Fear of a Foreign President

Making sense of the birther conspiracy theorists

Jesse Walker | July 31, 2009

If you're obsessed with the president's birth certificate, the political class is now obsessed with you. Over the course of July, the media have devoted ever more attention to birthers, that unruly faction obsessed with the idea that Barack Obama and his allies are covering up the true circumstances of his birth. The exact details vary from theorist to theorist, but the usual payoff is that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and therefore is ineligible for the presidency.

Once a subterranean enthusiasm, birther talk is bubbling up on TV and in Congress. Several significant media figures, including Lou Dobbs of CNN and Glenn Beck of Fox News, have given birtherism a sympathetic hearing, and 10 House Republicans co-sponsored a birther-backed bill this month that would require prospective presidential candidates to release their birth certificates before running. The reaction to all this activity has been a mix of glee from Democrats, dread from mainstream Republicans, and occasional spasms of fear-mongering, as when Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center told NPR that such conspiracy theories might presage another Oklahoma City bombing.

Everyone should just calm down. The birthers are silly and wrong, but they aren't uncharted territory. At any given time, the base of a political party—often, but not always, the opposition party—is apt to grab hold of a conspiracy theory that's considered déclassé in Washington. Sometimes the idea has at least a grain of truth; other times it's simply ridiculous. Either way, if the notion becomes popular enough with grassroots activists, some of the Beltway's rougher-edged pundits and politicians will start bringing it up. The other party will ridicule them, and their more uptown co-partisans will wince.

This is normal political behavior. It does not signal the implosion of the Republican Party, and it will not "erase what remains of the GOP's credibility with the electorate." At worst it will make some specific Republicans look like jackasses, which may or may not hurt their political prospects down the road. The electorate is down on the GOP because it associates the party with a recession, a series of scandals, and an unpopular war, not because a few congressmen are playing footsy with a fringe theory.

But if birtherism doesn't say much about the future of the Republicans or the general state of American politics, it still might yield some insights into the minds of the believers themselves. On the surface, Obama's place of birth is a pretty bizarre fixation. Birtherism is frequently lumped together with trutherism, the dubious belief that George W. Bush either had advance warning of 9/11 or actively planned the attacks. But say what you will about the truthers' standards of proof, at least the intensity of their anger makes sense. If a new piece of evidence emerged that suddenly, conclusively proved the truthers right, the most loyal Bush Republicans would start howling for the heads of the conspirators. If a new piece of evidence emerged that suddenly, conclusively proved the birthers right, the most loyal Obama Democrats would just shrug. Speaking as an Obama critic: Even if I believed the birthers were onto something, the possibility that the president is covering up his origins would rank approximately 435th on my list of complaints about his administration, just ahead of his reported fondness for Michael Bay movies.

So what's the appeal? I see at least three deeper motives running beneath the birther milieu, each inflaming different (though sometimes overlapping) segments of the movement.

Wishing for a magic bullet. This is the most obvious explanation: the search for that bolt of lightning that will end Obama's career without the pain of political persuasion. The birth-certificate obsession started to take off during the Democratic primaries last year, when Hillary Clinton's hard-core supporters started looking for a magic bullet that would remove her chief rival for the nomination. After Clinton left the race, the theory continued to attract new believers—but suddenly they all hailed from the right, because that's where Obama's new foes were to be found. First came the political need, then came the belief. If you went to a birther convention today, one pair of sentences you would almost certainly not hear is: "I strongly support Obama's ideas about global warming, health care reform, and transforming the automobile industry. It's just too bad he's ineligible to be president."

It's a bit like an old Doonesbury strip. Two congressmen are commiserating over their trouble getting across the idea that Richard Nixon committed impeachable offenses. "If only he'd knock over a bank or something," one of them finally sighs. "By George, we'd have him then!" the other replies excitedly.

Fear of foreign influence. For many birthers, Obama's origins are bound up with a general suspicion of the foreign. It's no surprise that the highest-profile media figure to give the birthers a friendly venue is Lou Dobbs, the fiercely protectionist and anti-immigrant TV and radio host. Discussing Obama's birth certificate last week, Dobbs declared that he was "starting to think we have a, we have a document issue. You suppose he's un— no, I won’t even use the word undocumented. It wouldn’t be right."

It was a joke: a pun on the word "document." I assume Dobbs doesn't believe Obama is actually an illegal alien. But jokes have meanings, and Dobbs—perhaps intuitively, perhaps by design—was bringing an implicit link into the open: the connection between the fear of foreign settlers and the fear of a foreign president.

Where Dobbs will only joke and wink, others will speak in earnest. Later that week, on the TV show Hardball, G. Gordon Liddy—one Watergate figure who probably would have knocked over a bank if the president requested it—was asked what Obama would be if he were born abroad and never naturalized. "An illegal alien," Liddy replied.

There's already plenty in the president's biography to make nativists anxious. He spent a chunk of his childhood in Indonesia. His father came from Kenya. When young Obama did live in the U.S., it was in Hawaii, the one American state that isn't actually a part of the Americas. If you don't conceive of the United States as a multicultural nation, the president's life is reason enough to consider the man metaphorically foreign. And if there's one thing conspiracy theories are good at, it's transmuting the metaphorical into the real.

Excessive reverence. In a perverse way, birtherism is the flip side of the Obama cult: It's a way to keep your respect for the Oval Office intact while hating the man who occupies it. In his 2008 book The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy noted that while trust in our presidents has declined since Watergate, "the inflated expectations people have for the office—what they want from a president—remain as high as ever....From popular culture to the academy to the voting booth, we curse the king, all the while pining for Camelot."

What happens when someone who reveres the presidency despises the president? In the past you might, say, denounce Bill Clinton as a "stain" on the institution, thus mentally separating office from officeholder. But if you could challenge the president's legitimacy entirely, that's all the more satisfying. The throne is still the throne; it's just that the man sitting in it is a pretender.

I can't claim credit for that metaphor. Surf through the birther hangouts online and you'll see a lot of semi-royalist rhetoric on display. One writer declares that "when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a 'pretender to the throne.'" Another calls him "our present Pretender to the Presidency." An "open letter" suggests that the man might be a "usurper." Yet another writer, mixing monarchist and nativist rhetoric, jumps from describing Obama as "the quasi-Muslim, marginal American in the White House" to calling him—yes—"almost certainly a Pretender to the Throne."

Of course these people aren't actual royalists. But their reflexive rhetoric reflects one of the worst things about the birthers—and one way they do resemble many far more respectable Republicans. Some of us object when Washington tries to take control of car companies and banks because we don't like to see so much power concentrated in one place. Others are more interested in the identity of the man in power. The problem with Barack Obama isn't that he's not qualified to be president. It's that no president is qualified to do the things Barack Obama wants to do.

Jesse Walker is managing editor of Reason magazine.

Comments

|7.31.09 @ 6:12PM|#

STFULW!

|7.31.09 @ 6:12PM|#

Good 'ol HL Mencken had the right idea for dealing with the birthers... "One horselaugh is worth 10,000 syllogisms".

|7.31.09 @ 6:14PM|#

To all the people that say Obama is legitimate, I would like to know if your decision was based on faith or facts? If it's faith, I'm not persuaded. If it's based on facts, show them to the world so we can evaluate them for ourselves!

If Obama has a long-form, why doesn't he show it? If he doesn't have one, why not? People that hide things, usually have something to hide. He works for us. We have a right to know! We have a right to demand it!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to send a message to Obama and to EVERY OTHER POTENTIAL VIOLATOR OF OUR RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!

Birthers need to start demanding a new law to prove "natural-born" status for future presidential elections. Obama's position on that legislation will "show his hand."

|7.31.09 @ 6:32PM|#

First, let us point out that the Birther movement is fundamentally racist. If Obama were an O'Reilly and the foreign country in question were Ireland, 90% of this nonsense would disappear in an instant.

Secondly, this is not a question of any real qualification, but legal pettifoggery that has nothing to do with running a government.

Third, isn't it time that the US grew up and amended the "natural born citizen" clause? Why should millions of people be disqualified for no reason other than being born elsewhere? Tens of thousands of immigrants have served honorably in the US armed forces; millions of immigrants have contributed mightily to the prosperity of the US. Why should they be denied the opportunity to become President, should the electorate of the United States see fit to choose them as President.

|7.31.09 @ 6:36PM|#

I Love my Country but I Fear my Foreign Muslim Black Panther President.

zac|7.31.09 @ 6:37PM|#

Why aren't the birth certificate that's been released and the birth announcements in the local Hawaii newspaper not good enough for you, Captain?

|7.31.09 @ 6:39PM|#

I don't understand what the "birthers" want as a desired outcome. Do they want Joe Biden to be president? Do they want a re-do of the election? We're clear that they want to see the long-form birth certificate, but what then?

|7.31.09 @ 6:40PM|#

conspiracy theorists = fail

|7.31.09 @ 6:41PM|#

Third, isn't it time that the US grew up and amended the "natural born citizen" clause?

Let me guess, you are in love with that gay Austrian actor in California. You are in love with his giant glistening gay pecs. You disgust me.

B|7.31.09 @ 6:43PM|#

"First, let us point out that the Birther movement is fundamentally racist."

It sure is. Just like the claims that Sarah Palin not being the mother of Trig Palin all stemmed from the fact that she is black. Oh, wait....


I would be a lot more sympathetic to hysterical anti-birthers if a whole hell of a lot of them weren't the same ones who sat back and raised no objections at all while people were "merely raising questions" about whether Sarah Palin's kid was actually hers.

As for Obama, he was born in Hawaii, but that still doesn't change the fact he is an incompetent piece of shit.

Some juan|7.31.09 @ 6:45PM|#

Why aren't the birth certificate that's been released and the birth announcements in the local Hawaii newspaper not good enough for you, Captain?

Would newspaper clippings be good enough if the government was hounding a citizen for documentation?

Natural Born Chiller|7.31.09 @ 6:48PM|#

Here's my multi-part question, just for shits and giggles:

What if the accusation was true? What would be the constitutional recourse? Impeachment? What would be the "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? Fraud? What if Obama sincerely believed himself to be a citizen, and it was someone else who cooked up phony documentation without his knowledge? Or would we simply declare the office to be vacant? And in that case, can he said to have been "removed" under the 25th Amendment (presidential succession), or was the office always "vacant" from the day Bush stepped down?

|7.31.09 @ 6:50PM|#

Max

ROTFLOL!

AFAIK, the "gay Austrian actor" didn't serve in the US armed forces.

And for committing the sin of Conan (not to mention Onan), he should be deported.

Some juan|7.31.09 @ 6:54PM|#

If it is true, I think he is still president. The electoral college voted for him and the congress certified it. He took the oath. The judicial branch even refused to rule on it. It is a done deal. The checks and balances would have failed, but he would still be president.

The electoral college shouldn't have voted for someone with unknown qualifications and the congress shouldn't have certified someone with unknown qualifications, but they did.

The Angry Optimist|7.31.09 @ 6:57PM|#

you know, driving home today, I, too, wondered why the President did not just release what the nutjobs wanted so this could all just rest.

And then I realized it: they make themselves look like bigger and bigger fools as time goes on.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to hysterical anti-birthers if a whole hell of a lot of them weren't the same ones who sat back and raised no objections at all while people were "merely raising questions" about whether Sarah Palin's kid was actually hers.

Strawman, Hannity-lite (did you know that schtick is getting old?). I am anti-birther and was disgusted at Palin rumormongering. So stuff it, Sean.

|7.31.09 @ 7:00PM|#

I suppose that we could question the birth certificates of every person in the U.S. Why stop at the president. That flimsy state certified copy all you got to prove your citizenship? Get the fuck outta my country. Is Lou Dobbs a citizen? Is he really? What proof does he have? If it's as flimsy as he suggests Obama's is, I say deport him!

|7.31.09 @ 7:00PM|#

AFAIK, the "gay Austrian actor" didn't serve in the US armed forces.

Of course not, the military doesn't accept pot smokers who like to hang out with oiled up men in speedos. No need to ask or tell!

ellipsis|7.31.09 @ 7:01PM|#

Do any of the birthers realize the more they chant their bullshit, the weaker they become? The fact that all logic gets checked at the door goes without saying, but this is particularly stupid.

Hard core Republicans seem to think attacking Dem presidents at the fringes is a good strategy. Look how well that worked for Clinton.

Move along, folks. Move along. Do you really want Biden as president?

Arnold|7.31.09 @ 7:02PM|#

First, let us point out that the Birther movement is fundamentally racist. If Obama were an O'Reilly and the foreign country in question were Ireland, 90% of this nonsense would disappear in an instant.

This is a joke, right?

skr|7.31.09 @ 7:02PM|#

It was interesting to see the geographic dispersal of the birthers, almost completely in the South. That has to have some importance.

|7.31.09 @ 7:03PM|#

And for committing the sin of Conan

Aresen, you Canadian piece of shit, how dare you not like the first Conan movie. What next? You don't like Twins? Kindergarten Cop? Hercules in New York?

You disgust me. You're the Arnold equivalent of a birther.

|7.31.09 @ 7:03PM|#

The question is can the Jesse Walker escape himself. This is not a Republican issue, its an American issue. No one in the media for example has challenged this story:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

Maybe Jesse should ask Obama'kins why he has spent over one million dollars in legal fees to hid his records? How could you trust anyone or what they have to say if they have gone to such extremes to prevent the American public from knowing who he truly is?

I believe the media is running scared.

The Angry Optimist|7.31.09 @ 7:04PM|#

Arnold - fuck no it's not a joke. Birthers are nativists and racists. Like Aresen said, no one believes that birthers would be out of their minds about someone white and with Western European heritage.

The Angry Optimist|7.31.09 @ 7:07PM|#

OH NOES! Harold linked to...World Net Daily! That paragon of journalistic and intellectual integrity.

Mein Gott, you guys, we have to give up now.

|7.31.09 @ 7:10PM|#

Fine bit of reasoning, but built on a false premise.

It does not matter if Obama's web birth certificate is valid or if he was born in the US or not because he has stated that he was subject to British rule at the time of his birth. From FactCheck:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. 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."

SO REASON THIS:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

If you care to start on solid gorund and do some real research, start at this legal blog that actual has all relevant case information:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/

The Obama docs:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

|7.31.09 @ 7:11PM|#

The botard that linked to that article yesterday had a U.S.army e-mail address. That may bite him in the arse real soon.

ellipsis|7.31.09 @ 7:11PM|#

Looks like we have our own birthers in our midst.

Serious question: What outcome are you hoping for? Ideally, what will your crusade accomplish?

|7.31.09 @ 7:12PM|#

ellipsis, easy answer. It'll make the white house white again. And christian by God.


>snark

|7.31.09 @ 7:15PM|#

Serious question: What outcome are you hoping for? Ideally, what will your crusade accomplish?

This is really the crux of it, because I've never seen a single one of them answer that question. I think they prefer their outrage to an actual "solution". I mean, if a conspiracy theorist's conspiracy is exposed, he/she no is no longer special for "knowing the truth". There whole reason for being goes up in smoke.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE (cue X-Files theme)

The Angry Optimist|7.31.09 @ 7:17PM|#

brotherben, your "snark" is way closer to the mark then you think it is.

|7.31.09 @ 7:18PM|#

IMHO, if there was anything to this, the Clintons would have used it in the primaries to put Hillary! in the White House. You _do_ remember the "I have to stay in the race in case he gets shot, hint, hint" comments her campaign were making.

No birther will claim the Clintons aren't ruthless enough to do so.

|7.31.09 @ 7:23PM|#

Every claim by the birfers has been answered. And answered again. Over and over and over. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. The COLB is sufficient proof for any court of law. The COLB has been verified as legitimate. It is prima facie evidence.

Stop and think about what would happen if the birfers got a copy of the long form: they would reject it! You know it, I know it, and they know it. They will accept NO evidence demonstrating the natural bornedness of Obama. So why bother catering to their childish trantrums?

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 8:10PM|#

Wasn't McCain born in Panama?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3460276.ece

Would those who want the truth be as vocal if the election had come out the other way?

It is such an odd thing.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 8:14PM|#

Does anyone remember the timeline?

It seems that the "Obama isn't from here" meme was put out in response to the question regarding McCain, but I could be remembering it wrong.

The oddity is that the issue was quickly resolved for McCain (Dems didn't push it), while the issue for Obama sticks around.

This in the context of Obama having the clearer claim.

Is it his victory?
Is it his race?

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 8:17PM|#

Note this:

"

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 8:18PM|#

This, I mean...

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. 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."

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 8:19PM|#

So, Brandybuck is correct.

PS. Britain claims governance (if you buy this). Doesn't mean the US would recognize it.

IceTrey|7.31.09 @ 8:25PM|#

"natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Vattell, "The Law of Nations", 1753.

Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom through his father. In '63 Obama became a citizen of Kenya. When this happened he DID NOT lose his UK citizenship since Kenyan law had no effect on his UK standing. NO proof has been given that he ever renounced his UK status. Obama is at this time possibly a citizen of the UK. Under Kenyan law Obama had until 23 (not 21 as reported) to declare his intention to renounce all other allegiances and become solely a Kenyan. UNLESS he received permission from the government to do it at some later date. Obama sr. was a high level Kenyan official and Obama jr. was in Kenya when he was 22. All of Obama jr.s Kenya records are sealed. Is Obama also a citizen of Kenya? Possibly.

The certificate number on Obama's COLB is 151 1961 010641. The number on this certificate from the same hospital which is from the day after Obama was born is 151 61 10637. Very curious.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

Now I actually believe he was born in Hawaii and is ineligible because of his father. But since there is no court case or law specifically defining what a "natural born" is it's really all opinion at this time.

|7.31.09 @ 8:25PM|#

Neu-

Just as I do not know where he was born, you don't either. Telling the wholw story is what every person should be about. To be fair, should we not also acknowledge that there are family members who have claimed that the fraud was born in Kenya?

Hugh Akston|7.31.09 @ 8:28PM|#

Is it his victory?
Is it his race?

Yep.

|7.31.09 @ 8:39PM|#

Johnny Longtorso-

Not so fast. How do you know that the CLintons aren't backstage, behind the birther scene?

|7.31.09 @ 8:42PM|#

I see some are playing the race card.

"eveb though I have absolutely no evidence to support the proposition that the 'birther movement' as whole is primarily motivated by racism, I'll goo ahead and shout 'RACISM.'"

Hugh Akston|7.31.09 @ 8:43PM|#

If they are, libertymike, I think the better question is who is pulling their strings?

|7.31.09 @ 8:45PM|#

This is normal political behavior.

I'll have to do some research but I don't recall a number of congresspeople of either party cosponsoring a 9/11 truth bill. It's not normal behavior to pander to the looniest fringe of your party, and there aren't a lot of prominent Republicans willing to take a hard line against this conspiracy theory, even if they occasionally admit the truth. Take the KOS poll for what you will but it's hard not to see that the GOP has shrunk to be a southern, white, old, male party, and that's reflected in the makeup of their party in congress and its rhetoric. When was the last time a Republican stood up to Rush Limbaugh or did anything but pander to their primary voters? They seem to be deeply concerned about getting reelected in their own (probably gerrymandered) districts, not about the national future of their party.

|7.31.09 @ 9:05PM|#

Hugh-

Show me the evidence that a siginificant percentage of the birthers are motivated by racism. I'm not asking for evidence that a majority, much less all, of the birthers are motivated by racism-just a significant percentage.

IMO, ascribing racist motives to the folks challenging the Kenyan's constitutional qualifications is nutjobbery personified. Also intellectually lazy.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:10PM|#

libertymike,

Are you serious?

Icetrey - since he did not renounce his US citizenship and swear allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982 (iirc).

What's your point?

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:14PM|#

For icetrey,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:17PM|#

For libertymike.

I have not seen or heard of a claim from any of Obama's relatives in Kenya to the effect that he was not born in Hawaii.

So, to tell the whole story, I can't acknowledge that.

More to the point...why would that matter?

SFH|7.31.09 @ 9:17PM|#

Now I actually believe he was born in Hawaii and is ineligible because of his father. But since there is no court case or law specifically defining what a "natural born" is it's really all opinion at this time.

You keep repeating this crap over and over like if you say it enough times it will be true. If he was born in Hawaii then he's an American citizen by birth by the 14th Amendment. His father's place of birth doesn't have a thing to do with i t.

Some juan|7.31.09 @ 9:21PM|#

Brandybuck | July 31, 2009, 7:23pm | #
Every claim by the birfers has been answered. And answered again. Over and over and over. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

You don't have to shout. That is not the question. The question is if there is enough evidence he was born in Hawaii, not if there is enough evidence he was born elsewhere.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:28PM|#

Some Juan,

But, see, there is PLENTY OF EVIDENCE that he was born in Hawaii. Enough to convince all legal requirements. There is NO REASONABLE doubt surrounding his place of birth.

Claims to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:31PM|#

To add to the conspiracy spin here...

I think the birthers are a creation of Howard Dean to make conservatives and Republicans look silly.

I mean, come on, no one can really believe this...

|7.31.09 @ 9:38PM|#

Neu-

It is my understanding that Barry's paternal grandmother executed an affidavit in which she claimed that the community organizer was born in kenya.

The point is that smug dismissals of the folks challenging the constitutional qualifications of Obama, or for that matter any officeholder, by folks who don;t have the evidence themselves is something that will attract my attention. When the smug dismissals are accompanied by unsupported allegations of racist motives on the part of the folks challenging the constitutional qualifications of Soeto, I will call bullshit.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:41PM|#

libertymike,

by folks who don;t have the evidence themselves

Who would that be?
The evidence is readily available.

Neu Mejican|7.31.09 @ 9:50PM|#

Just as I do not know where he was born, you don't either.

Indeed. Are you just a figment of my imagination, or am I a figment of yours.

Birth and death are doors through which you pass from one dream to another. Someone is born on Earth in France as a powerful king, rules for a time, then dies. He maybe reborn in India, and travel in a bullock cart into the forest to meditate. He may next find rebirth in America as a successful businessman; and when he dreams death again, reincarnates perhaps in Tibet as a devotee of Buddha and spend his entire life in a lamasery. Therefore hate none and be attached to no nationality, for sometimes you are a Hindu, sometimes a Frenchman, sometimes an Englishman, or an American or a Tibetan. What is the difference? Each existence is a dream within a dream, is it not?
paramhansa yogananda

|7.31.09 @ 9:53PM|#

Does Reason cite factcheck.org as an authority often?

Hugh Akston|7.31.09 @ 9:55PM|#

lm,

You are perfectly aware that I cannot produce such evidence. Even if I knew how many birfers there were (correcting for those not posting on the intertubes and those doing so under multiple pseudonyms), I can't possibly know their true motives, even if they write declarative statements of motivation. I would imagine many of them are unaware of their true motivations.

Further, I suspect that even if I had the all-seeing Eye of Agamoto and could produce such a figure, the meaning of "significant percentage" would prove just as elusive as that of "legal citizen" to someone of the birfer mindset.

I suspect that the birfer movement is a beard for something, probably something different for every dipshit out there who won't be satisfied until he sees a placenta coated in hibiscus oil. Racism, religiocentrism, xenophobia, or just plain sour grapes that their horse lost the race.

What I know is that noone went around demanding to see Bush's birth certificate, nor Clintons, nor Reagan's, etc.

BTW, my original post was aimed at your comment about the Clintons. Hey, maybe we should look for Obama's Kenyan Loyalty Oath in Vince Foster's shirt pocket.

|7.31.09 @ 9:57PM|#

The shortform birthcertificate is no proof. Not buying it. Just because a state agency says its certificate is proof of an actual fact does not make it so. To me, its just not rational to accord much weight to such things, much less use such "evidence" as some kind of smoking gun with which to use as an ad hominem whip against some folks who have the stones to challenge one who seeks to preside over us.

AnonCoward|7.31.09 @ 10:01PM|#

>libertymike

Are you even serious? That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. If you're right and shortform birth cert is not proof, then you will need to revoke the passport of every citizen who was born in Hawaii, because COLB is all that Hawaii issues.

Seriously.

|7.31.09 @ 10:02PM|#

"Take the KOS poll for what you will but it's hard not to see that the GOP has shrunk to be a southern, white, old, male party, and that's reflected in the makeup of their party in congress and its rhetoric." - if that is meant to be an indictment of racism, then that statement itself is racist.


i'm not a birther, so i take no position on the issue. but i do see the race card being tossed out rather carelessly. perhaps alan keyes better check the company he keeps. it's like reading the comments at the effing daily kos...

unfounded attacks on the character of people you do not know based solely on their political affiliation and where you think they live is as disturbing as racism and all other form of bigotry, because that's exactly what it is.

i thought this was REASON.com

it's most likely, i believe, that the supreme motivation is as the article suggests, the idea of a magic bullet. i personally detest this administration and would be happy to see joe biden take his place. no one respects him and he has next to zero political capital, which is all obama operates on. so i can understand wanting to see these insane left wing power-grabs crippled.

g w bush did allot of damage to this country, and he had loud and kooky dissenters too. i'm sure there are still some out there who believe that the guy they view as the dumbest person in history; built a time machine and traveled back in time to set up the electoral college and steal an election. (he later adapted this technology to create a weather control device and used it to steer a tornado into new orleans because he hates black people.

are there racist republicans? you bet your ass there are. democrats? of course. are the right wingers mostly racist? well if you believe that then you're buying the same load of manure that the democrat party has been feeding to minorities since goldwater got his ass handed to him for being a federalist.

somebody earlier posted "This is normal political behavior." and it is. because ALL TYPES OF BEHAVIOR ARE NORMAL. some people hate, some people don't. some people love conspiracies, some prefer to read their bible and leave everything to god. some prefer liberty and some are so insecure they fear a world without their big brother and don't even know it. honest libertarians understand this, and i would think be less likely to rush to judgement. but to infer prejudiced w/out knowing the facts is, well... if you can't figure that out see if you can take a lesson from the president's mistake.

Hugh Akston|7.31.09 @ 10:06PM|#

i thought this was REASON.com

Drink!

|7.31.09 @ 10:11PM|#

Hugh-

Wasn't quite sure to which post you were responding, but you settled that. Please don't take my comment on the Clintons as some kind of endorsement or promotion of a collateral conspiracy theory.

I think that the ranks of the birthcertificate crowd might be a little bit more diverse than you believe. For example, I bet that there are a fair number of minarchists and anarchists and individualists and constitutional purists who are part of the movement that want no part of bigotry, xenophobia, etc.

It would be impossible for me to disprove the proposition that there are racists and xeneophobes within the ranks. I will concede that there are probably some of them.

|7.31.09 @ 10:14PM|#

"The birthers are silly and wrong, "

Why is it that the only evidence of Obama's birth is a complex mixture of smoke & mirrors, the testimony of government officials and "the experts", and logical fallacies?

|7.31.09 @ 10:16PM|#

Hell, I remember lefties squealing all through the bush administration that he wasn't really president and that the election was stolen. Strangely enough, none of them were calling for rescinding the whole Kennedy administration.

-jcr

|7.31.09 @ 10:18PM|#

there is PLENTY OF EVIDENCE that he was born in Hawaii.

...which is a red herring anyway. His mother was a US citizen when he was born, and that's not in dispute. Even if he had been born overseas like I was (and like McCain was), he'd still be a natural born US citizen.

-jcr

|7.31.09 @ 10:34PM|#

AnonCoward-

No. i'm sure that you have heard a thing or two that might have been more insane.

My primary point in the post is that I just don't trust the government period or public sector employees (particularly if they are public sector lifers) or rent seekers. I am not so naive as to take, as gospel, a government issued document-whether it is a short, or long, form birth certificate, a criminal defendant's "confession", or the CDC's latest report on the "obesity crisis."

As for the passports, if they are revoked, look on the bright side:

SECESSION!

Hugh Akston|7.31.09 @ 10:36PM|#

lm, glad we could find some common ground.

The plain fact of the matter is that the motivation of the birfers doesn't matter. Barack Obama was elected President of these United States and certified by every lawful authority therein. The unlikely prospect that his citizenship doesn't pass the strict Constitutional definition doesn't chill me to my very soul.

The worst thing about the birfers is that their Quixotic crusade distracts from the real issues, namely the brazenly unConstitutional moves that Obama has made since taking office. Those are reasons in themselves to run him out of town on a rail.

|7.31.09 @ 10:59PM|#

Hugh-

Like most of us here I suspect, I am a wee bit of a contrarian. Honestly, I have not spent much time on this issue. OTOH, I have not conciously ignored it, but have not given it the time that I have to the issues that I, like you, consider more important.

As for the "distraction" aspect, in this case, I say, let the birthers do their thing. IMO, this issue is not going to be the thing that induces a person considering libertarianism/limited government to suddenly join the ranks of the statists.

|7.31.09 @ 11:23PM|#

Birtherism fosters a very real need to deny the facts that are unpleasant to those harboring them. Issues causing severe discomfort such as the president's race, religion, political party, funny sounding name, horrible taste in movies, etc. all cause great fear and pain to several irrational Americans. To deny some/any of the unfounded fears these few emotionally disturbed individuals carry with them, the concept of some simple technicality such as the president's birth place suddenly become a safe haven or oasis to escape the root of their most horrible fears; Obama IS president. Birthers live in denial of this reality and use the excuse to escape reality and to justify the legitimacy of the simple fact that Obama really IS president. Oh, the HORROR, the horror...the horror...

|7.31.09 @ 11:29PM|#

I did not vote for Obama. I did not vote for McCain. I did not vote so maybe I don't have a right to complain, BUT after reading both sides of this..why the f@#$ would anyone pay millions of dollars in legal fees instead of just showing a copy of your birth certificate?? I read both sides of this in the comments and it seems that the anti-birther's just name call---(like the "anti-John Edward's-is-having-an-affair" folks did when he was accused of having an affair while the media ignored it)
Please if you are an anti-birther just please answer the question for me in a reasonable manner: WHY WOULD ANYONE GO TO ALL THAT LEGAL EXPENSE IF ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS PRODUCE ONE $10 COPY OF A DOCUMENT?
I don't want to believe that the POTUS is not a citizen, but damn just answer a questions straight because all this name calling and evasion makes you look like the quacks.

Some juan|7.31.09 @ 11:35PM|#

Brandybuck | July 31, 2009, 7:23pm | #
The COLB is sufficient proof for any court of law.

We will never know! I seem to remember a court of law refused to hear the case.

|7.31.09 @ 11:40PM|#

wtf,

I'll explain everything to you once YOU answer this question first.

-Why are YOU such and ASSHOLE?

PS - I already know the answer. Read my name backwards at midnight in front of a mirror with 3 candles lit while facing south east and the truth will be revealed to you...

|7.31.09 @ 11:40PM|#

One more..this is a great post:
"The point is that smug dismissals of the folks challenging the constitutional qualifications of Obama, or for that matter any officeholder, by folks who don;t have the evidence themselves is something that will attract my attention. When the smug dismissals are accompanied by unsupported allegations of racist motives on the part of the folks challenging the constitutional qualifications of Soeto, I will call bullshit." These are my thoughts as well, "smug dismissals" and "unsupported allegations of racist motives"
I read these comments and I think the birthers are more civilized and reasoned than the anti-birthers. All the anti-birthers do is like you said issue smug dismissals and that only makes me more suspicious of this whole thing and I am definitely NOT a conspiracy theorist.

|7.31.09 @ 11:46PM|#

DOG. I will answer you question as so then you can provide me with the answer.
My dog was fucking your Dad in the ass while your Mother sucked a turd out of my dog's ass and since your Mother sucked so hard it caused my dogs lower bowels to rupture and I had a nasty vet bill. That is why I am such an asshole.
Now back to answering my question WHY WOULD ANYONE GO TO ALL THAT LEGAL EXPENSE IF ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS PRODUCE ONE $10 COPY OF A DOCUMENT?
ps..what is your Mom's address so I can send her the bill?

hmm|7.31.09 @ 11:46PM|#

Birth certificate or not I can tell you running him through NCIC might get fired.

I wonder if they investigate when the officers run anyone else they are not investigating through NCIC?

hmm|7.31.09 @ 11:47PM|#

*actual not sure if it was NCIC or another database. I assume NCIC since the FBI holds that and watches it.

Space Fiend|7.31.09 @ 11:52PM|#

I'm not a birther, I see no reason to believe Obama isn't telling the truth. It would never have occurred to me he might have been born in Kenya.

That aside, now that there are birthers out there, I'm glad they're around. Why? Simple: Obama and his administration are doing a million things behind the scenes to run around and fight this. They have had lawyers fighting this for over a year now. Surely, there must be a reason.

I'm glad Reasonites aren't going in for conspiracy theories out of the blue, but to trust that the government and powerful people could never fake one simple form, which has been shown to be dis-similar from other forms issued at around the same, is completely the opposite attitude from what I would expect.

The burden should be on Obama to prove he is a citizen and is eligible. That should be a simple process. Instead, he is fighting this in court and obfuscating every day. When government officials act this way, there is always something behind the scenes. Maybe he wasn't born in Kenya, but there is something going on there.

|7.31.09 @ 11:52PM|#

And no, I am not secretly gay or anything like that. In the army, we have to get "close" to the other guys for training purposes. Also, some of my best friends were black gay men. Were, because I had to kill all of them after I sucked their cocks, because I don't want the truth to cum out. My mom was a saint too. She was my first gal and I'll never forget her. She knew how to take care of a man!

Basically, my problem is I am incredibly drawn to black men with huge cocks. I want them to stuff my face with their man-meat and blow a load down my throat. The problem is that I feel so darn guilty afterwards, like I betrayed my mom

|7.31.09 @ 11:56PM|#

OK, I'll admit it!!! Obama makes me feel hotter than July! I want him inside my every orifice! I would show him some southern hospitality and comfort he'd not soon forget. I want him soooo bad!!! I bet he's hung like a phone pole!

I have to go now - I think I blew a load in my undies just thinking about him...

|7.31.09 @ 11:56PM|#

And no, I am not secretly gay or anything like that. In the army, we have to get "close" to the other guys for training purposes. Also, some of my best friends were black gay men. Were, because I had to kill all of them after I sucked their cocks, because I don't want the truth to cum out. My mom was a saint too. She was my first gal and I'll never forget her. She knew how to take care of a man!

Basically, my problem is I am incredibly drawn to black men with huge cocks. I want them to stuff my face with their man-meat and blow a load down my throat. The problem is that I feel so darn guilty afterwards, like I betrayed my mom

|7.31.09 @ 11:59PM|#

OK, I'll admit it!!! Obama makes me feel hotter than July! I want him inside my every orifice! I would show him some southern hospitality and comfort he'd not soon forget. I want him soooo bad!!! I bet he's hung like a phone pole!

I have to go now - I think I blew a load in my undies just thinking about him...

|8.1.09 @ 12:00AM|#

WHY WOULD ANYONE GO TO ALL THAT LEGAL EXPENSE IF ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS PRODUCE ONE $10 COPY OF A DOCUMENT?

|8.1.09 @ 12:01AM|#

Please, PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the constitution is that, if one of your parents is an american citizen, then YOU'RE an american citizen, regardless of where you're born.

|8.1.09 @ 12:03AM|#

DOG Boy. That is a good question. Why would anyone go to all that expense to avoid showing something rather than just pay $10 to produce it and avoid all the costs?

|8.1.09 @ 12:07AM|#

Why doesn't he produce more documents just to appease the birthers? Let me liken it to a subject very popular on this site. When you get pulled over in your car by the police and they ask for consent to search the car. you just let them do it right? I mean, you got nothing to hide right? If you refuse consent, then you must be hiding something, right? right?

|8.1.09 @ 12:11AM|#

brotherben. If the cop's ask to see my license and my choices are: (1) pay an attorney $5,000 so I can avoid showing it. OR (2) just show the cop my license and avoid paying an attorney to represent me.
I am going to just show him my license and forget the legal bill

|8.1.09 @ 12:14AM|#

That wasn't the question.

|8.1.09 @ 12:16AM|#

brotherben, because remember people are taking legal action against him which is very costly so let me ask you this is: Is it smarter to appease the birther's and produce a copy of a birth cert for $10? or, Is it smarter to appease the attorney's greed for millions of dollars so you can avoid spending the $10 for a copy of your birth certificate?

|8.1.09 @ 12:40AM|#

If the representation is funded out of his pocket then his intellect has no bearing. It's his money and I couldn't care less how he spends it.

|8.1.09 @ 12:47AM|#

Look, I am no legal scholar. Someone pointed out upthread that the courts have ruled that he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office. That is good enough for me.

I voted for the man. After a whole six months of his administration, there are bigger things to quibble over. If I were in his position and was making the wholesale changes he is attempting, I would let this little smokescreen distract the public for as long as NECESSARY.

bruce|8.1.09 @ 1:26AM|#

Can we agree that the whole purpose of the Constitution's requirement that the President be a natural-born American citizen is that the Framers were concerned that someone born in another country would feel an allegiance to that country and would be unable to be completely, 100% devoted to the interests of the United States? If you read the writings of the framers, the Federalist papers, etc, that is the reason why they required the president be a natural born american citizen. A mere naturalized american citizen was not good enough.

So I find it interesting that none of the "birthers" - who all supported John McCain in the last election - had no problem with the fact that McCain was born in Panama. Yes, the Canal Zone was considered American territory and American citizens who gave birth there could legally give birth to an American citizen. But the Canal Zone was not one of the 50 states, it was not American soil - it was foreign, Panamanian soil surrounded by Panamanians (brown-skinned Pana-mexicans who don't speak English and who don't share our white, American culture! Boogedyboo!). Only by virtue of what I'll call the "Canal Zone Loophole" is John McCain, with his innate loyalty to Panama, able to be considered a natural-born American Citizen.

Thankfully we've closed the Canal Zone Loophole.

But why do the "birthers" have no problem with John "Panamexican" McCain? It's bad enough that he's a weak coward who caved in to the North Vietnamese communists and spoke out against America during the Vietnam War, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If he were a Democrat, he'd be unable to win an election for the local school board. But since he's a Republican he's a "war hero."

Why the irrational double-standard?

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 1:39AM|#

Neu Mejican

Did you even read my post? Under Kenyan law the government could postpone revoking his Kenyan citizenship if he was to declare that he wished to become a Kenyan at some later date. Obama's father was an official in the Kenyan government. It would have been possible for him to obtain such a decree. Did he? I don't know but it is POSSIBLE.
I don't know why you cited Wong since in that case the Justices only declared him a "citizen" and specifically stated that the question of whether he was an NBC was immaterial to the case and was not decided.
Forget all about the birth certificate. The real question which is being obfuscated here is whether or not being born a dual citizen means that you are not a natural born citizen. Personally I think it means you're not. Is he an NBC of the US and of the UK?
Just to be clear I also disagree that McCain was an NBC because he was born in Panama.
To forestall this argument I don't believe that anyone who is a "citizen at birth" is necessarily a "natural born citizen".

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 1:45AM|#

brotherben

Please cite such a case because as far as I know the courts have rejected any challenges out of hand solely on the grounds of standing.

|8.1.09 @ 3:39AM|#

To forestall this argument I don't believe that anyone who is a "citizen at birth" is necessarily a "natural born citizen".

Speaking as a natural born citizen, who was born to two American citizens overseas, let me invite you to shove your opinion back up your ass.

-jcr

|8.1.09 @ 3:46AM|#

Only by virtue of what I'll call the "Canal Zone Loophole" is John McCain, with his innate loyalty to Panama, able to be considered a natural-born American Citizen.

Nope. He's a natural-born American citizen because he had a parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth. It only takes one.

-jcr

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 3:47AM|#

Let me invite you to shove YOUR non natural born citizen head up YOUR ass. I'm sure it would fit because of all the cocks that it's taken.

|8.1.09 @ 3:48AM|#

Please, PLEASE, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the constitution is that, if one of your parents is an american citizen, then YOU'RE an american citizen, regardless of where you're born.

You are correct. BHO could have been born on Mars, and he'd still be eligible for the presidency.

-jcr

|8.1.09 @ 3:50AM|#

Fortunately Trey, it takes more than the opinion of a pig ignorant twat like you to void the citizenship of the hundreds of thousands of better people than you who happen to have been born overseas. Try telling any US serviceman to his face that his kids aren't natural born citizens if they were born on a base in Germany.

-jcr

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 3:51AM|#

You're not wrong. You are a US citizen but contrary to what "Cock in my Ass" John Randolph thinks you're not a natural born citizen.

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 3:53AM|#

Never said they weren't citizens douche bag just said they aren't natural born. Just for your edification my own brother was born in France while my father was serving duty in the Marines and I don't think he's eligible AND NEITHER DOES HE!

|8.1.09 @ 3:55AM|#

Trey, it's kind of funny to watch you try to push my buttons, but you have no idea what my hot buttons are.

Let me give you a hint, that will help you if you want to continue your life in the closet: straight guys don't have an issue with gays. You wouldn't know this of course, but the fact is we appreciate the reduced competition for chicks.

You don't have to be this way, trey. Find a good shrink and get over your self-hatred. Oh, and please leave me out of your fantasy life. It creeps me out.

-jcr

|8.1.09 @ 3:56AM|#

Ah, I get it now, Trey. You hate your brother. What did he do, beat you up for peeking at him in the shower?

-jcr

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 4:08AM|#

Don't got no problem with gays and I figure your straight that's why I'm calling you a little faggot, to insult you moron. You're the one who started with the insults so fuck off biatch.

BTW, let me direct you to this:

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

No where does it say any such person is a "natural born" citizen. Live with it you "just plain old" citizen.

|8.1.09 @ 5:55AM|#

To Areson,
You're just stupid with your drivel. It has to do with the rule of law. Get it. Probably not.

It's not about race with most people. It's about The Constitution and following the rules.

If you can't figure out why we wouldn't want a foreign born president then you're puposesly being obtuse or you have your own agenda to push.

To Jess Walker,
You're silly and wrong. Again. It's about the rule of law. You haven't seen the original long form, so your not in a position to say anything, BUT you still thought you needed to write an ignorant article, so you could make your deadline and a couple bucks. YOU=FAIL.

|8.1.09 @ 6:02AM|#

IceTrey,
Feed your mind. Read the Constitution. Article Two describes the presidency (the executive branch). The article establishes the manner of election and qualifications of the President, the oath to be affirmed and the powers and duties of the office. The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Macduff|8.1.09 @ 8:33AM|#

You people are arguing over the wrong thing.

"Natural born" ... as opposed to untimely ripped.

|8.1.09 @ 8:42AM|#

Wow! From the comments everybody is all over the place on this one. I think every group is accusing and defending the actions of every other group.

Art-P.O.G.|8.1.09 @ 8:58AM|#

Nick Reynolds is dropping knowledge! Too bad he can barely write.

|8.1.09 @ 9:43AM|#

I am a bit disappointed in this article, as it does not address any of the reported "facts" that the birthers rely upon. What about the statements made by Obama's grandmother and the Kenyan official indicating Obama's birth took place in Kenya? Were those statements not made?

Then there is the original birth certificate that Hawaii will not release without Obama's approval (which he has not given).

I don't think the any of this will hurt Obama politically, but it remains a topic of discussion because the loose ends have not been tied up. The "birthers" will not get their way, but it should at least be recognized that some of the questions regarding Obama's birth have never been fully answered.

Also, I disagree with the author's assertion that Lou Dobbs is "anti-immigrant". I've seen his show enough times to know that he explicitly makes the distinction that what he is opposes to is illegal immigration. Commentors on the left always like to leave off the "illegal" part, presumable to attempt to cast a negative light on someone they disagree with.

|8.1.09 @ 9:49AM|#

JCR Says "Let me give you a hint, that will help you if you want to continue your life in the closet: straight guys don't have an issue with gays."

So you're saying all those redneck religious zealots fighting for a marriage amendment are gay?

Jesse Walker|8.1.09 @ 10:01AM|#

I am a bit disappointed in this article, as it does not address any of the reported "facts" that the birthers rely upon. What about the statements made by Obama's grandmother and the Kenyan official indicating Obama's birth took place in Kenya?

That's because it wasn't the topic of the article. There's plenty of debunkings out there already (including takedowns of the yarn about the grandmother) and I didn't feel like adding to the genre. The piece is about why birtherism exists, not whether the birthers are right.

I disagree with the author's assertion that Lou Dobbs is "anti-immigrant". I've seen his show enough times to know that he explicitly makes the distinction that what he is opposes to is illegal immigration.

It's usually a distinction without a difference. Dobbs frequently criticizes legal immigration programs as well. See here for example.

|8.1.09 @ 10:18AM|#

Awww, I awake to this article and see that yet again IceTrey and libertymike shilling on behalf of less freedom.....

sunrises....sunsets.

MJ|8.1.09 @ 11:01AM|#

"Now I actually believe he was born in Hawaii and is ineligible because of his father." - IceTrey

If you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then you belive he was in US territory to a US citizen (his mother), why would you belive his father's citizenship controls?

|8.1.09 @ 11:25AM|#

The birthers use the citizenship issue to add to a larger, grand conspiracy including secret benefactors. I too wonder who's greasing Obama's skids, but I don't need some silly birth scandal to make it real. Birthers are doing legitimate conspiracy theorists like me a disservice.

bruce|8.1.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Only because of the Canal Zone Loophole is John McCain a natural-born US Citizen (he'd be a US citizen b/c of his parents' citizenship but not natural born for purposes of being President).

But even with the now-abolished Canal Zone Loophole (thanks to the million man "end the Canal Zone Loophole!" march on DC), McCain was still born in Panama. We could pass a law that says people born in Kenya are natural-born US citizens. But that would not mean they were not born in a foreign country. In school with foreign (and dark skinned!) children, they'd learn the history and culture of Kenya (or Panama), sing that country's national anthem, say the pledge of allegiance to that country every morning before Spanish clash, etc. And then play soccer during recess with all the other furriner children.

I think the natural-born citizenship requirement for president is outdated - we're no longer saturated with British citizens, nor are we at war with England. Preventing English "loyalists" from becoming President was the key purpose behind the natural born citizenship requirement. I could accept McCain as a Panamanian, and I could accept Obama as a Kenyan. But it's McCain's status as a wartime coward and traitor that I just can't tolerate. Before you ask me if I'd cave in under torture, the answer is yes, I probably would. But I'm not a trained soldier - and most of McCain's fellow trained soldiers took the VC's torture and didn't give in to the demands of America's wartime enemy. McCain committed treason against America to stop his fingernails from hurting. He gave aid and comfort to our enemy during a time of war and greatly damaged our cause as well as the morale of his fellow brave soldiers. Think of the troops....

But he's a "war hero"? My ass! Imagine what would be said of John McCain if his last name were Kerry and he were a Democrat instead of a Republican. Holy shit, he'd never have been able to get his name on a primary ballot. You'd be able to look up "coward" and "traitor in the dictionary and see a photo of John McCain by both.

|8.1.09 @ 12:16PM|#

Birthers, troofers, Diebold stole Ohio in 2004 nutcakes are all cut from the same bolt of paranoid cloth.

Y'all can debate the dumbasses if you wish. After you've convinced those morons they are indeed deluded, go here and here for your next missions.

Me? I'm going to go discuss world politics with the bag lady preaching the gospel to the pigeons. She is just as rational and a whole lot more fun to hang around with.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Icetrey,

Try a little harder.

Wong gets rid of one side of your argument (that blood matters in the citizenship question). We have already agreed upon the "born in Hawaii" piece.

Add those together and you have "Natural Born Citizen" - even using your silly criteria.

|8.1.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Macduff | August 1, 2009, 8:33am | #
You people are arguing over the wrong thing.

"Natural born" ... as opposed to untimely ripped.

We have a thread winner!

|8.1.09 @ 12:45PM|#

...which is a red herring anyway. His mother was a US citizen when he was born, and that's not in dispute. Even if he had been born overseas like I was (and like McCain was), he'd still be a natural born US citizen....

No, jcr, he would not. BO's mother did not meet the US residence period required to make the foreign born child who had only one parent as a US citizen. If you're interested I'll explain further but I have commented about this in nearly birther thread. I'm not going to bother anymore.

|8.1.09 @ 12:49PM|#

Lets look at the facts here,

Fact, the helicopters that were involved with cattle mutilations were black
Fact, Obama is black, and his birth certificate is a fake.
Fact, Americans like hamburgers, and they have real birth certificates.
Fact, Obama is from Kenya and could become the president of Kenya as well as the United States.
Fact, Kenya was a part of the British Empire and they all have British birth certificates.
Fact, Obama had a meeting with Queen Elizabeth, and saw her birth certificate.

When you put the facts together any open minded person can see that in 2012 Obama will become president of Kenya. President of the US and Kenya Obama will then let black helicopters flown by Kenyans with fake American birth certificates into the US to mutilate our cattle and make hamburgers. When Americans want hamburgers we will have to go to Queen Elizabeth to get them from Kenya. QUEEN ELIZABETH WILL ONLY LET US HAVE HAMBURGERS IF WE GO BACK TO BEING A COLONY!

|8.1.09 @ 12:54PM|#

bruce

I didn't vote for McCain, but are you being serious? You really think McCain's a coward & traitor?

If so, you're sick

|8.1.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Will all of the folks demanding that BO "produce his long form" BC get it through their thick fucking skulls that HI does not issue long form birth certificates.

And the COLB I got from the state in 2002 looks exactly like the one they've been showing as Obama's.

And I'll reiterate the same point as other.

If Obama did release his "long form birth certificate" the fucking "certificaters" would claim it was a forgery too. There is no evidence that will satisfy them.

Anyway, I'm done, this joke has gotten too motherfucking old.

|8.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Well I do have to make one more post to compliment grognard | August 1, 2009, 12:49pm.

Priceless.

24AheadDotCom|8.1.09 @ 1:33PM|#

CHALLENGE TO JESSE WALKER: Debate the Obama citizenship and certificate issue with me over text chat next week. The email on this comment works.

Let's see if Jesse Walker wants to debate this with someone who's actually familiar with the topic.

bruce|8.1.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Jacob: If McCain were a Democrat he'd be universally acknowledged and attacked as a coward and traitor.

So, solely for the sake of consistency, I feel someone out there has to attack McCain for being what he'd be if he were a Democrat.

Are you of the opinion that all POWs are brave, even those who cave in to the torture (when the POW in the next cell over took the torture like a man and did not cave in to whims of the enemy)? The sine qua non of being a POW means you got caught. I can't imagine that doing nothing but getting caught by the enemy makes one a brave hero. And if you're one of those people who say "all of our soldiers are brave heroes" then while I concede that sounds nice, I disagree - it is condescending to the concepts of bravery and heroism to say ALL soldiers are brave heroes. It takes more than merely showing up, per your orders, to be a brave hero. I'd suggest that the essence of being a hero is making some sacrifice above and beyond the call of duty, and that the essence of bravery is being afraid of taking a risky, dangerous action but doing it anyway because it's your duty.

Anyway, the Republicans have set the standard for attacking American Veterans, it's called Swiftboating. By any standard of Republican attack ad, John McCain is a treasonous, weak, pathetic, coward who deserves to be convicted and executed for his wartime treason against the great United States, one nation under god. John McCain's cowardly, pro-communist speech single-handedly cost us our victory in the Vietnam War. Yes, John McCain - son of the admiral - lost the war for America by spewing communist propaganda, all because he didn't want his fingernails to hurt.

Yeah, it sounds mean, but again, just pretend he's a Democrat and his last name is Kerry. Then you'll see that I'm just striving for consistency. Two wrongs most certainly make a right in partisan politics.

bruce|8.1.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Isaak: even if HI did produce a long-form birth certificate signed by every doctor and hospital administrator in the state, the Birthers would still say it was fake. They're all religious nuts, and like everything in their lives, this is a matter of faith. They Know (with a capital K) that Obama is not a natural-born US citizen, so any piece of paper that says something to the contrary is wrong. Faith and facts are mutually exclusive. These are the same people who joined Bush in mocking "the fact-based community" when talking about the Iraq war.

24AheadDotCom|8.1.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Also, the reason I started covering this issue over a year ago is because the MSM was lying about the issue. Over the past year, an endless array of MSM and sub-MSM hacks have lied and misled about this issue, stating things that were clearly factually inaccurate.

You don't have to be a "birther" to note that a claim someone makes is directly contradicted by HI law. Read that sentence over a few times, until you understand what it means: you can call the "birthers" any name you want and at the same time you can point out that the person who made the claim about HI law is lying.

What that means is that if Reason were smart and were willing to take on the Beltway establishment, they could have greatly undercut the MSM by - without engaging in "birther" talk - pointed out that the MSM was lying.

Ask yourself: why didn't they? Is it that they aren't smart enough to figure that out? Or, is it that they're just paper tigers?

And, why didn't any of your other leaders do that?

For more on that aspect - and what you can do about it - see this.

|8.1.09 @ 2:22PM|#

The Democrats got a lot of mileage out of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it's clear that it helped to demonize Republicans and elect Obama. The Right is jealous and wants their own version of the BushHitler/Halliburton stuff peddled by the Code Pinkos.

Bob Barr did a similar thing to Clinton on the Monica issue. In fact, ever since Nixon's resignation we have been living with the "Politics of Personal Destruction". The Birther thing is another phase of that.

Yesterday it occurred to me that the problem with the long-form hand-written birth certificate might simply be that it would embarrass the memory of Obama's mother. The long-form certificate has the address of the mother. Perhaps the address would say more than we ought to know.

I suggest Obama appoint a commission of mature trusted witnesses from both sides of the aisle and have them take a look at the certificate. The could agree to report only on his eligibility. Perhaps this would help mitigate the fury.

|8.1.09 @ 2:31PM|#

Birther claims reviewed and refuted all in one convenient article. Check it out.


http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907280002

Birthers, keep on truckin'. No better way to demonstrate how asinine your attempts have become.

BT|8.1.09 @ 3:05PM|#

AnonCoward wrote: "If you're right and shortform birth cert is not proof, then you will need to revoke the passport of every citizen who was born in Hawaii, because COLB is all that Hawaii issues."

From http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html :

"A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."

Hawaii's certificate is not acceptable for obtaining a passport or joining the Army.

BT|8.1.09 @ 3:09PM|#

bruce wrote: "Isaak: even if HI did produce a long-form birth certificate signed by every doctor and hospital administrator in the state, the Birthers would still say it was fake."

Thanks for deciding what I'm thinking.

The fact is that I am willing to believe whatever proof is offered. So far, none has been offered, just opinion. The COLB can (and has been) issued for people born outside of the US.

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 3:13PM|#

That guy is making the same mistake a lot of people make that "citizen at birth" is the same as "natural born citizen". No where in the 14th or in Wong are the persons in question called "natural born citizens". It's just opinion that a CAB is an NBC. If anything those two examples support the two citizen parent case because they DON'T use the words "natural born". NO ONE can say what a natural born is because there has NEVER been any court case or any law the specifically defines who is one.

BT|8.1.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Fred wrote: "Yesterday it occurred to me that the problem with the long-form hand-written birth certificate might simply be that it would embarrass the memory of Obama's mother. The long-form certificate has the address of the mother. Perhaps the address would say more than we ought to know."

We already know that she was 17 or just barely 18 when she got pregnant by a married man, whom she briefly married then who abandoned her and the kid. She then shacked up with another man, married HIM for a brief period, and sent her oldest son to be raised by her mother.

Just how much more embarrassment to her memory could there be?

Fred goes on: "I suggest Obama appoint a commission of mature trusted witnesses from both sides of the aisle and have them take a look at the certificate. The could agree to report only on his eligibility. Perhaps this would help mitigate the fury."

This is the PERFECT solution, it has been suggested repeatedly -- by BIRTHERS -- and there has been no response from BO or his handlers.

There are two kinds of Birthers. Some are looking for a reason to throw out BO, and the rest of us are simply looking for the same standard of proof to which everyone else is subject. Provide it, and we're satisfied, but every day of the jingle-jangle gives us more reason to wonder what is being hidden, and why.

|8.1.09 @ 3:20PM|#

Again, while I think Obama was born in Hawaii I don't know for sure.
However, even if not, I still think he is a citizen of the USA (and ok to be POTUS).
His mom is a US citizen = good enough for me.

Not one of these birthers ever wants to engage in an ethical argument over the issue. Their whole case is based on what strikes me as legal technicalities. And, relying on technicalities to reduce freedom/prevent someone from being a citizen seems shitty and against the very concept of liberty.

It's a strategy that a bureaucrat would fucking use.
So fuck off birthers, come back when you have ethical/moralistic grounds to stand on. Otherwise I don't give shit.

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 3:26PM|#

Neu Mejican

How does that get rid of the blood argument? Once again the court said Wong was a citizen, they did not say he was a natural born citizen. They specifically noted in the body of the case that the question of him being an NBC was immaterial and not decided. How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself before you get it through your thick head Wong proves nothing on your side of the argument? If anything it supports my side since the court DID NOT DECLARE HIM NATURAL BORN!

|8.1.09 @ 3:29PM|#

Thank you IceTrey for providing an example of what my previous post was talking about. Well done.

|8.1.09 @ 3:32PM|#

"The problem with Barack Obama isn't that he's not qualified to be president. It's that no president is qualified to do the things Barack Obama wants to do."

Perfectly, brilliantly stated. The American Idol approach to politics is the undoing of liberty and was the undoing of the Republic. Of course it's welcomed by the establishment elite, left and right, who spend more on marketing than on analyzing the failures of their historic and incessant meddling in individual lives.
The more the citizenry keeps tuning into the brain-dead journalists who want to discuss Beer summits and birth certificates, the happier are the politicos, the power mongers, who watch the fools who applaud them by the millions and who argue over which empty suit is more qualified than the other.

24AheadDotCom|8.1.09 @ 4:05PM|#

The page posted above [1] contains at least one lie; I'm sure there are more but that's where I stopped. Despite what they say, the picture on BHO's site has never been verified by any official.

Jesse Walker: debate me on this issue.

[1] mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907280002

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 4:23PM|#

jayjayhawker

I want to be an NBA star but I was born slow, white and short. Maybe we should change the rules so I can play. After all it's all about freedom right? Life's a bitch and you can't always get what you want. The rules are the rules and everyone has to play by them equally. If you don't meet the qualifications to be President, that's just tough luck.

24AheadDotCom|8.1.09 @ 4:24PM|#

I go the extra mile!

Here's The Definitive Media Matters Takedown, Birther Division.

ellipsis|8.1.09 @ 4:40PM|#

Fun stuff. Look, a circus!

Birthers are the Cindy Sheehans of the right.

If I were Obama, I'd go out of my way to make them as suspicious as possible. Thereby avoiding any coherent debate on policies of actual consequence. You know, like carbon taxes and socialized medicine.

|8.1.09 @ 4:40PM|#

Awesome metaphor, becuase being a citizen is (and eligible to be POTUS) is just like wanting to be a NBA player.

Brilliant logic since who the free (relatively) market of the NBA (and the nature of their rules) determines who can be a player and so that same logic should apply to being POTUS. You are confusing the private sector with public sector.

"The rules are the rules and everyone has to play by them equally."

Some rules are immoral and should be ignored. You own silly logic could justify slavery, the war on drugs or any number of stupid shit because "Life's a bitch."

"If you don't meet the qualifications to be President, that's just tough luck."

Again, what if the qualification are murky and/or immoral?

You are going to have to do better than argument by analogy and shitty slogans to justify restricting freedom.

You whiffed, try again.

|8.1.09 @ 4:42PM|#

"I want to be an NBA star but I was born slow, white and short...."
What the hell does 'being born white' got to do with basketball success?
Always the color. So tiresome. On TV, in public, in private, on radio, in conversation.... I'm so sick of it. Have been for decades. No escape from this nonsense.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 4:44PM|#

icetrey,

IceTrey | August 1, 2009, 3:26pm | #
Neu Mejican

How does that get rid of the blood argument?

Because it states quite clearly that the citizenship of the parent does not get conferred to the child...it establishes that your issue with Obama's dad's status is irrelevant to the question of whether he is natural born or not.

Once again the court said Wong was a citizen, they did not say he was a natural born citizen. They specifically noted in the body of the case that the question of him being an NBC was immaterial and not decided. How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself before you get it through your thick head Wong proves nothing on your side of the argument? If anything it supports my side since the court DID NOT DECLARE HIM NATURAL BORN!

If the blood of the parent doesn't matter and Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of the country. His citizenship is "natural born" due to the fact that it is conferred to him by being born in the US.

The ambiguity you are claiming for the term does not exist.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 4:47PM|#

Natural born citizen: a citizen whose citizenship is established by their birth. In the US this requirement is met by being born in one of the 50 states.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 4:51PM|#

Citizenship in the US (14th)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This text indicates two ways you can become a citizen, by place of birth or through a naturalization process.

If your citizenship comes via your place of birth, you are a natural born citizen. If you citizenship comes via the naturalization process you are not.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 4:54PM|#

Icetrey,

In other words you are using pretty tortured logic to make a non-issue into an issue.

There may be marginal cases where the issue is not so clear (your brother's case or McCain's case are examples), but Obama's natural born citizenship conferred to him by his place of birth is not one of them .

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 5:04PM|#

icetrey,

The scary thing about your intepretation of the Wong case is that it goes in direct opposition to the decision of the case. The primary effect of Wong is to establish that the "in the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th is met by physical presence in the state. It even applies to kids born to illegal immigrants. To be outside of the jurisdiction of the state you are born in, you have to be in a very narrowly defined group that includes those that are in the country as direct representatives of a foreign power. None of these apply in this case.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 5:12PM|#

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Icetrey,

Use this US regulation related to natural born citizenship to demonstrate where Obama is not a natural born citizen.

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 5:41PM|#

...the rest of us are simply looking for the same standard of proof to which everyone else is subject.

I had to show my Social Security card and state-issued photo ID when I started my job.

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 6:08PM|#

How is that "related" to natural born citizenship? That code only deals with "citizenship". Show me one line in there that even uses the words "natural born". It's only in your head the "citizen at birth" equals "natural born citizen". The word "natural" means "requiring no law", therefore anyone who needs this code to be a citizen is a "citizen by law" and not a "natural born". Get it?

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 6:15PM|#

As pertaining to Wong the Court did not say he WASN'T also a citizen of China. If he's a Chinese citizen which the US court has no authority over then the parents citizenship DID descend to him. He was a dual citizen at birth just like Obama and not an NBC and not eligible.

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 6:18PM|#

jayjay


"Some rules are immoral and should be ignored."
I dare you to right now go smoke some crack in front of a cop. Go ahead, do it it's all about freedom right?

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 6:19PM|#

Obama has no birth certificate that names a hospital and a doctor. His supporters are spending $900,000 to hide all his documents from his college transcripts back.

Why?

This isn't about where he was born or trying to make him resign.

It is about the intellectual dishonesty of the tax predator ruling class and their media whore flaks.

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 6:21PM|#

This issue is discussed here:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130815804399

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 6:23PM|#

"Birther" questions about the evasions and lack of transparency and disclosure by the Obama regime and its media whores:

Guy from Kenya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SebxDwji__I

Royal truth? Just show the damn thing if he has it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbed9snwjBM

Return to the continent of his birth?
http://www.modernghana.com/news/226379/1/history-beckons-as-prez-obama-arrives-tomorrow.html

This site compares real to his:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

More on it being fake:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

Document expert:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104599

Hawaii changing the law?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105367

Going to destroy the original?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105365

So which hospital was it Obama?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104146

Twins born on same day:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
14 hours ago

IceTrey|8.1.09 @ 6:23PM|#

FD
Don't you know "White Men Can't Jump". LOL.

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 6:27PM|#

Here a succinct video asking all the questions Jesse Walker, Chris Matthews, Ms. Akers at the Post etc have failed to cover or answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPxi9ispU9w

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 6:35PM|#

Herr Majors (can I just call you BM?),

All your questions are, chillingly, answered hier.

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 7:08PM|#

High number none of the questions are answered.

If they were you could simply answer them without name calling or links to inanities.

No records exist that Obama was born in any particular hospital or delivered by any particular doctor or nurse or midwife.

His people are spending $900,000 to seal his records.

Why?

You are obviously a moron, like all Obamanoids and their flaks.

Pepe|8.1.09 @ 7:13PM|#

Where in the US constitution does it say being entitled to dual citizenship makes you ineligible to serve as president? The United States does not recognize dual citizenship.

I was born in a US state to two US citizen parents. I am most absolutely a natural born citizen by any definition you could come up with.

Under Polish citizenship law if either of your parents is a Polish citizen you are a Polish citizen. My Great Grandfather was a Polish citizen. Therefore my Grandfather was, therefor my Mother was, therefore I am. I have never been to Poland. I do not have a Polish passport although I could get one. Poland considers me a citizen. The United States doesn't care about that, as far as it's considered I'm an American citizen.

In what way is this relevant to my status as a natural born American citizen?

|8.1.09 @ 7:18PM|#

THIS line was the last I needed to read to know that Jesse Walker does not know squat on this subject and, I now have doubts about Lew Rockwell himself for allowing such sophomoric disinformation on his site.

By his OWN written admission -- AND it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by ALL of Congress, that his birth father, Barack Obama SENIOR was a British subject because Kenya was at that time still a British protectorate. The Constitutional law, well defined in many other cases, states that, to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN -- as opposed to four other accepted forms of citizenship -- BOTH parents must BE THEMSELVES citizens. Our Constitution demands as a qualification for the Presidency, that ONLY NATURAL BORN citizens are eligible! Natural-IZED Citizens are PROHIBITED.

THAT, alone, makes his birth location a moot question.

Jesse Walker and the Faux News talk show hosts that he laments ALL need to review their OWN characters and see if there might be a shred of intellectual integrity which they might nourish and reclaim some respect from the nation and our posterity. Otherwise, they will be measured amongst the goons that supported Hitler's tyrrany.

ellipsis|8.1.09 @ 7:38PM|#

The soft underbelly of the libertarian movement is that most are a sucker for a good conspiracy theory. And without disappointment, this thread delivers!

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 7:39PM|#

BM,
Are you such a fool? Read between the lines. You have to hear what isn't being said.

I have not resorted to calling you names. Why would I?

Don't worry, once you have mastered html code, you too will be able to provide links to your inanities. Until then, you will just cut & paste your web links.

By the way, as far as I can tell, no records exist of your birth, so please post a link to a copy of your birth certificate, I mean COLB, or whatever you say, so I can engage in further research. Thank you for your cooperation.

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 7:50PM|#

So I take it "High Number" that your nick name refers to your weight, not your IQ? Since you called me a fool and made Nazi and scatological smears and then insisted that you weren't just reduced to name calling? Or is your vocabulary so limited that you don't know any other words?

My birth certificate is an actual long form birth certificate that names a hospital and doctor. It is from the same general time period as Obama's. My mother managed to list someone who did not know I was being born and who lived thousands of miles away as the father, and give me his last name. So I am aware (as you are not, of anything it would seem) that a mother in the 60s could get many things put on vital statistics documents that she wanted listed.

There is no evidence that Obama was NOT born abroad, and that his mother then had a certification of live birth issued (meaning someone was born and did not die, and therefore exists), so she could get more food stamps, AFDC etc. A normal prudent maternal activity that anyone could and would do. Not a political conspiracy.

The dishonesty and conspiracy comes later when you cover up these facts at the cost of $900,000.

Your posts do what demwits and Odumba sheeple posts usually do. Confirm the idiocy of you and your co-religionists.

|8.1.09 @ 7:53PM|#

I don't think Wong was decided correctly, and I hope it is someday overturned. The decision was based on common law principles that we had specifically repudiated in our own Declaration of Independence and revolutionary war. If we accepted that citizenship were (only) a matter of where one were born, then we (or at least the first generation of the US population) would have remained British subjects BY OUR OWN LOGIC. Instead, we asserted (and defended on the battlefield) that allegiance is something that one can revoke and reassign. Then the question of citizenship of children, and how it is determined, became important. Rather than relying on common law, we tended to rely on lineage: What was the citizenship of the FATHER at time of birth? Under that method, BHO would have been Kenyan (or British). But Wong threw us back into the common law assumptions of citizenship by birthplace again. In my opinion (and also, of course, in the opinions of the dissenting justices in the case), this is a notable inconsistency, which has caused problems and confusion ever since.

I'm not sure where it was established that one would be a citizen of the US if born elsewhere to a mother who was a US citizen (the father being unknown or known to have other than US citizenship). If there is anyone out there who knows, could you please point me in the right direction?

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 8:03PM|#

BM,
Nazi? Oh, I get it - I used a wee bit o' German. I am not calling you a Nazi. In fact, I give you the benefit of the doubt and publicly declare that I doubt you are a Nazi.

I'm 5'10" 150 lbs, just so you know. "highnumber" is an apparently obscure reference to you. Don't bother with it.

Your claims to the circumstances of your birth come curiously without examinable proof. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that you were NOT born abroad. Why do you refuse to post an examinable copy of your alleged "actual long form birth certificate that names a hospital and doctor"? This conversation is difficult to continue when you refuse to refute my evidence.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 8:07PM|#

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


icetrey...

Really? You're gonna go with that?

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 8:07PM|#

That was weird.

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 8:15PM|#

Thanks for the irrelevant dithering about nothing Highnumber.

It takes a big girl to admit she is wrong by changing the subject.

What a silly fool.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 8:15PM|#

So icetrey,

The word "natural" means "requiring no law", therefore anyone who needs this code to be a citizen is a "citizen by law" and not a "natural born". Get it?

So then why are you concerned that there is no court opinion defining the category? If this is just a matter of natural law, then being born in Hawaii is enough and no legal quibble related to his dad matters. Natural law would say that you are a citizen of the country in which you were born.

With either your definition or mine, he is a natural born citizen because he gained citizenship via his place of birth.

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 8:19PM|#

BM,
I am a man.

Prove you were born under the circumstances you are claiming. Why is that so difficult for you to do?

|8.1.09 @ 8:22PM|#

Let me see: "I think I will spend a million dollars in legal fees to avoid showing a $10 copy of my birth certificate". Yeah that sounds reasonable to me, nothing going on here, makes perfect sense.
What you question my motives???--YOU MUST BE A RACIST!!--YOU PROBABLY THINK O.J. IS GUILTY TOO, DON'T YOU, YOU FUCKING RACIST!!!

Bruce Majors|8.1.09 @ 8:32PM|#

A superior article on the topic:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obamas_birth_certificate_and_t.html

|8.1.09 @ 8:37PM|#

1. The law on NBC is actually pretty complex.

2. If there was some fraud in Obama's birth location, there is no reason to assume he knows about it. If you smuggle your baby in to the country, why tell the kid later?

3. The idea that Obama is leading the birthers into a blind alley by holding back on his long-form certificate is a Conspiracy Theory up there (down there) with Roswell. At the least it impugns Obama's honesty and transparency.

4. The root of the trouble is that there is a constitutional requirement enforced only by the political parties. This is not right.

5. To be fair, I've been trying to look up the birth records of all the Bushes and Clintons, but can't find the documents online. My google-fu is failing me today. Anybody got these docs?

6. I think some of the Rightists are using the issue in revenge for the BushHitler/Halliburton Bush Derangement Syndrome that seems to have helped elect so many Democrats. It demonized President Bush without tarring the Republican candidates in the process. It's the latest phase of the Politics of Personal Destruction.

|8.1.09 @ 8:39PM|#

... without tarring the Democratic candidates...

ooops.

highnumber|8.1.09 @ 8:41PM|#

BM,
I'm still waiting. Why do you insist on changing the topic?

|8.1.09 @ 8:41PM|#

Bruce Majors. Whoever wrote that article is a racist and so are you..don't you see that this is all part of Obama's stimulus plan for the economy..spending millions on dollars in legal fees to avoid producing a copy of his birth certificate rather than just spending $10 to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. People like you impede economic progress for under privileged attorneys. You sir, ARE A RACIST!

|8.1.09 @ 8:56PM|#

CORRECTIION! In my post of 7:18 pm, I wrote:"THIS line was the last I needed to read to know that Jesse Walker does not know squat on this subject and, I now have doubts about Lew Rockwell himself for allowing such sophomoric disinformation on his site."

The "THIS line" that I referred to, from the managing editor's article, is this...

"Everyone should just calm down. The birthers are silly and wrong, but they aren't uncharted territory. "

(That's as far as anyone with a modicum of "reason" would have to go to realize that by the use of such language, the writer lacks intellectual integrity or is just plain ignorant. FACTS to him are "silly" -- and the people who present them are WRONG! That's the mind set of the Roman Inquisition when faced with the FACTS as presented by Galileo! WHY read more dribble? )

Here, it is NOW my intent to extend sincere apologies to Lew Rockwell for confusing my remarks with attribution to his blog.

I meant to write: " ... I now have doubts about REASONonline for allowing... etc."

Again, my apologies to Lew (I was thinking that such nonsense would not be acceptable publicatgions in HIS blog spot). It was a "Freudian slip".

Sovereign Soul

Hobo Chang Ba|8.1.09 @ 9:39PM|#

Wow, the kooks are coming out of the woodwork tonight!

Pure speculation here (just like the pure speculation from the birthers), but I'm sure Obama's mother felt way more comfortable giving birth in Kenya, where 1/19 women still die in childbirth today and was likely far worse back then, vs. in America, which had a 1/5000 death via childbirth rate back in the '60s.

Re: paying $10 vs. the legal fees to release the certificate. Perhaps advisors told Obama that it is politically advantageous to let nutty conspiracy theories fester on the other side to easily discredit Obama's opponents as racists, xenophobes and whackos? I'm sure they'll eventually release it right when the movement reaches a fever pitch, just for fun. Or maybe not, because it's really not that important to 98% of the rest of us.

A better question: why don't they get rid of the "natural born" part? Who gives a fuck where they were born as long as they are a citizen? When they wrote that, the founding fathers also considered blacks to be 3/5ths human.

The funniest thing is that the Federal law contradicts itself - the federal government can not discriminate against employees based upon national origin. Unless you are president, I guess...The 14th amendment also throws more questions on the issue, as naturalized citizens are theoretically granted equal rights as native born citizens, which might override the "natural born" clause as it came later as an amendment.

|8.1.09 @ 9:55PM|#

Ok, here are my ratings for the trolls. 1-10, the higher the rater the more annoying.

Ice trey-6

You did start off reasonable well. You baited me into a few post back and fourth. However, your last post clearly shows you aren;t trying.

|8.1.09 @ 10:00PM|#

Opps, hit the submit when I wanted to hit preview. My bad. Anyway

Sovereign Soul a 2 on the 1-10 troll scale.
At first I thought you were on your way to a 9 or 10. You had all the traits of an uber troll: playing loose with grammar, rambling style, and comparisons to Hitler.

Then you claim this is the Lew Rockwell site. Epic fail. If you are going around and cutting and pasting an idiotic post at least have the decency to change the site name.

|8.1.09 @ 10:48PM|#

Hobo Chang Ba "Re: paying $10 vs. the legal fees to release the certificate. Perhaps advisors told Obama that it is politically advantageous to let nutty conspiracy theories fester on the other side to easily discredit Obama's opponents as racists, xenophobes and whackos?
Yeah, sure sounds reasonable to me..yeah,,uh huh, you betcha..that's got to be the ticket..do all of this and keep paying those millions of dollars in attorney fee's rather than just paying $10 and showing a copy of something. All this just to make some people look kooky,man that makes so much sense...why didn't I think of that!!! You must of slept in a Holiday Inn last night bro.

Kreel Sarloo|8.1.09 @ 11:25PM|#

Give up, Neu Mejican, Ice Trey is a nativist bigot asserting a doctrine that is accepted only by people who look for things like fringes on flags and think that Ohio is not a State.

The fact is there are less than a hundred sane people who believe the Vattel doctrine and they are simply wrong.

The only SC case that mentions it does so to repudiate it. And yet morons like Ice Trey keep bringing it up over a hundred years later.

Why, you might ask? Could it be that they just can't stand the thought that some uppity negro thinks he's as good as a white man and thinks he can be president of the United States?

Kreel Sarloo|8.1.09 @ 11:36PM|#

Another question.

Why has no one ever asked for any othe presidential candidate's long form birth certificate?

I mean, seriously, why should I believe that someone with the name Eisenhower was a natural born citizen? Sounds like some kind of Nazi Kraut to me. Come on, Eisenhower???

Roosevelt?? Come on!! obviously some kind of foreigner.

Reagan?? Bog Irish bastard.

Neu Mejican|8.1.09 @ 11:37PM|#

Kreel Sarloo,

I am not worried about trying to convince icetrey...I just find his reasoning fascinating.

The idea that "natural born citizen" is an ambiguous concept and not strictly synonymous with "citizen by birth" seems to fly in the face of basic principals of human communication.

Hobo Chang Ba|8.1.09 @ 11:43PM|#

talkfast,

Can you post a link or something to an actual news site showing that they have spend "millions of dollars" defending against the frivolous lawsuits? Because I'm like really doubting that - but both of us might be speculating, anyway...

|8.2.09 @ 12:01AM|#

Oh, man. This place has been invaded by full-on crazy. I think Lonewacko may actually gain some new fans through his links.

Hobo Chang Ba|8.2.09 @ 12:03AM|#

Oh yeah - that's right: the news media is all part of the conspiracy to keep facts from the rest of us: they're on a collective mission to keep his birth under wraps (as proven by the exec orders to Lou Dobbs), just like they were "in on it" with 9-11 Truth, the Bilderbergs, the North American Union, the JFK assassination, the moon landing, etc. etc. etc. So why would they report on if they had spent millions to suppress the truth, right?

If you don't see that it is "politically convenient" to have a shrill nutty group with which they can use to discredit the entire other side of the aisle with the MOR public? The birthers are making the Republicans look really bad, to be blunt. Moderates would never support Ron Paul because he was associated with 9-11 Truth and and other tin-foil hat conspiracies. People dumb enough to stake their careers on weak speculation, like Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck, are setting themselves up for a crash when someone finally brings out the real document. Again, this is politically convenient to discredit his biggest critics as speculators who rely on weak facts, not to mention arguably racist, as they would not be raising the issue if there was a white president like McCain.

I'm still waiting for the official Kenyan government birth certificate...you bring the charges, the burden of proof is on you to make a compelling case.

Carl|8.2.09 @ 12:55AM|#

"I'm still waiting for the official Kenyan government birth certificate...you bring the charges, the burden of proof is on you to make a compelling case."

Ding ding.

The burden of proof is proportionate to the claim. If Obama is not an NBC then there's a slight technicality impeding the fact that more Americans voted for Obama than any other candidate in American history. If Obama is an NBC then nothing changes. Seems like the burden of proof for a group of people hoping to override the will of the majority of the voters should be higher than vice-versa.

Meanwhile, Obama's birth announcement was in two fucking newspapers. I'm off island right now, but I'm really tempted to go down to the library stacks next time I'm there just to get a picture of the newspaper myself. The whole thing is retarded. What kind of counter-evidence would you need to cast doubt on not one but two newspaper announcements? A whole shit load of a lot more than "some debunked people said they heard from his grandmother an obvious lie to make herself look good to the Kenyans around her that she wants bribe money from." Obama's mom may have had an acute case of jungle fever, but even the kids at the East-West Center aren't dumb enough to travel thousands of miles in the '60s in order to give birth in the fucking bush. That would have been a major ordeal in the 60s. My dad was in Kenya in the 60's and he's has stories about the long trip on boats around South Africa that they had to take to get there. You couldn't just book an Esaver on Expedia back then. Going to Africa was a big fucking deal, and you fucktards think that a college kid with no money would do this while she was pregnant for no reason? What idiots.

Obama is letting you morons stew in your own stupidity. Hobo Chang Ba is exactly right. This whole shit is straight up "Rules for Radicals": let your enemies define themselves as extremist conspiracy racist nutjobs.

bill|8.2.09 @ 1:49AM|#

"that a college kid with no money would do this while she was pregnant for no reason?"

You do know she had parents and was married to Obama sr. who was a prominent member of the Luo tribe and had enough money to come study in the US and even go to Harvard? The reason she would do it was because Obama sr. wanted his kid born in Kenya. I'm not saying it happened but this is just another case of anti-birthers just making shit up.

Kolohe|8.2.09 @ 3:11AM|#

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. 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."

And of course look at Hawaii's flag.

See that Union Jack in the corner? Wake up sheeple!

Bruce|8.2.09 @ 7:56AM|#

Carl there was a birth announcement in Hawaii newspapers because the State of Hawaii publishes them when it issues a Certification of Live Birth.

So if you bring a baby into the country and then request a COLB, an announcement appears in the paper. A mom could have both say pretty much whatever she wanted them to say in the 60s.

Bruce|8.2.09 @ 8:05AM|#

Hobo: "Real" news whores in the mainstream media have never covered any of this. They are busy having conference calls with David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel every morning, as George Stephenapolous does, to cover what talking points should be covered that week.

So if you do not believe $900,000 has been spent to keep Obama's college and law school transcripts and all other records hidden, then YOU should tell us how much has been spent. Something was spent, even if it was just paying a DNC lawyer to write threatening letters, because they are all being kept from the public. Why can't you find out how much the amount is? Do your media not cover that? Is this information being kept from you?

Kreel: You are another silly twit. Obama has kept ALL of his documents, fom transcripts to client lists, hidden. NO other candidate has ever done this. Biden, Bush etc -- we have seen their documents. So you can take your silly whine about no one else being asked about a birth certificate (Hillary etc do not have foreign parents and were not raised in foreign countries, for one thing) and shove it up your ass, that thing located behind your face.

Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 8:42AM|#

Bruce, where does the $900K figure come from?

Obama has kept ALL of his documents, fom transcripts to client lists, hidden.

Even his short-form birth certificate?

Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 8:44AM|#

Also, good one, Kolohe.

Bruce|8.2.09 @ 9:17AM|#

Art: The $900,000 is the figure reported by the very few reporters who have covered this story. They do seem to mainly be conservative. Perhaps they are wrong Art. But for fools and flaks and disinformers and bots like you the question is: what is the APPROPRIATE budget you think Obama should be spending to keep people from getting access to transcripts and other documents that most other politicians (begrudgingly) release?

How much do you think the DNC should be spending on cover-ups and lies, if you think $900,000 is not enough?

Are you hoping to obtain employment or funding in this field?

And there is no such thing as a short form birth certificate. There is only a Certfication of Live Birth (which is not actually a Birth Certificate). Are you actually a big enough imbecile to suggest that if a candidate for office releases a COLB they should then be free to keep transcripts, donors' lists, clients' lists, minutes of meetings, etc all hidden from the public?

You seem to be almost a stupid as Highnumber, who seems to believe that it is a Constitutional requirement to publish a pdf of one's birth certificate to post on the Reason blog.

You silly pissants make it clear why so many Obama appointees did not pay their taxes. It isn't that they were cheats or felt that as ruling class tax predators, they did not have to follow the laws for tax serfs. It appears just as likely that you people are too stupid to know how to fill out the forms.

|8.2.09 @ 9:19AM|#

So if you bring a baby into the country and then request a COLB, an announcement appears in the paper. A mom could have both say pretty much whatever she wanted them to say in the 60s.

INS would not have allowed Mrs Obama to bring little Barry into the country from Kenya until she had applied for and gotten a Green Card.

As I have explained over and over here, a foreign born child of a couple where only ONE of the parents is a US citizen does not get citizenship unless the mother meets certain residence requirements and Obama's mother did not. Essentially, at the time, you had to have lived in the US continuously from until you were nineteen years old. At eighteen Obama's mom fails. Ergo Kenyan-born Barry is not a citizen and will not be admitted to reside in the US until Mom applies for a Green Card for him. That can take up to six months even for the preferred class of family members.

Hell it's easier to bring in a foreign born adopted child than it is to bring in one of your own if he or she hasn't meet citizenship requirements. Been there, done that.

Like all conspiracy theories this one relies on the colossal ignorance of its believers of everything from immigration and citizenship laws to how Hawaii registers its births. It also relies an an incredibly huge number of collaborators from Hawaiian state officials to political enemies to INS/ICE officials hiding BO's green card.

What the fuck? Do you think Team Obama is keeping Hillary quiet by threatening to release a photo of her in a Matamoros donkey show?

|8.2.09 @ 9:30AM|#

Seriously, given the number of co-conspirators need to bring off "Birth CertifiGATE", if the birthers are right the federal courts will be clogged for years.

Everyone of the collaborators is guilty of god only knows how many federal, state and local laws.

Maybe usurping the American throne for eight years is worth trying to put together a scheme like this but if i were going to go to this much trouble I'd want something a little longer term.

Bruce|8.2.09 @ 9:38AM|#

Super easy to get a COLB in Hawaii no matter where you were born:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


Previous Vol06_Ch0321-0344

Bruce|8.2.09 @ 9:54AM|#

Isaac: You appear to be uninformed.

1) A baby born to an American abroad would not need a VISA or Green Card to enter the country. They would need a passport issued by the US embassy of the country they were born in, or at least from some US embassy in some country before they entered the US.

There is currently a lot of lobbying to make foreign children adopted abroad more equal to kids born abroad to American citizens. You can read about this at the website for KIDSAVE International:

To summarize, the FACE Act seeks to treat internationally adopted children of American citizens equally with biological children of American citizens born abroad. Instead of having to get an immigration visa to enter the U.S., the parents of an internationally adopted child would apply for a U.S. passport and would receive a Consular Report of Birth for their adopted child just the same as parents of a biological child born abroad. In addition, the internationally adopted child would be considered a "citizen from birth" under Section 301 of the INA and be accorded all the benefits and privileges there of. And as importantly, adult adoptees whose American parents failed to naturalize them prior to their 18th birthdays would be able to apply for citizenship the same as if they were still under the age of 18 without having to go through a naturalization process, including those who may have been deported. Together, these changes would finally treat internationally adopted children of American citizens as children of American citizens instead of as immigrants and would provide them equality with biological children born abroad to American citizens.

2) But this assumes anyone pre-9/11 was paying attention. I went to Jamaica and came back without a passport pre-9/11. The State of Maryland issued me an affidavit at BWI airport based on my having a birth certificate and a driver's license, even though these two documents had different lat names (with the same FIRST name and same date of birth).

Maybe Mrs. Sotero obtained such a passport and maybe she did not and simply showed up with a baby and talked her way through in 1961.

Obama's early passports are among the documents he has not disclosed and is having people keep hidden from the public. We do not know what passports he used in his childhood travels or what they said.

Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 9:54AM|#

Not actually, that easy, Bruce.

|8.2.09 @ 10:15AM|#

Reread my motherfucking comment, Bruce.

If BO was born in Kenya to eighteen year old Anne Durham he would no be a citizen.

Don't tell me otherwise. This is a subject I know a thing or two about.

You've never been strung along until you've be strung along by INS/ICE.

In fact ICE was the best name change ever. there's possibly no agency more cold and heartless in the fedgov.

Anyhoo, it's been fun heaping scorn and derision on a new clown. But like I've said before, the jokes getting old.

And it's a dangerous distraction from dealing effectively with one of the worst presidents of my lifetime.

So keep helping the DNC maintain Democratic dominance as you implicate every opponent of Obama in your nutbag bullshit. All they have to do is point to you and say see that's what an Obama opponent is.

I sure would like to find out where BHO's people are keeping the Hillary donkey show picture, though.

|8.2.09 @ 10:24AM|#

1) A baby born to an American abroad would not need a VISA or Green Card to enter the country. They would need a passport issued by the US embassy of the country they were born in, or at least from some US embassy in some country before they entered the US.

Wow, I wish you'd been there to straighten out those fuckheads at the consulate before they made me fork over a couple of hundred dollars and gave me the runaround for six fucking months.

They'd've listened to you, I know it.

Of course, it's my own godamn fault. Any shithead stupid enough to marry a Canadian deserves everything bad that happens to him. :)

[repeatedly bangs head on desk]

|8.2.09 @ 11:02AM|#

I would think that almost anyone could determine that actions depict character. It is obvious to me that BO does not have American ideals and his actions back that up. If our constitution is not acted upon very soon, then we are all in trouble. Whoever is responsible for putting BO in the oval office needs to be tarred and feathered before entering prison.

|8.2.09 @ 11:06AM|#

The courts have REFUSED to rule on the birth certificate or the definition of natural born citizen, WHY? Obama is BLACK. Clarence Thomas is BLACK. Black people come from KENYA. Black people call each other BROTHER. Clarence Thomas is trying to hide the fact that Obama is his BROTHER FROM KENYA. The 900,000 dollars goes to Thomas to keep silent! God people this is so obvious if you just think about it. By the way women that join the Obama birth certificate conspiracy get a handbag that says "Hawaii" on it, men get a NASCAR toolbox.

|8.2.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Bruce Majors said at 7:50 pm yesterday:
There is no evidence that Obama was NOT born abroad, and that his mother then had a certification of live birth issued (meaning someone was born and did not die, and therefore exists), so she could get more food stamps, AFDC etc. A normal prudent maternal activity that anyone could and would do. Not a political conspiracy.

|8.2.09 @ 11:28AM|#

That should have also said: You all can draw your own conclusions about Mr. Majors motivations for saying this about Obama's mother. Didn't those programs start several years after Obama was born? If so, this type of assertion is why some of us are crying "racism" in response to the birther movement. It really pokes holes in your credibility.

|8.2.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Surely software could be written to ban frequent visitors to Lew Rockwell from being able to post on Reason. They all come from the same IP address anyway: 788.743

The Libertarian Guy|8.2.09 @ 2:42PM|#

The wise sage commentators over at MediaMatters have been suggesting that *everyone* who questions Obama's birthplace - or Obama, for that matter - is a de facto, bonafide, 100% no exceptions racist.

Now, I don't buy into the "birther" theories, but I do see that Hillary left off something in one of her speeches:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!" [unless I or any other Democrat get into the White House and Congress].

That's a weak-assed argument - dissent is now always, inextricably "racist". Or sexist. AND you hate children.

|8.2.09 @ 4:06PM|#

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic

Welcome to the lives of millions of liberals who disagreed that the Bush admin. should invade a country on trumped-up evidence of WMD.

Dissent is one thing when it's informed by reality. Stupid racist nativism is the opposite of informed dissent. The GOP base would have us believe that they don't have a racist bone in their body, it's just that the president really is a socialist foreign usurper associated with terrorists and the black power movement. Oh yeah and a racist. (But stop throwing the accusation around! It's not fair, and probably racist!)

hmm|8.2.09 @ 4:48PM|#

I await the ICE raid on the White House. I hear they have some new fancy warrants.

IceTrey|8.2.09 @ 5:52PM|#

BREAKING NEWS

Obama's Kenyan Birth Cert.

http://www.rense.com/general86/moves.htm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

|8.2.09 @ 5:54PM|#

It not about a conspiracy. It is not about racism. There is a reasonably good chance that Barack Obama might not have met the exact qualifications to be President based on the Constitution. At the very least it could have led to legal challenges that could have derailed his candidacy. Therefore it appears he chose to conceal the facts of his birth.

If he had the so-called "long form" birth certificate that would clearly establish his birth in Hawaii he would have shown it by now. The fact that he has not is certain proof that he does not have it.

So what does that mean now? He is the de facto President of the United States and unless he truly falls from grace in a rather stupendous fashion it probably might not mean too much. But politics is about winning and destroying your enemy. If Obama's legitimacy can be attacked in the popular mind over this then fine. Do it. If his deceitfulness can be established in the popular mind, then do it.

It is about time that the proponents of reason and freedom also practiced the politics of personal destruction. If it contributes to his personal destruction then why not do it? Since when does a Socialist enemy of our way of life deserve any respect, mercy, or fair play?

|8.2.09 @ 6:45PM|#

According to the WND article cited above as "BREAKING NEWS," there should be an entry of BHO's Kenyan birth in book 44B, page 5733 of the "Birth Register of the [Kenyan 'Coast'] Province."

This should be fairly simple to confirm. Has it been? If not, why not?

When I stop to think of the twisty nature of Barack Obama's claim to citizenship, my head hurts. Father never a US citizen, originally British but eventually Kenyan. Mother a natural born citizen. Father's temporary residence was Hawaii, where he entered into a bigamous marriage with the mother (having previously been married in Kenya). Place of birth was potentially Kenya. Father and mother divorced when son was 3 (if they were ever truly married at all, given the bigamy situation), and mother got custody, with Dad going on to other things in life and rarely contacting his son. Under all of those circumstances, does Barak Obama qualify as a US Citizen, much less a "natural born" one, and if so, what is the supporting legal theory or precedent?

Mind you, I am not an Obama basher -- or at least I don't bash him any more or less than I have bashed the previous several occupants of the Oval Office. The government is off the rails and the chief executive deserves to get bashed if he doesn't do anything that we might reasonably expect to correct the course -- this description has applied to everyone who has been President during my life, at least some of the time.

But I really am interested to learn how someone can qualify for US citizenship under such tenuous terms, and whether it is possible to be a "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes if one is born, in effect, a subject of the British Crown.

Just as an aside, whether they actually do or not, shouldn't divorce proceedings include a clear determination of citizenship status for any children of the union to be dissolved, especially in complex cases like this? It would seem prudent to at least address the question, if not to resolve it completely, before the parents go their separate ways.

ellipsis|8.2.09 @ 7:04PM|#

As if this couldn't get more entertaining, now there's a "Killian" birth certificate. It's fun watching the uncritical acceptance of an obvious forgery. Some birthers are even attacking other birthers for being skeptical.

You can't buy comedy like this.

|8.2.09 @ 7:04PM|#

Lawrence Kennon wrote, "But politics is about winning and destroying your enemy."

Or, using words once spoken in public by my State's governor: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI

*|8.2.09 @ 7:16PM|#

to hear the lamentation of the women!"

Lamentation?! ooooh ;-)

bill|8.2.09 @ 7:42PM|#

"It's fun watching the uncritical acceptance of an obvious forgery."

I agree. Watching people accept the Hawaiian COLB is pretty funny.

The Libertarian Guy|8.2.09 @ 8:42PM|#

Tony,

"Dissent is one thing when it's informed by reality."

IMO, we should be equally free to dissent against Obama as we were under Bush.

Not that we were all that free to dissent under Bush, I'll grant.

"it's just that the president really is a socialist foreign"

He isn't foreign, but everything else fits from that description.

Look, Tony, my lone concession to the GOP was to vote for Ron Paul last year. Otherwise, they can fuck themselves. What I'm saying is, not everyone - without regard to party affiliation - who criticizes Obama, is a de facto racist, anymore than saying everyone who dares bash Hillary is a dyed-in-the-wool woman-hatin' misogynist thug, or that saying Barney Frank is a crooked moron equals "homophobia".

Are there examples a'plenty of actual, heartfelt bigotry and hatred? Yep, to go around many times, from all skin hues and walks of life. But the Dems have succeeded in making it virtually impossible to criticize them without sounding like a white-supremacist Jew-hatin' wife-beatin' inbred anti-Semite.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 12:08AM|#

I find it interesting to see which of the regulars 'round here are buying into this stuff.

A bit surprised at J.A.M., I must admit.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 12:26AM|#

Remind me of the details.

Wasn't the "Republic of Kenya" formed at the end of 1964?

Was it around in February of that year?

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 12:38AM|#

More details on the "Kenyan Birth Certificate.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 3:06AM|#

And there is no such thing as a short form birth certificate. There is only a Certfication of Live Birth (which is not actually a Birth Certificate).

I wasn't born in Hawaii, but all I've seen of my own birth records was a birth certificate (which was indeed pretty short), and a COLB (issued by the hospital).

Oh, and I assure you I'm not a bot, whatever else you might think I am.

|8.3.09 @ 3:23AM|#

I favor the "magic bullet" use, but also I believe that seeing Barry Soetoro perp-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, ankle fetters, and belly chains by a squad of federal marshals while the Secret Service detail look on helplessly and the Marine guards cheer will have a salubrious effect on the people of these United States, who - as Mr. Walker observes - count upon "Camelot" to "save" them when it is in fact the imperial presidency and its fellow unconstitutional hacks-in-office of the Congress who have landed our country in these sundry catastrophes over the past century and more.

Though I hate the idea of making a president out of the Delaware Plagiarist, I cannot but think that busting Barry would leave his successors chastened and humble and scared out of their thieving little minds.

As for the contempt in which the "birthers" are held, let us not forget Kipling's "Pict Song."


We are the Little Folk - we!
Too little to love or to hate.
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can drag down the Great!
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot in the root!
We are the germ in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!

|8.3.09 @ 5:30AM|#

But I really am interested to learn how someone can qualify for US citizenship under such tenuous terms

Easy. He was born here. It wouldn't matter if his mother hadn't been a citizen (though she was), or his parents had never been married (though they were.) Born here == natural born citzen. Full stop. End of discussion.

|8.3.09 @ 6:45AM|#

First of all, I think we need to dispense with the disparaging and propagandistic label of "birthers." Those of us who are questioning Obama's legitimacy to serve as POTUS are concerned with more than his refusal to release the long version of his birth certificate. We are also concerned about his sealing of all of his college records. No one could apply for a job with my company without having sealed transcripts from college forwarded for review; what makes the President of the United States so special that he can keep his covered up? Is it because they would reveal that he is not the Boy Genius the fawning press and his Kool-aid imbibing supporters would have us believe? Is it because they would show that he traveled or applied for scholarships as a foreign student? Does the long form of his birth certificate show his religion to be Muslim?

Here's a novel idea for all of you who want to put us down as "birthers" and somehow make us equivalent to the real nut-case "truthers": RELEASE THE DOCUMENTATION IN FULL. Then we'll either be chastened or vindicated. Or can you not handle the truth?!?

Bruce|8.3.09 @ 7:21AM|#

Brotherben you are a fool and a twit. It doesn't matter what particular benefits of being an American citizen Mrs. Sotero wanted to acquire for foreign born baby Barry by having a Haiawain COLB issued for him, from a public library card to public school etc.

All of the pinhead demwits on this list who cry "racism" anytime anyone criticizes Obama are sadly mentally retarded. You people just lost your little princeling about 5 points in the poll last week in part because you played the worn out race card last week in the Gates episode and old flop ears stepped into the trap.

And Obama's family did have no money and had to have things given to them and paid for them. We still don't know who paid to send him to a fancy prep school with Haiwaii's richest kids -- he was a B student we are told, so it wasn't an academic scholarship for achievement. Nor have we been told who paid for Columbia, Occidental, or Harvard. He is all secrecy about everything.

And you people are sheeple with atrophied minds and subhuman morals.

Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 7:26AM|#

Is it because they would show that he traveled or applied for scholarships as a foreign student?

Yeah, it says he's a foreign exchange student on his college transcripts.

Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 7:28AM|#

Hey, what's with the "Birthers" and their ad-homs that show the childish and anti-intellectual nature of their "movement"?

Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 7:31AM|#

Nor have we been told who paid for Columbia, Occidental, or Harvard.

Hmm, good point. Must have been Manchurian Global.

|8.3.09 @ 9:11AM|#

# Neu Mejican | August 3, 2009, 12:08am | #
# I find it interesting to see which of the
# regulars 'round here are buying into this
# stuff.

# A bit surprised at J.A.M., I must admit.

What about my postings indicates to you that I am "buying into" anything? Did I not say that the "Coast Province" birth certificate should easily be confirmed (or disproven)? I'm all for facts. Let's have some, especially when they seem so easily obtained.

If you are going to put people down for having an open mind, then I suppose we should be surprised about YOU. Or maybe not.

|8.3.09 @ 9:17AM|#

# Mike | August 3, 2009, 5:30am | #
## But I really am interested to learn how
## someone can qualify for US citizenship
## under such tenuous terms

# Easy. He was born here. It wouldn't matter
# if his mother hadn't been a citizen (though
# she was), or his parents had never been
# married (though they were.) Born here ==
# natural born citzen. Full stop. End of
# discussion.

First, the "Coast Province" birth certificate opens the possibility that "born here" didn't happen. Let's prove or disprove this before moving on. Otherwise, I would (reluctantly) agree with you.

Second, "born here" is something that the Supreme Court in the Wong case created out of cloth we had discarded in the revolution. So, although I have to acknowledge it as law under stare decicis, I still maintain that the case was wrongly decided, and I hope it is soon revisited and overturned.

|8.3.09 @ 9:26AM|#

# Neu Mejican | August 3, 2009, 12:38am | #

# More details on the "Kenyan Birth Certificate.

# http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Regardless of the various glitches alleged, the fact remains that the offered birth certificate declares that there is an entry in the birth records of the Coast Province. It provides a specific citation. That should be easy enough to check, thus proving or disproving the assertion. Has any one checked it? That would be proof (or disproof) positive. That's what I'd prefer to see.

Meta4|8.3.09 @ 9:36AM|#

I just want the Son of Saul the hell outa the Whitehouse.

Brett Stevens|8.3.09 @ 9:40AM|#

Nobody wants a President from another ethnic group, except those who think it makes them seem witty.

|8.3.09 @ 11:06AM|#

All of the available forged documents together with the absence of evidence to prove otherwise have convinced me. President Obama does not, in fact, exist. I look forward to the leadership of the Deputy Spade.

|8.3.09 @ 11:10AM|#

What I'm saying is, not everyone - without regard to party affiliation - who criticizes Obama, is a de facto racist,

And there are plenty of his critics no one would accuse of being racist. Nobody accuses Dick Cheney of being a racist, even though he's one of Obama's biggest critics. But if you're obsessed with his birth certificate don't blame me for the perception. Do you really think there would be a similar movement if McCain had been elected? Or would the birthers be falling over themselves to defend his citizenship by pointing out evidence in favor in a way they steadfastly refuse to with Obama?

Any attempt to paint the president as other or foreign is probably racist, and even if the advocate isn't racist, it's about race to others who jump on the bandwagon.

I just don't buy these protestations from the white conservative bloc about how they've magically overcome their southern strategy racial resentment history and now see the world through colorblind eyes. Being truly colorblind is something even the most devoted advocate for racial equality struggles with every day, so for people who only dip their toe into racial politics when it's white people they feel are threatened, it comes across as just a little disingenuous. If you don't want to be called racist, stop sounding like a racist.

highnumber|8.3.09 @ 11:20AM|#

BM,
I'm still waiting.

I'm not saying that you have anything to hide about the circumstances of your birth, but I am curious why you aren't more forthcoming with the evidence. This is starting to raise questions.

|8.3.09 @ 11:50AM|#

highnumber, I hope you brought your lunch. I think the whole premise went right over his head.

Lawrence Kennon was raving upthread about the politics of personal destruction. I see so many things about Obama's policies that can be attacked without it looking like a witchhunt. I also find it somewhat frightening to keep poking the tiger with a stick. The conspiracy theorist in me says it's a bad idea. The birthers apparently don't believe the gubmint may ask them the very questions you are asking BM.

|8.3.09 @ 1:12PM|#

First, let us point out that the Birther movement is fundamentally racist. If Obama were an O'Reilly and the foreign country in question were Ireland, 90% of this nonsense would disappear in an instant.

Utter horsecrap. So apparently no one can disagree with anything BO is or does without being racist? Sir.. that is a product of racist thinking.

If he had nothing to hide then why spend millions on lawyers to hide it? That's the question you can't answer.. so you scream 'RAAACSIISM!'

But a warning to birthers.. BO has had 6 months in office with the full power of the government at his behest.. even if he's not legitimate.. do you think the media would be calling you out if BO hadn't got a foolprooof forgery? If you're right, then you need to consider this may be a trap.

Personally I think he's legit, but that there is something else incriminating on the BC. Most likely his mother got him listed as not black.. it't a reasonable thing to do in that time when you could expect discrimination. Otherwise why would Hillary not exploit this? If he was not legit she would have her machine trying to expose it. But if it's just that he's not black.. she can't expose it without being vulnerable to the 'RAAACCICISSM!' charge.. as the moron poster I am responding to exmeplifies.

|8.3.09 @ 1:34PM|#

faithkills

" Most likely his mother got him listed as not black.. "

Birth certificates don't list the race of the child, they list the races of the parents. In places where race affects your social and legal treatment this information can be used to determine the race of the child.

Barak Hussein Hbama's forged Hawaiian list his mother as Caucasian and his father as African.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 1:36PM|#

What about my postings indicates to you that I am "buying into" anything?

Well there is this statement upthread: "When I stop to think of the twisty nature of Barack Obama's claim to citizenship, my head hurts."

It seems to require a good deal of "buying into this stuff" to find Obama's citizenship claims "twisty."

If you are going to put people down for having an open mind, then I suppose we should be surprised about YOU. Or maybe not.

Not sure I was putting people down for having an open mind. I am pretty sure that is the opposite of what I have been doing on this thread. But an open mind that does not discriminate isn't very useful. At some point you have to make a judgment. If your judgment goes with "I will consider the "Republic of Kenya" birth certificate issued 10 months before the existence of The Republic of Kenya as possible evidence, then it is not a question of "open minded" it is a question of judgment.

You are typically less gullible.
That was why I was surprised.

Kreel Sarloo|8.3.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Corrected last sentence:

"Barak Hussein Obama's forged Hawaiian COLB lists his mother as Caucasian and his father as African."

Hell I can't even do a gag post without fucking it up.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 1:45PM|#

Second, "born here" is something that the Supreme Court in the Wong case created out of cloth we had discarded in the revolution. So, although I have to acknowledge it as law under stare decicis, I still maintain that the case was wrongly decided, and I hope it is soon revisited and overturned.

As early as 1790 there were statues on the books that invoked both "born here" and "born abroad to citizens" as criteria for status as natural born citizen. I am not so sure we rejected the idea as you claim.

highnumber|8.3.09 @ 3:31PM|#

One thing I keep seeing here is that Obama or his supporters have spent $900K or $1M to cover up his past. What is that all about? I don't see any links to a source on that. Someone, perhaps you, BM, please elaborate.

bill|8.3.09 @ 3:33PM|#

The Act of 1790 isn't so cut and dried. First it says "children of CITIZENS" plural, as in both parents are US citizens. If it only required one US parent wouldn't it say "children of A CITIZEN"? Secondly it says "shall be considered AS natural born Citizens". Why use the word AS? If these children qualify for natural born status by descent why not just say "shall be considered natural born citizens"? I believe the word AS implies that natural born status did imply birth in the US. So this act can be read to imply that a natural born is born in the US to two US citizens.

bill|8.3.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Should read "simply by descent".

|8.3.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Ok, lets say that he has not spent "millions" on defending this, lets say it is only $100,000 and the cost of the copy of his birth certificate is $15 instead of $10.......why on earth would anyone spend $100,000 in attorney fees to avoid paying $15 to produce a copy of his birth certificate?
(A) $100,000?, a million dollars?, two million dollars? Endless court cases and more and more people getting suspicious. Where does it end?
(B) Or $15 and now shut the f-up!

I choose (B), lets get this over with and move on.

|8.3.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Well, for some of us, like me, the guy who proved McCain wasn't eligible either (well documented over 18 months ago), it's an issue of law and following the Constitution, not race (I don't give a damn how much skin pigment he has!), and certainly not a magic bullet, although the latter would certainly be a side effect of President Barack Hussein-Over-His-Head Obama.

Newspaper clippings: junk. Anyone can publish birth notices (and death notices) anywhere an interested person may live, and they can say anything.

COLB: not the best evidence when the LFBC exists.

State officials claiming LFBC exists: hearsay, possibly facilitated by a 1-day hiring onto his campaign staff for a nice payoff, legal under BCRA.

Parents being foreign citizens: irrelevant. As I showed with McCain, bloodline is irrelevant in determining a natural-born status. It has some relevancy on naturalization, as INA 1954 clearly demonstrates (as it did with McCain, and INA is the current law on the books), but not on natural-born status, which is based on geography and not bloodline.

Endgame if he's ineligible: He gets DQ'ed from the Presidency and Biden becomes President under the 25th Amendment. Lawsuits will happen challenging the bills he signed into law as null since he wasn't eligible to do that. Results of those suits would depend on the constitutional literacy of the judges (most of which aren't). But overall life and the screwing of the People while America is killed by Congressional red-tape will continue unabated.

It all comes back to the question of why won't he simply release the thing? If he is that unorganized that he can't get the fundamental and very first legal document of his existence in order, how in the world can we expect him to lead the free world? Judging from his disastrous first 7 months, he doesn't have his act together, and he never will--hence he's Barack Hussein-Over-His-Head Obama.

|8.3.09 @ 4:04PM|#

bill, the 1790 act was repealed in 1802. It is meaningless today.

See also http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html

IceTrey|8.3.09 @ 4:11PM|#

I saw this last might and thought it was pretty interesting. The British Nationality Act of 1981 says that now if you are born in the UK to non resident aliens you are NOT a British citizen. Also in the Act of 1948 you could be a British subject but NOT a British citizen. I.e., if you were born in Australia you were a British subject but a citizen of Australia. I mention this since the argument is out there that "natural born citizen" comes from "natural born subject". Now even the Brits have given up the idea that place of birth automatically confers citizenship.

highnumber|8.3.09 @ 4:17PM|#

Cylon Toaster,
Do you have citations for him spending any money to cover up his past?

bill|8.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#

Seebeck

Actually it was superseded by the Act of 1795. I was just giving a counter argument to those who use it to define natural born.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 6:28PM|#

The Act of 1790 isn't so cut and dried. First it says "children of CITIZENS" plural, as in both parents are US citizens. If it only required one US parent wouldn't it say "children of A CITIZEN"? Secondly it says "shall be considered AS natural born Citizens". Why use the word AS? If these children qualify for natural born status by descent why not just say "shall be considered natural born citizens"?

Point one: the plural is being used to indicate the group of citizens at large (not the level of the family).

Point two: "considered as" translates to "is equivalent to" which means "there is no difference." I don't see a way to construe the use of the phrase as a way to indicate that there are two classes of citizens being discussed.

Point three: it was replaced by 1795. I only mentioned it to refute J.A.M.'s assertion the the US had explicitly rejected the concept of place of birth determining natural born citizenship status. He claimed Wong made up the idea whole cloth. Instead, in one of the few places it had been addressed directly by Congress, they had used birthplace as a factor.

bill|8.3.09 @ 6:41PM|#

My point was that even this Act is open to interpretation. Is it the group at large or is it the family? You can say one I can say the other and neither one of us can prove we're right. On the second point I agree AS mean equivalent to. I wasn't clear in my point that the law now omits natural born yet people are making the case that you can be born overseas and still be a natural born. They use 1790 to make this point. Yet if you read it my way 1790 implies that location of birth is important for natural status.

highnumber|8.3.09 @ 7:02PM|#

I found the source on the story about Obama paying $1M to cover up his past!

It was the Libertarian Republican, himself.

I'd say that settles that.

Neu Mejican|8.3.09 @ 7:56PM|#

bill,

Sure, it shouldn't be used to define Natural Born Citizen.

I would assert that the reason there is no definitive court opinion on the term is because it is not a controversial or ambiguous term. If you are a citizen by birth (by location or blood) you are a natural born citizen. Full stop. The issue is just not confusing enough to have generated a court opinion or a statutory definition.

It seems to me that when you look at legal terms, terms without narrow definitions can usually be assumed to have the common, well-understood meaning rather than a obtuse technical one.

|8.3.09 @ 8:03PM|#

You can learn a lot from the President, just look at me.
I just applied for a home loan to buy my first house. They told me that they want me to pay $25 because they want to run a credit report on me. I told them to f-off, I am not going to let them pull my credit and I won't pay them the $25 to run my credit report. So I hired a lawyer and paid him a $2500 retainer fee so I can take this to court to avoid paying $25 to have them run my credit. I'm pretty smart, huh? Don't you think? I'll teach those bastards to ask me to fork over $25 to run my credit........f-ing bastards!!!

highnumber|8.3.09 @ 8:55PM|#

Toaster,
That shit was made up. Pay attention

The Libertarian Guy|8.3.09 @ 9:02PM|#

"But if you're obsessed with his birth certificate don't blame me for the perception."

I'm not in the least, though I wouldn't be surprised if he WERE foreign-born, that there would be a damned good cover-up.

But I don't obsess over it. There are so many OTHER things wrong with Obama, that the BC thing just doesn't interest me.

Tony, I have been called a "racist" for the "crime" of being against affirmative action. If I had a dime for every incident where some liberal hand-wringer refered to me as a racist hillbilly, I'd have a shitload of shiny ten-cent tokens.

As for this:

"If you don't want to be called racist, stop sounding like a racist"

When dealing with liberals, all they have to do is SAY "you're a racist", and when you call them on a false accusation, their attitude is "well, it's because WE say you are", and that's that.

It's degrading to those who actually SUFFER from racism, to have it so watered down unnecessarily.

Hobo Chang Ba|8.3.09 @ 11:13PM|#

I'm sure all of you would have been equally vigilant had John "Panama" McCain been president. Theoretically, the constitution does not say that children born on US military bases overseas are "natural born". So looks like you guys were screwed either way. What's with all these foreigners trying to be president these days?

We KNOW McCain's from Panama; but the whole Kenya conspiracy is pure conjecture and rather amusing at that...again, show me the Kenyan birth certificate and I'll believe you. Until then, why are you getting worked up when you have no firm facts or anything other than tin-foil theories? Again, I doubt Obama's mom wanted to fly to the opposite side of the world to give birth in the notoriously dangerous hospitals in Kenya where she had less than a 1/20 chance of surviving the birth vs. a 1/5000 chance in America in 1961, then come all the way back to Hawaii just to file a newspaper article about her son's birth, just knowing eventually he could become president some 47 years later and/or so she could qualify for food stamps, as some have conjectured (after buying the round-trip plane ticket to Africa and back). Maybe the dad wanted her to give birth in Kenya out of national pride, although he obviously showed no interest in keeping them there to live, so what the fuck would the point for that have been? But that's conjecture too, so I'm not putting any money on it...

Regardless, is this the most important fucking thing you can think about right now? The educated among us are trying to rationally criticize him for far more important things that actually impact our lives, but you fucking redneck dumbasses have to come along and make all of us look like simplistic racist xenophobes. If people like me, who would grade Obama an F of a president, are repulsed by your message, how do you think those who don't care about and/or like the president feel about it? Of course, that's why Obama and his advisors would find it strategic to drag the conspiracy out.

If I were the DNC, I'd easily drop a million dollars to make the other side make complete asses of themselves.

|8.3.09 @ 11:36PM|#

Come on. This is all over the net and the news. Take executive action and put a stop to this. Time to shut these bur'fers up;

(1)just break out $15 and
(2)send an aide to get a copy of your birth certificate and
(3)show it to everyone and of course since there is nothing unusual on it then
(4)we all will have a good laugh at the racist bur'fers expense and then
(5)move on to more important things, but
(6)don't forget items 1&2 (as they are the most important ones)

Problem Solved. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, stop all this zig-zaggin' it's making me tired.

bubiyuqn|8.4.09 @ 12:02AM|#

The overall argument here is rather moot, in the instance of the birthers. The problem at hand is not whether someone can disprove or prove Obama's birth in Hawaii. Let's look at it this way:

1) There is no such thing as objective truth. Although some people take offense to this statement, I'm sure anyone who has a) been 13 b) smoked enough weed or c) taken a first year philosophy class has nevertheless encountered this axiom. And yes, while objective truth may exist in some medium beyond us, the human mind cannot explicit know that something is true. For instance, no matter how good of a birth certificate Obama produced as "proof" of his citizenship, one could doubt its authenticity, and rightfully so: Obama is theoretically, at least, the most powerful man in the world. If the state of Hawaii issues birth certificates that are perfectly secure and infallible, then I applaud the state of Hawaii for its futuristic technology. There is no way to ever decide for certain whether or not Obama really was born in Hawaii or not. It's impossible to prove, and it's impossible to disprove. Definitive "proof" does not exist outside of mathematics, where things are only true in as much as that they are based on axioms that we take, on faith, to be true.

2) The notion of "natural born citizenship" is not an innate quality of humanity or any property extant in the universe. Yes, it's true that a person may either be born here or not, but this is an irrelevant piece of information as per 1), as nobody can indisputably prove the veracity of that claim. Rather, it is a thought construct, conferred by the government of the United States to particular citizens.

The point then, is how is this status conferred? Well, since the entirety of the people of the United States cannot possibly know whether every citizen of the United States was born here or not, we have constructed a bureaucracy to deal with such things, as a function of the government. We do this for a variety of things: crimes, for instance cannot be definitively "proven", but the criteria for conviction is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" as agreed to by twelve citizen-jurors. In this particular case, we set up a system through our courts to certify the "truth" to the extent that we, as citizens and members of our government feel comfortable with acting on a piece of knowledge (like a crime), and then we use that certified knowledge to incarcerate somebody.

For the purpose of certifying things like live births, it turns out that we as a people have decided to put into place a system wherein the states have their own rights and so forth to certify these things. In Obama's case, all of the relevant, elected officials, to whom we entrust the certification of these events as true, have reported that Obama is indeed eligible to run for President.

To ask for any more proof is absurd. We have set up a particular rule for eligibility, that one must be a natural born citizen, and then we set up a system of laws and agencies to verify that. Passing that check is all that there is. Barring a messenger from God telling us what the real truth is (and even then, there is no reason to necessarily doubt mass hysteria), we have the amount of evidence as required by the government to believe that Obama was born in the US. To reject the system that we use for checking said eligibility completely defeats the purpose of the rule, because then the rule becomes completely unknowable. If you wish to go outside the bounds of what we can verify using the system we have, we could make rules for the presidency as arbitrary as "The President's favorite color must be blue" and then we could all assert that Obama's favorite color is indeed black, and then we could all be up in arms. It's essentially equal. As members of the government, that is what you have an what you get. If you don't like that result, run for the Head of the Hawaii Department of Health, and nullify the evidence yourself.

bubiyuqn|8.4.09 @ 12:03AM|#

sorry, went a little comma happy. text happy too, but mostly just commas.

|8.4.09 @ 12:50AM|#

What birthers should be advocating is an amendment to the constitution that allows any naturalized citizen to become president. Since they're so concerned about minor points of law surely this will appease them. After all, it's about what's legal in the most technical sense, and not that we have a black president. Make the American dream real!

|8.4.09 @ 1:16AM|#

Holy Shit, Cylon Toaster, the Obama campaign has already put on display a copy of the only birth certificate the Hawaii Dept of Health issues.

What more do you fucking need.

Truly, there is no level of proof that will ever be accepted that will not be dismissed as someone conspiring with the conspirators.

It's time to expose the birthers for what they are. Agents of the Obama campaign intent on guaranteeing Democrat hegemony for the foreseeable future by portraying ever critic of Obama as a raving lunatic.

|8.4.09 @ 11:52AM|#

There is no such thing as objective truth.

lolfail.

I always want to punch someone in the nose when they say something asinine like that and say.. "pain is just subjective my friend".

I'm sure all of you would have been equally vigilant had John "Panama" McCain been president.

His birth certificate was challenged."

bill|8.4.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Last time, it is ambiguous. Your definition is your opinion. Many people believe Vattel's definiton is the right one. That's their opinion. Until there is a court case or legislation neither side can claim victory.

|8.4.09 @ 2:28PM|#

What is he hiding??? Millions spent to avoid showing a document that people say they have seen. The shown document can be obtained if born outside Hawaii. The birth announcements aren't proof of anything since anyone can place the ad. Sure, the absense of fact is not a fact but it is tempting to see where it leads. Perhaps he is legit. Perhaps he is not and Biden takes over (scary but can you imagine the laughs we would have) And even if he wasn't legit, the courts could rule in his favor just as they did for McCain. So what is he hiding??? The birthers should keep at it. Perhaps this discovery of whatever he is hiding would be just one more reason someone needs to not vote for him next time.

Bruce|8.5.09 @ 5:50AM|#

2 million jobs lost since Inauguration Day. And you can Hope for more Change yet!

Bruce|8.5.09 @ 5:53AM|#

Obama affiliated candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia are 14% behind their competition.

|8.5.09 @ 4:17PM|#

"On the surface, Obama's place of birth is a pretty bizarre fixation."

Only for those who care nothing about the constitution, the rule of law, and any remaining shred of an authentic American identity. The facts of BHO's birth aside, the scorn heaped upon those who give this matter the attention it deserves is appalling. The fact that this writer admits to caring more about movies than a possible nullification of our country's founding document should disqualify him from
writing for a major political magazine, or a local shopping guide. Evidently, Reason no longer is the former, and since its ads convey no information about useful products, neither is it the latter.

Chim Cham|8.6.09 @ 7:55PM|#

I seriously laughed like a fucking maniac at some of the comments here. Thank you, Reason, for giving some time to the issue here on your wonderful site. I wish you didn't have so many fucking morons visiting the site, but I suppose people begging for objective political commentary can't be choosers, so here I am.

The saddest part of this situation is that these "birthers" are so incredibly upset with the outcome of the election that they will scratch and claw for any shred of a reason to get Obama out of office. This is exactly what far-left liberals tried to do with the "9/11 Truth Commission" or whatever it was called.

I'm willing to accept Obama is a Black Panther/Secret Muslim/Election Rigging Mastermind as much as I'm willing to accept that GW Bush and friends plotted and carried out 9/11 in order to invade Iraq on behalf of Big Oil.

Actually, the Bush 9/11 thing is MORE believable to me (barely), but both are good for a laugh.

The problem is the Dem/Rep 2-headed monster declaring war on anything that might one day semi-threaten American dominance. This non-stop state of war threatens the safety AND liberty of each and every one of us.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Thoreau

These hilarious morons aren't even hacking at the branches anymore, they're rolling in leaf piles on the interstate.

|8.7.09 @ 6:15PM|#

OK folks enough with the insults. This is a simple matter. If Obama has nothing to hide all he needs to do is release the same documents that past Presidents have done willingly as a matter of routine and live up to his promise of transparencyIf he has something to hide he will not release the Documents which would mean all of us have reason for concern.

chim cham|8.7.09 @ 8:03PM|#

There's no way you can still believe this shit. If you really believe this guy and his "conspiracy pals" (which would be literally millions of people) duped the entire country into voting for an illegal immigrant, then you are a fucking moron. I mean that in the most offensive way possible. I hope you all cry yourselves to sleep every night thinking about our "Kenyan President." YOU ARE A MORON.

I've got some magic beans that will make this all go away and put GW Bush back in power. Anyone interested in buying them? $100 per bean. You must buy at least 100 beans for them to be effective.

|8.8.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Plain and simple, Hussein does not believe in our Nation's Constitution or Bill of Rights, and he certainly does not believe in our "inalienable rights" stated within The Declaration of Independence. For those that know not of what I speak, It's that overlooked statement of, we all have the God given right of LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. LIFE: we "all" have the RIGHT TO LIVE (has anyone researched the depopulation plans of this and previous administrations? Not to mention his healthcare plan. Remember nothing in life is free, everything comes with a price tag.) LIBERTY: We all have the right to be free, not constrained by government in our daily lives. HAPPINESS: We each have the right through our own ambition and desires to make our own happiness and success.

For far too many years Presidents have over stepped the boundaries of the Constitution, citing "Executive Privileges" that were not theirs to take. Nothing was said so they continued to abuse their power. Hussein the biggest offender to date.

Hussein has traveled the world apologizing for America. Down grading America, bowing and kissing the hands of our enemies and turning his back on and alienating our allies. But yet America was good enough to pay for his Ivy league education.

Hussein has pitted Americans against each other more than any previous President. He wants political rivalries, young against old, whites against black, gays against straight, illegals against all of us, for divided WE WILL FALL!

Hussein is the first President with his administration and minions that have dared to classify a group of Americans as "domestic terrorist" merely for exercising our rights to peacefully demonstrate, voice an opinion, and disagree with his agenda. Now he has asked people to inform on each other. If anyone remembers their history, this is Gestapo tactics. His close ties with Acorn to muscle his agenda also falls within this realm.

It amazes me how many blindly follow him with no facts whatsoever. The man does not have a factual past that demonstrates any allegiance to America. The only thing his past is full of is radical influences. That is not theory that is proven. If there are numerous things that he has done for the betterment of our society let them be known. Where might someone find those facts? Instead of the consent reply of something being false, prove it. He is about reparations and destroying America.

Every American has had to produce a birth certificate, school records, college records,military records,and work history at some point in their lives. Why should he be any different? Why would he not want to produce such items? Logic dictates by doing so it would put to rest a huge Constitutional requirement. Spending large sums of money to fight the allegations is not logical or being "transparent".

Evil prevails when good people stand by and do nothing. Not knowing what to do about Hussein and worrying about Biden becoming President should not stand in the way of enforcing the Constitution.

I hold dearly what freedoms we have. I do not need or want the government running my daily life with its edicts. We need to rise above personal bias and come together as Americans to save our Free Nation.

|8.9.09 @ 6:54PM|#

# Hobo Chang Ba | August 3, 2009, 11:13pm | #
# I'm sure all of you would have been equally
# vigilant had John "Panama" McCain been
# president.

Actually, yes, I would. I didn't want either Obama or McCain to be President, so had there been a way to press a "birthright case" against the latter, I certainly wouldn't have opposed such a move. It just seems to me, however, that someone born in foreign territory to US citizens traveling (or temporarily stationed) on government business is a "natural born citizen." No obligation of service to one's country should deprive a person or his progeny of natural born citizenship status. Even if the parents were traveling on holiday in a foreign land when McCain was born, as long as they were BOTH citizens, "natural born status" shouldn't be an issue.

The questions about Obama's status come primarily from the age of his mother and the citizenship of his father. Whether he was born on American soil or not only speaks to the relative strength of one side of the case or the other, and the tricky question of whether his citizenship was of the essentially undefined "natural born" kind. If he was born outside the country, to a foreign father, and the mother was not "of age" to confer US citizenship rights (e.g., not "nineteen years a resident/citizen"), then the case leans toward Obama being, technically, a foreginer. If the mother was "old enough," and Obama was born in a US State, then the case leans toward him being a natural-born citizen.

|8.9.09 @ 7:07PM|#

# Neu Mejican | August 3, 2009, 1:45pm | #

## Second, "born here" is something that the
## Supreme Court in the Wong case created out
## of cloth we had discarded in the
## revolution.

# As early as 1790 there were statues on the
# books that invoked both "born here" and
# "born abroad to citizens" as criteria for
# status as natural born citizen. I am not so
# sure we rejected the idea as you claim.

I have statues on the books in my library, too, NM, but I don't listen to them when they try to tell me how to think. ;-)

Seriously, I don't think you got my point. It wasn't that we didn't or couldn't choose to use place of birth to help establish citizenship -- especially, in example, in cases where parentage was unknown, kids had been abandoned, etc. It was that we categorically rejected place of birth as irrevocable determinant of subjecthood, as provided for under the common law and British statuTe and custom at the time. It was, nevertheless, the common law that Wong invoked, ignoring the more recent trend in US law by the time of the decision, to base citizenship more on descent and less on birthplace.

Regardless of the 1790 statutes, by the way, the US government simply could not exist as an independent entity, had we acknowledged the legitimacy of the "British from birthplace, forever" aspect of the British statutes and common law tradition. If you are saying that we said what we said in the Declaration because it was convenient for us to do so, and that the 1790 statutes said what they said because it was convenient for us at the time to do so, I won't argue that. There are innumerable examples that demonstrate our ignorance or repudiation of, or our hypocrisy toward, our own founding principles. On the other hand, it is in part the job of the Supreme Court to resolve such clashes in favor of the principles. I think the Wong court failed in its duty in this case.

|8.9.09 @ 8:09PM|#

# Neu Mejican | August 3, 2009, 1:36pm | #

## What about my postings indicates to you
## that I am "buying into" anything?

# Well there is this statement upthread: "When
# I stop to think of the twisty nature of\
# Barack Obama's claim to citizenship, my head
# hurts."

# It seems to require a good deal of "buying
# into this stuff" to find Obama's citizenship
# claims "twisty."

Given that I also provided the basis for my headache at the same time, attempting to illustrate the "twistiness" of the claims, and given that you did not dispute any of those facts I cited, to turn around and give me a hard time for my choice of adjective seems like you are trying to pick a fight.

I will repeat: Kenyan/Brit father. FACT. (Underage) US Mother, FACT. Bigamous marriage to father, apparent FACT. Early "divorce" of parents, apparent FACT. I listed all of those things because some of them supported claims FOR Obama's citizenship, while others supported claims against. There was no clear, open-and-shut answer. Hence, twisty, with the latest twist being the alleged Kenyan birth certificate.

Now, I said in my posting that the confirmation of the Kenyan birth certificate should be an easy enough thing to do. I am disappointed that nobody involved with the matter seems to have done the straightforward and obvious thing, and presented it to the Kenyan authorities for definitive verification: was there a birth record as specified in the certificate or not? Instead, however, debunking articles have appeared -- EVEN in WND, which broke the story. If they can't stand behind their own story enough to walk the so-called "smoking gun" paperwork through the confirmation process, then who am I to put any credence in it?

## If you are going to put people down for
## having an open mind, then I suppose we
## should be surprised about YOU. Or maybe not.

# Not sure I was putting people down for
# having an open mind. ... But an open mind
# that does not discriminate isn't very
# useful. At some point you have to make a
# judgment. If your judgment goes with "I will
# consider the "Republic of Kenya" birth
# certificate issued 10 months before the
# existence of The Republic of Kenya as
# possible evidence, then it is not a question
# of "open minded" it is a question of
# judgment.

I didn't have enough information originally to question the "Republic of Kenya" angle, but even so, the date of the document, relative to the long process of acquiring independence, left open the possibility that, at very least, the government was operating as "The Republic of Kenya" on some official forms -- perhaps accidentally -- before the formal declaration of the Republic the following December. The explanation for the discrepancy could be as simple as the office running out of old forms in February of 1964 and not wanting to print up a batch that would mostly be wasted, so moving forward to the new forms (in the full expectation that independence would soon, inevitably come) ahead of schedule. I have seen this kind of thing in corporate mergers and takeovers often enough. I think such things demonstrate sloppy practice, lack of discipline, but it happens.

# You are typically less gullible.
# That was why I was surprised.

I think it isn't so much gullibility as a preference for different kinds of proof (though my mind is open to all kinds). Recent "revelations" that the official seal embossing on the document was actually the impression of a shilling coin, for example, and the anachronism of "Republic of Kenya" on a document that was supposedly issued several months before the Republic was officially declared, may impeach the document but not necessarily the information on it. I prefer to test the INFORMATION -- in this case, the actual allegation that there was a birth record in such-and-such a volume on such-and-such a page, all things being equal. If the record had been there, the authenticity of the birth certificate would have been irrelevant. If the record had NOT been there, however, or if we would have had to go to extraordinary efforts and expense to examine the record, the authenticity of the document would enter into whether it would be worthwhile to expend additional resources to investigate the matter further. I am disappointed to learn that the impeachment of the document will probably prevent the answering of the actual question it poses -- was there an official birth record in Kenya or not? Even if the answer were "NO," we would have another FACT. Now, we can only say that the supposed justification for a claim was bogus. Nothing at all about the truth or falsity of the claim has been learned.

|8.9.09 @ 8:28PM|#

# Tony | August 4, 2009, 12:50am | #

# What birthers should be advocating is an
# amendment to the constitution that allows
# any naturalized citizen to become president.

Maybe so, but if they did, I would oppose them. I don't think naturalized citizens should be President, and I said so on these forums back when Hatch and company were agitating for it on behalf of (then high-flying, now politically wounded) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ideally, the President should have allegiance -- in fact and in law -- only to this nation. Ideally, the President should be a product of this nation, someone whose ideas and decisions would be informed by a lifelong, authentically American experience. Our President should be 100% the product of the American Experiment, for at least a generation or two back. I have been told before that this view is "chauvanist," and if so, oh well. That's how I feel. Our country was founded on the idea that we have a better way, and that the results of pursuing our better way would prove superior. How better to demonstrate this than by guaranteeing that the "guy (or gal) in charge" is also one of those "results"? Millions of great opportunities are open to everyone in this country, immigrant and citizen alike. At least one should be open only to those who have been US citizens from their first breaths, and I think it is appropriate that the Presidency is one such opportunity.

On the other hand, I would support an amendment that would clarify the meaning of "natural born citizen," and that would also reconcile the various kinds of citizenship with the 14th Amendment and the citizenship qualifications for office, as mentioned in the constitution. While they're at it, this amendment should probably also end the practice of birthright citizenship.