Quotes of the day

posted at 10:53 pm on March 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“I don’t know what motivates people who insist on doubt here,’ said Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org, who went on to say that Obama’s U.S. citizenship had been proven “beyond any reasonable doubt.… But it’s natural human tendency to believe what you want to believe and ignore any evidence that would make you change your mind.

“‘Some people believe in UFO cults, and there’s a whole group who thinks George W. Bush was behind 9/11; you’re not going to convince them otherwise,’ Jackson continued. ‘Trump has obviously decided — and he’s certainly succeeded — that he’ll get more ink saying this than something else, because if there’s one thing Donald Trump loves, it’s attention.’”

***

***

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

-And for the clueless or otherwise uninformed, Snopes isn’t much better. Not only have I seen many blatant omissions of facts regarding Obama, I also, on at least one previous occasion, saw Snopes use Obama’s own books as a cited source for disproving a claim made about Obama (the exact issue escapes me, but regardless-does using comrade Obama’s own books to back up anything he says make much sense to anyone?)

dave_ross on March 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM

dave_ross on March 31, 2011 at 7:53 AM

AP doesn’t have opinions on the QOTD but thanks for the information. Information on where information comes from is always helpful. No surprise that it’s skewed.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2011 at 8:02 AM

erbarker on March 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM

That’s bumper sticker right there!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 31, 2011 at 8:08 AM

-And for the clueless or otherwise uninformed, Snopes isn’t much better. Not only have I seen many blatant omissions of facts regarding Obama, I also, on at least one previous occasion, saw Snopes use Obama’s own books as a cited source for disproving a claim made about Obama (the exact issue escapes me, but regardless-does using comrade Obama’s own books to back up anything he says make much sense to anyone?)

dave_ross on March 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM

If a liberal says “Nuh-uh,” that’s considered a debunking.

Jim Treacher on March 31, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2011 at 8:02 AM

How many times can you used the word information in one comment? More coffee.

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Funny,

how our Intellectual Betters™ have, all of a sudden, become so intellectually incurious,

and, how anyone who raises the question is labeled a racist or “spotlight-seeking,” or a “Birther” as a pejorative.

isn’t it.

It’s all about silencing the little boy who cried: “LOOK – LOOK !!! The Emperor Has No Clothes !!!”

franksalterego on March 31, 2011 at 9:22 AM

I would like to see the Donald actually come out and say that being a US citizen is not sufficient.

Being a naturalized citizen is not sufficient, being born on US soil is.

Provided of course the other requirements stipulated in the Constitution are met.

A lot of people seem to be stuck on this.
OldEnglish on March 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Yes, most all seem to be birthers.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Show the real long form birth certificate, or deal with the accusations.. Pretty simple…

joejm65 on March 31, 2011 at 9:26 AM

I hope that Trump will latch onto the fact that Soetoro AKA 0bama is using a demonstrably fake social security number.

Given the fact it has been used for 30 plus years, he is using a demonstrably real social security number.

Now that would be very interesting indeed, seeing the regime try to spin the unspinnable.
Rebar on March 30, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Not as interesting as seeing you spin how the IRS failed to notice this number was being used fraudulently.

You have 30 plus years to spin. Barber, Rebar, you may proceed sir.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Show the real long form birth certificate, or deal with the accusations.. Pretty simple…
joejm65 on March 31, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Exactly. It’s not as if Obama’s being asked to sprout wings to fly away and fetch the magical blue dancing petunia from Valhalla. Unless both his LFBC and the dancing Valhallan petunia are mythical, of course – in that case, it’s the same. :)

whatcat on March 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I hope that Trump will latch onto the fact that Soetoro AKA 0bama is using a demonstrably fake social security number.

Given the fact it has been used for 30 plus years, he is using a demonstrably real social security number.
rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM

The country is full of illegals doing just that – and worse, by way of ID theft.

whatcat on March 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Ted Baxter is really starting to bother me with his sell out interview style. Trump however handled him well.

Koa on March 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Funny,

how our Intellectual Betters™ have, all of a sudden, become so intellectually incurious,

and, how anyone who raises the question is labeled a racist or “spotlight-seeking,” or a “Birther” as a pejorative.

isn’t it.

It’s all about silencing the little boy who cried: “LOOK – LOOK !!! The Emperor Has No Clothes !!!”

franksalterego on March 31, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Great post – sums things up very well!

Anti-Birthers, who are passive-aggressive by nature, are only following their instincts when they choose to assist Barry, a fellow passive-aggressive, instead of choosing to seriously inquire as to why 0bamessiah is so vigorously suppressing his past.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Great post – sums things up very well!

Anti-Birthers, who are passive-aggressive by nature, are only following their instincts when they choose to assist Barry, a fellow passive-aggressive, instead of choosing to seriously inquire as to why 0bamessiah is so vigorously suppressing his past.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I’m not a birther-and I’m not passive-aggressive. I just find the whole idea of conspiracy theories to be irrational.
I think rationally.
Do I like the man?
No.
Do I believe that he’s cagey?
Yes.
Do I believe that he was born here.
Absolutely.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Odd. Some folks ask merely to see the documents. Others – apparently sure of what the unseen documents say – call the first group names. What a dilemma. If there was only a way to resolve this…

Mason on March 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM

“I don’t know what motivates people who insist on doubt here,’ said Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org, who went on to say that Obama’s U.S. citizenship had been proven “beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Says who??? Where is the proof?

tomshup on March 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM

I’m not a birther-and I’m not passive-aggressive. I just find the whole idea of conspiracy theories to be irrational.
I think rationally.
Do I like the man?
No.
Do I believe that he’s cagey?
Yes.
Do I believe that he was born here.
Absolutely.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

You’re not an Anti-Birther, so my post doesn’t apply to you! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM

This must really really bug the left.

JellyToast on March 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM

I just find the whole idea of conspiracy theories to be irrational.
I think rationally.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

oops I posted my last one too soon.

I need to ask you – are all conspiracy theories false? Here’s what’s inescapable – there is either a conspiracy by 0bamessiah and his cohorts to make it look like he’s hiding something when there’s really no there there, or there’s a conspiracy by 0bamessiah and his cohorts to suppress his past because he’s afraid that something about his life he doesn’t want to be known publically will be revealed.

What’s interesting (and telling) is how fast so many Anti-Birthers mock Birthers for the speculations that they’ve chosen to believe beyond the evidence we all know, while they’ve given themselves a free pass for their own speculations which have no evidentiary basis themselves.

I loooove such hypocrites, don’t you, too? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 31, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Elephant = America has two classes of citizens:
1 born there, can run for president
2 not born there, can’t

One type of citizens has more rights than the other.
And that’s okay with you people.

The birth requirement is childishly stupid and pointless.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

D Rywall,

The natural-born-citizen clause is there to assure that the president has acculturated – so that the leader shares in a large degree the same basic values as the led.

Obama is a perfect case in point – growing up elsewhere, with alien, un-American values during some of his formative years.

The requirement is not stupid at all – it was put there in response to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, as one of the many checks written into a pretty ingenious constitution..

cane_loader on March 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I just find the whole idea of conspiracy theories to be irrational.
I think rationally.
annoyinglittletwerp

Sorry to have to break this to you but Obama not producing a LFBC is not a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a simple, undeniable fact. But feel free to continue to “rationalize” that and the additional fact of his fighting tooth and nail in the courts to avoid having to come up with a LFBC,

whatcat on March 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM

The natural-born-citizen clause is there to assure that the president has acculturated – so that the leader shares in a large degree the same basic values as the led.

Obama is a perfect case in point – growing up elsewhere, with alien, un-American values during some of his formative years.

The requirement is not stupid at all – it was put there in response to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, as one of the many checks written into a pretty ingenious constitution..

cane_loader on March 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM
——-
Acculturated?

By whose standards?

A candidate’s level of acculturatedness (?) would become abundantly clear in a campaign.

Mitt Romney and John Kerry are not acculturated. They’re bazillionaires without a shred of a clue how everyday Americans live and breathe and struggle.

And at the time of the birth of America, the only logic to require the president be born in the colonies was to say f you Britain we shall rule ourselves so your kind are not welcome.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Ted Baxter is really starting to bother me with his sell out interview style. Trump however handled him well.

Koa on March 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Ted Baxter is a complete idiot, but I often watch him for the guests and of course for Dennis Miller.

slickwillie2001 on March 31, 2011 at 12:18 PM

The birth requirement is childishly stupid and pointless.
Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

But it’s a Constitutional requirement. You should start a campaign to have it amended so we’re not following such a “childishly stupid” dictate. Then even I could be President.

VBMax on March 31, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Absolutely. Our Constitution is unconstitutional. Someone file a lawsuit!

alwaysfiredup on March 31, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Do I believe that he was born here. Absolutely.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

That’s the problem, you “believe” he was born here. You don’t have the proof (LFBC) that he was.

VBMax on March 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM

But it’s a Constitutional requirement. You should start a campaign to have it amended so we’re not following such a “childishly stupid” dictate. Then even I could be President.

VBMax on March 31, 2011 at 12:21 PM
——-
Person A: born in US, moves abroad with family for 34 years, moves back. Can run for president.

Person B: Born in XX, moves to America as a baby, becomes citizen. Lives entire life in America. 34 years later, cannot run for president.

Yeah, it’s such a logical requirement.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Absolutely. Our Constitution is unconstitutional. Someone file a lawsuit!

alwaysfiredup on March 31, 2011 at 12:40 PM
——–

Apparently you are not aware that your constitution has been amended over the years.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM

I think you are on to something! Why don’t you stop doing whatever you have been doing with your life and get on this?

Get that Constitution amended, Baby!

Let us know how that turns out.

Really Right on March 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Apparently you are not aware that your constitution has been amended over the years.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Why would I be unaware of such things? I can actually name and describe all 27 amendments. Can you? /s

Whatever you think of the Constitution it is impossible for it to be itself unconstitutional. If you think it’s unfair, agitate for an amendment. I wish you canucks all the luck in the world with that endeavor.

alwaysfiredup on March 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Dave Rywall,

You and I are not defining “acculturated” the same way.

You are referring to class isolation brought on by money.
I hear what you are saying, but that’s not what I meant.

Though yes, Kerry and Romney have grown up in privilege, they HAVE been exposed to the theories of how America is supposed to work, and did grow up embedded in the American cultural system – though embedded in the richer end.

Obama, though, grew up for quite a few years in a totalitarian, un-democratic system, in Indonesia. this upbringing exposed him to a culture of dictatorial rule. We see the results, as Obama has done so many things – from the Chrysler takeover, to the Libyan War – from the dictatorial perspective. To me, he just doesn’t seem to have absorbed the American respect for the rule of law.

The natural-born-citizen clause, ostensibly, was to help ensure that even if he did not agree with their politics, at least he was raised with an American mind.

cane_loader on March 31, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Our constitution has been amended over the years. “Amended” is the key word. You just dont ignore any part of it when you consider it “childish”.

AverageJoe on March 31, 2011 at 12:58 PM

The natural-born-citizen clause, ostensibly, was to help ensure that even if he did not agree with their politics, at least he was raised with an American mind.
cane_loader on March 31, 2011 at 12:53 PM
—–

No.

The requirement does no such thing.

There is no requirement to stay there and be acculturated.

It is only the requirement that you shoot out of the womb onto American soil.

That is the end of the requirement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

An immigrant can be far more acculturated than a natural born citizen yet cannot run for president.

That is the enormous stupidity of it.

Some more enormous stupidity comes from your claim that a boy, from the ages of 6 to 10, somehow was not laying with toys, but was busy forming political opinions. And that those 4 years are somehow more influential and character forming than 40 something other years spent living in America.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I hope that Trump will latch onto the fact that Soetoro AKA 0bama is using a demonstrably fake social security number.

Given the fact it has been used for 30 plus years, he is using a demonstrably real social security number.

rukiddingme on March 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Perhaps you need to think about this some more.

Using a social security number for 30 years is no proof that it belongs to the person using it.

If it belonged to someone who could have applied for it as a resident of that state if no one caught it, who would ever know?

The fact is that the number belongs to someone living or had lived in the state of Conneticut. It was not uncommon around that time for a widow to apply for a social security number in her retirement years.

The fact is that Obama never was a citizens of Conneticut, never lived there and never visited the state. How did he get that number?

A new idenity package would have given it to him, along with a history and college records. It is tempting to say that is why he refuses to let us see them, but there are other more serious reason in question there and this does not fit with anything else any better.

Illegals buy them everyday. He probably did not do that, but his mentor as a child and teenager was Frank Davis, the Moscow appointed board member of the Communist Party USA. If you recall, a couple years back, families of Russian moles, all working in high level postions, were exposed. They all had social security numbers that passed all scrutiny. Obama would have needed one when as a teenager he landed his first job working in an icecream shop. Unfortunately like a lot of background information of Obama, there are no records of what number he used. The point is that Frank Davis could have helped out, if and it seems very possible, Obama only had a certification of live birth and no proof of citizenship.

And a third way; one that hold a great possiblity, he just made it up and no one caught it. There are about 18 different social security numbers associated to him. Considering his perchant to lie about anything without a second thought, this seems to fit him, with a bit of nagging doubt about that icecream shop job, but then maybe the man never asked for it, or the first one was just made up. The one he uses now may just be the one that he got stuck with.

I had a friend who did that while applying to a college for a doctorate degree. He could not remember his so he just made one up. Worked fine until they were preparing to award the degee years later.

My own was used by someone in Miami for six years. The only reason he was caught was because I applied for a state job and the record was pulled up showing his contributions.

So using a social security number for thirty years does not demonstrably prove his to be a real social security number.

Add that to the pile of questions on his back ground and personal history that he is so heavy handily hidding.

Franklyn on March 31, 2011 at 1:45 PM

The birth requirement is childishly stupid and pointless.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Proving beyond a shred of doubt that the constitution has it right – it keeps law-breaking morons like you out.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Proving beyond a shred of doubt that the constitution has it right – it keeps law-breaking morons like you out.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM
—-
Don’t have the balls/brains to respond to my 1:05 comment?
That’s okay.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

An immigrant can be far more acculturated than a natural born citizen yet cannot run for president.

That is the enormous stupidity of it.

Don’t have the balls/brains to respond to my 1:05 comment?
That’s okay.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Sorry, DR, as someone who cares more about bigger issues than this, I hadn’t read the thread in its entirety.

To your point, quoted above, at issue is not what is stupid or not in the constitution. If the U.S. people and their representatives don’t like something in the law, they can always change it. It is not a matter of what you believe to be stupid. As a pretending legislator in Canada, you of all the people, certainly know this.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Sorry, DR, as someone who cares more about bigger issues than this, I hadn’t read the thread in its entirety.

To your point, quoted above, at issue is not what is stupid or not in the constitution. If the U.S. people and their representatives don’t like something in the law, they can always change it. It is not a matter of what you believe to be stupid. As a pretending legislator in Canada, you of all the people, certainly know this.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:12 PM
——-
As I expected, you do not wish to expose that you embrace the birth requirement that actually means nothing whatsoever in terms of guaranteeing an acculturated candidate for POTUS.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Some more enormous stupidity comes from your claim that a boy, from the ages of 6 to 10, somehow was not laying with toys, but was busy forming political opinions. And that those 4 years are somehow more influential and character forming than 40 something other years spent living in America.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Actually the years of four to six and up to age ten are the years that a person’s beliefs and perceptions are engrained into them and remain influential through out their adult lives.

You might recall that Obama stated the most beautiful sound in the world is the call to evening prayers. That does not say he is a Muslim, but taken with other actions he has taken since being elected show the strong enfulence that Isam had on him as a child.

Obama is unquestionalbly a narcissist, as have other presidents been as well, but his childhood is a text book classic for developing that type of personality trait.

How you are raised and the values and culture you are rasied in, do make you who you become as an adult.

It is true that a person can be born here and raised someplace else. It is also true that to be elected president. It is also true there is a residency requirment that insures you don’t get off the boat and become president.

Obama meets the residency requirementl he just needs to prove that he meets the citizenship requirement, along with a few other pesky requirments, like proving he had no need to reaffirm his citizenship after his parents changed it for him to indonesain, which does not recognize dual citizenship, and which if he does, disqualifies him as eligble to be president to the same extent as no birth record of citizenship.

Franklyn on March 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM

chemman on March 31, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Agreed, chemman, the republic could take it in stride. My point is more that the issue could be obfuscated and deconstructed to death, like Clinton, lying under oath, and the blue dress.

My bet, on the actual outcome of a third-party disclosure that Obama was born in Kenya, is some form of this: the argument is made that Obama didn’t know where he was born and always thought it was in Hawaii, as that’s what he was told. So he’s not guilty of fraud. The sentiment in the US is that he shouldn’t run again in 2012, although there’s a lot of serious talk about how much it really matters that he was born overseas, if he was brought back when he was only weeks old and raised as an American. Congress considers measures to enforce the constitutional provision about being born in the US (something along the lines of mandatory disclosure of the long-form birth certificate for everyone who files to run for president). Democrats deliberate among themselves over which way they should go: vote that measure in — over Obama’s veto, if necessary — and make Obama ineligible for 2012, or simply pitch him overboard for 2012, as a party decision, and thereby remove the bite and urgency from the proposal in Congress.

Do you really doubt that it would play out in some icky, status-quo-tending way like that?

There could be good coming out of it. I wouldn’t urge anyone to stop pressing the issue. My view is that as long as the Constitution has the natural-born provision, we do need to require a long-form birth certificate for anyone who files to run for president or vice president. It should simply be a wicket for filing with the FEC.

And if people don’t think it matters that an American citizen was born overseas to an American mother and brought to the US as a weeks-old baby — if people believe that says nothing about the individual’s national loyalties or character as a citizen, which is what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the provision into the Constitution — then Congress should write federal law to clarify that. What we should NOT do is stagger along uncertain of what we want the Constitution to mean, and leaving big, exploitable holes in it because of that.

J.E. Dyer on March 31, 2011 at 2:25 PM

As I expected, you do not wish to expose that you embrace the birth requirement that actually means nothing whatsoever in terms of guaranteeing an acculturated candidate for POTUS.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

You prove over and over, even though I gave you many chances to clear yourself, that you’re not a clear thinker.

The law is what it is. YOU don’t have to like it. If the people and their representatives want to change any law, in a relatively free land they can do so.

On the issue, I don’t give a rat’s ars at this point. The land has gone to he*l in a basket. Look at unemployment, debt, deficit, inflation, housing, economy, wars, and this is chickensh*t, really. I do chare that all laws be followed, from top to bottom. Alas, the president of the U.S. acts more like Barackingam Palace, not like the WH of yore. It’s symbolic. If the breach of the constitution is allowed to happen, anarchy follows. The entire world will be a loser then.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Elephant = America has two classes of citizens:
1 born there, can run for president
2 not born there, can’t

One type of citizens has more rights than the other.
And that’s okay with you people.

The birth requirement is childishly stupid and pointless.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

A little thought maybe?

All citizens have the same rights to hold office with the exception of the Presidentcy. The reason is simple. It is not an office that should be held by someone who holds, or could hold, alligence to another country or government. Nothing stupid or pointless about that. Just good old common sense.

Of course it is not a perfect solution to the problem of alligence. All we have to do is look at the one world government promoters in our goverment now, and with suspicion, the one sitting in the oval office today.

Franklyn on March 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM

As I expected, you do not wish to expose that you embrace the birth requirement that actually means nothing whatsoever in terms of guaranteeing an acculturated candidate for POTUS.

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The requirement wasn’t put in ther for “acculturation”, which point I concede to you, that one can be more acculturated by not being born in the U.S.

It was included to keep some Brits out, at the time. Again, if the law is to be changed, the states and etc. can do so. You know the routine; if not, read up on how to change the law.

As the law stands, it must be respected by all or anarchy ensues.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM

You prove over and over, even though I gave you many chances to clear yourself, that you’re not a clear thinker.

The law is what it is. YOU don’t have to like it. If the people and their representatives want to change any law, in a relatively free land they can do so.

On the issue, I don’t give a rat’s ars at this point. The land has gone to he*l in a basket. Look at unemployment, debt, deficit, inflation, housing, economy, wars, and this is chickensh*t, really. I do chare that all laws be followed, from top to bottom. Alas, the president of the U.S. acts more like Barackingam Palace, not like the WH of yore. It’s symbolic. If the breach of the constitution is allowed to happen, anarchy follows. The entire world will be a loser then.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:31 PM
——-
ha ha ha your worldview is awesome

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

A little thought maybe?

All citizens have the same rights to hold office with the exception of the Presidentcy. The reason is simple. It is not an office that should be held by someone who holds, or could hold, alligence to another country or government. Nothing stupid or pointless about that. Just good old common sense.

Of course it is not a perfect solution to the problem of alligence. All we have to do is look at the one world government promoters in our goverment now, and with suspicion, the one sitting in the oval office today.

Franklyn on March 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM
—–

Yeah, because a nautral born citizen could never ever ever grow fond of another country and develop “alligence to another country or government”

It’s impossible!

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:40 PM

The requirement wasn’t put in ther for “acculturation”, which point I concede to you, that one can be more acculturated by not being born in the U.S.

It was included to keep some Brits out, at the time. Again, if the law is to be changed, the states and etc. can do so. You know the routine; if not, read up on how to change the law.

As the law stands, it must be respected by all or anarchy ensues.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM
——-
Yes, the law must be upheld, but people should wake up and see that the requirement – along with the LUDICROUSLY RANDOM 35 year age requirement – should be eliminated.

You’re only 34? You can’t possibly be president!
Wait, your birthday is tomorrow?
I WILL WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW BEFORE CONSIDERING YOU AS A CANDIDATE BECAUSE SO MUCH WILL CHANGE BETWEN NOW AND THEN

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:44 PM

ha ha ha your worldview is awesome

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

You, the pretending erudite, make fools indignant.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Why are you concerned? It’s not your Constitution.

kingsjester on March 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Dave Rywall on March 31, 2011 at 3:44 PM

You’re right on all accounts, if you convince the people of the U.S. and their reps to change the law.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Mason on March 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM

:) It’s funny to watch in a way. The “birthers” aren’t positive what’s on the BC because, well we haven’t seen it. The anti-birthers, however, are absolutely positively sure what’s on the bc… but they haven’t seen it either! LOL! Anti-birthers are taking O’s word for it, a word that he has shown mean aboslutely nothing. He’s a liar and a prevaricator. We can’t believe a word out of his silver-tongued mouth, oh, but on this issue, yes we can! Yeah, right.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

alt, its’ not a “theory” it’s a fact. Remember, the gov. of HI said he would show us the bc — if that thing that O gave to the Daily KOS was the bc, why would the gov. say he would release it if O already had? Wouldn’t he think it already was released? Obviously, he meant something else, the LFBC. And he says he couldn’t find it. No “theory”, just facts. If you’re so rational, how can you think this is normal behaviour? I’m rational and that’s the reason I’m suspicious. Nothing seems rational about this. How is it rational that O is spending millions to hide a piece of paper we’ve all at one time or another had to show? I hate to break it to you, but history is filled irrational behaviour and it doesn’t do anyone any good to hide our “rational” heads in the sand!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Time to put the nose on, Don…

mojo on March 31, 2011 at 8:23 PM

How about these issues… Where are his college records? Why can’t we get anybody from any period of his life before Chicago politics to come forward and say, “Yeah, I know that guy, we used to hang out together”? And I don’t mean Bill (I hate America” Ayers. Did he register for a phone number anywhere, did he pay an electric bill, did he have a bank account or credit card? If so… does anybody actually remember him? Where are they? The man, and his life, are staged events with mythical surroundings in every aspect we actually do know about.

I will digress into another subject as well… He could careless about being president, and if you think that is his end goal, you are sadly mistaken. He, and the people that support him, are fixated on making sure will be the leader of the UN once he leave the presidency. (He is after all the only sitting president to ever have a chair on the UN council… and don’t forget about that wonderful Nobel Peace “of crap” prize he got for absolutely nothing.) Think about his foreign policy, his social issues, his favors to other countries, how he believe the wealth of the world should be re-distributed. It is all to level the playing field so that when he leave, and there is one world currency and one world government, he will be at the head of it. Mark my words, this is his agenda.

The Dead Terrorist on March 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

How about these issues… Where are his college records? Why can’t we get anybody from any period of his life before Chicago politics to come forward and say, “Yeah, I know that guy, we used to hang out together”? And I don’t mean Bill (I hate America” Ayers. Did he register for a phone number anywhere, did he pay an electric bill, did he have a bank account or credit card? If so… does anybody actually remember him? Where are they? The man, and his life, are staged events with mythical surroundings in every aspect we actually do know about.

I will digress into another subject as well… He could careless about being president, and if you think that is his end goal, you are sadly mistaken. He, and the people that support him, are fixated on making sure will be the leader of the UN once he leave the presidency. (He is after all the only sitting president to ever have a chair on the UN council… and don’t forget about that wonderful Nobel Peace “of crap” prize he got for absolutely nothing.) Think about his foreign policy, his social issues, his favors to other countries, how he believe the wealth of the world should be re-distributed. It is all to level the playing field so that when he leave, and there is one world currency and one world government, he will be at the head of it. Mark my words, this is his agenda.

The Dead Terrorist on March 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM
———
the tin foil
is strong
in you son

Dave Rywall on April 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM

:) It’s funny to watch in a way. The “birthers” aren’t positive what’s on the BC because, well we haven’t seen it. The anti-birthers, however, are absolutely positively sure what’s on the bc… but they haven’t seen it either! LOL! Anti-birthers are taking O’s word for it, a word that he has shown mean aboslutely nothing. He’s a liar and a prevaricator. We can’t believe a word out of his silver-tongued mouth, oh, but on this issue, yes we can! Yeah, right.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

This is about as short and common sense as I’ve seen it. Bravo. Of course we do however, have to remember that many of the anti-birthers are so-called “moderates” (aka almost full liberals)and many others are outright liberals, and naturally these people want to dismiss all criticism of Barack O’Communist, so the birth certificate/social security/college records etc. issue is no different.

Basically Obama seems to have just suddenly appeared in the U.S., in his 20′s or so (because no documentation or confirmation seems to exist before that)and yet we’re not supposed to be at all suspicious.

dave_ross on April 1, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Of course we do however, have to remember that many of the anti-birthers are so-called “moderates” (aka almost full liberals)and many others are outright liberals, and naturally these people want to dismiss all criticism of Barack O’Communist, so the birth certificate/social security/college records etc. issue is no different.
dave_ross on April 1, 2011 at 8:09 AM

-Forgot to mention that the third group, are conservatives who are just too spineless to take a real stand, and proclaim the total lack of credibility the main stream media has. In other words, give them a little shout down like they like to do. Tell them plain and simple-you guys have done nothing but cover up every evil thing about Obama since minute one of day one, and YOUR WORDS AT THIS POINT-INCLUDING CALLING US “BIRTHERS” CARRY NO WEIGHT.

Most people in the main stream media should be arrested and jailed for the CRIMINAL actions of not only covering up everything about Obama, but also being in full PROPAGANDA MODE and ramming down everyone’s throats that Obama is the second coming of Christ-while he continues to DESTROY the country, yet continues to have a lovable smile on his face while doing it.

dave_ross on April 1, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3