Romney blasts Trump’s birther focus

posted at 2:15 pm on April 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Call it the Clash of the Titans — the Wall Street titans, that is.   Both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump want to make the case for their candidacies based on their financial wizardry, but that’s where the similarities end.  Romney wants to focus on competence and a track record of executive success while highlighting all of the failures of Barack Obama over the past two years.  Unfortunately, the other titan in the race is forcing everyone to talk about birth certificates instead, and Romney has apparently had enough:

Mitt Romney forcefully said Tuesday night that he believes President Barack Obama was born in America and that “the citizenship test has been passed.”

“I think the citizenship test has been passed. I believe the president was born in the United States. There are real reasons to get this guy out of office,” Romney told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow the day after he formally announced that he’s exploring a run for the White House. “The man needs to be taken out of office but his citizenship isn’t the reason why.”

Kudlow asked Romney about the issue because Donald Trump — the billionaire real estate mogul — has been all over TV questioning whether Obama was really born in in the United States and is therefore constitutionally allowed to hold the nation’s highest office. Trump’s claims have driven the “birther” issue back into the national spotlight — and a recent Fox News poll found that 24 percent of voters believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States, while 10 percent aren’t sure.

Romney isn’t the first of the Republican hopefuls to push back against Trump’s birther focus, and the evident delight in the national media to focus again on an issue that voters obviously rejected in 2008.  Tim Pawlenty said much the same thing two weeks ago on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.  Both former governors want to focus on actual governing records, believing that Obama is vulnerable on the issues, and far less vulnerable on “who is he?” questions that didn’t gain traction when Obama actually was a mostly unknown quantity.

Trump, on the other hand, has very little to recommend him as a candidate other than his talent for self-promotion.  In a piece I wrote for CNN today that builds off of my post yesterday, Trump may need to rely on the freak-show quality that he has employed thus far in order to keep people from taking too close a look at who Trump is:

Trump’s fame comes from his highly leveraged real-estate and casino dealings starting in the 1980s as well as his three marriages,dabbling in professional wrestling over the past couple of decades, a new multilevel marketing organization that sells vitamin supplements and a television show that made “You’re fired!” into a Trump trademark.

None of this fits terribly well with the usual “family values,” fiscally conservative Republican mold, and yet the freak show is gaining some big traction early in the exploratory cycle for Republican presidential candidates. ….

Trump’s business bankruptcies include the Taj Mahal casino (1991), and the Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), in both cases losing half his stake in the reorganizations. Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 in 2009, and in 2008 his Trump International Tower in Chicago defaulted on a $40 million loan.

His response to the last financial setback was both instructive and, well, entertaining. Trump blamed the global economic collapse and tried to have it declared an act of God to get out from paying back the $40 million — and then demanded $3 billion in damages from the bank for attempting to collect on the loan.

We had a professional-wrestler executive in Minnesota for four years, to our embarrassment.  Jesse Ventura was nothing more than a self-promoter, and his most notable accomplishment as governor was either taking a part-time job as a football announcer for the XFL while in office, or getting Democrats and Republicans so angry at his nonsense that they essentially agreed to cut him out of the budget process.

The 2012 election should hinge on real issues and deep questions about Barack Obama’s ability to handle the office.  The freak show is a distraction that damages the serious nature of Obama’s opposition — and don’t think the media isn’t eating it up, either.


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 3 4 5

*I’m* not arguing that his location of birth makes any difference to his “Natural Born Citizen” status. I believe he’s disqualified *IF* his father is really Barack Obama Sr. (Which I doubt.) The Birth certificate issue is only relevant to the fact that he’s lying about his credentials.

Ok, but you’re still arguing that he wasn’t in Hawaii, which is still completely baseless.

You’re theory of Stanly Ann MOVING to Washington shortly after his birth is possible, but it doesn’t make much sense. (Why leave her “husband” after the birth of their child? If she ever needed him, that was the time she needed him.) The theory of her being there all along fits better.

It’s not my theory. It’s basic biographical information about Obama. It makes no sense that the guy who famously abandoned Obama as a child… abandoned Obama? It makes more sense that she faked his birth in Hawaii for no particular reason?

However, if he was the child of Stanly Dunham’s best friend, (Frank Marshall Davis) then sending her away to avoid the embarrassment among the Friends and Neighbors is what you might expect them to do.

Davis admits in his book that he “broke in” a young white girl named “Ann.”

DiogenesLamp on April 13, 2011 at 7:26 PM

And Obama Sr. went along with all of this. To spare her the embarrassment. Ok.

RightOFLeft on April 13, 2011 at 8:02 PM

The complaint was not anonymous. The complaintant came forward and announced his identity. Here’s the rest of the complaint. You look up who filed it if you really want to know. I have responsibilities that I have to attend to now. Suffice it to say, Obama gave up his license rather than face foregone disbarment.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=35800&highlight=shaheen#35800

DiogenesLamp on April 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Ummm. Your link doesn’t provide any name for the complaintant. You alleged that Obama was disbarred. When challenged, you backtracked to assert that he was accused of doing actions in an internet posting that could get possibly him disbarred. When challenged again, you say that the complainant did come forward, but the citation you give doesn’t give any name for the complainant. You then plead that you don’t have any time to back-up your unfounded assertions.
DiogenesLamp made a false assertion. When challenged on that false assertion, DiogenesLamp doubled down instead of admitting that DiogenesLamp was wrong/lied. Obviously credibility is not important to DiogenesLamp.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 13, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Kataklysmic on April 13, 2011 at 7:24 PM

And you like Palin and see her through your prism. It works both ways.

Santorum meant nothing by the comment. He himself has seven children and recently cancelled an IA event due to sickness in his family. But even if he meant it the way she took it (which he didn’t) it’s no different than what a Schlafly traditionalist might think.

As for your analogy about me, lol, my Aslan doesn’t wear shirts… he’s a LION. But, no, I wouldn’t be offended.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I’ve yet to see a plausible reason why someone would spend money fighting release of records.

byepartisan on April 13, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Are you trying to say that if 0bamessiah’s spent the money he has in court protecting his records only as a political strategy to hurt Birthers, which is the comical position of many Anti-Birthers considering they aren’t able to prove that contention any more than the Birthers they’ve criticized for foolish speculation have been able to prove theirs, it isn’t a plausible explanation? Get out of here! EVERYTHING 0bamessiah does is justifiable and classy!

1) His Administration’s treatment of Gerald Walpin=absolutely honorable
2) His Administration’s treatment of Lt. Col. Lakin=absolutely honorable
3) His Administration’s treatment of the Honduran government during its battle against Zelaya=absolutely honorable
4) His Administration’s integrity on lobbyists, and transparency=absolutely honorable
5) His relationship with the Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act=absolutely honorable

To argue otherwise is epitome of moral bankruptcy!

Bizarro No. 1 on April 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Are you suggesting that any does not mean any or that what I posted is not the law? Two pages ago? Are you suggesting that you explained why my point was wrong before I made it? Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 7:11
PM

Hey, relax Basil.
I think the reason you’re confused is that you think that “certified copy” means a photocopy of Obama’s original birth certificate, or something of that nature.
It doesn’t. In fact, the statute explicitly prohibits anyone from photocopying the original document.
The document Obama released (which I’m guessing you would call a “SFBC”) is a “certified copy” of his birth certificate under the statute.Get it?
crr6 on April 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

I get that I posted the portion of the statute which states:

338-13 Certified copies.
(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

So please post the sections of the statute which support your claim that:

the statute explicitly prohibits anyone from photocopying the original document

How is the department prohibited from copying the original document when the the department is required to furnish a certified copy of any certificate (what part of any don’t you understand crr6 ?) if the original certificate can’t be copied? And on that point read subsection (c).

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 8:42 PM

So please post the sections of the statute which support your claim that:

the statute explicitly prohibits anyone from photocopying the original document

No problem.

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

In sum, that means only disclosures specified by law are permitted under any circumstances, and photocopying an original record isn’t listed anywhere, with or without a “direct and tangible interest,” or a court order. The only disclosures allowed are “inspections” or the original record by those with a direct or tangible interest, and the issuing of a certified copy (just like the one Obama released) to those with a tangible or direct interest.

How is the department prohibited from copying the original document when the the department is required to furnish a certified copy of any certificate (what part of any don’t you understand crr6 ?) if the original certificate can’t be copied? And on that point read subsection (c).

This is where you’re getting confused. The certified copy isn’t an actual photocopy or photograph of the original document. It’s a separate certified document from the state which essentially summarizes the original document (but has the same legal force and effect).

I’m glad that’s finally settled. Can we move on, Basil?

crr6 on April 13, 2011 at 8:58 PM

In sum, that means only disclosures specified by law are permitted under any circumstances, and photocopying an original record isn’t listed anywhere, with or without a “direct and tangible interest,” or a court order. The only disclosures allowed are “inspections” or of the original record by those with a direct or tangible interest, and the issuing of a certified copy (just like the one Obama released) to those with a tangible or direct interest.

crr6 on April 13, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Here’s an excerpt from the relevant Hawaii Law which bears on the issue of whether Obama can obtain a certified copy of his original LFBC (assuming one exists which seems more unlikely with each passing day). It seems that if Hawaii is not now releasing certified copies of LFBC (so that Obama’s supporters can claim he can’t release his – and they were releasing LFBC’s less than one month ago – they are breaking their own law.

338-13 Certified copies.
(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

The obstructionsists will no doubt be along to explain that any does not mean any.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM

“Hawai’i” and “the law” have a strange relationship-after all, the State has been completely controlled by one political Party for a half a century. Where that happens, corruption is rampant. In the 50th State, it is legendary.

There was a too-brief brief gap between 2001 and 2009, beginning when a Chimpy Bush-appointed US Attorney, Ed Kubo, managed to try to fight political corruption in the State.

Of course, despite multiple honors from Hawai’i law enforcement for his efforts to end the rampant ICE epidemic (which that state’s “Supreme Court” partly caused to happen in the first place), the Democrats who ran the State didn’t all like him.

After O’bama replaced him with a (surprise!) Leftist lawyer from San Francisco as Hawai’i US Attorney, the outgoing Republican Governor (a figurehead position in that Democrat State) nominated him for a Judgeship on the island of O’ahu, where I lived in the early 1960s.

What excuse did the Dems then try to use to try and derail his confirmation? The “crime” he committed was stepping out of his office to get lunch one day during a huge power blackout in downtown Honolulu without telling anyone where he was going to eat. All power was out in the legal buildings, so absolutely no one could have conducted business anyway, but that didn’t matter.

Somehow, he did get confirmed.

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Settled my a$$.

You have conveniently ignored the words: except as authorized by this part

it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

Once again read subsection (c) which specifically authorizes photocopying. I note that you avoided the fact that someone posted a certified copy – on the very site – of an Hawaiian LFBC which was date stamped March 15, 2011. So you are attempting to disprove something was was proven on this site earlier today.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 9:16 PM

So you are attempting to disprove something was was proven on this site earlier today.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 9:16 PM

You’re discussing an issue, with someone who is only here to lie and propagandize for the left. You can prove something a thousand times, she’ll simply ignore it and keep telling her lies.

It’s all moot anyway. With Arizona’s bill passing, Oklahoma in a few days, then Texas and a bunch of other states following – “birthers” have won, gullibles have lost. Soetoro will have to produce his documents, forfeit those electoral and possibly primary votes, or he can decline to run again.

I hope he chooses to forfeit and trys to brazen it out with the race card. Not only would his defeat be epic, he’ll drag his entire party down the toilet with him.

Rebar on April 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM

crr6 on April 13, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Wow, you really should go into immigration law instead of John Edwards Junk Science Litigation.

Can you answer this simple question? After all, I’m a simple real estate analyst and consultant, not a “law student” like yourself.

If the original Hawai’i medical records prove he really is who he claims to be, he would be stupid to keep them hidden. It would only support him in that claim, and make the people questioning him look like idiots. Why not release it and remove all doubt?

In other words, how could it hurt him to let the State release the whole thing, if it (and he) were totally legit?

After all, he’s The President, and as such is the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country”. I would assume that as such he could override State of Hawai’i laws put in place to protect him and his family.

I think we both know the answer. What’s he hiding?

Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2011 at 10:02 PM

You’re discussing an issue, with someone who is only here to lie and propagandize for the left. You can prove something a thousand times, she’ll simply ignore it and keep telling her lies.

Rebar on April 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Basilsbest, please listen to Rebar!

Ask yourself – does crr6 debate primarily for the truth’s sake, or because she’s argumentative like the stereotypical lawyer? You (as well as crr6, for that matter) know the answer to that question, so I’ll ask you, why bother conversing with such an unserious, pedantical, tedious person?

What are you getting out of arguing with her? Remember, she. Doesnt. Care. About. What. You. Care. About. Talking to her is a waste of time, no? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Rebar on April 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM

crr6 spouts the same talking points one sees in the liberal blogs like Mediate and Politico and that one hears in the MSM. I thought it was worthwhile to draw her out and demonstrate that she was blowing smoke. I’m very happy that we due process documenters are winning the argument and that we have not been scared off by the vicious pejorative birthers. The Republicans who use the term birthers are as clueless as the squishes who didn’t object to funding for Acorn (which specializes in getting out the vote for Democrats) and NPR (which is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party).

The MSM refused to vet Obama and the squishes on our side gave him a pass. All this fuss over requiring that he prove his credentials makes America look like a third world country.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Professional propagandists like crr6 aren’t really the problem. It’s fake conservatives like, unfortunately, Allapundit, who are the ones driving wedges into the movement.

All hope lies with the teaparty purging these squishy RINOs from leadership roles in the GOP, and once again making it a proud, unabashedly conservative, party once again. Arizona is one shining example of fearless teapartiers doing what was right, we need this for every state.

Rebar on April 13, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Rebar

It’s not just fake conservatives, it’s the entire GOP establishment and most of the elite conservative commentators. They were frankly scared off this issue. The reason I have argued this issue for the past two years is not because I am convinced Obama was not born in Hawaii or because I believe his parents are anyone other that Obama Sr and Dunham but because the idea that one doesn’t have to prove one’s eligibility for the highest office in the land with the best evidence is, quite frankly, absurdly stupid. And the idea that you can rely upon a birth announcement to prove compliance with the Constitution is not just a stretch, but simply nuts.

The American public should not be required to take on faith what can be proven – if the claim is valid. Let Obama prove his eligibility with reliable documentation or let him be a (ruinous) one term president.

I don’t know where Obama was born. Unlike a lot of people I am honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 10:53 PM

I think the reason is simple – overwelming fear of the dreaded race card.

Until the teaparty can start replacing the squish RINO cowards in the leadership positions, it’s just something that needs to be worked around.

Rebar on April 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Rebar

Birthers as in Truthers. Malkin, Coulter, Beck, Levin etc are not squish RINO cowards and yet they were not willing to examine the issue and learn that Hawaii registered births of children not born in the State and without the requiring that the birth be attested to by a doctor. They weren’t even willing to wonder why Obama would not release his LFBC. Other so-called conservatives like BOR and Allahpundit attacked those making reasonable demands for a LFBC and by using the term birthers compared us to the insane Truthers. As did Ed Morrissey, who is undoubtedly a conservative and a good man.

I think they were afraid of being compared to the insane Truthers. They must have found it very intimidating. They let the liberal MSM control the narrative and didn’t even know enough to respond with: how am I supposed to know where he was born? I wasn’t there and he won’t release his LFBC.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Yeah, we can argue what they really meant, or I can show you what they really meant. The FIRST Congress was pretty much the same group of Delegates that CREATED the Constitution. This is what they had to say in the “Naturalization Act of 1790.”

DiogenesLamp on April 13, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Well if we are going to use the Naturalization Act of 1790 as your basis for determining citizenship, then it becomes alot easier to disqualify Obama: This law limited citizenship “free white persons” of “good moral character”. Therefore, any indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, native americans and Asians aren’t eligible for any office (or even to vote). President Obama doesn’t qualify as a “free white person” so under the law you propose that we should be adhering to, he shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone be the President.

Oh wait, this law was struck down in 1795 and replaced by the Naturalization act of 1795. Also a little thing called the Civil War happened in the mean time. And the 14th Amendment was enacted. I guess those things are kind of important.

Also a literal reading of this section of the Naturalization Act of 1790:

the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

appears to limit “natural born citizens” only to “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States”. So the only natural born citizens under the naturalization act of 1790 are kids born outside of the U.S. to citizens.
Since the Act never states that children of citzens that may be born inside the limits of the U.S. are Natural Born Citizens, that must mean that those kids are not. Well that would mean most of our presidents weren’t natural born citizens under this act. Good thing it was repealed and carries absolutely no weight.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM

A shorter version of your argument is that since the Constitution was written by the same people who wrote the odious (since repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790, we should ignore the Constitution.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

They let the liberal MSM control the narrative and didn’t even know enough to respond with: how am I supposed to know where he was born? I wasn’t there and he won’t release his LFBC.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM

That’s true, throw in the fear of the race card, and all too many folks get weak in the knees.

Good thing the teapartiers of Arizona are made of sterner stuff.

Rebar on April 14, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Good stuff, basilsbest and rebar!

Keep on keepin’ on!

JannyMae on April 14, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Exact language and capitalization in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen…”

“Natural born” modifies the noun Citizen. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “natural born” as “having a specified position or character by birth”. That dictionary indicates that this definition for “natural born” has existed since the 17th century. So natural born modifying citizen means having the character of citizenship by birth. Under the 14th Amendment, President Obama had the character of U.S. Citizenship by birth. Therefore he is a natural born Citizen.

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “natural born” in his 1776 constitution for Virgina commonwealth. He differentiated “natural born” from naturalized immigrant citzens. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson appears to have recognized only types/methods of obtaining citizenship: naturalization or being naturally born a citizen. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson’s early use of the phrase “natural born” is consistent with the modern usage of the term meaning: one who is a citizen from birth as opposed to a person who obtains their citizenship through naturalization.

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

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.

Therefore, James Madison, one of the principal writers of the constitution held that Birth is the criterion that determined citizenship, not parentage.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 12:44 AM

So the only natural born citizens under the naturalization act of 1790 are kids born outside of the U.S. to citizens.

It doesn’t say that. It does not limit “natural born citizens” only to “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States”. It includes them.

Since the Act never states that children of citzens that may be born inside the limits of the U.S. are Natural Born Citizens, that must mean that those kids are not.

No it does not “must mean” that. Common law said they were.

Emperor Norton on April 14, 2011 at 12:47 AM

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

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.

Therefore, James Madison, one of the principal writers of the constitution held that Birth is the criterion that determined citizenship, not parentage.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 12:44 AM

No, therefore James Madison said the opposite of what you claim he said. He said both place and parentage have sway.

You have been misreading, or misrepesenting, quote after quote in this thread. It’s laughable.

Emperor Norton on April 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM

You have been misreading, or misrepesenting, quote after quote in this thread. It’s laughable.

Emperor Norton on April 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM

The quote from Madison is:

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.

Madison says that at the time of the Constitution some countries determined allegiance by birthplace and some by parentage. However, he determined that birthplace was the “most certain criterion”. He then goes on to state the birthplace allegiance is what applied in the U.S. Seems clear to me.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 7:05 AM

It’s not my theory. It’s basic biographical information about Obama. It makes no sense that the guy who famously abandoned Obama as a child… abandoned Obama? It makes more sense that she faked his birth in Hawaii for no particular reason?

SHE (Stanley Ann Dunham) Didn’t fake his birth at all. (According to the theory anyway.) Her MOTHER just made sure he qualified for plain ole regular American citizenship (She didn’t even consider his “natural born citizen” status, so give up on the “They were planning a conspiracy to make him president 50 years ago!” bullsh*t accusation.) because her daughter was so stupid and flighty that she couldn’t be depended on to look after her son’s best interest. (Plenty of evidence that Stanley Ann was a loon.)

And Obama Sr. went along with all of this. To spare her the embarrassment. Ok.

RightOFLeft on April 13, 2011 at 8:02 PM

What’s to go along with? He didn’t live with Stanley and baby, he hardly had any contact with them, he was probably just doing a favor for his new found friends, such as Frank Davis, Stanley Dunham and Neil Abercrombie. Everyone knew the baby was going to be black, so Barack Sr. Was a convenient alleged father. If Stanley Dunham found out his best friend got his daughter pregnant, don’t you think he might have been pissed?

But you know what? We don’t KNOW what the facts are. WE haven’t got ANYTHING nailed down solid on this character. The reason speculation is rife is because he has a background story that doesn’t make any sense, and no one will provide real proof to draw real conclusions from.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM

To make the argument that Frank Davis is Obama’s father, you’ve got to explain how Obama has a brother in Kenya that looks just like him, and another brother in Canada (Mark?) that sounds exactly like him. Yeah, like that.

Allahs vulva on April 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Ummm. Your link doesn’t provide any name for the complaintant. You alleged that Obama was disbarred. When challenged, you backtracked to assert that he was accused of doing actions in an internet posting that could get possibly him disbarred. When challenged again, you say that the complainant did come forward, but the citation you give doesn’t give any name for the complainant. You then plead that you don’t have any time to back-up your unfounded assertions.
DiogenesLamp made a false assertion. When challenged on that false assertion, DiogenesLamp doubled down instead of admitting that DiogenesLamp was wrong/lied. Obviously credibility is not important to DiogenesLamp.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 13, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Nor to New Jersey Buckeye. Now that we’ve gotten THAT out of the way, you are quibbling over details.

You haven’t researched this at all, yet here you are ready to draw conclusions. The complaintant eventually named himself, but it occurs to me “What difference does it make?”

If the complaint was made, obviously there is a complaintant. He is, in this regard, much like the long form birth certificate which you would have us believe exists despite any proof.

Fine. You expect us to take a leap of faith on the credibility of an unseen document, then you should be willing to take a leap of faith on the existence of an unidentified complaintant. Think of him as the equivalent of a “Birth Doctor.” Since THAT missing information gives you no heartburn, I hardly see why a missing complaintant’s name should bother you at all.

If you really want to know, you CAN find the answer on the internet. My original link is now dead, but nothing disappears on the internet. The Internet is forever! :)

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Well if we are going to use the Naturalization Act of 1790 as your basis for determining citizenship, then it becomes alot easier to disqualify Obama: This law limited citizenship “free white persons” of “good moral character”. Therefore, any indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, native americans and Asians aren’t eligible for any office (or even to vote). President Obama doesn’t qualify as a “free white person” so under the law you propose that we should be adhering to, he shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone be the President.

Oh wait, this law was struck down in 1795 and replaced by the Naturalization act of 1795. Also a little thing called the Civil War happened in the mean time. And the 14th Amendment was enacted. I guess those things are kind of important.

Also a literal reading of this section of the Naturalization Act of 1790:

Awww… It’s so CUTE when you try to be clever. You may have missed it since you obviously only remember the bits and pieces you WANT to remember, but I have said repeatedly that NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I also repeatedly said that the “naturalization act of 1790″ is only useful for understanding the mindset of the founders regarding Children of Foreign Fathers. Meaning, it let’s you know what THEY thought “natural born citizen” meant.

Now here you come and trot out the ole “RACISM!” argument, and it’s only because you know you can’t win the real debate.

Here is more of you trying to be cute.

appears to limit “natural born citizens” only to “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States”. So the only natural born citizens under the naturalization act of 1790 are kids born outside of the U.S. to citizens.
Since the Act never states that children of citzens that may be born inside the limits of the U.S. are Natural Born Citizens, that must mean that those kids are not. Well that would mean most of our presidents weren’t natural born citizens under this act. Good thing it was repealed and carries absolutely no weight.

It carried no weight BEFORE it was repealed. Super genius constitutional Scholar and Lawyer you are, should know that NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION.

It only provides a window into the mind of the founders. Congress cannot redefine Constitutional terms, even if they pass a statute that attempts it. (Such as the Naturalization act of 1790.)

Now congress COULD define the requirements for Naturalization through statute, but they CANNOT redefine “Natural born citizen” requirements. Those are fixed, and your buddy Obama can’t meet them if what is currently accepted about his birth is true.

At the moment, we have no proof that he even meets 14th amendment requirements for citizenship, so he might not even be an American citizen at all.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 11:04 AM

It’s very simple, Trump stands up and demands answers. You might not think much of the question, but its important to some and its not that hard to answer. So why not answer it? Mitt, on the other hand, is invisible on the political scene until he needs you. Once every four years Mitt jumps to the front of the parade and claims to be leading it. Trump exudes confidence and competence, Mitt exudes political self-interest. Mitt man up.

Fred 2 on April 14, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Exact language and capitalization in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen…”

“Natural born” modifies the noun Citizen. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “natural born” as “having a specified position or character by birth”. That dictionary indicates that this definition for “natural born” has existed since the 17th century. So natural born modifying citizen means having the character of citizenship by birth. Under the 14th Amendment, President Obama had the character of U.S. Citizenship by birth. Therefore he is a natural born Citizen.

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “natural born” in his 1776 constitution for Virgina commonwealth. He differentiated “natural born” from naturalized immigrant citzens. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson appears to have recognized only types/methods of obtaining citizenship: naturalization or being naturally born a citizen. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson’s early use of the phrase “natural born” is consistent with the modern usage of the term meaning: one who is a citizen from birth as opposed to a person who obtains their citizenship through naturalization.

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

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.

Therefore, James Madison, one of the principal writers of the constitution held that Birth is the criterion that determined citizenship, not parentage.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Great theory except for one thing. It DOES NOT achieve the stated objective of the founders.( To keep foreign influence out of the office of the Presidency. )
Since your theory contradicts the stated purpose, it must be discarded in favor of one that DOES NOT contradict the stated purpose.

Your misleading Madison quote is from a debate whether or not someone could be seated in the Virginia State Legislature. It was not a commentary on the Article II requirements. The requirements which Madison were alluding to were the Laws of Virginia, which allowed Jus Soli (Derived from English Law) to meet Citizenship requirements of the State of Virginia, and therefore to automatically be counted as an American when Virginia became part of the United States.

This aspect of non “Natural Born Citizens” being eligible is derived from THIS aspect of Article II.
(But you already know this. You are misleading on purpose because you are an Agent Provocateur.)

“…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Meet the requirements for Virginia Citizenship, and you Automatically meet the requirements for eligibility. Now if Only Obama was born in the 18th century, he would be eligible under THAT aspect of article II.

As he is not, he is NOT eligible.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 7:05 AM

No, you are misreading the passage again. Madison clearly says that both place of birth and parentage have an influence, although he prefers place. But place is not the only criterion.

Then you summarized Madison by saying,

“Therefore, James Madison, one of the principal writers of the constitution held that Birth is the criterion that determined citizenship, not parentage.”

This summary of yours does not make sense. Madison did not say birth is the only criterion, as you state. He said that birth is a criterion. In other words, it’s the first thing you look at. He clearly said birthplace and parentage are the criteria, and he prefers birthplace. And that’s from the excerpt you yourself provided!

But you wrote Birth, not birthplace. It’s laughable, especially the way you capitalized Birth in the 18th-century style, to leave the impression that Madison said what you claim he said, when only you said it. The quote from Madison capitalizes the word birth because it’s the first word of a sentence. Or maybe you meant to write birthplace, and messed up.

Emperor Norton on April 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Madison says that at the time of the Constitution some countries determined allegiance by birthplace and some by parentage. However, he determined that birthplace was the “most certain criterion”. He then goes on to state the birthplace allegiance is what applied in the U.S. Seems clear to me.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 7:05 AM

He did NOT say countries. He said “In General.” And you know what? In “General” he is right. MOST of the time being born in a certain place means you are are also born to people who are themselves citizens.

Sometimes you are not.

In the Case of Mr. Smith from South Carolina, his parents died before the Declaration of Independence, so they died loyal to the British crown. Madison argues that the man’s family was part of the community of South Carolina, and when that community voted along with the other states to separate itself from Britain, he remained a member of that community now independent.

Had Mr. Smith been born the son of a visitor from Spain, do you think Madison would have argued that he owes allegiance to the community of South Carolina?

Hardly.

You argue sophistry.

We argue reality.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM

To make the argument that Frank Davis is Obama’s father, you’ve got to explain how Obama has a brother in Kenya that looks just like him, and another brother in Canada (Mark?) that sounds exactly like him. Yeah, like that.

Allahs vulva on April 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I’ve seen pictures of his brother in Kenya. I see no resemblance whatsoever. Do you have a better picture perhaps?

In any case, i’m not asserting that he IS Frank Marshall Davis’s son. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t rule it out until we’ve got some evidence to disprove it.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

This summary of yours does not make sense. Madison did not say birth is the only criterion, as you state. He said that birth is a criterion. In other words, it’s the first thing you look at. He clearly said birthplace and parentage are the criteria, and he prefers birthplace. And that’s from the excerpt you yourself provided!

But you wrote Birth, not birthplace. It’s laughable, especially the way you capitalized Birth in the 18th-century style, to leave the impression that Madison said what you claim he said, when only you said it. The quote from Madison capitalizes the word birth because it’s the first word of a sentence. Or maybe you meant to write birthplace, and messed up.

Emperor Norton on April 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM

After re-reading it (I read this stuff almost a year ago, and forgot some of it.) I noticed that he said “In General…” and I got to thinking, “In General” he is right. Most of the time being born in a place means being born to Citizens, but not always.

Again, had Mr. Smith’s father been a temporary visitor from Spain, do you think Madison would have argued he was part of the community of South Carolina?

If you follow New_Jersey_Buckeye’s argument, if you are born in a stable you must be a horse.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM

You are misleading on purpose because you are an Agent Provocateur.)
DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM

DiogenesLamp, just because someone disagrees, points out the deficiencies in your logic, or notes factual errors/fallacies in your statements does not make them an “agent provacateur”. Disagreeing with you does not make me your enemy or out to sabotage you.

If you perceive that everyone that disagrees with you is an “agent provacateur” or out to “get you” it may be time to see a professional. Disagreeing with you, citing to actual laws/cases/statutes to backup my case, providing sources that contradict your allegations isn’t bad behavior. That is called arguing/debating.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

DiogenesLamp, just because someone disagrees, points out the deficiencies in your logic, or notes factual errors/fallacies in your statements does not make them an “agent provacateur”. Disagreeing with you does not make me your enemy or out to sabotage you.

If you perceive that everyone that disagrees with you is an “agent provacateur” or out to “get you” it may be time to see a professional. Disagreeing with you, citing to actual laws/cases/statutes to backup my case, providing sources that contradict your allegations isn’t bad behavior. That is called arguing/debating.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Let me then qualify it with the adjective “probable”. I have ran into too many people intentionally misrepresenting old documents to believe that it is an accident.

You fit the pattern I have seen before.

I note that Madison remarks on the Fact that Mr. Smith’s inherited lands lie in South Carolina. This is one of the supporting points of his argument.

Where do Obama’s inherited lands lie?

Well, they would lie in Kenya if he could only establish that he was Actually the son of Barack Obama sr. You would think a birth certificate would do this, but according to Obama’s own words, apparently not.

“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.” ”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/what_obama_has_said_about_his.html

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I’m a “birther.”

I’m also a “Selective Servicer.”

Akzed on April 14, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I’m a “birther.”

I’m also a “Selective Servicer.”

Akzed on April 14, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Well it looks like your conspiacy theories are consitently wrong. See all my comments above for why the birther conspiracy theory is wrong.

For the “selective servicer” issue, Pajams Media has already done the heavy lifting. Bob Owens of Pajams Media directly contacted the Selective Service System. Owens received this response confirming that President Obama registered for Selective service in 1980:

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Allahs vulva on April 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

How in the he!! did you get that name approved?

silvernana on April 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Well it looks like your conspiacy theories are consitently wrong. See all my comments above for why the birther conspiracy theory is wrong.

For the “selective servicer” issue, Pajams Media has already done the heavy lifting. Bob Owens of Pajams Media directly contacted the Selective Service System. Owens received this response confirming that President Obama registered for Selective service in 1980:

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Do you have a link for a story not written in 2008? Latest Selective service story is NOT that he didn’t have one, but that the one he has uses a Social Security number which has been traced to a man who died in 1981. (Jean Paul Ludwig.)

I am still waiting for some references on this story before I grant it any credibility, but that is the story going around.

Here’s a link if you want to look at it.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=70688

If this story pans out, as Ricky Ricardo would say: “Obamaaaa… you got some s’planin to do!”

Oh, and another link to explain how they figured out his social security number (which is redacted on his Selective Service application) from the available information on his Selective Service application.

http://theconservativetreehouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/another-look-at-obama%E2%80%99s-social-security-number-%C2%A9jack-cashill/

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I’d love to see one of 0bamessiah’s apologists attempt to impersonally, factually, and thoroughly rebut the SS# shenanigans associated with Him.

I’d also love to hear such a person’s explanation of Ms. 0bamessiah’s comment about His mother being “very young and very single when she had Him.” Was Ms. 0bamessiah drunk when she said that? Lying? Doing a comedy bit? Or is it simply that she ‘misspoke’? [LOL at the last one! :)]

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I’d love to see one of 0bamessiah’s apologists attempt to impersonally, factually, and thoroughly rebut the SS# shenanigans associated with Him.

I’d also love to hear such a person’s explanation of Ms. 0bamessiah’s comment about His mother being “very young and very single when she had Him.” Was Ms. 0bamessiah drunk when she said that? Lying? Doing a comedy bit? Or is it simply that she ‘misspoke’? [LOL at the last one! :)]

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2011 at 6:03 PM

If the social security thing turns out to be true, that’s MIGHT become a serious problem for Obama and the Democrats. Of course nowadays, with people unconcerned about all sorts of breaches of law, maybe nothing at all will happen. It’s a weird time we are living in.

I’m beginning to think Obama could shoot someone on prime time television and most of the people would say “Did you hear something?”

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 6:21 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM

The story seems to be a false lead. You were wise to not believe it.

The story asserts that President Obama’s social security number is 042-68-4425. Story then asserts that Jean Paul Ludwig has this same social security number.

However a quick search of the Social Security Death Index indicates taht the Juan Paul Ludwig described (Born in 1890 died in HI in 1980) had a social security number of 045-26-8722. Link to Social Security Death Index Records search page.

Therefore, while Ludwig’s SS Number is close to Obama’s supposed number, it is not the same number.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Correction: Jean Paul Ludwig not Juan Paul Ludwig. The social secuirty index search I did was for the right name. I just spelled it wrong in the comment. Jean Paul Ludwig’s SS Number is still 045-26-8722.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 6:45 PM

The story seems to be a false lead. You were wise to not believe it.

The story asserts that President Obama’s social security number is 042-68-4425. Story then asserts that Jean Paul Ludwig has this same social security number.

However a quick search of the Social Security Death Index indicates taht the Juan Paul Ludwig described (Born in 1890 died in HI in 1980) had a social security number of 045-26-8722. Link to Social Security Death Index Records search page.

Therefore, while Ludwig’s SS Number is close to Obama’s supposed number, it is not the same number.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM

That is exactly why I have given it very little credibility. However, the people at the root of this story are alleging that Jean Paul Ludwig has TWO Social Security numbers, and is listed as having died in both California AND Hawaii.

Orly Taitz (whom I do not take very seriously) has filed a suit in the 9th circuit regarding this issue.

For extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof is required. At the moment I put this story in the “Junk” category, but if some of the more hard to believe details get confirmed, then I will reevaluate it. Till then JUNK.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Correction: Jean Paul Ludwig not Juan Paul Ludwig. The social secuirty index search I did was for the right name. I just spelled it wrong in the comment. Jean Paul Ludwig’s SS Number is still 045-26-8722.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 14, 2011 at 6:45 PM

I believe you on this. This has been confirmed by numerous people. The allegation that Jean Paul Ludwig has TWO social security numbers is unlikely, but if it turns out to be true, and one of the numbers is that 042-68-4424 number, then the story might actually get interesting.

In any case, that’s what the investigators have said, but it is more likely they made a mistake or got wrong information.

DiogenesLamp on April 14, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Obama/Romney 2012 (sarc)

Mr. Grump on April 15, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Here’s the final nail in the coffin for Trump, and why we should all (birthers included!) run from Trump: NY1 Exclusive: Donald Trump Slams “Evil” Bush, Praises Obama

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/88778/-i-ny1-exclusive—i–donald-trump-slams–evil–bush–praises-obama/

Trump, you’re fired.

Also, as Mark Levin recently reminded us: “He (Trump) was happy to donate to Schumer, Weiner, & Emanuel campaigns last year. He was pro-choice recently and now claims to be pro-life. He sounds more & more like Ross Perot. If he runs as an Independent, Obama wins.”

dave_ross on April 15, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Trump is doing good work on the eligibility issue. Let’s settle that once and for all.

Trump is a New Yorker, and of course he knows that he’s supposed to grease the palms of a few New York and Chicago politicians with a few thousand bucks, because someday he may need a real estate-related favor from one of them. To Trump, a few thousand bucks–the legal limit for individuals–is just subway fare (not that he still uses it).

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Romney “believes” and that is all he can say because he doesn`t know. Just as Trump states clearly he does not know because no proper birth certificate is forthcoming.

Romney wants that independent vote so he attacks Trump on this issue. That is the whole of it.

Trump could get the independent vote because from their point of view he is not staid. From any point of view his stand is not staid for that matter.

I find myself agreeing with just about everything he says at this point and I make no secret of it.

Sorry we got so many independents meaning another set of the uninformed dummies, tho.

Sherman1864 on April 15, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5