Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
Recent Comments
- arn on The End Of Everything
- William on The End Of Everything
- Robertvd on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- Robertvd on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- conrad ziefle on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- Greg in NZ on The End Of Everything
- Bob G on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
Your bad Steve LOL
This has me really confused.
To get a passport, you need one of the following:
birth certificate
letter of no record
affidavit of Birth
For one thing, a copy of your birth certificate is extremely easy to get, if you have one.
If you don’t have one, the other two things are also easy to get.
Obama has produced none of them………………
He keeps saying he has one, why not just flip it out there if he really does?
Yes, went through it last year
He produced a birth certificate. Your refusal to follow the Constitutionally-required full faith and credit clause doesn’t change the facts. You’re entitled to an opinion, even though one not shared by the legal community — but you need to recognize when your opinion is substituted for the facts.
Ed Darrell says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:40 am
He produced a birth certificate.
Would you provide links to help verify what you say?
I’ll give you the factual and legal case. You won’t like it, and you will choose not to believe what the documents say or what your lying eyes reveal.
But the case is here, and here. You might do well to check out the blog, Oh, For Goodness Sake, too.
Ed Darrell says:
April 21, 2011 at 9:52 am
You might do well to check out the blog, Oh, For Goodness Sake, too.
What blog? There were no links.
Oh, for goodness sake. Google it.
Oh, For Goodness Sake
Heard you need one to join little league?
So, since he was a little leaguer, we may assume Obama has one, right?
Better tack is to order through WorldNetDaily.com
If you are willing to pay $25 or more, you get the book (with Corsi’s autograph) and you contribute to the national TV ad campaign
This may be the most effective way to end “cap-and-tax” regulation/legislation
Do it!
So the birth certificate that has been shown and the 2 announcements in local papers on the day he was born are all part of the warmist conspiracy hatched 2 decades before there was any concern about AGW to elect a president who would actually do almost nothing to support their agenda. How clever these people are.
What has “been shown” Tony is a related document that is NOT an official birth certificate. The Long Form Birth Certificate shows the hospital, the attending physician, and other particulars. The photoshopped document that was displayed on his website has a serial number that should match his birth certificate. That number is out of sequence with other births within the same few days in Hawaii. Also, the document displayed is NOT sufficient identification for most Birth Certificate requirements. In Hawaii, you could obtain that document whether certifiably born in Hawaii or not. The newspaper notices are used around the country as legal announcements. So if Barak’s mother wished to get free state bennies for little Barry, this could easily have been one of the steps she needed to fulfill.
Your refusal to recognize it doesn’t change Hawaii law, common law, nor the Constitutional requirement. It’s an official birth certificate, recognized by the U.S. Department of State, and by law, recognized by all other states. You may wish the facts different.
If wishes were horses . . .
Ed Darrell
Only one person claims to have seen a real birth certificate. But you make it sound like it is otherwise.
Would you present your case with accompanying links to verify your claims?
There is a gaggle of press people who checked out the document Hawaii issued. Hawaii’s issued document came under seal, the seal of the Great State of Hawaii.
As you know, documents under seal are self-authenticating in common law, in English law, in U.S. law. It’s the highest form of authentication possible, really. The only way to challenge it is with clear and convincing evidence of fraud, which is not only not available, but not even on the horizon.
I made my case here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/6-ways-challenges-to-obamas-citizenship-fail/
Ed
There’s nothing new in your link that hasn’t already been dealt with. Your approach is like the people that defend the Mann Hockey Stick with the same hackneyed statements.
You’re right, I’m saying nothing new. It’s been dealt with, and resolved in favor of U.S. law, which recognizes that Obama’s birth certificate is valid.
So, now that you admit Corsi is exhuming the head of a dead horse to beat, can we ignore him and discuss serious issues?
Links to the announcements please tony? first I have heard of it. And Warmists conspiracy? Please! You are paranoid!
me? I do not really care as he was elected ( I would like to see the law strengthened so it can never occur in the future). So I just popped a bag of popcorn, listen to Trump goad loony luddite liberals and say….. “Pass the salt please”.
Tony Duncan says:
April 20, 2011 at 4:30 pm
So the birth certificate that has been shown and the 2 announcements in local papers on the day….
Links please.
…..and it wasn’t for a warmist conspiracy. The “warmist conspiracy” isn’t about warming at all. Nor is it truly about the environment. It’s about Malthusian paranoia and a Marxist lust for power. No one cares if the CO2 concentration rises or not. Many of them know it means nothing. It’s just the crisis du jour to justify Psychotic De-Industrialization, Massive Taxation, and Wealth Redistribution. Take note that these things are precisely what all the warmist “solutions” accomplish.
If they cared about CO2, they’d be arguing for a Thorium re-grid.
Hmm….good one, although I think the ‘Malthusian paranoia’ is a bit weak. But overall, it does capture the essence of the vitriol coming from warmists!
The birth certificate has NOT been shown. Obamby’s COMMUNIST parents gamed the system by planting the birth announcement so he and family could receive US gov’t benefits.
You can’t “plant” birth announcements coming from the Hawaii state vital records office.
You don’t know anything about legal notices in newspapers, do you.
Tony- “…2 decades before there was any concern about AGW..”
Hahaha. History teaches us that the anthropogenic climate disruption concerns (you need to defer to the Holdren’s authority, right?) were alive and well early in the 20th century.
Here’s a very small snapshot of the activity just prior to 1961.
“1956- Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset.
Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.
1957- Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies. Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.
1958- Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.
1960- Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s. Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Tony, don’t be ridiculous….
If Obama would flash his birth certificate every time this came up, it would be over.
Wouldn’t you? of course you would…………..
Yea, and if Michael Mann had nothing to hide he would just release all the code, communications, etc. to the public and let his “scientific work” speak for itself, but……
If Mann believed his work was 1/2 as robust as he claims…
….he would have it posted on every bill board from Miami to Alaska
Even he doesn’t believe it…………
I am sure he believes he got the right “answer” but probably has figured out that his methods do not support his “answer”. No matter, when you are saving the world you have to do what you have to do. Such is the life a superhero.
Latitude, we’ve had enough of your false claims. You being a Kenyan by birth, you have no right to complain about our president. It’s also bizarre that you’re pushing the candidacy of Donald Trump, since no one knows where he was born, but he’s not a U.S. citizen, we know.
/sarc
Yeah, just try to prove you and Trump are not aliens.
Obama flashed his birth certificate constantly for 18 months.
You were in a coma in 2008?
lmao! Sheen’s a birther now.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/04/20/charlie-sheen-questions-validity-obamas-birth-certificate/
Birds of a feather. . .
Hmmm….so you are in total agreement with Charles Manson?
We should forget this nonsense (which will never go anywhere) and focus on finding some better choices for the next election.
It’s fairly obvious that ther’s something hinky about BHO’s or Barry Soetero’s or whatever his name is’s birth certificate, but no judge will ever pull the trigger on it. The country would explode into riots and mass demonstations (think Madison Wisconsin ^10), violence, civil unrest, Democrat legislators walking out, and you can imagine the rest all courtesy of Tony D’s peaceful ‘progressive’ pals.
Tony Duncan claims to be neutral. But everything he says smacks of left wing thinking.
Amino,
that is because any one that is not in extreme right land that you inhabit seems left wing. Most right wingers consider me left wing. left wingers don’t understand me. Interesting that independent thinking devout Christians often consider me very close to their beliefs. I believe in reality, not ideology. Ideology gives one a map to base actions on, but no ideology is fully accurate, so you need to keep adjusting the ideology TO reality and not the other way around, Of course this thinking is similar to Dewey and the scientific method, so it is anathema to left and right ideologues, in spite of both claiming to do so.
I hate politics Tony. You have not concluded that yet? Have you read anything I have said in this blog about Ronald Reagan? Or Patton? Or the right wing paradigm of the military, and nuclear power?
Justa,
and how many republicans were attacked by those mobs of progressive demonstrators. those commie police and firefighters and teachers? I forget the exact number, though I think it was under 1,000.
You are looking for the hospital birth certificate right? What if he lost it? Does the hospital have a duplicate or some kind of record of his birth?
In the 60’s, chances are, you would have been born in a hospital.
Hospital records are kept by the hospital and state, both.
What is showing in the internet is a ‘registration’ of birth, not a birth certificate.
The registration could be filled out long after someone is born.
Bottom line, if the screwball had a legitimate birth certificate, he would have flashed it 3 years ago. He still hasn’t.
..and it would not have been up to people on the internet to concoct one.
nofreewind
A person in Hawaii claims he’s seen both the short and long form birth certificate. So they aren’t lost. If there are both forms then the quickest way to end this issue is to take them both out immediately and show them to the world, out in the light of the noonday sun, and even have document experts verify them, and not to rely on the witness of just one person—which, by the way, is what Ann Coulter is doing.
The certificate shown here meets all requirements for proof of identity suitable for obtaining a US passport. Here are the requirements:
1. Full name
2. Date of birth
3. Place of birth
4. Seal and signature (in Hawaii it is on the back as confirmed by PolitiFact)
5. Date certificate filed
6. Names of both parents
The certificate shown in the image linked to above is good enough for the US Government to accept as a birth certificate. It meets all the legal requirements for a birth certificate (assuming it is signed and embossed on the reverse as is the practice in Hawaii). It is a birth certificate.
Latitude says:
April 20, 2011 at 9:51 pm
What is showing in the internet is a ‘registration’ of birth, not a birth certificate.
I believe it’s called Certificate of Live Birth.
Can you tell us exactly how anyone could get a copy of the “original” birth certificate in Hawaii, since copying of any remaining paper records is not allowed?
If you were not an alien from the planet that is at war with Tralfamador, you’d have produced your Hawaiian birth certificate to prove your bona fides to make the challenge. Where is it?
Just let people see the birth certificate. And the issue will go away.
You’d prefer a certificate of dead birth?
Yes, several states call their birth certificates “certificates of live birth.”
You think the Bible says pi is 3, too, right? Literalism gets one nowhere in the law.
AAiM, you’ve seen the birth certificate, and you haven’t pulled your challenge. Why should we assume others to be more noble than you?
WHY has he spent so much money to keep it secret??
http://amfoi.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/another-chump-walks-with-whisper/
Found this… “The Obama birth issue essentially boils down to Hawa’i’s peculiar 1910-72 birth records law, which enabled out-of-state births to be recorded as ‘Hawaiian’:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
Thus, the Department of Public Health records, from which the FactCheck ‘verified’ Obama Certification Of Live Birth was printed, do not necessarilly confirm that he was born in Hawaii.”
Strange world.
His Mom being a hippy chick, more than likely had him with something like a mid-wife, at home, in Africa, what ever….
…and didn’t even bother to register him
Chances are, his grandparents registered him when he was sent to live with them in Hawaii. They had to register him to get him in school.
That’s not what what that page is about.
What it is about is the fact that prior to statehood Hawaii issued certificates of Hawaiian birth and this lays out the methods by which such a certificate is converted to a late birth certificate of the state of Hawaii. Nothing at all to do with out-of-state birth.
The jpeg of the certificate at Poltifact does indeed appear to be a document which is suitable for establishing legal identity. It also appears to be what you get from the state of Hawaii when you request a birth certificate. What more do you want?
prior to statehood Hawaii
Hawaii Statehood: August 21, 1959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
Barack Obama birth date: August 4, 1961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama
Hawaii was already a State when Barack Obama was born.
prior to statehood Hawaii
Hawaii Statehood: August 21, 1959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
Barack Obama birth date: August 4, 1961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama
Hawaii was already a State when Barack Obama was born.
It also appears to be what you get from the state of Hawaii when you request a birth certificate.
It is not a birth certificate.
As I pointed out, the page linked to above has nothing at all to do with the Certificate of Live Birth (aka “birth certificate”) released by Barack Obama. It deals with a completely different issue.
No, it does not allow the recording of non-Hawaiian births to be recorded as having occurred in Hawaii. The certificate you note here was not available until after 1980 or so, so it would be impossible for a 1961 birth (but who are you to let facts and history and the law get in the way of a rant, right?).
But if you look at the law, you’ll see that the application must include evidence of the birth, including a statement of the location of the birth. Once those facts are verified by the state, the state will issue a certificate stating the accurate location of birth.
Obama’s document says “Honolulu.” So even were it true that such a certificate could be obtained as you claim, it would also be true that the certificate obtained by Obama certifies his U.S. citizenship and “natural born” status.
BTW had the Obama Certification of Live Birth been on of the certificates described in the page linked to, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-16 requires the certificate to be marked “late” or “altered”.
Why doesn’t he just release it?
Shuts the mob up, makes them look stooopid. Etc.
Oh. Has everyone forgotten about the first interview with the (Kenyan) grandmother. She was present at the birth. In Kenya.
Changed her tune. Rapidly.
Hell. It don’t take much to bribe a Kenyan.
Intimidation – probably less effective, given average life expectancy. Still. Many agencies (CIA?) have a looong reach.
I’m sure the welfare benefits in Kenya were much more favorable than the U.S. 🙂
What I find humorous is the theory that Obama is just holding it back for the right time so as to embarrass his political opponents in the next election thereby confirming the ‘Birthers are nutbags’ mantra. OTOH, it is a Constitutional requirement to prove natural citizenship in order to be POTUS; he hasn’t done that, pure and simple.
Andy Weiss is right though because nothing is ever going to come of it regardless of the truth.
slimething says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:27 pm
What I find humorous is the theory that Obama is just holding it back for the right time so as to embarrass his political opponents…
If he’s that smart I sure haven’t seen any of it. I find I must pray
God to give him wisdom…….. lest America fall into a ditch that it may never get out of.
Hey Steven,
You might enjoy playing with this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/156969-james-cameron-global-warming-overtakes-skynet-as-threat-to-humans
This is evidently a powerful tool for Obama to rally “sane” people for his re-election. And it wouldn’t be any longer if an actual birth certificate were to be shown now. Actually, it’s much more convenient (for the Democrats) if this stays open more or less forever.
The ultimate question remains, didn’t the Republicans have any good lawyer to hire to argue against Obama’s right to become POTUS? Unlikely.
amazing how incompetent republicans are. Here the president was not born in the US and they can’t even forge a decent birth certificates from Kenya.
it also should be easy to prove no one ever saw Barry with his mom in Hawaii.
One reads such comments and what can one say but, “Tony Duncan!”
Wow, how smart the Democrats are to leave these doubts lingering in the air.
You have to remember that their candidate wasn’t born in the US either.
LOL
Phil
He was born on a military base. All of that was dealt with out in the open, in the light of day, none hiding it. What’s your point?
Amino,
it is impossible to eliminate doubts form fanatics who will not accept any thing that counters their fantasy conspiracy theories. you have posted every one sided piece of evidence that Obama was not born in America, as you post only one sided pieces of evidence that disprove ACC. As with ACC I find your comments informative but hardly authoritative.
You like ordering books. Why not get this one and see what it says?
You mean like warmcold, wetdry, snowrain, and droughtflood?
Tony, if you were the president of the United States, and there was some right wing fanatic fantasy conspiracy theory that you did not have a birth certificate….
….wouldn’t you show it?
Any sane person would.
or unless like Omn says, we have elected a president that does not represent everyone and plays childish games.
Tony Duncan
More evidence of your left wing mindset.
I’ve heard it said that most people in the political left think they are middle-of-the-road and can’t imagine they are anything but.
Tony Duncan says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:59 am
as you post only one sided pieces of evidence that disprove ACC
Would you provide a case in point?
Tony Duncan
Do you assume I have concluded Barack Obama was not born within the borders of the United States?
Amino,
I almost pissed myself on that one.
“Would you provide a case in point?”
Find me ANY post on this Blog, that supports any piece of ACC theory. Find me any comment from Steve, You , Mike, SUYTS, or any but the handful of ornery nonconformists who have ever posted anything that supports any aspect of ACC. Actually when pressed Mike and SUYTS and even Steve have grudgingly admitted that it is possible CO2 could have a minuscule effect. As I have repeatedly maintained as long as a comment is against ACC it is never contradicted no matter how inconsistent it is with other comments.
Would you provide a case in point that validates your claim, or rather inference, that I ignore the science of global warming and am one sided?
You do not realize how strong your bias is Tony.
Amino,
I would be happy to change my mind about your bias. Please just point me to any comment you have made that either disputes a post Steve has made or a comment here that contains some attack on ACC that you know to have been proven wrong or is logically inconsistent with a view that you hold. Or do you contend that everything Steve has ever written on here is absolutely correct, every post attacking ACC is correct and there have been no mutually exclusive arguments and there is in fact no evidence of any sort for ACC.
Why do you avoid providing a case in point?
Tony Duncan says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:02 am
I would be happy to change my mind about your bias.
I really don’t care if you do. Don’t flatter yourself so much.
Tony Duncan says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:02 am
attacking ACC
Odd that you view them as attacks. You must be sensitive about the topic.
The more you talk the more a picture of who you are is painted. My opinion of you was much higher when the canvas was blank.
Amino,
I view them as attacks on ACC because I have had conversations about issues with people I disagree with, where we are engaged in expressing different points of view and different understanding of the facts, but there is a mutual interest in determining what common ground exists. While I do respect the intelligence and sources some of the opinions expressed on this site, I see almost no interest in examining all the evidence in order to determine what areas are cause for common ground and what areas are still in question.
As I have repeatedly saud. i know some climate scientists I have had discussions with them and sen their discussions with people who are much more knowledgeable than I am. The characterization of them here has no connection to reality whatsoever in my view. I keep seeing 4 or 5 names here posted repeatedly of climate scientists that have serious disagreements with ACC, there are a few more I am familiar with that are not mentioned, but whenever I see information about ACC form other sources I keep finding more and more and more names who are experts on a vast range of topics. the idea that ALL of them are wrong about EVERY element of physics, chemistry, biology, computer modeling, statistical analysis, etc etc, is frankly untenable.
that does not mean that the current theory of ACC is absolutely correct or that the objections posted here are all wrong, but it does mean that I give little credibility to people who are uninterested in the truth and condone and spread bizarre ideological fantasies as if the fact that they can make connections between facts proves those connections are real.
Tony
You like going in circles I see.
Amino,
there are so many obvious cases of Steve posting about things as if they are indications of evidence against ACC.
the most obvious of which are the possibly over a hundred posts, which I don’t bother commenting on, where he points out that there have been natural disasters on the planet when the concentrations of CO2 were significantly lower than they are now. Is there ANY scientist who supports ACC or any aspect of ACC theory that contends that natural disasters could not have occurred with CO2 levels under 350PPM? Now if he was to supply a statistical analysis of the frequency of specific kinds of events and compare that to climate models hindcasts, and show that there was a significant discrepancy. Well he would be saying something that had actual value.
I have as yet not seen any comment you have made that disputes any claim made by Steve or anyone else that casts doubt on ACC theory. All you need to do to disprove my assertion is point me to a comment where you have disputed an untenable claim about ACC. Unless of course your contention is that every element of ACC theory is wrong and there is absolutely no evidence that supports any aspect of it.
Climate models are full of empirically derived parameters which came from mathematically fitting the past based on a set of assumptions. Hindcasting is meaningless. It is guaranteed by definition to produce the correct result.
Steve,
you are telling me that climate models that are designed to predict future climate factors, are reverse engineered BEFORE they produce hindcasts in order to fit the historical record? that seems like it would have to be due to conscious fraud.
if that is the case it should be very easy to prove the models are completely fraudulent by the still reamaining scientists that are not feeding at the trillion dollar climate gravy train.
Using climate models for hindcasting is ridiculous. I once tried a stock forecast program which did the same thing. It back fit a stock trend using a fourth order equation. The match was perfect. Only problem was that going forward, it was completely useless.
Why do you guys love him so much………….
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:45 am
Phil
He was born on a military base. All of that was dealt with out in the open, in the light of day, none hiding it. What’s your point?
That at the time of his birth he wasn’t a natural born citizen of the United States.
Sure Phil.
Again, here is your method of not answering a question below where the question was asked somewhere else.
There was no other way to answer it!
Ya Phil, McCain is not a legal citizen of the USA.
Phil. says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:15 am
There was no other way to answer it!
There’s a reply button. Surely someone as educated as you has seen it.
Wrong Phil. Read the laws and the judicial interpretations. Children of citizens serving in the military are natural born citizens.
Ya, but do they have to be conceived within the borders of the 50 states?
;O)
speaking of Barack Obama’s Social Security Number
Barack Obama had been using a social security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.
http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look_at_obamas.htm
Even more interesting are the remarks by Bill Ayers about fabricating false identities for every need, and the mention that there are additional SSI numbers associated with Obama. How does one come by the SSI number of a kid who died in Hawaii?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:21 am
Phil. says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:15 am
There was no other way to answer it!
There’s a reply button. Surely someone as educated as you has seen it.
Yes I have seen it on some posts and when it’s there I use it, however there wasn’t one at the post of yours I was replying to, just like there wasn’t one on this post. So I’ll ask you to withdraw the snark.
There’s always a reply button that will land you comment under the question. Should I add more snark at this point?
There may be on your computer but there isn’t on mine.
No, there is always a reply button that will land your comment under the question. It may not be directly under the question but it will appear in the thread under the question.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:20 am
Ya Phil, McCain is not a legal citizen of the USA.
That is not the requirement for being a president of the US.
Note sorry no ‘reply’ button.
“The president lied on his CV – why can’t I?”
You’re not The Messiah.
If it has the name Steven Goddard on it isn’t that what you’d be doing?
Phil. says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:48 am
That is not the requirement for being a president of the US.
Note sorry no ‘reply’ button.
You’re right. I stated it wrong.
It would have been valid under Constitutional restraint if McCain had become president.
Is that better?
BTW, McCain wouldn’t have been my choice for nominee, nor would Obama have been.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:19 am
Is that better?
My point was that McCain’s status as a citizen was retroactively ‘declared’ in 1952. Whether that constitutes ‘natural born citizen’ has never been tested under law as far as I’m aware.
No ‘reply’ button!
Phil, it has. I provided the links here in a post back in November, or thereabouts. It gave many judicial precedents. But it has been well established that children of service men and women born abroad are natural born citizens.
That’s not the point, that wasn’t the case when McCain was born so his status was conferred by the following:
“Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
Phil
Should I just leave you to your own devices?
You are correct though, the term “natural born” is ill defined. And, the specific question as to eligibility has never been tested. However, I believe it is commonly held that a citizen of birthright, would be considered a “natural born” citizen.
This is just a distraction. The real question is if he defrauded the American people to get into the White House.
Is it possible that Barry Soetero is actually a climate refugee?
And that Big Oil is behind this coverup so that we won’t know that his native island has already been submerged by rising sea levels?
Yes… that must be it.
#1 on Amazon.com
Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3
Is America turning birther?
;O)
…Inquiring minds want to know. I’ll get my copy from WND, and contribute to the cause.
Come to think, were Obama to be shown ineligible, there would be a good case to reinterpret the Constitution in a more modern way (who in their right mind would think Obama as non-American??), opening to Oval Office door to the Gubernator.
And to me!!
Arnold! Now that is a scary thought. But after presiding over the nonstop decline in the California economy his track record ain’t what it used to be.
Marrying a Kennedy got him that far, but no further.
There is no birth certificate because how are you going to put “Mother: Jackal” and not raise some eyebrows?
It’s been brought to my attention by my kids that young people have never seen “The Omen.” Ok, Obama is the anti-christ and his mama was a wild dog. And Gregory Peck is going to nail his ass or die tryin’. Good movie.
Now you are just being silly. Any rational person knows you cannot prove a negative.
0bama is messing up so badly even the Kenyans are claiming he was born in Hawaii…
Now that’s damn funny. 🙂
Sorry phil., you do not know what you are talking about. From the “Conclusive Definition of a Natural Born Citizen”:
Since his parents were citizens, that makes him one as well.
You’re not reading what I posted, particularly “at the time of his birth”. You’re referring to the law as it stands today, in 1952 a law was passed stating:
“Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
Clearly such a declaration wouldn’t be necessary if such people were already citizens.
Did you put false information in your CV to get your job?
Ever hear of redundant? As in it does not matter? of course not! There is no redundancy in your world!
Get real. The statement was a feel good, but hardly necessary as the precedent of being born to american citizens (that is 2 of them, not one) had already been set long before then (try the 19th century).
First let me point out the 14th amendment where it states:
“making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”.
Was not the canal zone under the jurisdiction of the US? I will save you google time, yes it was. Subsequently, in case law – Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) – the Court ruled:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Now, your assignment, should you chose it, is to look up the meaning of the word “redundant” in the dictionary.
Always with the negative waves Moriarity! Always with the negative waves!
Your Oddball imitation is sadly lacking, as is your scientific knowledge. The proper course of action is for those that think AGW is happening have to prove it. Skeptics are duty bound to find fault with such assertions through scientific evidence. Therefore, YOU prove to AMINO it is happening and I am sure he will be happy to admit your superior knowledge. However, to date, NO ONE has proved anything about AGW (or your ACC) other than they can talk alot about it, and like the weather, do nothing.
Phil,
As usual you are not reading what I write. I, of course, accept that as part of commenting on this blog.
I have never stated that AGW is correct, so therefore, logically, I do not have to do anything to prove that. What I have ben commenting on is the credibility of the comments. If no one ever contradicts any argument against AGW even if the various arguments are mutually exclusive it shows that the commenters and poster of the blog are not interested in finding out the reality, only in trying to prove AGW wrong. Reality can not at the same time be that there is no warming, and that the warming is caused by factor xxx.
Also when Steve and SUYTS are willing to harbor bizarre conspiracy arguments in order to pretend that Steve’s repeated attacks on Hansen’s “quote” that manhattan would be underwater by 2008, are in error, when it has been shown unequivocally that Hansen never made that statement, shows an attachment to ideology. The fact that no one else on this blog that argues against AGW is willing to challenge Steve on such an irrefutable point, also makes it clear that there is no interest in determining reality, only in attacking the enemy, and never admitting mistakes. people who cannot change their view when the facts show otherwise are not credible sources. As I commented on this post that does not invalidate specific scientific arguments, but is blows general credibility out of the water. the same with the Birth certificate issue. It is clear that any proof offered of Obama’s birth in Hawaii will not be accepted by most people commenting here, which indicates slave to ideology, not an interest in the truth. there are witnesses who have said they knew Obama in hawaii. Proving a negative is not possible, yet finding no evidence of a positive would at least maintain the possibility of a his not being born there. Since there are multiple sources of evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and no evidence that he was not born in Hawaii to insist that he was not born there is indicative of an intense desire to prove ones beliefs. As I posted above my interest is in the desire to have my beliefs determined by reality.
if your desire is to prove that ACC is wrong, then you have to supply a theory of climate that is consistent and that is congruent with ALL the facts. Pointing out where ACC is wrong based on only some facts is not actually disproving the theory. One can easily disprove quantum mechanics by that method, yet until you provide me with a theory that actually explains reality better than it, I will not be convinced QM is wrong.
Manhattan is underwater, and will be even more underwater by 2028.
“……..it has been shown unequivocally that Hansen never made that statement,……..”
==========================================
lol, first, Tony, how you tie Hansen’s predictions to a birther post is odd enough, but then, when you have two people of similar ideology suddenly remembering things differently 10 years later which you accept as “unequivocal” proof, is more of a statement toward your gullibility rather than statement towards anyone’s failing to challenge assertions.
But, to blow your world up about no one challenging posts here, I’d like to point some things out.
First, do you know who first brought Hansen’s “clarification” to this blog? Yours truly. Secondly, read the several birther threads on this blog. Again, you’ll see yours truly stating that it isn’t an issue worth perusing. Indeed, on this very thread you’ll see me agreeing with such a sentiment. Also, you may recall Steve posted an article recanting a previous one. It is to his credit, that when pointed out he quickly recanted, but didn’t delete anything.
You state no one challenges the assertions here. This is clearly false and if you go back to my examples you’ll see that not only is it false but it is falsified by the very people you mention. Steve not only identifies his mistakes but readily admits them. He doesn’t delete or revise or try to come to an agreement with like minded individuals about what was stated when.
Lastly, you’re incorrect about what is required to falsify ACC. I, nor anyone else has to present an alternate theory. The onus is upon the advocates of ACC and empirical evidence. The general theory has already been falsified. The globe has had 13 1/2 of increasing CO2 and decreasing or flat-lined temps. ACE values aren’t increasing nor has the Arctic “death spiraled”. I will readily admit I don’t know all of the factors that comprise our climate nor the weights of the various factors. Indeed, I probably don’t know most of what entails our climate. My ignorance isn’t a proxy for validating someone else’ theory. It doesn’t work that way.
Oh Tony,
I beleive that the authenticity of that statement has not been shown to be in error, only that it was alleged to have been made “off the record”. Big Difference.
Dealing with absolutes as you do will always result in you being wrong. Very little in life is irrefutable, and given that a negative is almost impossible to prove (he did NOT say), you are only damning yourself.
Glad you agree with me on that issue.
That is where you are dead wrong. Skeptics do not have to “prove” anything as they believe in the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis proves ACC wrong, so warmists have to disprove the null hypothesis. As yet, no proof is forthcoming in that area.
it is not a theory. It is not even an hypothesis given that no one has come up with a valid method of testing it yet.
SUYTS,
Again you are not reading what I actually wrote. My post was about credibility, so the connection between birthed posts and other issues raised on this blog are relevant. I was very clear that I was not talking about “what was needed to falsify ACC” I was talking about credibility. So the onus is on people who deny ACC to act in a manner that increases credibility. Inability to admit clear mistakes decreases credibility. You state that Steve has repeatedly admitted mistakes. I admit I have not read every blog post (has anyone read every post?), so I can only state that I have never encountered a post or comment where he has admitted a mistake. there have been a number of instances where i have pointed out mistakes to him, and he has ALWAYS found tortured ways of rationalizing or denying them. if you can point me to an instance where he states that some information he provided is incomplete or it turns out it is wrong and does give support some element of ACC, I would be happy to change my view. As I said I adjust my views based on reality, not on assertions.
I absolutely give credit to Steve for not altering his blogs or deleting posts, and his extremely liberal (in the classical sense of the word, please take no offense) moderating policies.
I also give credit to Steve, you Mike Amino, and many others for there valuable insights and information and links.
I do not remember you bringing up the clarification of the Hansen quote. I remember reading about it on Huffpost and rather crowing about how Steve was wrong about his favorite quote. I could be wrong about that, and maybe it was on a post that you had already commented. but I clearly remember reading it on huffiest first and gleefully looking for an opportunity to inform Steve of his mistake.
And I am happy to rehash this AGAIN, just so that people reading this can see how irrational the whole “quote” issue is.
Bob Reiss wrote a book where he quotes hansen answering a question FROM Reiss about what would be different in 203o IF CO2 doubled by then. Hansen then made the statement that has been repeated ad nauseum on the right wing blogosphere. The book was published in 2001. AFTER the book was published and with the book highlighted and mentioned repeatedly in the Article, REISS said in Salon in a casual PHONE interview that Hansen made a statement in 1988 about what would happen in 20 or 30 years. The BOOK version is consistent with what Hansen has written and said a that time. The article is totally inconsistent. the book was written from notes. the phone conversation was off the top of the REPORTERS head. Instead of admitting that Hansen never made that statement you and Steve continue to give credence to the article in spite of the fact that both Hansen and Reiss deny he said what the article says, and both state that the book version is correct. I have seen the book and read the relevant passage with my own eyes. You CaN maintain that there is some bizarre conspiracy and that Hansen actually said the quote in the article, but no reasonable person will believe you. And that negatively impacts Steve’s credibility for very good reason.
as for your saying that the birthed issue is not worth pursuing, while a noble sentiment, has no bearing on whether the issue has any credence. As i see the issue, there is NO evidence that obama was NOt born in Hawaii. there are multiple lines of evidence that he WAS born in hawaii. One CAN believe he was not born there, but no rational person, given the presented evidence, will consider it credible.
your evidence of the falsification of ACC is an assertion. Most of the scientific community considers ACC a theory and one that is supported by many pieces of evidence from diverse and unconnected sources. As an accepted theory in the scientific community it is necessary to provide peer reviewed studies that undermine many of those lines of evidence. Steve has produced VOLUMES of information that contradict every leg of the theory, yet he does not publish them or find a reputable scientist to reconfirm and publish his refutations. Most of his information is SO contradictory to ACC that if true, the thousands of scientists NOT dependent on the trillions of dollars thrown at climate scientists on their luxury yachts drinking daiquiris with bimbos provided by Soros, would quickly reconfirm and start the process of replacing ACC with whatever theory Steve knows to be true. You can blog and comment all you want about all these issues, but until you get the evidence into a coherent viable counter explanation of the facts you will not convince the scientific community.
I repeat that I know some climate scientists and have had NO conversation with ANY of them where they have not admitted mistakes, or have been clear about the limitations of their understanding. The politicization of the issue has certainly distorted the discussion, and I do not just believe what I am told by anyone.
“As an accepted theory in the scientific community it is necessary to provide peer reviewed studies that undermine many of those lines of evidence. “
Nonsense, Tony. Until it is proven beyond doubt that natural forces have not caused the small amount of warming seen in the late 20thC, ACC remains just another theory.
I can’t do better than Willis Eschenbach’s open letter to Kevin Trenberth when he tried your trick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation/
Dang, Tony, I do read your posts, but as much as you write and the diverse topics you cover makes it un-economical to address them all in one response.
First, go here……. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/major-fail-below-%e2%86%93/
Can we now dispense with the idea you posit about no challenges and no admissions of being wrong?
Secondly, obviously I don’t know when you read the HuffPo article, so it may be that you read it before I posted the link here. But, my point was that people do indeed post information contradictory to the assertion here. (Although, I was simply informing and not positing that Hansen was misunderstood.)
Your definition of “conspiracy” is a bit bizarre. For 2 or more people to agree upon a course of action or inaction in order for a furtherance of an agenda isn’t typically described as a conspiracy. If so, then Dems and Repubs are continually “conspiring”. And, if that is indeed the standard, then I can say that climatologists and journalists do conspire. (Witness the several workshops about messaging.)
About publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The very definition would preclude a study or article overturning conventional thought from being published. But, again, that isn’t necessary to refute ACC. And while I can’t speak for Steve or anyone else, I’m not interested in positing an alternate theory. I see no reason to exchange one incomplete theory with another. I truly believe we don’t know enough to begin to make assumptions about our climate. I also believe had it not been for this 30+ year hiatus of rational thought, we’d be much closer to knowing about climate and much closer to finding true alternative energy sources. In other words this issue has set science and its practical applications years behind what it should be.
It would also be useful to add that Tony’s beloved peer review publishing process is not quite as squeaky clean as he seems to think.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/20/bias-in-the-peer-review-process-a-cautionary-and-personal-account/
Yes, but if anyone cared to know about the effectiveness of peer-review, they should simply go to climateaudit and search for Steig. Start at the bottom of the first page of results and work your way up. The history of that debacle tells us all we need to know about “peer-review”.
Shortened version……..
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/13/steig-and-the-knuckleheaded-reviewers/
PhilJourdan says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Ever hear of redundant? As in it does not matter? of course not! There is no redundancy in your world!
Get real. The statement was a feel good, but hardly necessary as the precedent of being born to american citizens (that is 2 of them, not one) had already been set long before then (try the 19th century).
First let me point out the 14th amendment where it states:
“making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”.
Was not the canal zone under the jurisdiction of the US? I will save you google time, yes it was.
Nice try but you missed that important word and
So McCain was not born “within the United States” so jurisdiction is irrelevant.
Subsequently, in case law – Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) – the Court ruled:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
But McCain was was not born in the US but in Colon City, Panama (which was not under US jurisdiction by the way).
Now, your assignment, should you chose it, is to look up the meaning of the word “and” in the dictionary.
So you have McCain born to residents of the unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone (where according to the Insular Cases rulings the full constitution didn’t apply), born in the Republic of Panama which was not under US jurisdiction, so your 14th amendment doesn’t apply.
As a result in 1952 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was passed to ‘declare’ such people “citizens of the United States”, no redundancy at all.
Uh, yes it was. Or how did Carter give it back? You missed that point. The Canal zone was an American possession (like Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.), so it WAS under American Jurisdiction. You blew the wad on that one phil. The AND works. The Canal zone was another territory of the US until it reverted back to Panama after Carter signed the legislation.
Try reading the post and don’t leave out the ‘and’ this time, and while you’re at it read about the Insular cases. Since McCain wasn’t born in the Canal Zone it’s moot anyway.
I would instruct you to do the same. Or did you miss Guam, the Virgin Islands. The “United States” is not just the 50 (or 48 then) states, it is all of the US States AND Territories. Otherwise we would be arguing if Obama was born before Hawaii became a state or not.
Sorry, No Ed. US Law has said nothing about the validity of Obama’s BIRTH CERTIFICATE since it was never found. Indeed, so far the courts have NOT ruled on it as they do not want to touch it.
Please, do not lie in defense of your point. State the facts as they are – do not make them up.
PhilJourdan says:
April 22, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I would instruct you to do the same. Or did you miss Guam, the Virgin Islands.
No they are covered by the Insular Cases which you refuse to acknowledge, the ruling was that the constitution only fully applied to incorporated territories like Alaska and Hawaii and not to unincorporated territories like the Panama Canal Zone. They were only added to the United States for nationality purposes in 1952. There is no reason to argue whether Obama was born in the US since he was born in Hawaii after statehood, if he was born there before statehood then 8 U.S.C. § 1405 would apply: “A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.”
The “United States” is not just the 50 (or 48 then) states, it is all of the US States AND Territories. Otherwise we would be arguing if Obama was born before Hawaii became a state or not.
This argument was raised regarding Barry Goldwater’s candidacy since he was born in Arizona before it became a state.
In any case McCain wasn’t born in the PCZ but in the independent nation of Panama so your failed attempts to obfuscate about what constituted the US are irrelevant.
Hmmm.. you still miss it. They can make statements all they want, but the facts still remain (those pesky things that seem to trip you up). remember Andrew Jackson? The case was settled long before the clarification of the 20th century.
And you are wrong about your any case. McCain WAS born in the Canal Zone, and unlike Barry, his BIRTH CERTIFICATE actually has signatures – of the attending US NAVY Doctor who did it.
read it and weep (from one of your own liberal sites):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
Time for Monty Python’s ‘Life of Barry.’
Still in denial, these issues were dealt with in 1952 and are part of US Law. The facts are on my side no matter whether he was born in the PCZ or Colon, there is a McCain birth certificate from Colon, it could be a fake of course.
Title 8 of the US Code is quite clear:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html
Like it or not — and I’ve been arguing that the image of the Obama certificate is an image of a real Hawaiian birth certificate — Phil is right here. McCain was (and is) an American citizen at birth as defined by the law. Period. No argument is possible. He is just as much a natural born US citizen as Obama is.