Jan Brewer: Birtherism is leading America “down a path of destruction”

posted at 10:04 pm on April 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

A squeeze of rhetorical lemon juice in the wound she inflicted on Birthers with last week’s veto. The more aggressive she is on this issue, the more intrigued I am. It’s one thing to take the Romney/Pawlenty line and say that she believes Obama was born in Hawaii, but “path to destruction” is strong medicine even by the standards of adamant anti-Birthers. When I asked last week for theories as to why she would have vetoed the bill, a few people e-mailed to say she was being sly and counting on it to pass anyway via veto-proof majority. That seems unlikely now; opposition that weak wouldn’t have produced condemnation this strong.

I don’t want to build anticipation too much but what you’re about to see might be the first clip featuring a Republican to generate an Obama-esque leg thrill in Chris Matthews. Exit question: Last year she signed the immigration bill, and now this. Where exactly does that leave her on the left’s spectrum of GOP “racism”?


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 4

No place does it say that Stan had to be over 21 to crown lord obama with “citizenship” and a father who is an alien be it Kenya or Rigel-7 doesn’t matter

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM

If little Bammie’s undocumented status becomes accepted, might that give the Black vote ‘a way out’, a way to justify dropping their support for him, to themselves?

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM

I don’t see why that would make a difference to blacks.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM

It wasn’t changed to accomodate Obama, please stop

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Be sure to buy Jerome Corsi’s great new book in which he reveals that Darth Vader is Obama’s father and Sarah Palin is actually his sister.

Hehehe.

Allahpundit on April 25, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Hehehe. It’s so funny being dismissive of the Constitution.

I couldn’t have said it better than “ropelight” posting at Patterico yesterday, so here it is:

The most cynical and underhanded attempts to prevent reasonable people from inquiring into Obama’s eligibility is labeling Americans who believe they deserve to know whether Barack Hussein Obama meets the eligibility requirements listed in Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution as “birthers.”

That’s simply an ugly example of mud slinging and name calling in one of it’s more pernicious forms. It’s an attempt to brand people as nutty, obsessed with taboo interests, as somehow outside the bounds of reasonable inquiry. It’s the dirty work of charlatans and guttersnipes.

Asking rational questions about Obama’s eligibility is intentionally conflated with asking obviously silly questions, clearly beyond the realm of reason, to silence anyone bold enough to point out the emperor is naked.

Legitimate unanswered questions about a great many of the events surrounding Obama’s background and overall eligibility persist. They remain not only unanswered, but the manner in which those in the Obama Administration and his sycophants and enablers have refused to respond to legitimate inquires reveals a corrupt pattern of stonewalling and deception.

That same pattern is evident not only in MSM reporting, but also on FOX NEWS and among Conservative media figures who refuse to report on the issue. They too distort, misdirect, or ignore the eligibility issue altogether.

L.N. Smithee on April 25, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Nonsense.

Opinionator on April 25, 2011 at 11:21 PM

What is nonsense is your’e willing to use the same arguments that failed the in 2008 and expect them to work in 2012.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:25 PM

What happens if the birthers are righT? civ*l war? consitutional crisis. All laws passed and budgets signed by Obama become null and void. Does biden take over or McCain/Palin?

yes birtherism if true will lead to the destruction of america has we know it. It will cause riots, and the destruction of the Union. but at this point I don’t really care. I want the truth. And if the truth causes this reaction so be it. the truth shall set us free.

it hink Brewer is wrong she has choosen peace in our time instead of a requirement for the truth and I’m not nor have I ever been a birther.

I know enough about Obama to know is the “other” regardless of his birth origin. he could have nnen born to a jackas* and a tthis point I would not be surprised.

unseen on April 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Please stop missing the point. Read the terms and conditions stated within the Constitution -for the Office of President.

OldEnglish on April 25, 2011 at 11:27 PM

unseen on April 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Testify Brother!

Rebar on April 25, 2011 at 11:29 PM

FWIW We know that Soros was/is funding the Secretary of State project. How much of a stretch is it to be concerned with giving an SoS that much power? Was the Brewer’s objection to signing the bill… in addition to how poorly crafted it was?

onlineanalyst on April 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM

unseen on April 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM

If it was true, he would be removed probably by his own Secret Service personnel and he’d be transported to a cell somewhere to await trial and sentencing. He’d spill on anyone else who knew as well. It would be a mess and an embarrasment, but there would be no blood in the streets.

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I am not missing the point, you are seeing a point that is not there. This child of two American parents jazz in the senate was just the “definition” used to say, “of course McCain is natural born” as he was born elsewhere. If Obama was born here, his father could be ET or Darth Vader

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:34 PM

might be the first clip featuring a Republican to generate an Obama-esque leg thrill in Chris Matthews.

Matthews loves the birthers. Can’t hardly blame him. He’s not getting a leg thrill from any Republicans trying to ruin his fun.

Go RBNY on April 25, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Please stop missing the point. Read the terms and conditions stated within the Constitution -for the Office of President.

OldEnglish on April 25, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I wonder if you’re missing the point. Define natural born citizen would you please?

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Jan, Jan, Jan, getting back to the Constitution means getting back to ALL of it, even the Natural Born Citizen clause. Now I am not the smartest, but even I can fathom that the extended description for President must bear some higher form of “citizenship” than what is required for Senator? Now what could that be and surely if they specified it they expected someone to get off their collective asses and check, just like they did that white guy…

rgranger on April 25, 2011 at 11:37 PM

No place does it say that Stan had to be over 21 to crown lord obama with “citizenship” and a father who is an alien be it Kenya or Rigel-7 doesn’t matter

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM

You are either woefully ignorant regarding the law or intentionally spreading misinformation. Neither is attractive.

What is nonsense is your’e willing to use the same arguments that failed the in 2008 and expect them to work in 2012.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Yes, because the scrutiny which occurred in ’08 resulted in our examination of all his missing/hidden documents, right? Which of the two hospitals he claimed to be born in is the truth? How many in the general population are aware even at this late date that he has produced zilch, zero, nothing related to his past? Doesn’t that concern you a teeny tiny bit?

Do you care whether our Constitution is enforced or is it antiquated in your view? You did point out other Constitutional travesties he’s responsible for in another comment. Doesn’t his ability to continue in that vein if he is, in fact, ineligible concern you?

Opinionator on April 25, 2011 at 11:38 PM

So Gov. Brewer got up on the stupid side of the bed this morning. “If somebody is trying to kill you, it’s okay to try and kill them right back.” Sheesh, you ALWAYS kick your enemy when he is down. Why? Because it’s EASIER then, any self-respecting Irishman can tell you that.

bigmike on April 25, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Jan, Jan, Jan. As if your excuse for vetoing that bill wasn’t lame enough, you come out with this hysterical nonsense?

You have lost my vote. I voted for you despite your bull manure sales tax increase, and because the thought of Goddard as governor was so repugnant, but this is the last straw. You are not smart enough to govern my state.

JannyMae on April 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM

She would have had to be of a certain age if he was born outside the US…it’s you “birthers” who are torturing the Constitution to justify delusional conspiracies. If Obama was born in Hawaii, Stan could have been 13, Barack would still be a citizen.

And all this twisty “unattractive” birtherism is going no place. Earlier I said, I did not believe that the controversy would work in Obama’s favor, but maybe I am wrong. This grassy knoll stuff is bat-excrement crazy

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM

unseen on April 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM

OT: I think Hell is about to freeze over because I’m starting to lean toward-in my totally non celebrity worshiping way…wait for it…Palin.
I can’t believe I just type that.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Yes, those are the rules for citizenship, but not for natural-born citizenship. When the Founders used that phrase, it was understood by everyone to mean “born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 25, 2011 at 11:44 PM

If he was born abroad some Hawaiian Hillary-ite would have divulged it. It’s all crap!

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:44 PM

canopfor on April 25, 2011 at 10:43 PM

That makes me want to go to Skateland!

Laura in Maryland on April 25, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Aslans Girl on April 25, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Rubbish.

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:45 PM

onlineanalyst on April 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM

If that was her reasoning, she wouldn’t be out today denouncing “birtherism” itself. Her statements to day take away any “benefit of the doubt”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 25, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I think Brewer got a note from Janet “Jack” Napolitano telling her to knock it off, or she was gonna get “witch-slapped.”

predator on April 25, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Next week Jan will be calling for comprehensive immigration reform………….

it is all about the narrative isn’t it, all hail

dmann on April 25, 2011 at 11:48 PM

This is what Republicans need to start doing when asked this birther question:

they need to say they believe the President was born in USA. When the MSM counters with, “but _% of Republicans don’t believe the President was born here”. The response needs to be to ask the interviewer if they are aware of any leader in the GOP that has made a statement that the President wasn’t born here (of course Trump will be mentioned, to which they can reply Trump is being Trump or that Trump isn’t a leader in the GOP as they are not aware of any leader in the GOP who gave money to Democrats like Rahm Emanuel..or something to that effect). Then they need to go through the laudry list of republican leaders and ask the interviewer, individually, if any of the following has said they don’t believe the President was born here: Boehner, McConnell, McCain, the new RNC guy, Barbour, Pawlenty, Christie, Rubio, etc. The answer is no, so they need to point out that it isn’t the GOP that is talking about or obsessing over the President’s birth certificate, it is the media and that is probably where the public is getting this from. Then they need to talk about how 51% of Democrats believed Bush was involved in 9/11, but the media concluded that was a bunch of nonsense and so therefore never asked any Dems if they believe Bush was involved in 9/11. But since the MSM keeps obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate, the public has concluded where there’s smoke there must be fire. So the public isn’t getting that the President wasn’t born here from any Republicans, so they must be getting it from the MSM.

Of course, I know why the MSM keeps grilling every Republican about this, but the Repubs need to get smarter in how they answer these gotcha, guilt by association questions and turn it back on the MSM.

This is a better response than, “you never asked Democrats about 9/11 nonsense, blah, blah, blah”. Turn it around on them and hang the albatross around their neck.

But of course no Republican will do this because this would require them to go on the offensive and they seem to only know how to play defense.

ramrants on April 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Tell it to John Jay and every other contempory of the Framers.

Don’t you think it odd that the Framers used the phrase “natural-born citizen” for the office of POTUS if all they meant was “citizen”? Duh.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

If the Clintons were so smart, why did she keep telling the “landing under sniper fire story”. The Clintons were not that smart, they just had a good spin machine and a media who would support them.

bigmike on April 25, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Yes, because the scrutiny which occurred in ’08 resulted in our examination of all his missing/hidden documents, right? Which of the two hospitals he claimed to be born in is the truth? How many in the general population are aware even at this late date that he has produced zilch, zero, nothing related to his past? Doesn’t that concern you a teeny tiny bit?

Do you care whether our Constitution is enforced or is it antiquated in your view? You did point out other Constitutional travesties he’s responsible for in another comment. Doesn’t his ability to continue in that vein if he is, in fact, ineligible concern you?

Opinionator on April 25, 2011 at 11:38 PM

All of this was hashed out in 08 and he won anyway. There is no new bombshells since then. What makes you think that now all of a sudden in 2012 things will be different? Seriously, what is the definition of insanity here? You keep insinuating that I don’t care about the constitution because I’m not buying off on this birther crap as a sure fire way to make Barry a one-term president. That’s ridiculous. He’s dissed the constitution on so many things throughout his term that would guarantee his defeat, why bother with the birther business that didn’t work? Stick with the sure fire weapons. You don’t need to birther stuff to get rid of him.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:52 PM

He sure has the sensibilities of a Martian.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 11:55 PM

If he was born abroad some Hawaiian Hillary-ite would have divulged it. It’s all crap!

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:44 PM

I doubt very much that he is a transsexual. Alternately, he may have been born with ambibuous genitals as sometimes happens. That may mean he is one of those three or four letter gene types, or not.

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2011 at 11:56 PM

ramrants on April 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Exactly. Or, they could simply say, “Why don’t you ask Obama? Why do you only ask Republicans our thoughts on these matters? And while you’re at it, ask him why he sealed All of his records his first day in office. Ask him why he sealed every single record related to his past. Ask him who he is and what exactly he’s trying to hide. Do your jobs for a change.”

Opinionator on April 25, 2011 at 11:57 PM

ramrants on April 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

I wouldn’t even do all that. As soon as a member of the MSM asked a Republican about Barry’s birth status, I would counter by asking the reporter how many Democrats they asked about whether 9/11 was an inside job.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM

All of this was hashed out in 08 and he won anyway.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:52 PM

No it was not, and you know it was not! Otherwise, you’d be able to tell me which hospital he claimed to be born in is fact. You’d be able to tell me – too many things to list in one post.

None of it has been hashed out as of this moment. NONE. /Unless you have answers no one else has at this point.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Governor Brewer is right.

This birther nonsense is a road to nowhere. The time for everyone to have gone “all in” was before Obama was sworn in. It REALLY should have been an issue during the election.

It’s funny, Allah and Ed berated anyone who dared mention it, but now that it’s ratings gold ….

The Supreme Court turned down 4 chances to look at legitimate cases surrounding Obama’s eligibility, based on his father’s British citizenship, a REAL problem.

The Court punted.

At this point the birther talk is doing nothing but creating a big diversion from real issues, and giving Obama a LOT of cover on fiscal and national security issues.

How many know the Obama regime blocked drilling in Alaska today? 27 billion barrels of oil. Shell just lost $4 billion that it already had invested.

This is insanity.

The sooner Chump is gone and serious people regain control of the conversation the better.

gary4205 on April 26, 2011 at 12:04 AM

If it was true, he would be removed probably by his own Secret Service personnel and he’d be transported to a cell somewhere to await trial and sentencing. He’d spill on anyone else who knew as well. It would be a mess and an embarrasment, but there would be no blood in the streets.

clnurnberg on April 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM

that is wishful thinking. The country is divided 50/50. the libs will not believe it they will call it a coup. Other nations will become involved. the ramifications of such an event would make the world tremble.

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Yes, those are the rules for citizenship, but not for natural-born citizenship. When the Founders used that phrase, it was understood by everyone to mean “born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens”.

Aslans Girl on April 25, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Birthers keep claiming this, but conveniently cannot provide any evidence for their claim? Why no evidence? Because their definition has absolutely no basis in U.S. law, history, or custom.

AngusMc on April 26, 2011 at 12:07 AM

OT: I think Hell is about to freeze over because I’m starting to lean toward-in my totally non celebrity worshiping way…wait for it…Palin.
I can’t believe I just type that.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM

come on over the water is fine. I truely believe the more people open their eyes and see the real Palin the more her support will grow. Most of the negatives against her are false memes.

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Personally, I am more interested in his academic record than his birth certificate. I *know* he was born, but how well did he do in school?

crosspatch on April 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM

AngusMc on April 26, 2011 at 12:07 AM

You lie! It’s all been trotted out right here at HA too many times to count. Go do your own damn research.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM

I don’t care if he was Reagan and Palin’s love child:

three wars
trillions in debt
$4/gallon gas
food prices going up
9% unemployment
TSA screeners gone wild
horrific border “security”
class warfare

THOSE are what we need to focus on (and I think it is just arrogance and maybe a technicality that keeps him from presenting his birth certificate)

Laura in Maryland on April 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM

I don’t care if he was Reagan and Palin’s love child:

three wars
trillions in debt
$4/gallon gas
food prices going up
9% unemployment
TSA screeners gone wild
horrific border “security”
class warfare

THOSE are what we need to focus on (and I think it is just arrogance and maybe a technicality that keeps him from presenting his birth certificate)

Laura in Maryland on April 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Brewer may well believe what she is saying, however to me it seems more like a transparent attempt to rehabilitate her image. She is undoubtedly surrounded by people whispering in her ear that she could maybe, just possibly, win the big game someday soon….like 2016, maybe?

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM

And ignoring the Constitution and putting those who follow is a certain path to POTUS… hey, it worked for O!
///

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Aslans Girl on April 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM

She’s pandering now. That’s never, ever good, especially at this early point in the game.

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Aslans Girl on April 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Let me try that again:

And ignoring the Constitution and putting down those who follow it is a certain path to POTUS… hey, it worked for O!
///

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 26, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Aslans Girl on April 26, 2011 at 12:19 AM

I knew what you meant!

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:21 AM

jan brewer gives me the creeps. not all that different than the way pelosi does… can’t put my finger on it.
*shivers*

maineconservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM

So, she’s planning on becoming a Dem? Cuz that ain’t gonna fly with the base here.

predator on April 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:02 AM

My dear, just because you were not paying attention in 08 doesn’t mean it wasn’t hashed out then. This was being hashed out the same time they were trying to claim that McCain didn’t qualify for the presidency because he was born in Panama. I learned about this whole birther crap from the PUMA folks during the election (remember them?) They were talking about this stuff on all their blog sites.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM

I think perhaps Brewer has decided that she doesn’t want Arizona to lead on this issue. They led on states’ ability to handle illegal aliens in lieu of an absent federal government, and still do. That leadership cost the state, as you would expect. This time around she decided to let someone else take the lead.

That I believe is her thinking, but it doesn’t explain this one particularly clumsy quote.

Re further office, not a chance. She’s 66, and the years are harder on women in politics.

slickwillie2001 on April 26, 2011 at 12:26 AM

I don’t care if he was Reagan and Palin’s love child:

three wars
trillions in debt
$4/gallon gas
food prices going up
9% unemployment
TSA screeners gone wild
horrific border “security”
class warfare

THOSE are what we need to focus on (and I think it is just arrogance and maybe a technicality that keeps him from presenting his birth certificate)

Laura in Maryland on April 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Ditto x Infinity.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 12:28 AM

They were talking about this stuff on all their blog sites.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM

BS.

They were screaming at the so-called ‘birthers’ about how evil and hateful they were and how they were going to destroy the GOP if they didn’t shut up. They covered it only to attack it and several sites actively banned anyone who brought it up.

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM

My dear, just because you were not paying attention in 08

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:23 AM

I stopped reading right there, ‘Dear’. You know nothing. Clearly. And that you would continue to use the phrase ‘birther crap’ in post after post speaks additional volumes.

You could give a rat’s ass about the truth or enforcing the Constitution.

Which hospital that he claimed to be born in is the truth again?

/Bah

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM

but “path to destruction” is strong medicine even by the standards of adamant anti-Birthers.

-ALLAHPUNDIT

You got this completely backward. The only way for this to be a path of destruction is to be a birther. That is the only path in this issue, that if true, would lead to destruction. I think this proves that Brewer may be the biggest birther of them all.

DFCtomm on April 26, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I wouldn’t even do all that. As soon as a member of the MSM asked a Republican about Barry’s birth status, I would counter by asking the reporter how many Democrats they asked about whether 9/11 was an inside job.

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM

No, that’s being defensive. They need to go on the offense. they need to put the ball back in the MSM’s court and act like they don’t really know why they are getting all the birther questions. They need to make a sound argument for why people would believe the President was not born here, since no Republican is talking about it the public can only be getting it from the people who are obsessing over it – the MSM.

Make the MSM defend their obsession.

ramrants on April 26, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I wonder if you’re missing the point. Define natural born citizen would you please?

mizflame98 on April 25, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Sorry for late reply.

Born to parents who, themselves, are US citizens. Obama’s father does not comply.

OldEnglish on April 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM

So, she’s planning on becoming a Dem? Cuz that ain’t gonna fly with the base here.

predator on April 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM

LOL Worse than that. I think she is showing the early stages of the disorder that leads Republicans to believe that if they just accomodate and pander hard enough,by golly, they can win over the MSM and the Independents while still holding onto the base. I’m sure you’ve seen it a hundred times before. Sadly, it is incurable; the hyperbole here is the most telling symptom…

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:35 AM

LOL Worse than that. I think she is showing the early stages of the disorder that leads Republicans to believe that if they just accomodate and pander hard enough,by golly, they can win over the MSM and the Independents while still holding onto the base. I’m sure you’ve seen it a hundred times before. Sadly, it is incurable; the hyperbole here is the most telling symptom…

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Ah yes, McCain Syndrome. I’ve heard of that affliction.

predator on April 26, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Ah yes, McCain Syndrome. I’ve heard of that affliction.

predator on April 26, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Exactly–so as you know, in that case it was terminal.

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:43 AM

but “path to destruction” is strong medicine even by the standards of adamant anti-Birthers.

-ALLAHPUNDIT

You got this completely backward. The only way for this to be a path of destruction is to be a birther. That is the only path in this issue, that if true, would lead to destruction. I think this proves that Brewer may be the biggest birther of them all.

DFCtomm on April 26, 2011 at 12:31 AM

That didn’t come out right, so let me try this again. The only path to destruction is if he is disqualified for some reason. That’s why the GOP is acting like they just saw a turd in the punchbowl. They’re afraid it might be true.

DFCtomm on April 26, 2011 at 12:43 AM

BS.

They were screaming at the so-called ‘birthers’ about how evil and hateful they were and how they were going to destroy the GOP if they didn’t shut up. They covered it only to attack it and several sites actively banned anyone who brought it up.

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM

AHEM…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2082242/posts
.
http://logisticsmonster.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/puma-politics-kenyan-obama/
.
http://europumas.over-blog.com/article-25535343.html
.
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/25/question-why-didnt-obama-just-create-a-fake-birth-certificate-and-release-that-a-long-time-ago/
.
http://hillarysmygirl08.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-admits-to-having-duel-citizenship.html
Shall I continue?

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Sorry for late reply.

Born to parents who, themselves, are US citizens. Obama’s father does not comply.

OldEnglish on April 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Bobby Jindal’s parents had green-cards when he was born in Baton Rouge.
Bobby Jindal is my absolute favorite future presidential candidate.
HE was born here-therefore he is qualified to run for president. THAT is what matters.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Sorry for late reply.

Born to parents who, themselves, are US citizens. Obama’s father does not comply.

OldEnglish on April 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Are you sure, because the Indiana Court of Appeals applied the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark to state that Barry is a natural born citizen. Unless there is a definitive definition for a natural born citizen, there will be arguments like this.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Sadly, it is incurable; the hyperbole here is the most telling symptom…
cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Well stated and an unfortunate truth. Politicians are bound to disappoint and, in the ubiquitous liberal cesspool, swerves to the right are anomalies.

Also, it’s possible, even probable, that the ruling class was complicit from the outset. If nothing else, it was their weakness that permitted this. Those who revel in fashionable disdain of “conspiracy theories” also like to overlook the expense and mendacity of the cover-up.

Feedie on April 26, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Exactly–so as you know, in that case it was terminal.

cynccook on April 26, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Sure is. And Jan better be figuring that out real quick.

predator on April 26, 2011 at 1:01 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 12:50 AM

It will be interesting how that would play out, if he runs. According to your info, he’s not a natural-born citizen.

OldEnglish on April 26, 2011 at 1:02 AM

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Didn’t the court not define natural born? If I remember correctly, it confused the two terms, and really pointed out that if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a US citizen – which is not the point.

OldEnglish on April 26, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Bobby Jindal’s parents had green-cards when he was born in Baton Rouge.

Then, by definition, Jindal would not be a “natural born citizen”. Just because he is your favorite potential presidential candidate doesn’t mean he may meet the Constitutional requirement for President.

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Didn’t the court not define natural born? If I remember correctly, it confused the two terms, and really pointed out that if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a US citizen – which is not the point.

“the court”??? Which court? If by “the court” you mean the Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has never had to rule on this issue as it has never been challenged. Because up until now every President since the Constitution was ratified was a US Citizen having been born of TWO parents who were also born in this country and were US Citizens. (save Barry and Grover Cleveland)

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Asking people to prove they meet the requirements written into a law for the office they are running for, is the “path to destruction?” All Obama has to do is provide an easily obtained document to obey the law and the problem is gone forever. Is it also the “path to destruction” that I have to prove my identity to cash a check at a bank?

In my mind using the phrase “the path to destruction” sounds like she really thinks Obama can’t prove where he was born. It’s not a path to destruction if he can just say “oh, here.” But it is if he can’t. In that case, yes, it really is a path to destruction. Which laws are valid? Is he Impeached? What happens if Impeachment fails in the Sneate? After all, the Democrats control the Senate.

So this response is a problem on many levels.

Fred 2 on April 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Are you sure, because the Indiana Court of Appeals applied the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark to state that Barry is a natural born citizen

US v Ark was a ruling on citizenship as defined in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:14 AM

You lie! It’s all been trotted out right here at HA too many times to count. Go do your own damn research.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM

I’ve done my research. Birthers haven’t. They can’t point to anything that limits natural born citizenship only to children born in the U.S. to two parents who are also citizens. Unless citing each other’s birther blogs counts.

AngusMc on April 26, 2011 at 1:21 AM

BS.

They were screaming at the so-called ‘birthers’ about how evil and hateful they were and how they were going to destroy the GOP if they didn’t shut up. They covered it only to attack it and several sites actively banned anyone who brought it up.

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Au Contraire:
Blog 1
Blog 2
Blog 3
Blog 4
Blog 5
The Pumas are trying to cover their tracks, but I remember some of the sites a PUMA sites and with blog 5 if you follow the link you can see where they erased the page. I know all about them because I spent 2008 following the PUMA folks from their inception. At first I thought they were hilarious and might even be a great asset to McCain & Palin. Boy, was I wrong. I never dreamed they would sucker a bunch of Republicans with this birther mess. The PUMA party are Hillary supporters and they are the root of this birther stuff. Most of them faded away and got rid of their PUMA logos. Even Hillbuzz changed their page design and now call themselves conservative. I remember back when they had a picture of Hillary on the top of their page looking like she was celebrating a victory. They can try to hide their roots all they want but you can’t argue that they weren’t the source of this mess.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Which hospital that he claimed to be born in is the truth again?

/Bah

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM

You tell me. You’re the birther.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Birthers keep claiming this, but conveniently cannot provide any evidence for their claim? Why no evidence? Because their definition has absolutely no basis in U.S. law, history, or custom.

AngusMc on April 26, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Look, I understand how difficult it must be to go through life having had a public school education on American History, thus making it difficult to figure out how to do your own research, but try to pay attention.

During the Constitutional Convention Alexander Hamilton proposed that to qualify to be President one had to “now be a citizen”, or “hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”

Before that was potentially adopted, John Jay wrote a letter to Washington suggesting that there be a stronger requirement, particularly for the CiC. He suggest it be required that to hold the office one had to be a “natural born citizen”. Now what do you suppose he meant by that? He obviously felt there was a difference between what he was proposing and what Hamilton was proposing. Of course there was. Jay based his definition his study of “The Law of Nations” (look it up). In there, Vattel (the author), in section 212 describing “citizens and natives” he wrote:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ”

I realize that might be a lot of information to digest. Hopefully if you read it multiple times, and possibly augment it with your own research (have somebody at your public library help you), it might eventually make sense.

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:28 AM

US v Ark was a ruling on citizenship as defined in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:14 AM

I’m just telling you what the Indiana court of appeals did.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:30 AM

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 12:58 AM

In response to this report is a veritable dissertation on the ruling, which was based on an application of the 14th Amendment, here:

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

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

[INSERT from factcheck.org]

QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

ANSWER: It’s not possible.

Such a person is born with divided allegiance. Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Which hospital that he claimed to be born in is the truth again?

/Bah

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM

You tell me. You’re the birther.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Hilarious!!! LOLOL

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Let’s say he was born in Kenya. How does it not make him a natural born citizen by his mother?

What’s to stop the Supreme Court from declaring that the phrase natural-born is actually applicable to all people who become American citizens, because in god’s plan they were meant to be Americans?

What is accomplished by claiming he’s not a legitimate President? To me it seems like a distraction from the major issues.

There is a discussion he doesn’t want to have, with Paul Ryan. There is another discussion he wants us to have, so we don’t focus on the ISSUES.

He’s a terrible President, who knows he can’t get re-elected in an election about the issues, he knows he can get a second term if the main argument against him is he wasn’t born here, which might not even exclude him from citizenship.

I wonder why a crazed dictator like Qadaffi or Mugabe hasn’t found in their archives some document claiming the birth of a traveling American Woman and Muslim Man, just for the awkwardness it would present.

amazingmets on April 26, 2011 at 1:39 AM

I’m just telling you what the Indiana court of appeals did.

Well, the Ark ruling lends even more credence to recognizing the founders intent and recognized common law when the opinion states:

“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

‘The Law of Nations’ was a key document in establishing English common law

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:39 AM

BS.

They were screaming at the so-called ‘birthers’ about how evil and hateful they were and how they were going to destroy the GOP if they didn’t shut up. They covered it only to attack it and several sites actively banned anyone who brought it up.

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Honey, the Pumas were the first birthers. Look it up. They tried to hide their tracks but you can still find some Puma archives on the web from 2008 talking about Barry’s dual citizenship and his birth certificate. Heck, Puma pac even had a class action lawsuit to force the DNC and Barry to show his birth certificate. Hillbuzz use to be another Puma site but now they call themselves a conservative site and they even changed their banner. It use to have Hillary on the top; hence the name Hillbuzz. Hard to be taken seriously as a conservative site if she’s staring at you all the time.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Another hero goes by the wayside….It is like the old saying….People will always let you down….Only God is steadfast….

theaddora on April 26, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Hilarious!!! LOLOL

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Yes you are.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Granted this isn’t the way she’s using it, but birtherism is the path to destruction because, w/o definitive, game changing proof this is a completely meaningless issue that makes our chances to effect actual policy much smaller.

I don’t think being a birther makes you crazy, a racist, stupid, or anything like that. The furthest I’d go is that they’re overly anxious to accept the validity of convenient conclusions. So is everyone else, not a big deal. The problem is, like it or not, most Americans think birthers are crazy and unless some major game changing evidence comes to light that’s not going to change. So why can’t birthers just accept that standard and shut up about it until that day comes where Donald Trump reveals the video of Obama’s mom giving birth to Obama in Kenya? At the very least can’t we agree that entitlement reform is more important than making sure people know you really really don’t think Obama was born in America?

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Let’s say he was born in Kenya. How does it not make him a natural born citizen by his mother?

Because the common law definition of “natural born citizen” as the founders understood it, was based on language in the Law of Nations, which states BOTH parents had to be citizens.
Barry being born in Kenya would disqualify him.

What’s to stop the Supreme Court from declaring that the phrase natural-born is actually applicable to all people who become American citizens, because in god’s plan they were meant to be Americans?

Nothing, really. SCOTUS has a long history of making up new laws out of whole cloth.

What is accomplished by claiming he’s not a legitimate President? To me it seems like a distraction from the major issues.

Yeah. What the hell? Let’s just move on. In the long run, how important is that Constitution thing, anyway?

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Apparently being a birther is not a new phenomenon.

Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[39][40] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur’s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[41] Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[42] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[43] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth,[44] his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he was a British subject at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis.[45] Arthur’s natural-born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM

If you can’t prove it, then why not move on? If it can be definitively proven he was born outside the United States, that’s a horse of a completely different color. Without it, painting moving on as ignoring the constitution is a stretch.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 1:50 AM

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Eh, he shouldn’t have been President anyway. Stupid nautical bureaucrat.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Honey, the Pumas were the first birthers. Look it up.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:41 AM

That has nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that it was hashed out in 2008.

In regards to it being questioned by those running against Obama in the primaries why is that a surprise? The primaries come before the general so obviously the question would arise first during the Democratic primary.

When did you imagine the question would come up if not then?

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 1:51 AM

If you can’t prove it, then why not move on? If it can be definitively proven he was born outside the United States, that’s a horse of a completely different color. Without it, painting moving on as ignoring the constitution is a stretch.

Can’t prove what? It can easily be proven Barry’s alleged father was NOT a citizen of the United States, thus disqualifying Barry as a “natural born citizen” as defined by the common law definition the founders more than likely used. So, even if it’s “proven” he was born in Hawai’i (hell, pick a state…I’ll concede he was born this), he can’t get beyond the fact his alleged father was not a US Citizen.

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Ah, I see, I must be late for the party. So natural born citizen requires both parents to be citizens? Never heard that one before.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Yeah. What the hell? Let’s just move on. In the long run, how important is that Constitution thing, anyway?

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Love how you all break out the constitution when trapped in the same corner. No one is saying to ignore the constitution so enough of that silliness. All we’re saying is Barry has been steadily giving us a sure fire way to get rid of him. Why continue to bring up a topic where there is no new evidence and would have the potential of making any GOP look like a whack-a-doodle racist? We can hash out the constitution angle on his eligibility once he’s gone since we won’t have to worry about the eligibility of the GOP candidate. They will definitely be a natural born citizen because that will be the one time the MSM will do their job.
The new GOP president will be in office and you will have a better chance to gain access to Barry’s records. You all really need to learn when to fight the battle and how to fight the battle instead of swinging the sword aimlessly and racking up casualties on your own side.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:59 AM

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:42 AM

And with that, I ask you for the 5th time: of the two hospitals Zero claims to be born in, which is the truth?

You’re the one who claims we have no need for truth. Or adherence to the law. Or to Constitutional eligibility requirements.

While we’re at it, can you tell me any of the following (since Zero’s been so unquestioningly transparent and all)?

1. Fact: Stanley had Zero at age 18. Did she confer American citizenship based on her time in HA and travels before then under Hawaiian law?
2. Fact: She was 17 when she became impregnated. Was Barack senior guilty of statutory rape?
3. Fact: Barack senior was already married in Kenya before he married Stanley. Would his bigamy invalidate any marriage to Stanley under U.S./HA law?
4. Fact: Zero claimed to have born in both HA hospitals. Which one was it???
5. Fact: Zero was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia. How did that affect his ‘natural born citizen’ status?
6. Fact: If Zero reclaimed his (purported) American citizenship status on return from Indonesia, what would that make him? Hint: a naturalized citizen, NOT a natural born citizen.
7. Fact: Zero traveled to Pakistan with his Pakistani roommate. On what passport? Why did he go there??? Hmmm.
8. Fact: there are no records of how Zero found the money and way to attend Occidental, Columbia OR Harvard. Did he secure scholarships based on foreign student status?
9. Fact: You don’t have answers to any of the above questions.

Oh, which of the two hospitals he claimed to be born in is factual?

Yeah, ‘birther crap’. Hilarious.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 2:02 AM

That has nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that it was hashed out in 2008.

In regards to it being questioned by those running against Obama in the primaries why is that a surprise? The primaries come before the general so obviously the question would arise first during the Democratic primary.

When did you imagine the question would come up if not then?

sharrukin on April 26, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Are you drunk? You said that PUMA was attacking birthers. I proved you wrong and now you’re going to quibble over the date they started doing what you denied they were doing?! You need to dial back the drinks or go to bed. Your cognitive skill are diminishing.

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Ah, I see, I must be late for the party. So natural born citizen requires both parents to be citizens? Never heard that one before.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 1:56 AM

That’s what you get for basing all your knowledge on what you hear

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 2:11 AM

mizflame98 on April 26, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Yeah, but no one knew this until 14 years after he died.

I’d like to know the truth now about Zero, wouldn’t you?

/No, you’ll defend his ‘right’ to hide every record, every scintilla of information about his life or eligibility because, because,

Why? Why is it you would do that? /Soros money must be good.

Opinionator on April 26, 2011 at 2:12 AM

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 1:53 AM

From a cursory glance into it the Supreme Court in 1898 ruled to adopt the English common law definition of natural born citizen, which didn’t require the parents to be citizens. Did they overturn that at some point?

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 2:12 AM

Why continue to bring up a topic where there is no new evidence and would have the potential of making any GOP look like a whack-a-doodle racist?

Does the concept of “precedent” ring any bells with you?

Fed45 on April 26, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4