underestimate the possibility that they may be Canadians. I’ve had arguments with Canadians, Italians, Germans, Brits, Brazilians, etc. When it finally comes out that they aren’t Americans, my response invariably is “Why the F*** do you think this discussion is any of your business?”

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

You make a good point–foreigners are always experts on America.

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Notice the silence since we started talking about foreigners butting into American Affairs?

Listen.

:)

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 3:00 PM

That’s okay Doc. Those that can not refute an argument tend to invoke the iamignoringu card.

Congressman Bingham is certainly not the final arbiter of the Constitution, despite what you might otherwise believe.

When you are ready to refute the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided State of New York case (which was adjudicated prior to the 14th Amendment), let SCOTUS know.

SCOTUS anxiously awaits your findings.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I have submitted the evidence of my two birth certificates as proof that State records do not always reflect the truth, and I have submitted the admission by Obama in his book that he has no proof that his father is Barack Obama Sr.

Once again, his father has no bearing on his citizenship, nor do your birth certificates, nor your adoption.

Reread the Constitution. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment.

Once you have done that, prove he was not born in Hawaii, prove that Hawaii changed his birth certificate at the direction of adoption proceedings held in Indonesia, and prove Dr. Fukino is a liar.

Having done that you are assigned the same task as Doc.

There is NOTHING which can refute these points. The only tactic left is obfuscation and misdirection, which rukidding me is attempting to do by diverting the conversation back to the 18th century. (I don’t mind going back to the 18th century, but first you need to demonstrate why we should by refuting the points on the table.)
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

The red herrings are yours.

Although it is quite amusing you are berating one for ‘diverting the conversation back to the 18th century’ when your entire argument is based on ‘diverting the conversation back to the 18th century’.

That said, the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided New York case are all from the 19th century.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:34 PM

No dude, I want to pick out the parts of the Constitution I like, DEMAND everyone obey those parts absolutely, and then throw away the parts I don’t like. You know, like you are advocating.

Please point to where I have advocated throwing away the parts of the Constitution that I do not like.

The part you don’t like starts with the 14th Amendment.

Here’s a novel idea! Why don’t we FOLLOW the rules, until we CHANGE the rules? (I think they call it an Amendment or something.)
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Yep, it is called the 14th Amendment.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:34 PM

That’s okay Doc. Those that can not refute an argument tend to invoke the iamignoringu card.

Congressman Bingham is certainly not the final arbiter of the Constitution, despite what you might otherwise believe.

When you are ready to refute the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided State of New York case (which was adjudicated prior to the 14th Amendment), let SCOTUS know.

SCOTUS anxiously awaits your findings.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Ooops. I spoke too soon.

The 14th amendment DID NOT repeal Article II. If it had it would have said somewhere “Article II is hereby repealed.”

Anyway, I no longer care what SCOTUS thinks of the issue. They ARE a pack of cowards unwilling to touch a potentially serious breach of law because they are afraid of nationwide riots in the street. (One can presume.)

At the moment, i’m thinking that political gamesmanship combined with “Put up or shut up” laws demanding proof of eligibility are going to be more successful than all the former and subsequent diddling by whatever court.

The Fallacy of a “Jus Soli” basis for citizenship is just too widely spread.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM

James Madison was arguing for the seating of his political ally in the State House. Even not impugning his motives, James Madison is espousing one opinion in one particular instance.

He is espousing his opinion on allegiance. It refutes your opinion, thus you dismiss him. Naturally.

(by the way, the “Law of Nations” (the source of the “Natural Born Citizen” definition) was CITED during the Constitutional Convention. It was a well read reference book by the founders.)

How did the definition of natural born that first appeared in the English version of ‘Law of Nations’ in 1797 get used as the definition of natural born in the 1787 Constitution?

The existence of some sort of record in a state’s files is not proof of Jus Soli. An AFFIDAVIT is proof of Jus Soli.
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Well then, refute the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided State of New York case.

Having done that, prove that Dr Fukino is lying, prove he was not born in Hawaii, and prove that his name was changed at the direction of adoption proceedings in Indonesia.

Wrap all your evidence above up neatly and send it Fed-Ex to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Once again, his father has no bearing on his citizenship, nor do your birth certificates, nor your adoption.

Reread the Constitution. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment.

Fine. Reading it now. It doesn’t say anywhere that it repeals Article II. Back to you.

Once you have done that, prove he was not born in Hawaii, prove that Hawaii changed his birth certificate at the direction of adoption proceedings held in Indonesia, and prove Dr. Fukino is a liar.

I don’t need to prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. All I have to do to prove that his COLB contains false information, then the ENTIRE document is impeached. I cite his own admission that he cannot prove the person listed as his father is in fact his father. Document Impeached!

I likewise do not have to Prove that Fukino is a liar. All I have to do is impeach her institutional veracity. I can do that with my two birth certificates and testimony from experts that this sort of fraud is common to all 50 states.
(They do it for the CHILDREN you know.)

As for Proof that Hawaii “Changed” his birth certificaTION, again, he admits that he has no proof that he is his father’s son. Since the COLB from Hawaii SAYS he is his father’s son, he is either lying, or Hawaii CHANGED what it used to say. (I’ll take either ruling your Honor.)

Having done that you are assigned the same task as Doc.

Why should I follow YOUR directive? That would be worse than the blind leading the blind. It would be a man with a BLINDFOLD attempting to steer a sighted man wrongly.

There is NOTHING which can refute these points. The only tactic left is obfuscation and misdirection, which rukidding me is attempting to do by diverting the conversation back to the 18th century. (I don’t mind going back to the 18th century, but first you need to demonstrate why we should by refuting the points on the table.)
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

The red herrings are yours.

Your opinions against the gale force wind of evidence against you are not persuasive.

Although it is quite amusing you are berating one for ‘diverting the conversation back to the 18th century’ when your entire argument is based on ‘diverting the conversation back to the 18th century’.

As all roads lead to Rome, all topics are connected together if you cast the net widely enough. Yes, there is a tangital relationship with the 18th Century regarding the topics of today, but the issues that I have been pounding you with have NOTHING to do with the 18th Century. You cannot refute my argument that a “Record” is NOT an Affidavit. (That’s modern law.) You also cannot refute Barack Obama’s own statement that he has no proof that the man listed on his CertificaTION is his father. His testimony and his CertificaTION are mutually impeaching each other. :) (Neat trick that.)

That said, the 14th Amendment, the provided SCOTUS case, and the provided New York case are all from the 19th century.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Don’t need to invoke either Century. Modern law suffices. A Record of a birth is NOT an affidavit of birth. (You DO know what the word Affidavit means? )
Obama impeaches his own credibility is likewise modern law. Haven’t even really got to the Article II requirements, we’re just dealing with fraud here.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:05 PM

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I wouldn’t call it silence, necessarily.

Most have given up trying to convince you of your wrongheadedness.

Your position appears to be: 1)I have an amended birth certificate that has different information than my original birth certificate; 2) That means that the government has lied to me; 3) therefore, no govenment documents are truthful and/or reliable; 4) thus the government document provided by Obama is not reliable.

Your position is not supported by Statute, Case law, or the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Attempting to argue with you using Supreme Court cases that are contrary to your assertions is met with derision and insistance that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it is talking about regarding the Constitution. Apparently, only you and the select few that agree with your position truly understand the U.S. Constitution. This select few apparently does not include one person that has ever served on the U.S. Supreme Court.

You like most birthers quote De Vattel. However you quote the 1797 translation of Law of Nations. In the English translation of Law of Nations available at the time of the Constitution “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear anywhere in the Book. So you are getting it exactly backwards in assuming that the Framers lifted the phrase “natural born citizens” from De Vattel. The english translation available said: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country who are citizens.” Vatel, London 1760.

And no, the original French version of the book doesn’t say “Natural Born Citizen” (or its French equivalent) either. “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

For those that don’t understand French it does not say “Natural born Citizen”. That would be “citoyen de naissance”

And finally, you conclude that those here that disagree with you must not be Americans.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Please point to where I have advocated throwing away the parts of the Constitution that I do not like.

No problem buddy, here you go.

Adam Gadahn is eligible. Pfc. Armando Soriano is not.

Do you really want only Adam Gadahn on the ballot?

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Notice how you advocate the blatant rejection of Article II requirements? You’re welcome.

The part you don’t like starts with the 14th Amendment.

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, Badly Written, Widely misinterpreted, and the source of endless mischief by activist courts, the 14th Amendment is the Mother of badly written laws in the American Legal system. I would go so far as to say that there has only been ONE well written Amendment since the 18th Century, and that would be the 27th amendment! (It was written in 1789) :)

I like the PRINCIPLE advocated by the 14th amendment, but the way it is written? Not so much. In any case, it did not Repeal Article II.

Here’s a novel idea! Why don’t we FOLLOW the rules, until we CHANGE the rules? (I think they call it an Amendment or something.)
DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Yep, it is called the 14th Amendment.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 4:34 PM

It’s called the only straw that you can think of to grasp. Address the Affidavit vs. Record issue, and the Obama contradicting his own birth certificaTION issue. That has nothing to do with Article II, or the 14th Amendment, or the Magna Carte if you want to drag that in as well.

Plain ole simple lying and fraud.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

You are right about that.

You really did mean what you said here:

No dude, I want to pick out the parts of the Constitution I like, DEMAND everyone obey those parts absolutely, and then throw away the parts I don’t like.

Amusing you would project that upon others.

DiogenesLamp on March 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Wrap all your evidence up neatly and send it Fed-Ex hand deliver run it to SCOTUS. The conservative leaning court is certainly sympathetic to your argument.

Or not.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:20 PM

And finally, you conclude that those here that disagree with you must not be Americans.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 30, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Ad hominems and ‘you must not be American’ is all he has left.

This one has taken birther to a whole new level.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

This one has taken birther to a whole new level.

rukiddingme on March 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

It really has. This new “my own birth certificate (which of course, we can’t see) was incorrect, therefore all birth certificates are presumptively incorrect” argument is something new.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM

It really has. This new “my own birth certificate (which of course, we can’t see) was incorrect, therefore all birth certificates are presumptively incorrect” argument is something new.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Redundant post is redundant.

crr6 on March 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM

DrMagnolias on March 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM

You make a very good point about “burden of proof”. I’ve seen on previous “birther” threads where “birthers” are told that the burden is on them since we are the ones making the accusations. However it was Obama, by the very act of running for POTUS, who put the burden of proof on himself. Because anyone who runs has to be eligible, therefore, O was claiming by running, that he was. Burden is on his shoulders to prove to us the voters that he indeed is. Thanks for this, Dr.M!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 30, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8