Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage.
The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya.
The agency went online in 1998, and still listed him as born in Kenya.
1998 Client List
By 2005 the profile was updated, and still said he was born in Kenya.
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, is a New York Times bestseller.
As of February 2, 2007, the profile still said he was born in Kenya
February 2, 2007 Dystel & Goderich Literary Management :: Client List
One week later, on February 10, 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President
Saturday, February 10, 2007; 3:28 PM
Text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s speech, as prepared for delivery Saturday in Springfield, Ill., and released by his campaign, in which he announced he is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008:
His profile was changed within a few weeks to say that he was born in Hawaii.
April 21, 2007 Dystel & Goderich Literary Management :: Client List
For 17 years it was advantageous to say that he was born in Kenya, but after he announced his candidacy for president – he needed to be born in the US. Why did Obama choose to lie about his birthplace?
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
The folks who, out of generosity, politeness, or, most commonly, wishful thinking, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.
Miriam Goderich now claims that the Kenyan Birthplace claim was her fault. But even her acceptance of responsibility was weaselly: she claimed it was her own “fact checking error,” but never said where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”
In fact, she obviously lied. Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.
Dystel requires, as is standard practice in the industry, that a prospective author submit his own bio. The claim that they invented a fictitious foreign birthplace for a new American author, and inserted it into his bio, is utterly absurd.
Who would presume to write a new author’s bio for him? In fact, who would presume to write anything about her client, and publish it, without at least running it by him?
And how could such a falsehood in an author’s bio be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?
Here’s what an industry insider has to say about the absurdity of that lie:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/a-word-from-tom-lipscomb.php
If someone suggests that Obama and his confederates would never tell a lie, ask him if he is the last person on the planet who still believes that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it” under Obamacare. (BTW, here is my insurance cancellation notice; “Termination Reason: Policy terminated due to product being non-ACA compliant.”)
Goderich’s lie for Obama doesn’t even pass the laugh test:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/why_kenyan_birth_claim_was_no_fact_checking_error.html
{Why Kenyan Birth Claim Was No ‘Fact Checking Error’}
Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.
Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.
The requirements have changed over the years, but in 1961 the requirement was that the citizen parent have resided within the USA for five years after her 14th birthday.
Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942, and Obama was born August 4, 1961, so Dunham was only 18 years, 8 months & 5 days old when her baby (the future President Obama) was born. That means only 4 years, 8 months & 5 days had elapsed since her 14th birthday, which is less than the 5 year minimum needed to qualify her baby for citizenship on that basis.
If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-a-2014-05_01_final.pdf
(Chart A)
However, that didn’t apply to Obama, because his parents were not legally married, because his father was a bigamist. When Obama’s father married 18yo Stanley Ann Dunham in Hawaii, who was already pregnant, he already had another wife back in Kenya. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. Because of that, he would have been entitled to U.S. citizenship solely by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, even if born overseas. That means he would have been a “natural-born” citizen, qualified to run for President, even if he had been born overseas.
This is the chart that actually applies to Obama:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-b-2014-05_1_final.pdf
(Chart B: Acquisition of Citizenship – Determining If Children Born Outside The U.S. and Born Out of Wedlock Acquired U.S. Citizenship at Birth)
You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States, and perhaps to lie for that purpose. However, Obama’s mother presumably didn’t know about Obama Sr’s other wife. She thought she was legally married. Thinking that, she’d have also believed that her baby would only have U.S. citizenship if born in the USA. That would have given her a strong motive to make sure that she was in Hawaii when her baby was due — or, failing that, to lie about his birthplace — so that he could have U.S. citizenship.
Since we now, finally, as of 2011, have a birth certificate for Obama showing a hospital birth (albeit not in the hospital that he used to claim as his birthplace), it seems very unlikely that he was actually born overseas and then brought to Hawaii as an infant. If that had happened, his mother would almost certainly have claimed that he was born at home, and his birth certificate would show that as his birthplace. Since the birth certificate records a hospital birth, that scenario doesn’t seem plausible.
So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists (and probably to others, perhaps including one or more of his three colleges), when he claimed that he “was born in Kenya.”
I don’t fault Obama for his father’s crimes of adultery and bigamy, but it is relevant to this conversation because it is only due to his father’s bigamy that Obama’s parents’ marriage was invalid, and it was only that lack of a legal marriage that makes the issue of Obama’s actual birthplace moot w/r/t the question of whether Obama is really entitled to be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
If his parents had been legally married, then his citizenship would have been dependent on his birthplace. Since his parents were not legally married, his birthplace does not matter: he would have been a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.
Re: “The folks who, out of generosity, politeness, or, most commonly, wishful thinking, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.”
Bio blurbs are often but not ALWAYS written by the author of the book, and in this case the publicist says that SHE wrote it and that SHE made the mistake. This is confirmed by the fact that Obama had told newspapers BEFORE the bio blurb that he was born IN HAWAII (want to see the link?) and he had written in his book Dreams from My Father AFTER that blurb was written that he was born IN HAWAII. So it is farfetched to think that in between those two “I was born in Hawaii” statements that he wrote “I was born in Kenya.”
THEREFORE, it is wishful thinking that Obama wrote his bio blurb. The publicist is not lying. It was an easy mistake to make because Barack Hussein Obama I (Obama’s father) really was born in Kenya.
Re: Godeirch “never said where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”
Answer: She had the unpublished text of Obama’s first boon (which was never published) “Journeys in Black and White” in front of her and it was an autobiography like Dreams from My Father. And when Obama talked about his father, Barack Hussein Obama I, he said that he was born in KENYA (and he was)
Re: “Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.”
Answer: NO but sometimes they do write the bio blurbs themselves from the autobiographies that were submitted—which is what happened in this case. Once again, it is farfetched to believe that Obama had told newspapers in 1990 that he was born in HAWAII and wrote in Dreams in 1995 that he was born in HAWAII and in the middle in 1991 wrote a bio blurb that said that he was born in Kenya.
Re: “And how could such a falsehood in an author’s bio be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?”
Answer: A mistake on a small web site that is not noticed by the author (and he was not told that it was put online) stays a mistake until it is found—which could take years or decades. He would not have looked for the bio blurb because he did not know that one had even been WRITTEN. Goderich did not tell him that she wrote it or send it to him for checking.
Re link. Bios are OFTEN sent in by authors and if not written by them OFTEN sent to them for checking, but not ALWAYS—and the fact that she did not send it to him for checking was of course part of the MISTAKE.
Re: “Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.”
Answer: Simply to show that Obama lied once you claim that a woman whom you do not know is lying. As noted, Obama had told the press in 1990 and wrote in 1995 that he was BORN IN HAWAII. Yet you claim that he lied in 1991 and said that he was born in Kenya AND that Goderich is lying about that today. What is YOUR motive for throwing the charge of lying at Goderich???
Re: “Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.”
Answer. True. But he was NOT born overseas, and it is DUMB to think that there is even a rational CHANCE that he was.
Re: “If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:”
Answer: Once again, he wasn’t born overseas.
Re: “. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. ”
Answer: For the purposes of legal legitimacy a legal marriage is sufficient EVEN IF THERE WAS BIGAMY by one of the parties. And a legal marriage did take place, as the divorce papers and the listing of marriages shows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29 —- see the part about “putative marriages”)
Re: “You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States.”
Answer: It being the TRUTH was a huge incentive.
Re: “So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists…”
Answer: You are right, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is overwhelming, and there is not even evidence that his mother had a passport in 1961 (and in those days very very few 18-year-olds did) and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy (and she could not have gone earlier due to the college schedule) due to the high risk of stillbirths. So to believe that Obama was born abroad requires BOTH of those highly unlikely things to have happened and Obama having been brought to Hawaii from that foreign country WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS ENTERED ON HIS MOTHER’S PASSPORT OR RECEIVED A VISA and that the officials in Hawaii (Republican at the time) committed an illegal act and issued a Hawaii birth certificate for him. (Not very likely is it.)
However, that does not mean that Obama lied. He only lied IF he told Goderich that he was born in Kenya, and she says that he didn’t and the interviews before and the book after show that he was unlikely to have done so because in both cases he said that he was born in HAWAII—which, of course, he was.
Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya—and that is the source of Goderich’s mistake. Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital—–as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the teacher who wrote home and the INS inspector who wrote “one child, born in Honolulu”—all show. And the fact that many times bios are written by the authors of books or sent to them for checking does not mean that it happens all of the time.
SHE made the mistake by seeing that Barack Hussein Obama (the father) was born in Kenya and assuming that that referred to Barack Hussein Obama (the son).
Still, it is highly likely that Obama HAS lied about OTHER things, so you can relax. There just isn’t any evidence (and the newspaper interviews and his “I was born in Hawaii” in Dreams makes it highly unlikely) that he lied in this case.
i
smrstrauss wrote, “there is not even evidence that his mother had a passport in 1961.”
Seriously? She married a Kenyan, but you doubt she even had a passport?
smrstrauss wrote, “Answer: For the purposes of legal legitimacy a legal marriage is sufficient EVEN IF THERE WAS BIGAMY by one of the parties. And a legal marriage did take place…”
Wrong. In Hawaii, where the ceremony took place, the marriage of an already-married man to a second wife is illegal. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage, no matter what your definition of the word “is” is.
Also, there’s nothing in that Wikipedia article that you cited to suggest that a “putative spouse” has legal status in Hawaii, nor that “putative” (illegal) marriage could affect the citizenship status of an illegitimate baby.
smrstrauss wrote, “Obama lied… only lied IF he told Goderich that he was born in Kenya.”
Wrong. He lied if said or wrote that to anyone.
Remember, by his own admission Obama “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” when applying to the colleges he attended. It wouldn’t be surprising if he had tweaked his biographical details to better play his “diversity” card. My guess is that the inaccurate biographical information he provided to Acton & Dystel was largely recycled from an earlier CV, perhaps from a college application, or from material he used when seeking to join law review.
smrstrauss wrote, “Bio blurbs are often but not ALWAYS written by the author of the book, and in this case the publicist says that SHE wrote it…”
Wrong. That’s not what she said (and even if she had said that it would not be credible).
You seem to believe that when a new, unknown author approaches a book publicist, to engage them to promote a memoir or autobiography, which hasn’t been written yet, the publicist would get the prospective client’s bio from someone other than the client, himself.
Think about how ridiculous that is. We’re not talking about an already famous person, like a semi-illiterate sports hero. We’re talking about an unknown author who proposes to write a whole book about himself… but somehow can’t write or proofread even a single paragraph about himself?!?
If you really believe that, you’re rivaling the White Queen. How many impossible things do you believe before breakfast?
It is impossible to imagine that publicists asked to promote a yet-unwritten autobiography by an unknown author did’t ask the author to provide even four sentences of information about himself, in advance of agreeing to promote his book. It is impossible to imagine that, instead, they invented a bio for him, with fanciful details plucked from thin air, or from botched library research which confused him with his father, and in sixteen years never even showed it to him? Could you possibly be more ridiculous?
Edward Acton, of Acton & Dystel, casts doubt on the story, saying that clients like Obama were “probably” approached to approve the edited texts of their bios.
Jane Dystel refuses to comment at all.
Only Miriam Goderich claims to improbably remember that the misinformation about Obama’s birthplace, which supposedly went unnoticed for sixteen years, was her own “fact checking error.” But she did not say that “SHE wrote it.” She even she won’t say where the “facts” came from that she should have “checked.”
That’s a very slim reed upon which to hang the President’s entire defense, but that’s all you have, so you pretend it’s the rock of Gibraltar.
The thing is, this lie is perfectly in character for Obama, because he has a long history of lying about his past, often with imaginative flair.
For instance, Obama claimed, in a debate with McCain, “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” {quoted from the Washington Post}
But that was a flat-out lie. Obama’s mother’s supposed argument with a health insurance company about paying for her treatment never happened at all. She apparently did have a dispute with an insurance company about a disability insurance policy, but there was never any argument over insurance paying for her treatment.
Obama is a compulsive, habitual liar, not only about matters of state and public policy, like Obamacare and Benghazi, but also about his own past. His first book, Dreams From My Father, purports to be an autobiography, but turns out to be substantially fiction:
Have you read Dan Armstrong’s (DENKO’s) account of working with Obama on his job in NYC in 1984? In the account of that job in Obama’s autobiography, he turned a low-paying, jeans-wearing, newsletter editing reality into a high-powered, suit-wearing, “consulting” job, complete with secretaries he never had, and mythical “interview[s] with Japanese financiers [and] German bond traders”
http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/
Such dishonesty even raised a few eyebrows at the generally fawning New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all (“Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say”)
In that same memoir, Obama fictionalized friendships and romances. He morphed a half-Japanese acquaintance into an imagined best friend who was “a symbol of young blackness.” He invented a crisis of race-consciousnesses that provably never happened at all. He rewrote his step-grandfather’s death in a household fall as being shot by Dutch soldiers in the struggle for Indonesian independence. He invented mythical detainment and torture by the British for his Kenyan grandfather.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303776/obama-s-great-american-novel-mark-steyn
or http://www.nationalreview.com/node/303776/print
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/memoir-360243-obama-fake.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/david-maraniss-obama-biography-barack-obama-the-story_n_1613758.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-fictionalized-president/2012/06/24/gJQAhBvB0V_blog.html (or http://www.webcitation.org/6SIPvxkKi)
You simply cannot trust anything that President Obama says. He lies like a rug. He is, in other words, a true liberal.
How do you think a new author, who has never written a book, nor anything else of note, enters into a relationship with a book publicist? Do you think the conversation went like this?
Obama: “Hi, my name is Barack Obama. I’ve never written anything of note before, but I write well, and I’m working on a book about myself, and I’m interested in having you represent me and publicize it.”
Acton & Dystel: “Nice to meet you, Mr. Obama. We might be interested, if you have a compelling story. We’ll need for you to provide us with a synopsis of your prospective book, and a CV or resume. Oh, never mind that last part. Don’t bother to tell us anything about you, we’ll just make up a fictional bio for you if we agree to represent you.”
Yeah, like that could ever happen.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Obama lied? You know the man’s a flagrant liar. Or are you the last person on the planet who still believes that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it” under Obamacare?
BTW, does this phrase sound familiar to you? “…making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.” If not, Google it.
+100!
dave burton wrote: “Seriously? She married a Kenyan, but you doubt she even had a passport?”
Sure, what makes you think that because she married a Kenyan she had a passport? (BTW, in 1989. more than a quarter century after 1961, only 3% of Americans TOTAL had passports. In 1961 it probably would have been half of that percentage or less, and that is TOTAL—the percentage for 18-year-olds would have been still lower). And, not only would she have had to have had a passport. but she would have had to have used it to travel abroad in the last three months of pregnancy (earlier would not have been possible due to the college schedule)—which was extremely rare at the time due too the high risk of stillbirths.
Re “illegal marriage.”
When a man deceives a woman and marries her despite having a previous wife, the law does not penalize the children involved. So long as a state marriage took place (so long as BOTH parties did not know that it was bigamous, and she didn’t), the child is legitimate. The same holds for legal divorces, of course. Just because a man deceives a a woman (or vice versa) and there is a legal marriage took place, there still can be a legal divorce. THAT should be obvious. If not, read up on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29
smrstrauss, w/r/t the law, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage
You’re just making things up. I don’t know why you keep citing a Wikipedia article which has nothing to say about it, either. Have you even read it? It doesn’t support you.
U.S. law does not “penalize the children” for being illegitimate, regardless of whether or not there was bigamy or adultery involved, and regardless of whether or not the children’s mother believed she was legally married. The crime of bigamy does not involve punishment for the child (though it obviously can impact the child, e.g., by depriving him of the care of an incarcerated parent).
Indeed, in the case of an 18yo U.S. citizen mother of a child born overseas in 1961 with a foreign mother, it would be to the child’s benefit if his parents were unmarried. If such a baby’s parents were legally married then he’s not entitled to U.S. citizenship However, if he’s a bastard then he is entitled to U.S. citizenship, by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, alone.
However, your claim about Obama’s mother’s college class schedule is more interesting. Do you really have evidence for it, or are you just guessing?
I don’t know what Stanley Ann Dunham’s class schedule was. You say you do. Will you share it, please?
Obama’s recorded birth date is August 4, 1961. Three months earlier would be Star Wars Day (May The Fourth [be with you]). Do you have evidence that Dunham took & passed any classes at U. Hawaii in Spring, 1961?
That would have been the Spring semester of her freshman year. But she got married (or so she thought) just a few weeks into the semester, on February 2nd, 1961, by which time she was already 3 months pregnant with the future POTUS.
It took Dunham seven years to graduate from U. Hawaii, so my guess is that when she discovered she was pregnant she dropped out of college for a couple of years, with only one semester completed. That would be typical for a pregnant college girl in 1961. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
typo correction:
s/with a foreign mother/with a foreign father/
Re “, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An illegal marriage is not a legal marriage.”
So long as a state marriage license was issued for the marriage, the child of that marriage is not illegitimate. BTW, you are truly DUMB if you think that if a man deceived a woman with a previous marriage, she could not go to court and win alimony in a divorce. You should read before spouting your loony dreams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29
No child is illegitimate turnip! The marriage license was obtained under fraudulent circumstances, making the marriage null and void turnip! Making obama a bastard child turnip! As the original English definition of the word bastard means turnip.
That he is a homo sapien is not the question, which means he is a legitimate human being turnip!
And so the turnip starts another stupid rumor. Now he is saying that Obama is a tranny martian. Or are you calling Obama a monkey turnip?
daveburton wrote: “I don’t know what Stanley Ann Dunham’s class schedule was. You say you do. Will you share it, please?”
In 1961, the University of Hawaii, like most universities, began its fall semester in early September and ended its spring semester in late May.
Non sequitur turnip. The question was not when the semester started or ended turnip. And you have no clue turnip when it started or ended turnip.
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED. And lied again!
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
“The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. “
The writer of the “born in Kenya” bio has admitted to making the mistake all by herself, and she said that she DID NOT get the information from Obama, nor did she send it to Obama to check, and she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
Re: “For 17 years it was advantageous…”
Answer. No, for 17 years Obama did not know that the mistaken bio had ever been written, so he could not fix it. That’s all.
Maybe it’s just me. However, I can’t imagine any politician not reading his/her own campaign literature. The great majority of politicians are walking egos. And Mr “I have a pen and a phone” certainly seems to qualify in that regard.
Thus that story about the writer making the bio mistake appears to have no resemblance to the truth. It is however completely consistent with the laughingstock-in-chief’s usual and customary veracity.
It seems that the laughingstock-in-chief believes that truth is precious and thus is extremely miserly in the use of the tiniest bit of it.
It wasn’t campaign literature. It wasn’t even marketing literature for Obama’s book. It was a marketing brochure for the literary agent’s business.
There is no good reason to suspect that Obama was ever even aware of its existence
Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.
Re: “However, I can’t imagine any politician not reading his/her own campaign literature.”
Since she did not send it to him and did not tell him that it was put online—-how could he read it?
Re: “That story about the writer making the bio mistake appears to have no resemblance to the truth.”
Answer: (1) that is what she said; (2) Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father, says in it that he was born in KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL IN HAWAII. (and that was written in 1999).
(3) I suspect you will ask: “How could she make a mistake like that?” And the answer is, simple, Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama too, you know. The only difference is that he was the original Barack Hussein Obama, and the president is Barack Hussein Obama II. Well, Barack Hussein Obama, the father, WAS born in Kenya.
A quick scan of a page saying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya—and the writer of bio blurbs, who probably had a lot of blurbs to write, gets the false notion that the author of the book was born in Kenya, when he was referring to his father.
So he did not say it. More important it is not true. In fact, the “he was born in Kenya story” is completely nutty.
Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961:
http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up
Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.
On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.
So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18, was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by ship that year and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya that year, and again she traveled by ship (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).
There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making the alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama most unlikely—to say the least.
AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.
BTW, the “He registered in college as a foreign student” story and the “he got foreign aid as a foreign story” fantasies both come from AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE. (Don’t believe me? Think that the stories are real? Well both Occidental and Columbia have telephone numbers and PR departments, and they will tell you that Obama was not registered as a foreign student.) There is, however, a “Columbia University Student ID” that claims that Obama was registered as a foreign student. IT was forged. Again, the way to determine the truth is to ask. If you don’t believe me, ask the Columbia University PR department whether it ever issued a student ID card that identifies foreign students any differently than US students. The answer you will hear is, no, it never did.
Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)
Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)
Here’s the bottom line. You do not know. Neither do I. The difference is I do not care. You seem to be a birther of sorts in that it does matter to you where he was born.
But again, in order for “plausible deniability” to be plausible, it has to be believable. Claiming you knew nothing about the promotion of your own career is not plausible. That does not make it impossible, just not plausible.
Since you do not know if he knew, (and I do not care if he knew), the whole boring soliloquy of yours is sophistry. Garbage for you folks in PBC.
And it is also irrelevant. The “true story” or “myth” (depending upon your inclination of belief) was started by Obama. Whether he BLESSED it or not may be in question, but the fact that it was in his promotional literature (not an unsolicited biography) means that it was his job to know. If he chose to remain ignorant (not a new or uncommon activity for him) that is still his fault.
Utter BS. In 1991, Obama was a nobody looking to make money off his book. The brochure promoting him would have been a huge deal in his life.
Until Miriam tells us who told her that Obama was born in Kenya, everything else is just BS.
Too bad the brochure was not promoting him. It was promoting Dystel. He almost certainly had no idea the brochure even existed.
Yea, and no one told him about Benghazi.
Your problem is that you are too stupid to realize how stupid you sound. No one is buying your contortion of the facts. But I guess you are paid by the word, not for your intelligence.
Comments like that make me completely incredulous of everything else you have to say.
@HystericalDude & smrstrauss
Correction (agent’s bio) noted.
I still do not find it credible that his literary agent would publish such a flawed bio for 17 years without once running the bio past the client in question.
And given the laughingstock-in-chief’s track record with the truth, the story “he was blissfully ignorant of his agent’s flawed bio” becomes all that much more difficult to believe.
The current occupant of the whitehouse has such a credibility problem, that even if he should tell the truth (quite by accident) some day, no one would believe it. And he has indeed earned that reputation by his own diligent efforts.
@stevegoddard
You wrote, “Comments like that make me completely incredulous of everything else you have to say.”
Then our symmetry is perfect.
No, he has facts. You have NONE. And you have demonstrated a propensity to lie.
@ Shazaam
The uncritical cutting and pasting of old content to new use on the Internet is among the most pervasive reasons the WWW is filled with such vast volumes of unmitigated crap.
But since the bio blurb was never intended to promote either Obama or his book, why you imagine it would ever have been run by him is a mystery.
No, the biggest reason it is filled with crap is when they pay morons like you to spread lies.
Re: “…in 17 years he didn’t read his own bio? not even at a book signing, a cocktail party, in conversation over breakfast?…..he has no friends that told him?”
Answer: Yes because (1) she did not tell him it was put online; (2) it was hardly in the most visible spot on the Internet; (3) the book for which the blurb was written was never published, so since she did not tell him that there was a blurb—why should he look for it? And (4) he said in “Dreams from My Father” published in 1995, about five years after the book that wasn’t published that he was BORN IN KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL IN HAWAII, and he could hardly have dreamed that there was a bio blurb on the Web that said that he was born in Kenya when he wrote in his own book that he was born in HAWAII.
So what the #@^%$#*@*@*%$#*@*@*&*^* makes you think that the publicist was lying when she said that it was HER mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send it to him to check and that she did not tell him that it was put online so that he could not fix it?
The problem is no one read his book, as the publicist, and OBAMA was pushing the Kenya story!
So yes, he knew and ignored it.
And here is another fact for you. Obama does not know where he was born. Period. He was told. But he has no birth memory. No human does. (and some like you have no memory since either).
Miriam,
Why don’t you just tell us who told you that he was born in Kenya?
She has answered that question, Tony. No one told her. The error was original to her.
There is a term – plausible deniability. The defense worm in Independence Day told the president that was why he did not know about Area 51. It basically means that there are some things that you can deny you know about because it does not really matter (if the aliens had never attacked, no one but a few nuts would care about the crashed space ship).
That is what Obama is trying to do with his bio. But it is not plausible! A blind man can see that, but the smartest man in the world cannot? That is why the idiots are saying it was not Obama. They expect everyone else to be bigger morons than they are and believe the Plausible Deniability.
He knew, he blessed it, he lied. They are free to believe what they want. But only morons will be fooled by their lies.
Philjordan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? ”
You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.
Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. But my comment was NOT about Obama seeing it. It was about ANYONE seeing it. On the one hand, your puppet master proclaims (without evidence) that no one read anything about Obama since he was a nobody! Then on the other he proclaims (again without evidence) that EVERYONE wanted to write the bio because he was somebody.
That contradiction alone shows the stupidity of your puppet master. But compounded with that is the belief (yours alone apparently) that NO ONE read the bio after EVERYONE wanted to write it, so NO ONE would mention it to him.
As I indicated earlier, any sentient being would cringe at such stupidity and forced assumptions that are provably false. For you to come here with your puppet master and demand we believe something, with no supporting evidence shows how stupid you both are.
You may well believe that (or are just parroting that line). But no one else here is that stupid.
philjourdan said: “He knew, he blessed it, he lied. ”
And your evidence for this is—what?
The publicist has said that she made mistake and that she did NOT get the information from Obama.
You claim that she is lying. And your evidence for that is—-what?
Sure, publicists normally send bios to people to check—but people make mistakes, they don’t always do what they are supposed to do.
And Obama had told the newspapers previously to that bio being written that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. He is unlikely to have reversed himself and lied to the publicist.
And it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. She saw that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, and thought that that referred to the author of the unpublished manuscript. It was an easy mistake to make.
Moron, I have never stated, and this blog never states WHERE HE WAS BORN. Neither Steven Goddard nor I CARE.
The article (for the 10th time) is about WHO started the birther movement. And the evidence? Given in the article and in some of the comments.
And your evidence to the contrary? nada. Idiot.
Evidence is not your opinion. So produce your evidence to refute the evidence here, or continue to gnaw on your stupid strawman. Moron.
philjourdan said:
“The problem is no one read his book, as the publicist, and OBAMA was pushing the Kenya story!
So yes, he knew and ignored it.”
Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no ne read the book.” A lot of people write books that nobody reads, and that does not mean that their publicist sent them a copy of their biography to check—and, in fact, she said that she didn’t, and that she had made the mistake about Obama’s place of birth, and that he never told her or wrote that he was born in Kenya
He then said: “And here is another fact for you. Obama does not know where he was born. Period. He was told. But he has no birth memory. No human does. (and some like you have no memory since either).”
Answer: That is of course true, but he has seen his Hawaii birth certificate–and that is legal proof that he was born IN HAWAII. He said in his book that he had seen it as a child, and for nuts who think he really was born in Kenya, he showed the short form Hawaii BC in June 2008 (and the short form is now the official birth certificate) and the long form in April 2011, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them both to him and that every single fact on the copy the White House put online is exactly the same as on what they sent to him.
Moreover, Obama’s birth in Hawaii is further confirmed by (1) the public Index Data file; (2) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (3) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of child to a woman named Stanley; (4) the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “One child, born in Honolulu.”
So, not only did Obama know that he was born in Hawaii, there is overwhelming proof that indeed he was born in Hawaii.
And there is NO proof whatever that Obama, who had told newspaper interviewers that he was born in Hawaii, switched and told or wrote to the publicist that he was born in Kenya. His father, Barack Hussein Obama I, WAS born in Kenya, and that is how the publicist made the mistake, but Barack Hussein Obama II, the president, was born IN HAWAII.
You logic does not follow. Your puppet master has already declared the blurb was NOT in his book. So you are arguing it is?
You really need to stop taking whiffs from the glue stick. Your mind is already a mess.
Re: “Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no ne read the book.””
That should read: “Rational people will notice that the conclusion “Yes he knew” does not follow from “no one read the book.””
No need to correct. We already knew you were illiterate.
philjourdan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
Rational people will notice that whether people read the book or did not has nothing whatever to do with whether Obama wrote the bio blurb or told the publicist that he was born in Kenya—and she says that she wrote it entirely by herself, and made the mistake all by herself (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—which is where the mistake came from)—and she says that she did not check it with Obama and did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
Moreover, since Obama had told newspapers before the bio that he was born in Hawaii, it is farfetched to think that he changed from that and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya. (And the first of his published books says that he was born in Hawaii—as he was.)
The publicist did not lie when she said that she made a mistake. She really made it And Obama did not tell her that he was born in Kenya—and he wasn’t born in Kenya.
Here’s a clue for the sloooow witted. I have not argued WHO wrote the stupid thing. I do not care. I have shown that only a MORON would think Obama was not aware of it.
You have shown nothing to deny that fact. Indeed, your puppet master has “proven” that he did know about it. When he tried to prove that Obama did not write it. If he was famous enough to have people bidding to write it, then I am sure people read it. Which means Obama was told. And did nothing.
And yes, I do believe you think that Obama was unaware of it. You have already proven the first part of that statement.
philjourdan said: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
Answer: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”
The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.
Hellooo to the brick skull! As soon as you figure out the point, we can get back to showing the difference between you and an idiot. Right now, you have not gotten up to that level.
Hint: It is not about your OPINION. PERIOD.
philjourdan said once again: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
The answer, again is: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published—so it was never read. Also, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”
The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.
Hey morondude, can you pay attention? Your puppet is repeating himself.
philjourdan repeated this comment: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
The answer that, once again: “You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published—so it was never read. Also, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online.”
The publicist has said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct it and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it. And Obama had told newspapers before the bio was written that he was born in Hawaii, so the notion that he switched his story and claimed that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was an easy mistake for her to make, since Obama’s father—-Barack Hussein Obama I—really was born in Kenya. The author and president—Barack Hussein Obama II—was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of it by the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices and the INS inspector’s note: “One child, born in Honolulu”, and the teacher who wrote home all show.
Calling the puppet master – your puppet is broken. Keeps repeating herself.
philjourdan said: “No one is buying your contortion of the facts.”
The facts are that the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making a mistake (and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.”
Here is what she said: ” Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
YOU claim that the above is a lie, but YOU have not shown a single fact that confirms your allegation.
Quoting yourself now. Well, who should we believe, a proven liar that has presented no evidence of a preposterous claim?
or the facts.
philjourdan said once again: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published. And, once again, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm. So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online. The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him for corrections and that she did not tell him when it was put online—so he could not see it in order to fix it.
Non sequitur – Puppet master, your puppet is still broken.
philjourdan said once more: “Yea, no one reads his books anyway, right? Plausible Deniability has to be plausible.”
You are right about his first book “Journeys in Black and White,” which was never published, so no one could read it.
Moreover, as said before, the blurb was never on the cover of ANY of Obama’s books. It was online at the publisher’s firm.
So the fact that Obama did not correct it is because he did not see it, and he did not see it because he did not even know that it had been written, much less put online. The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him for corrections and that she did not tell him when it was put online—so he could not see it in order to fix it.
philjourdan says: “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. But my comment was NOT about Obama seeing it. It was about ANYONE seeing it.”
I never claimed that YOU are sentient, did I?
You’re trying to convince rational people that the publicist lied about making an easy to make mistake after Obama had told newspapers that he was born in Hawaii.
So, his bio was online for 17 years and he did not fix it. If he wasn’t told that it was online, he couldn’t fix it.
As for your rant about “anyone seeing it.” You’ll have to take that up with Historian Dude. I never said that nobody saw it—and frankly I don’t care. We do know that it was online at a small literary agent firm—hardly a massively popular site. If some people saw it and did not call up Obama and tell him to fix it, that is natural. In any case, unless HE saw it, he could not fix it. What evidence do you have that he saw it?
YOU are claiming that a woman whom you do not even know lied about making a easy to make mistake, and then you add to it your statement “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity. ” Well, it is perfectly likely, and your claiming that it is “beyond credulity” doesn’t change that one bit.
Everything you claim is a lie, so thank you.
Again, evidence turnip. Evidence. You have none. Nor brains, but that is beside the point.
philjourdan said: “The article (for the 10th time) is about WHO started the birther movement.”
Okay, if that is all that you are concerned with, the publicist who made the mistake was apparently the first to say that Obama was born in Kenya. Her written bio blurb was apparently the first mention of Obama being born in Kenya. If that is all that you care about, the first mention, that that is it.
But you CLAIM that she is lying when she said that she made a mistake. THAT is not a fact, and YOU have no facts at all to show that she was lying when she said she made a mistake. So the facts are that the first mention of Obama having been born in Kenya was a mistake—big deal.
Of course, birthers did continue and expand the myth with their own lies, but you are not interested in hearing about that (I wonder why not?)
However, you continue to insist without any facts whatever to back you up, that the publicist was lying when she said that she made a MISTAKE. You insist that Obama must have told her, despite her saying that he didn’t and despite Obama having told newspapers before in interviews before that that he was born IN HAWAII. That makes the notion that he suddenly switched from that statement to the lie that he was born in Kenya farfetched—-to say the least.
Still refusing to drink the water, right turnip?
Again, no one cares about your stupid revelations – a week after everyone else got it!
You probably sucked the collective IQ out of your entire school with your stupidity.
philjourdan said: “Your puppet master has already declared the blurb was NOT in his book. So you are arguing it is?”
(1) the blurb was not in Obama’s book, that is true; (2) the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii (in Kapiolani Hospital) IS in Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father.
So Obama told newspapers before and wrote after that he was born in HAWAII, and the notion that suddenly in between those sets of Hawaii statements he had suddenly switched to “I was born in Kenya” has no evidence for it whatever—and is, to put it mildly, farfetched.
So your puppet master returned and told you to stop contradicting him, eh, turnip?
Again, non sequitur. And that was after you “claimed” you understood the issue! Another lie from the turnip.
philjourdan said: “Asking any sentient being to believe that Obama never saw it is beyond credulity.”
Answer. I never said that you were sentient.
The fact is that the publicist who wrote the bio blurb never told him that it was put online, so he had no way of knowing that it was. SHE admitted to making the mistake and said that he did not tell her that he was born in Kenya. And, since he had told the newspapers in two separate interviews before the bio blurb that he was born IN HAWAII, and since he wrote in his first published book, Dreams from My Father, that he was born in Kaipolani Hospital in HAWAII, it is farfetched (to say the least) that between the those statements he suddenly changed his story and claimed falsely to be born in Kenya.
So, she really made the mistake that she admitted to. And since Obama was never told that it was put online, he could not fix it.
Turnip – ever seen the word ANY? Guess not.
So until you can read, your responses are (as your puppet master says) gibberish.
philjourdan said: “Quoting yourself now.”
Actually, the quotation comes from Miriam Goderich, not from me. If you’d like confirmation that she said it and I didn’t, here is the site:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/17/breitbart-com-1991-booklet-by-obamas-literary-agent-listed-his-birthplace-as-kenya/
You are miriam turnip. That is the only way you can know you do not know me (actually not even then, as you forgot when we did meet).
Another turnip lie.
philjourdan said: “Turnip – ever seen the word ANY?”
Apparently philjourdan thinks that because he used the word “ANY” we should regard his lunacy as sanity.
Obama said in newspaper interviews in 1990 that he was born in HAWAII. And he wrote in his book in 1995 that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii.
Yet philjourdan wants us to believe that Obama switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii in 1995.”
And he wants us to believe that it is sane to believe that when a publicist admitted to making a mistake about the 1991 “born in Kenya story”. she was not lying.
Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born IN KENYA. Yet philjourdan insists that the publicist was lying about making a mistake and that Obama switched from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya.”
Oh, and the vegetable that poor mixed up philjourdan comes closest to is Brussels Sprouts.
The insanity is yours. You keep repeating your stupid lies, which you do not believe to be lies because you hate stupid lies, or you hate yourself (or all of the above), and expect us to believe any of it WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Period.
The NY TIMES SAID in 1990 that Obama was born in HI. Obama did not say it ACCORDING to your source turnip.
Nor have you presented any evidence he said it in 1995. Nor have you presented any evidence he was NOT AWARE of the Bio – that everyone wanted to write, but no one read – for 17 years.
Again, turnip, you are doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. And yes, that is insanity.
Still no evidence from you. But more lies.
Learn what a quote is turnip.
philjourdan said: “The NY TIMES SAID in 1990 that Obama was born in HI. Obama did not say it ACCORDING to your source turnip.”
Answer: The New York Times got that fact from interviewing Obama, Brussels sprout.
No paul turnip. That is your assumption. The article does not say that. So you have provided NO EVIDENCE turnip.
And I guess since we know who you are now, turnip is a very appropriate name for you. That is what dementia turns you into.
Answer. No, for 17 years Obama did not know that the mistaken bio had ever been written, so he could not fix it. That’s all.
======
ROTFL….so you are saying our president is a total loser
No. He is saying that out President is no omniscient.
neither are you as that abortion of a statement proves.
…in 17 years he didn’t read his own bio? not even at a book signing, a cocktail party, in conversation over breakfast?…..he has no friends that told him?
…the dog didn’t even notice
He’s so out of it, and such a loser, he doesn’t even have friends………..
He paid a publisher to promote his book…and never contacted her again??
She never sent him any proof of what she was doing to earn her money?
…and none of his students, Moochelle, Ayers, his grandparents, his friends, other teachers at the university, and on and on……never saw it either?
This is the total loser we elected to run this entire country?
For 17 years he did not know the bio even existed.
He could not have noticed at a book signing, since the that bio was not included in his book. And I’m not sure what kind of cocktail parties you go to, but I’ve never been to one where a person surfs the web Googling themselves. As to “no friends” who told him, why would you imagine any of his friends would know about it either?
No. He paid no publisher to promote his book. A publisher paid HIM to publish his book. Acton & Dystel was not a publisher. Already we are discovering why you believe such goofy things. You are completely ignorant as to the salient details.
The bio in question was never used to promote Obama or his book. It was used to promote Acton & Dystel. Why would they send a “proof” of their own marketing collateral to their hundreds of authors? That would be… well… stupid.
As to none of his students or friend noticing it, it’s worth pointing out that nobody else noticed either. Not any of his political opponents and their opposition research teams. Four years of birther frothing and none of them ever noticed it. It was on the web for years (not 17 years, but still, a long time) before a single person ever noticed.
See how that works?
All you have to do is prove that for 17 years he did not know it existed. That is all – just one simple thing. Prove it.
But you cannot. You were TOLD that was the line. You have no evidence to back up your lies. So you repeat them as if they were facts, when the evidence contradicts you.
And that is why you are a moron. You expect others to be as stupid as you are.
Or too spaced out on Choom…..
philjourdan said:
“All you have to do is prove that for 17 years he did not know it existed. That is all – just one simple thing. Prove it.”
Actually, the burden of proof is on you, and since the bio was online at a small and obscure site, what makes you think that he looked for it? Since he did not know that there was a bio blurb—why should he look for it, and the publicist said that SHE MADE THE MISTAKE.
Now it is up to YOU to prove that sometime in the 17 years Obama looked at the bio blurb and failed to correct it.
Until then the statement by the publicist that she made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send it to him to check and that she did not tell him that it was online so that he could not fix it, stands. Oh, and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. Oh, and since Obama had told newspapers that he was born in Hawaii before the bio blurb was written, it is hardly likely that he suddenly switched and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya, and he wasn’t.
Sorry, no. You made the claim. Now you prove it. Next time, do not make a claim you cannot back up. I have evidence he knew it.
You have no evidence he did not. I win.
Philjourdan said: ” I have evidence he knew it.”
Answer: There is NO evidence he knew it.
YES – go look up the definition of evidence. You do not know how, nor how to read it. But I tire of your lack of any mental capacity.
There is a LOT of evidence. You have presented NONE. Your whole defense is to say “no it is not”. Tell it to the jury. before they convict you.
philjourdan said: “You have presented NONE. Your whole defense is to say “no it is not”. Tell it to the jury. before they convict you.”
The evidence is that (1) the publicist admitted in writing that she made a mistake (2) YOU have no evidence that she lied in her statement that she made a mistake; (3) Obama said in interviews in 1991 and in his book in 1995 that he was born IN HAWAII (and there is no evidence, nor is it likely, that he changed from what he said in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” and then back again in 1995 to “I was born in Hawaii”); (4) Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was indeed born in Kenya—so it was an easy mistake to make.
I have evidence that the publicist made a MISTAKE. YOU have no evidence whatever that Obama said or wrote that he was born in Kenya in 1991.
You have no evidence she ever said that turnip!
And the evidence she lied? If she did make the mistake, she lied. If she did not make the mistake and said she did, she lied.
Either way you lied turnip.
Again EVIDENCE turnip, EVIDENCE.
Barack Obama didn’t read the jacket of his own books–just like when he attended Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright’s church services for 20 years and never heard a single anti-American, anti-“them Jews,” race-baiting comment? Never?
If I had a biography, I’d be sending out autographed copies. And how many of the autographed editions had the wrong “birthplace” in the thumbnail bio?
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Autographed+Barack+Obama+Dreams+From+My+Father+Signed+Book+President+Signature
Of course, it could simply be an “authorized signature” and not the real Barack Obama signature. Walt Disney quit signing his own autographs–had a battery of artists do that for him: http://www.phil-sears.com/art_of_animation_signed_by_walt_disney.htm
So it is indeed possible that Barack Obama was too damned important and so damned busy that he never talked to a publisher or WROTE his own books or saw the finished product. Never. Never! NEVER! And let’s put that “Bill Ayers wrote Barack’s autobiography” to rest:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/112613-680812-bill-ayers-claims-authorship-of-obama-dreams-memoir.htm
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Cheap? Apply at the White House blog.
Not conclusive proof of lies, damned lies and statistics, but suggestive!
1) This bio was never on the jacket of any of his books.
2) Therefore, zero copies “of the autographed editions had the wrong “birthplace” in the thumbnail bio.”
Thanks for playing. Try again.
Moreover, the bio was written for a book that was never published.
The publisher turned down Obama’s first book “Journeys in Black and White.”
So not only was the bio blurb not on the cover of the book, but Obama had no reason whatever to know that there was even a bio blurb written about him. Some years later they put it online but they did not tell him that they did—–so, of course, how could he fix it if he did not even know that it was written?
Nobody makes up a stranger’s bio. The concept is ludicrous, at best
Ehhhh, I am not too sure. Ayers claims he made up Obama’s. And Obama seems to be stupid enough to have allowed him.
stevengoddard said: “Nobody makes up a stranger’s bio. The concept is ludicrous, at best.”
I agree, nobody just makes up a bio. But the publicist didn’t. She had the text of the unpublished book to work from. (At the time they were probably still thinking of publishing it.) So, she had the text of an autobiography before her when she wrote.
And that autobiography mentioned Obama’s father, whose name was—-wait for it—Barack Hussein Obama. Well, Barack Hussein Obama was indeed born in Kenya. That was Obama’s father. So the publicist thought that was Barack Hussein Obama II, the author of that book. Well, she was wrong. She made a mistake. But she did not, as you dream, “make up” Obama’s biography.
She got Barack Hussein Obama mixed up with Barack Hussein Obama II—a mistake.
SHE has admitted to making that stupid mistake. YOU claim that she is lying and that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya despite his second book (the first published) saying in it that he was born in HAWAII and despite previous newspaper interviews in which he said that he was born in HAWAII.
YOUR motive, apparently, is to throw dirt on the president. Well, you can find other and more obvious things to do that about. For Obama to have lied and told the publicist he was born in Kenya requires TWO lies, his at the time, and hers recently, and the only motive would be to sell more books but at the time Obama did not even know that the publisher would accept the book (and the publisher didn’t). Then when Obama’s first published book “Dreams from My Father” went on sale in 1995, it said in it that he was born in HAWAII—and it sold well despite stating that FACT.
The publicist got the mistake from the unpublished manuscript which said that Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama (NOT Barack Hussein Obama II), was born in Kenya.
Amazing how the leading newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria made the same mistake, and that no one saw fit to correct it for 17 years, until immediately after he announced his candidacy.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html
Just a lot of confused people out there, I guess.
But the OFA(l) idiots do not use facts! They deny facts! So it does not matter to them how many facts you present, their worthless opinion trumps facts!
At least in their own mind. But you have to wonder why the fact that Obama knew about and promoted the truth/myth for 17 years makes a difference now. 200 comments by the idiot twins, and not one fact between them.
smrstrauss -blah, blah, blah (incessantly) And nowhere in that rambling opinion (since you have yet to post a fact) do you explain how Obama mamaged to run into the kenya knife for 17 years!
Steven has presented evidence. So far, all you and your sock puppet have done is post your opinion.
I wonder what press release was submitted to those newspapers? (complete with campaign photo)
Oh wait! I know!
They “made a mistake” and confused Kenya with Hawaii. Happens all the time.
Nothing to see here. Move along……..
The smoking gun is locating the US papers (maybe small Illinois papers) that published from the same press release…..
Then there are those college records that are locked-up tighter than Ft. Knox’s gold vault. At this point, no one would be surprised by poor academic performance. What I want to know is if the liar-in-chief attended college as a foreign exchange student…..
The bio wasn’t made up. It simply had a garbled detail.
😆 Newspeak. There are no lies, just garbled speak.
Keep digging boy, you will hit china one of these days.
@stevengoddard
What’s so amazing about it? Both papers printed retractions the nest day.
“the nest day”??? Learn English moron. And if they did, you should be able to post the links to them, correct?
Enough of your lying. Refutation is done through documentation, not some child’s ignorant opinion. We are tired of yours.
@Shazaam
Ignoring that the whole “attended college as a foreign exchange student” story was started as an April’s Fool joke four years ago, what advantage do you hallucinate Obama would have gained as a “foreign exchange student (sic)”? The reason US universities love foreign students is because they almost always pay full price instead of resident tuition.
As usual, there seems to be a hole in your theory.
Re Kenyan and Nigerian newspapers.
Are you now turning to the nutty idea that because those newspapers said that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born in Kenya?
If so, admit it, and we’ll discuss how nutty THAT idea is.
If not, then admit that they made mistakes. (They were not caused by the same error that the publicist made, but they were still MISTAKES.)
You have a choice, either you claim that the newspapers were correct, in which case we’ll discuss how loony the “born in Kenya story” is—or they were mistakes.
RTFM – Moron! The article says NOTHING about where he was actually born. It clearly states WHO STARTED the meme! The papers are evidence (and proof) that it was not a VRWC, never was. After Obama started it, his hometowm papers picked it up, then Hillary started shouting it! Before the first VRWC conspirator even thought of it!
These fanatics are really stupid.
Lots of people believed that Obama was born in Kenya, including you in 1991. Most plausible explanation is that he was telling people that,
Once again, who does Tiny hallucinate he is responding to in this thread? Does he actually think one of us is Miriam Goderich?
You claim to know all of the details of Miriam’s thought process. Where did that information come from?
Moron. She already admitted who she was. if you cannot keep up with your sock puppets, at least try to get an education in spelling!
Shazzam said: “What I want to know is if the liar-in-chief attended college as a foreign exchange student…..”
THAT is very easy to find out. You can do it yourself. It’s SIMPLE to do. All you have to do is to pick up the telephone, call Occidental and Columbia, ask for the PD Department, and ASK.
They can tell you whether or not Obama was a foreign student (he wasn’t, and the story that he was came FROM AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE), but you should call for yourself and check what I say.
BTW, they will NOT tell you Obama’s grades. Those are protected by federal and state privacy laws. And the reason that Obama did not show his grades is, wait for it, simply because Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents and presidential candidates did not show their grades either.
you can ask, but they will not give you an answer. Not if they do not want to be sued!
The records are sealed moron.
@stevengoddard
I actually read her statement.
Morondude, since when is “thought process” the same as writings?
Go back to grade school and learn to read.
Stevengoddard said:
“Lots of people believed that Obama was born in Kenya, including you in 1991.”
Answer. No I never did.
However, the question still stands, what do YOU believe now. Do you believe that Obama was born in Kenya, in which case the two African newspapers were not making a mistake. Or do you believe that Obama, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties show, was born in Kenya—in which case the two newspapers were making MISTAKES.
And, duh, if they are mistakes, what the #@#!)*^%$@+ does it matter that two African newspapers made mistakes?
This is rich! So the biographer lies and says it was her mistake (for 17 years) proclaiming Obama to be born in Kenya, yet now claims she never believed it!
You just can’t make this stuff up! 😆
Re: PD department.”
That should read PR department. My mistake.
BTW, for convenience, here are the telephone numbers of Occidental and Columbia again:
Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)
Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)
@Phil – And if they did, you should be able to post the links to them, correct?
It is most curious that newspapers in 2 different countries published the same factoid (however correct or incorrect it may be) and yet no one can find a link to their mythical retractions?
However, the basic point of this posting is that the kenyan birth story had to originate somewhere. And the most likely origination point is Obama himself.
Given the pressures the liar-in-chief can bring to bear on “Miriam”, and Obama’s complete lack of familiarity of any concept of speaking the truth, I do not find it credible that “the agent did it”.
I will grant that this could be one of the very few times Obama tells the truth about anything and possibly about who wrote the bio. Yet, with Obama’s “truthiness” track record, I would have to bet that it was indeed Obama who wrote the bio.
I know the Obama Storyline Team will dispute my opinion. (smrstrauss & historiandude)
Obama aka the-liar-in-chief has earned his reputation through his own efforts and while I’m sure he would love to throw someone under the bus for that reputation, in the end, he is responsible for his own actions.
What Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy fail to realize is that the benefit is not money, but being a ‘first’. Sammy Davis Jr. (a much greater man than the idiot in the Whitehouse) was not only a singer/actor, but the FIRST black American Jew. And even with all his talent, he admitted that part of the reason was for the notoriety!
So Obama had great reason to lie about where he was born, both 25 years ago, and today. If for no other reason than to feed his ego. Frankly, since at best all he knows is hearsay (he has no birth memory), he knows as much as the rest of us. And Mutt and Jeff are too stupid to understand that.
philjourdan said: “Obama knew about and promoted the truth/myth for 17 years…”
That is a lie.
There is no evidence that Obama knew about the bio blurb, and more importantly he certainly DID NOT promote it because his book “Dreams from My Father” says that he was born IN HAWAII, not in Kenya—so he was not promoting the story that he was born in Kenya.” And, he certainly was not born in Kenya. THAT notion is truly nutty.
But since you imply that you believe it might be the truth with your “truth/myth”, here goes:
The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on alleged birth certificates, like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.
Lucas D. Smith claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof.
Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane. However, only one person came to the USA from Kenya in that year by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen.
And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.
And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.
“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””
http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged …
Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.
Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.
Prove it is not a lie. You made a statement, now prove it. But you will just whine about having me prove it. As this article attests, the evidence is in. He knew.
You have no evidence. You do not even have hearsay!
And for the last time, the issue is NOT about where he was born! So just drop the garbage. No one cares what your opinion is. It is probably stupid and wrong in any event.
Prove it is a lie.
philjourdan said: “Obama mamaged to run into the kenya knife for 17 years!”
Pray tell what “knife” was that?
An error was online at the web site of a publisher. Nobody knows how many people look at that Web site much less the author bios–but it isn’t likely to be many.
You’d be shocked to know that there have been errors in books and newspaper articles and government records that have not been corrected for many times 17 years.
Guess you never heard the joke. Could be because you are the joke.
It was in the public realm for 17 years. Only a moron would think that an authorized (it was authorized) bio of a public person would go unnoticed for 17 years. It defies credulity.
Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to prove he did not know. So far, you have not even produced a statement by Obama saying he did not know. Much less any evidence whatsoever. So again, the question becomes, why would anyone believe a sock puppet opinion when you have been proven to be a liar?
philjourdan said: “Steven has presented evidence. So far, all you and your sock puppet have done is post your opinion.”
What evidence? The mistakes of two African newspapers? The unsupported claim that the publicist must have lied?
She said: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
And it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii.
The papers are but 2 pieces of the evidence presented. You can contest the evidence (better go back to grade school and learn to read as there is more), but so far, all you have done is a childish “not so” rant. You have not presented a rebuttal.
You really suck at debates. Your opinion is worthless.
Facts. Present them or shut up.
philjourdan responded to this QUESTION:
“Are you now turning to the nutty idea that because those newspapers said that Obama was born in Kenya, he was born in Kenya?”
by saying:
“RTFM – Moron! The article says NOTHING about where he was actually born.”
Answer: Notice that he does not answer the question — I wonder why not?
Then he says: “The papers are evidence (and proof) that it was not a VRWC, never was..”
Answer: VRWC stands for “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”
So to the extent that the newspapers made mistakes the birther myth was not ENTIRELY created by the right wing. The same for the publicist’s MISTAKE. She made the mistaken and she had no right wing motive to make it, so she was not part of the VRWC.
Of course, to claim that she DID NOT make a mistake and that the president either ws born in Kenya or lied to her and claimed to be born in Kenya when he wasn’t comes entirely from the right wing—and THAT is part of the VRWC.
The LIE that the publicist did not make a mistake and is lying currently—comes from the right wing, and it has nothing whatever to back it up. In fact, the willingness to claim that a woman that they do not even know is a LIAR simply because she states that she made a human mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya) is typical of the VRWC.
BUT the lie about the publicist’s MISTAKE is only part of the VRWC. Here are some other lies:
More examples of classic birther lies:
(1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)
(2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.
(3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?
(4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?
(6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)
(8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???
(9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.
(10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.
And (11) the constant repetition ‘the birth certificates are forged,” and “anyone can see that the birth certificates are forged”—are all birther lies too. And they have the same motives as the lies shown above.
Birthers have not shown all the real experts who have said that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, nor have they told the readers on birther sites that the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the birth certificates to Obama and confirmed ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him. And they have not explained the research on the Xerox Workstation either:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
In short, it is just another birther LIE.
So, yes, there is a VRWC in addition to the mistakes made by the newspapers and the publicist. The mistake made by the publicist and the mistakes in the newspapers all had something to do with the “born in Kenya” story, but the LIES shown above had a great deal to do with it TOO.
Oh, once again, philjourdan did not respond to the question about whether HE believes the “born in Kenya” story. (I wonder why not???)
RTFM Moron. I have never stated where he was born. I have never stated where I think he was born. This article does not state where he was born. The article does not state where the author thinks he was born.
In short, your question is both nonsensical and non sequitur. And TOTALLY irrelevant! I can just as easily ask you “when did you stop beating your wife”, and then crow about your refusal to answer it.
Your master really needs to pay attention to the strings he is pulling as some of yours are broken. Moron.
RTFM – do you know what that means?
philjourdan said: “The records are sealed moron.”
NO, they are not “sealed.” They are protected against disclosure by the normal state and federal privacy law. That is all. The same state and federal privacy laws prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s records and John McCain’s records, and my records and your records—none of them are “sealed.”
They are SEALED as Obama has SEALED them. Do not try to quiver about semantics when you have no clue what you are talking about. It does not matter HOW they were (I did not say), the only relevant fact is they ARE. turnip.
philjourdan said: “Moron. She already admitted who she was.”
Answer: This is what she actually said:
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
You claim that the above statement is a lie, but you have not proof. Moreover, the mistake she admits to is an easy mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).
Actually I do – it is called human nature as defined in the AJP. For the turnip he might want to check it out.
For the rest of us, we understand, – once a liar, always a liar.
philjourdan said:
“you can ask, but they will not give you an answer. Not if they do not want to be sued!
The records are sealed moron.”
Answer: Yes, anyone can ask about anyone’s grades, obviously. But, the state and federal privacy laws prevent schools and colleges from disclosing that information. Those are the normal privacy laws—not something being “sealed.”
NOT IF THE PERSON WHOSE RECORDS THEY ARE AUTHORIZES IT – turnip.
Philjourdan said: ” Frankly, since at best all he knows is hearsay (he has no birth memory), ”
Answer: Like many of us, Obama had the chance to see his birth certificate, and it says on it that he was born in Hawaii. Moreover, Obama has repeatedly said that he was born in Hawaii. He told the newspapers he was born in Hawaii before the bio blurb was written, and he wrote that he was born in Hawaii in his book Dreams from My Father which was after the bio blurb was written, and the notion that he suddenly switched between the two sets of “I was born in Hawaii” statements that are documented to telling a publicity writer “I was born in Kenya”—is farfetched, to say the least. ESPECIALLY when she has admitted to making a MISTAKE.
Since the original has NEVER been released, there is NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the original. Your assumptions just demonstrate again that you have no clue on what EVIDENCE is.
And since you are not the a$$hole in Chief, you CANNOT speak for what he has done or not done, seen or not seen. I have more evidence that he has never seen it. He has no memory of his birth. So again, all he has is hearsay.
And you have nothing, turnip.
philjourdain said:
“This is rich! So the biographer lies and says it was her mistake (for 17 years) proclaiming Obama to be born in Kenya, yet now claims she never believed it!”
Pray tell who told you that she now claims that she never believed it? I suspect some people believed once that the sun revolves around the earth. When they realize that it was the other way around, they stop believing it.
The writers saw in the unpublished book that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and naturally she believed that that was the president. THAT was wrong; it was his father, Barack Hussein Obama I, not the writer of the book and the current president. She made a mistake, she admitted it. She said that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not send him a copy of what she wrote to check, and that she did not tell him when it was put online so he could not fix it.
In any case, she never said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote—so who told you that she now claims that she never believed it????
Sorry turnip, did you want someone to read you a bed time story? That is the only way you could be asking such a stupid question.
facts turnip, facts. Get some.
philjourdan said: “It was in the public realm for 17 years. Only a moron would think that an authorized (it was authorized) bio of a public person would go unnoticed for 17 years. It defies credulity.”
It was on the site of a minor literary agency, hardly a giant Web site, and since Obama did not know that it was put online and since the book involved was not even published, he had no reason to go to that Web site to check.
The publicist admitted to making a mistake about Obama’s place of birth and not getting the information from Obama and not telling him when she put it online so that he could not fix it.
Moreover, Obama had said in interviews in 1990 that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII, and he said in his book, Dreams from My Father in 1995 that HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. It defies credulity that he switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995.
Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he really was born in Kenya. Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers all show), and there is no evidence that he switched from saying “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991.
The literary agent admitted to making the error, and she is not lying.
Your argument is based on Obama being consistent, which he isn’t.
Duplicity, dishonesty and doublespeak is Obama’s MO. In his book, he said that he has difficulty remembering what actually happened in his past.
Unless he reads it in the paper! But the problem is the times reported he was born in HI before he wrote he was born in Kenya, so he could not have known it! He would not have known to read the paper a year later!
Still with the stupid opinion.
I said it was on the PUBLIC record for 17 years. You try to opine that it was hidden, yet you cannot even bring yourself to state that big of a lie!
Again, it was a sought after bio that you (miriam) won, and wrote then no one read for 17 years. That is your lie. And what evidence have you presented?
None. The evidence presented shows that the AUTHORIZED Bio of OBAMA said for 17 years that he was born in Kenya, and neither Obama nor you (miriam) ever DENIED IT until it became a political liability instead of a political asset.
Those are the facts. Try learning the different turnip.
philjourdan said: “Since the original has NEVER been released, there is NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the original.”
No, he never saw the original. He saw the official copy sent to his parents. What is wrong with that/
You said that Obama (like all of us) has no birth memory that shows where he was born, and that most of us rely on our parents to tell us where we are born. There is nothing wrong with that at all, but you claimed that because Obama (like all of us) did not have a birth memory, he should not have said in interviews or wrote in his book that he was born IN HAWAII.
Well, the fact is that in addition to what he was told, Obama saw the birth certificate sent to his parents.
Not the original—which is never taken out of the files—but the official COPY. And that is sufficient.
philjourdan then says that: “In any case, she never said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote—so who told you that she now claims that she never believed it?” is, he feels, a stupid question.
Answer: You notice that he has not answered it. The publicist NEVER said that she did not believe what she mistakenly wrote (she believed it when she wrote it, not now), so it was philjourdan who made up the story that “She now claims that she never believed it.”
She never said any such thing. (What philjourdan has done is a lot like birthers making up the story that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when her actual words were that Obama was born in HAWAII “where his father was studying at the time.”)
I love this. Turnip wants us to believe he does not work for Obama, but that he KNOWS what Obama’s parents did or did not do! And he wants us to believe his lies based upon what? His word. Which has been shown to be worthless.
First he claims Obama had produced the official BC. Now he is backtracking and saying just the “official copy” of the official BC. And how does he know? magic! He was there! But he has never met Obama (according to herself) does not work for him and is not getting talking points from OFA(l).
Which makes her braindead since no one is stupid enough to buy that malarkey and contradictions he keeps spewing without a SINGLE piece of evidence to support his fanciful stories.
There is a reason turnips are vegetables. They have no capacity for rational thought. And each posts merely demonstrates that.
You really are getting desperate. At least now people can see your lies more plainly as you expose them every time you try to embellish them. You turnip are the only one here that stupid.
philjourdan said: “First he claims Obama had produced the official BC. Now he is backtracking and saying just the “official copy” of the official BC.”
Answer: The official copy (the one on security paper with the official seal attached) IS the official birth certificate. IT is the one that the US State Department uses to determine whether a person was born in the USA or not, and it is the one accepted by courts. Neither of them require states to take the original birth certificates out of files.
No it is not. As I WORKED for a Vital Statistics agency, I know what the “official” anything is, and none of what Obama has produced is official. Forgeries cannot be official turnip!
But congratulations! You have convinced me. With so much to hide, I now know that Obama is NOT a legitimate citizen. He is a fraud. just as you are turnip. And only you turnip could have convinced me that he was illegitimate.
Re: ” Claiming you knew nothing about the promotion of your own career is not plausible. That does not make it impossible, just not plausible.”
It is not the slightest bit plausible that the publicist was lying when she admitted to making an easy mistake—mixing up Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, who was born in Kenya, with the son, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was born in Hawaii.
What is not plausible at all is that Obama, who had given previous interviews that said that he was born in Hawaii, would switch and tell a publicist that he was born in Kenya. That is not plausible at all, not in the slightest.
She admitted to making the mistake and not to sending a copy of what she wrote to Obama to check and not telling him when he put it online, so that he could not fix it. And since he never saw it, no matter how much he wanted to promote his own career, he could not fix it.
here you go moron – http://www.dictionary.com
Look up the definition. It is not plausible. Even if you did not lie when you said it was “your mistake”, the simple fact that for it to be around for 17 years and Obama to NOT know about it is not plausible. Except if he was living under a rock (which is why it is not impossible). Since his whereabouts during those 17 years have been fairly well documented, we can safely assume a rock was not his address.
Idiot.
Philjourdan has posted a link to an online dictionary.
Answer: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake?s=t
He goes on to say that since the mistake was online for 17 years Obama must have known about it. But he provides no proof of that, and since Obama did not know that it was ever put online it is hardly likely.
Yet he wants us to believe that a woman whom he doesn’t even know was lying when she says that she made a MISTAKE (and it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).
I never said “proof” turnip. I said EVIDENCE.
Something you have YET to provide. RIF – You apparently cannot.
“The writer of the “born in Kenya” bio has admitted to making the mistake all by herself, ”
is immatterial to the FACT that Obama allowed his paid for agent to lie. It was Obama’s responsibility to ensure that what is said about him by a paid agent is true, IT IS OBAMA’S RESPONSIBILITY nobody else. No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED. And lied again!
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
No, the ORIGINAL BIRTHER’s was John Jay and then the delegates of the Constitutional Convention and then each of the Ratifying States and then the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congresses ……….. then “ambiguity” started to get a foot-hold and distortions in the ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of (U.S.) Citizenship) of naturalization began distorting the effects of the LAW of the COTUS.
I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government……….. and although I sometimes feel alone in that belief, I can not help but to rely on the Hand of divine Providence to open the eyes of my fellow countrymen………..
slcraignbc said “I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government..”
Me too. He was advising the writers of the Constitution not to allow NATURALIZED citizens to become president. But that is all.
John Jay was an EXPERT in the common law, so he was using the COMMON LAW meaning of Natural Born, which refers to the place of birth. He was saying that only children born on US soil should become president, and not naturalized citizens (none of whom are born on US soil, you know).
And there isn’t a particle of evidence that John Jay, an expert in the common law, was using Natural Born any differently than in the common law. And—guess what—there isn’t a single quotation from one single member of the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just Natural Born) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Hence the Heritage Foundation book is correct.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And so are Senators Hatch and Graham:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
And so is the Wall Street Journal:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
And so is the Wong Kim Ark ruling of the US Supreme Court (six justices to two justices, one did not vote), and so are the 13 legal decisions I cited above. Obama, having been born on US soil, in Hawaii (and the proof of that is overwhelming) is a Natural Born Citizen, and so are Rubio and Jindal.
Cruz MAY be, but since he was born in Canada, maybe not. But EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (yes, even including the children of illegal aliens) is a Natural Born Citizen.
And yet, since you’re pointing out that his agents listed him as born in Kenya you are somehow the “birther” in this situation. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
If I mention that Darwin saw climate change as a key driver of evolution, that makes me a Young Earth Creationist.
I’ve read that 8 times. It makes about as much sense as a nursery rhyme.
Sorry for the verbosity here, but this kind of question does interest me.
Steven is drawing an analogy between two arguments that both question his competence, on different matters. The analogy is not 100% apt, but its meaning is simple and pretty clear. He is characterizing the logic of some of his critics as being like the following:
“1. You admit knowing that Darwin saw climate change as a key driver of evolution.
“2. You, being a troglodyte denier, do not believe that the Earth’s climate is changing.
“3. Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you do not believe in evolution.
“4. Based on 3, you believe Heaven and Earth were created from nothing in six days.”
Steven’s point, apparently, is that premise 2 and conclusion 3 are both false and logically invalid, and conclusion 3 in particular does not follow from the given premises 1 and 2.
In a similar (though not the same) way, it is invalid for commenter Smrstrauss, having allegedly authored the ‘born in Kenya’ line, to attack critics as opportunistic “birthers”. (E.g., the statement “[According to birther theory [. . . .] “)
Witness the following, which is an approximation of the argument presented on this page by Smrstrauss:
1. You admit knowing that Miriam wrote A.
2. You believe A to be true, even though Miriam subsequently wrote Not-A and explained that she made A up for the naked purpose of personal advancement.
3. Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.
So, the two arguments are not 100% congruent, but there is some congruence between them … specifically, in many of the critics’ (implicit) stance that:
1. Our beliefs are obviously true.
2. You disagree with us about one or more of our beliefs.
3. Therefore, based on 2 and 1, your beliefs are based entirely on mental defect, and not at all on the degree of validity of your arguments and evidence, since there is no validity to your arguments or evidence.
RTF
Argumentum petitio principii — begging the question. RTF
Richard T. Fowler said that my argument about the “born in Kenya” story goes along these lines: “Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.”
Mr. Fowler. I NEVER said anything like “objective of harming Obama.” To be sure, many birthers have that motive, as shown by their many lies (want some examples? They even said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when the transcript of the call shows that she said he was born in HAWAII—-and they simply cut off the tape recordings on their sites just before she said: “IN Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Now, what could have been the motive for doing that??”
Nevertheless I never used motive in crushing the born in Kenya story. Only facts and logic.
Here are the facts:
Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961 when Obama was born:
http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up
Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.
On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.
So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18 (she had to be in the last two months of pregnancy because of the college schedule), was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by SHIP in fiscal 1961 and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya in fiscal 1961, and again she traveled by SHIP (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).
There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making an alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama highly unlikely—-to say the very least.
AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.
There it is, no attack on motives, no name calling. Just the facts.
let’s see if I got this right.
You come in misreading the post. You erect strawmen, throw around ad hominems, and completely miss the point. You then defend statements not made, create strawmen of other’s arguments, then issue more ad hominems.
IN short, you still have no clue, do not know what you are talking about, could not figure your way out of a simple logic statement, and then petulantly insult everyone who has challenged your OPINION with documented FACTS.
Really morondude, you could at least get a better distaff sock puppet. This one is just as dumb as you are.
Yes, I think the “motive” angle was strongly suggested rather than explicitly stated. Certainly both Steven and I took the same suggestion from your words, without having communicated with each other about it.
Can I just say, I was very disappointed with how the grandmother’s recorded testimony was used and mischaracterized by plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. I found that disgraceful and baffling.
However, I am, shall we say, not entirely impressed by some of your apparent tactics on this page, either. I think the bottom line is, if it’s as open-and-shut as you indicate, then your opponents’ efforts go nowhere, and there’s no need to get so worked up over it. You could just make your case once, instead of ad infinitum and ad nauseam as you are now doing with me), and leave it at that. Why such the intense interest in what we all believe?
RTF
Re: “it’s as open-and-shut as you indicate, then your opponents’ efforts go nowhere, and there’s no need to get so worked up over it…”
That is precisely why I’m worked up about it. Because it is STUPID.
I got worked up about the Flat Earth Society too—and I am still worked up about the “truther” crazy notion that George Bush was involved in the 911 attacks. My motive, of course, neither proves that Obama was born in Hawaii nor disproves it, so my being “worked up” is NOT proof that the case is not open-open-and-shut.
In fact, it IS open-and-shut. Want me to list the facts?
BTW, it is obviously wrong to claim “if it’s as open and shut…then your opponent’s efforts go nowhere.” It’s open and shut that ghosts do not exist, and yet some 35-40% of Americans claim to believe in them.
Re: “Can I just say, I was very disappointed with how the grandmother’s recorded testimony was used and mischaracterized by plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. I found that disgraceful and baffling.”
Answer: That was just a tiny part of it. Hundreds if not thousands of people who read the birther sites claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya—when she really said that he was born in HAWAII. The word for doing that is LYING.
Yes, I do believe that there is a motive behind Steven claiming that the publicist cannot be telling the truth when she admitted that she made a MISTAKE. Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born in Kenya, and if you read a manuscript quickly you can get Barack Hussein I, the father, mixed up with Barack Hussein Obama II, the author and the president. As for her not showing it to him for him to check it, that is a very wrong thing to do, but it happens.
Steven is apparently eager to show that Obama lied to her or that Obama told that truth and actually was born in Kenya (so far he’s not saying what he believes on that front), but there is not evidence for EITHER of those ideas.
I assume that you don’t treat all “stupid” people this way. If you are so enlightened and “evolved”, then why would you expect me to agree that your verbal abuse is appropriate?
I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. There are a few discrepancies here and there in the reported facts, but these are easily ascribable to human frailties. The reports out of Kenya and Nigeria of him being from Kenya, I attribute to wishful thinking. The statement from Michelle is most likely because she considers him to be, in some (probably informal) sense be a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. due to the nationalities of his two biological parents, and she presumably has contempt for any law which might present a barrier to one of “her people” becoming President while being a dual citizen. Some of the seemingly unfavorable evidence (unfavorable for Obama, that is) I ascribe to lies, and the rest to general incompetence or a rush to get the story out.
There is clearly some kind of cover-up with respect to information on his real birth certification (wherever that might be), with Social Security information, and with school admissions. I think this cover-up probably involves the adoption issue, and certainly has involved the intelligence community as various times. But none of this really proves anything about whether he lost U.S. citizenship, nor whether he ever had it. Your evidence does not prove your beliefs about it, and the other side’s evidence doesn’t prove theirs, either.
While I agree with some of your conclusions about the evidence, I generally do not feel motivated to defend Obama from people who may invent falsities to smear him, because he has nothing but contempt for the truth and seems to see it as a vile thing in need of being stomped on and covered up most of the time to achieve the aims of his Leninist party. He also seems intent on doing harm to people he doesn’t like, based on paranoid delusions about their supposed intent toward him or his allies. In other words, a man after the heart of Lenin and Hitler. I don’t fear him, and I don’t hate him. But I despise much of what he does, and much of what he wants to do. I also hate the lies that have been told about him, on both sides. But all of that is not my fight, because I don’t choose it for myself. That dispute is between two sets of sinners. I don’t want to get involved in it.
People like you, I just feel sorry for. I don’t know exactly what I can tell you to make you feel less angry. I hope you don’t hate the people you are criticizing, because there’s nothing good in hating human beings. Generally, when people write like you’re doing now and are of your political persuasion, they are extremely angry, and I really can’t understand why. If you were younger, I’d chalk it up to naivete about how much of your own program you have achieved in the last 40 years. But you’re not that young. I think you’re at least as old as me, probably a bit older, and I’m middle-aged. So there’s really no way for me to explain such anger on your part. I can only figure it’s probably the effect of long-term brainwashing, in the style of 1984. We saw this in Hitler’s Germany, and we saw it also in Stalin’s Russia, pre- and post-revolution. We also saw it in East Germany throughout its history, and we saw it in Khmer-dominated Cambodia.[1]
But in the United States, even of today, it seems so awfully out of place. There are so many countries now that are looking at us with their mouths open, in disbelief over what we are being subjected to. Many of them feel just sick for us, and probably are trying to think what they might do to help in some small way, but what can you do in such a situation? It wasn’t so very long ago that we outperformed most of them, both in terms of skill and of productivity, and also per capita production. So they feel uncomfortable in telling us what we really need to hear, in the tone that we really need to hear it in.
And sure, Bush had a lot to do with that change. But the point is, Obama doesn’t care, and in major ways he helps it along, to get even worse. And Bush ultimately was humbled by an avalanche of criticism for those retrogressive policies.
But such an avalanche toward Obama seems unthinkable right now. From my experience, (and Steven has hit this theme many times), there is apparently nothing at all Obama can do that would cause his remaining core of support to turn against him. There is a deep and vast racism or, I dare say, racial hatred behind such an attitude, but there is also a huge amount of brainwashing backing up the racism. Many on my side would like some détente, to give the country a breather so it can try to claw itself out of the grave it has dug for itself and been shoved into. But it is your side that consistently piles on the hatred more and more every time a compromise is proposed. It is beyond sickening, beyond nauseating. It grinds on the soul in ways I’ve never experienced before. If we had had Alan Keyes these last two terms, none of what I’ve just written would be applicable. He would be a far better President than Bush was, let alone Obama. But for whatever reason, he did not stay in the running, choosing another path for himself.
It is commonly heard today that in a democracy, when things go bad, the people have no one to blame but themselves. I’ve repeated this myself over the years. But I see now I was naïve about that. Secular democracy is not a solution to the historical problems of other secular governments, because it is always only as good as the people tasked with conducting it. So its results (good or bad) are really only a reflection of the character of those at the top of the organizational chart. Therefore, when we have had great success with it in the past, it has only been by the grace of God.
(Please let me not have the usual suspects heckling me that we’re not a democracy. This is nonsense, every republic is by definition a democracy, and I don’t want to discuss it right now. And if you have an ounce of care for the topic at hand, you will not want to distract from that.)
In closing, Mr. or Ms. Strauss, (probably Ms.), my advice to you, assuming you don’t believe in God or just simply hate Him, is to try thinking for yourself again, which I’m willing to bet is something you used to do a lot more of. And if I were you, I wouldn’t use this moment to bombard me with another litany of your evidence or conclusions about Obama. Believe it or not, I’m really not that interested in it now, and haven’t been for years. I was interested in some of the psychology behind the arguments on both sides, but I think we’ve already covered that about as well as we can. Let it go. You want to talk some more about it, talk to someone else. Whatever the reason for your huge concern about the “stupidity” of those on the other side of the question, I do not welcome you carrying on about it to such an extent, especially with so much repetition of the same points. Good night.
RTF
Footnote:
[1] Regarding that whole paragraph, I guess you’d probably say approximately the same thing about me, but you’d be stupendously wrong.
The only thing I would add to your comment is that, like you, I do not hate them, but I do pity them.
Correction, not “Stalin’s Russia” of course, but Lenin’s. (And also Stalin’s.)
I’m going to answer your crap, not for your benefit but on the off-chance that someone rational may be visiting this site.
Re: “There is clearly some kind of cover-up with respect to information on his real birth certification (wherever that might be)..”
Answer: Obama’s REAL birth certificate(s) are the ones that the DOH of Hawaii SENT TO HIM. (The one in the DOH files is NOT an official birth certificate, nor are those of anybody in the files because they do not have the official seal on them). And we know that they SENT the birth certificates to him because the officials of BOTH parties said that they did, repeatedly. Moreover, we know that the information on the birth certificate that the White House put online is EXACTLY the same as on what they sent to him, because they said that too, repeatedly—ALL the facts MATCH what they sent to him.
Re: “with Social Security information..”
Answer: Obama’s CT Social Security number was the result of a data entry error (did you think that SS clerks never made mistakes???) and the birther CLAIMS (once again driven by their motives) that Obama used the SS number of either Ludwig or “Harrison J. Bounel” have both been crushed. Ludwig’s SS number was published and it is not the same as Obama’s, and Bounel does not even have an SS file, the SS Administration told the court.
The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html
Re: “and with school admissions.”
Answer: Are you referring to the nutty idea that Obama was a foreign student? That comes from an April Fool’s article. Or do you think his grades were so bad that he should have been allowed into college. (Not likely, he got a Magna from Harvard Law School.)
Re: “I think this cover-up probably involves the adoption issue…”
Adoptions require the actions of district courts in both Hawaii and in Indonesia, and no such court papers have ever been found (and in fact no birther site has ever said that it LOOKED—I wonder why not??). Yes Obama used his step father’s name—so what? That does not mean that he changed his name legally. That also would require the action of a district court in Hawaii or Indonesia, and once again no such papers have been found.
Re: “and certainly has involved the intelligence community as various times.”
Obama’s mother might have been involved in the 1980s or later. The notion that Obama’s socialist-leaning father or his grandfather (a furniture salesman in the1960s) or his grandmother (who worked at a bank) were with intelligence is absurd.
Re: ” But none of this really proves anything about whether he lost U.S. citizenship…”
Answer: A US child CANNOT LOSE citizenship. It is not possible. That is something that the US Supreme Court ruled on. Moreover, a US citizen OF ANY AGE cannot lose citizenship—she or he can only formally renounce it, and that has to be IN WRITING before the appropriate US government official (overseas a US consul), and there is NO such document. Moreover, Obama never became a citizen of Indonesia—-as a TELEPHONE CALL to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm. (202) 775 5200 —and ask for the Press Officer.)
Re: “your evidence does not prove your beliefs about it…”
If you are referring to the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, it is OVERWHELMING, and yes indeed it DOES prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. YOU agree that Obama was born in Hawaii—but there are others reading this site, so here is SOME of the evidence.
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).
So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?
(Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )
Re: “. But I despise much of what he does, and much of what he wants to do..”
Answer: You have a constitutional right to despise him or anyone in government, and many people despise Obama just like you. But that does not make him born in a foreign country or his SS number stolen or him having been adopted (which would have no effect in any case) or his having lost citizenship (which is impossible), and it does not affect the fact that he was elected and re-elected, so you’ll just have to suffer. I won’t.
Re: “There is a deep and vast racism or, I dare say, racial hatred behind such an attitude…”
Answer: NUTS. We support him because we LIKE his policies. There are even people who hope for presidents to the LEFT of Obama. Don’t like it? TOUGH. In any case, the reason that Obama is supported is because of his policies, not because of his racial mixture.
Hillary may well be slightly to the left of Obama. Don’t like the excellent chance that she will become the next president? You will have the chance to support someone whom you prefer in the next presidential election, but then so will I.
Sorry, any rational person has already concluded you are FOS. next time, try some facts.
Nursery rhymes do make sense – but not to children as they do not know the history behind them.
So you just proved your mental age. Come back when you grow up.
philjourdan said: ” You erect strawmen, ”
Notice that philjourdan has once again not said whether he believes Obama was born in Kenya or not. In my posting above I showed the facts in response to Richard T. Fowler, who had said:
“Therefore, based on 1 and 2 you disagree with Miriam about A simply because you are a naked opportunist who doesn’t care about evidence or logical foundation, and because you believe that to agree with Miriam would hinder your objective of harming Obama.”
My response was to show that I never said anything like “naked opportunist” and that all I did was show the facts, and so I showed them again.
That WAS a response to Richard T. Fowler, and not a strawman.
However, I wonder why philjourdan objects to seeing the facts about where Obama was born?
Well, you got one thing correct moron. I did not say what I believe. That is because it is Irrelevant!
But you got the next statement wrong. Notice you presented NO FACTS. Opinions are not facts moron.
What I believe does not matter. What you believe does not matter and is simply stupidity.
philjourdan has asked for facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/
http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2014/02/breaking-update-maricopa-county.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/
Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm
Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
(And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)
Here is the Index Data file:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html
And birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices AND so is the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley, and BTW, Kapionani Hospital has now confirmed Obama was born there–in fact it has done so TWICE (birther sites did not show either of them).
And BTW, birther sites LIED about the Kenyan grandmother. She never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly. Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just BEFORE she was asked where he was born (I wonder why they did that??) Her answer to the question where Obama was born was “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” (But birther sites refused to quote her and cut off the tape that included her statement.)
Yes, turnip, we know the sky is blue and the grass is green. All non sequiturs.
FACTS to support your opinion idiot! None of which are present in your links (and Wiki is NOT a source for facts turnip!).
Again, show us the FACT that Obama did not know about his OWN Bio for 17 years. SHow us the FACT he did not approve it. Show us the FACT he did not tell the idiot who wrote it that he was born in Kenya.
Facts to SUPPORT your pathetic opinion turnip!
And I apologize to turnips. This clown has less brains than they do.
philjourdan said: “Again, show us the FACT that Obama did not know about his OWN Bio for 17 years. SHow us the FACT he did not approve it. Show us the FACT he did not tell the idiot who wrote it that he was born in Kenya.”
Actually, it is you who are making the accusations that both Obama and the publicist lied, and so it is YOU who have to prove them.
Plenty of people do not see something that has been posted at a small Web site for years and years. You assume that Obama cruised the web regularly and searched for his name—but there is no evidence of it. For Obama to have written or provided the “born in Kenya” information for that bio blurb, he would have had to have switched from the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” statement in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995—AND the publicist who said she made a mistake would have to be lying.
YOU have to provide facts that show Obama wrote or told her that he was born in Kenya—and you haven’t.
RIF Turnip. I am making NO ACCUSATIONS. I really do not care WHO made the mistake (or revealed the truth). We know they lied, I have referenced their lies. The evidence shows the source of the birther controversy is Obama himself. YOU have to prove he was so stupid and ignorant that he never read his own bio turnip!
And for that you need facts. I have facts. See above. So far, you have not produced a single fact turnip! A lie is not a fact turnip. An opinion is NOT a fact turnip!
So yes, you HAVE to provide some facts. And so far you have not turnip.
philjourdan said: “The evidence shows the source of the birther controversy is Obama himself.”
No, there is no evidence for that whatever. The evidence is that the source of the birther controversy was the bio blurb written by the literary agent, and she said that she made a MISTAKE in writing it. Therefore the source of the birther controversy was NOT Obama but the mistake of the literary agent.
The facts are (1) She stated that she made a mistake; (2) Obama said in interviews in 1990 and in his book in 1995 that he was born in Hawaii (both of which are truthful); (3) there is NO evidence whatever that he changed his story from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991; and (4) it was an easy mistake for the literary agent to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
Yes, turnip there is. Apparently you have no clue what evidence is, do you turnip?
We have his bio, unchallenged for 17 years turnip. We have newspaper clippings from the idiots own campaign turnip. That is called evidence turnip. And what do you have turnip?
You have a non sequitur newspaper clipping that does not quote, paraphrase or attribute his being born in Hawaii to the idiot. You have hearsay from a known admitted liar (which is never admissible in court). In other words you have NOTHING turnip.
Evidence turnip, evidence. You still have no clue what that means turnip.
I read your first sentence several times trying to form a connection. It doesn’t follow. If I show evidence that you are an anarchist who likes to blow things up that doesn’t make me an anarchist or a bomber.
The statements seem reasonable to me:
If “Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage, and the written record shows that “the original birther seems to have been Barack Obama.”
philjourdan said yet again: “The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. ”
Philjordan is claiming that a woman he has never met is LYING just so he can provide additional proof to the well-known fact that Obama has not always said what is factual.
It’s well known that politicians lie, but to accuse an unknown woman (who is not a politician) of lying when she admits to making a perfectly human mistake is vile.
Moreover, Obama had said in previous interviews with newspapers that he was BORN IN HAWAII. So the notion that he changed and suddenly told her or wrote a bio that said that he was born in Kenya is farfetched, to say the least.
If you think that he was lying about being born in HAWAII, we can discuss the total birther notion and the extreme improbability of Obama’s mother having taken a trip abroad in 1961. If you think that he was telling the truth about being born in Hawaii, then why should he suddenly turn from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya”? Surely not to sell books because he did not know that the book involved was even going to be published—and it wasn’t. Then when he did get a book published, it said in it that Obama was born in Hawaii—and it sold very nicely.
Obama has undoubtedly lied and made mistaken statements some times—as have most politicians—so what else is new—but he did not lie about being born in Hawaii. He really was born in Hawaii, and he did not tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, and she is not lying when she said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not show the bio to Obama and that he was not told when it was put online so that he could not fix it. Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—-that is where the publicist’s mistake came from.
See, you are caught in a lie trap.
#1 – The only way you can know I never met her is if you are her. So you lied when denying you are her.
#2 – If you are not her, you are lying about me never meeting her.
#3 – Obama is not the first junior nor the last, so that lame excuse does not fly – so you lied again.
So how is anyone going to believe a lying sock puppet?
philjourdan said: ” The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to.”
philjourdan is calling a woman whom he does no even know a liar. And she is not even a politician. And what she says makes sense. It was entirely possible to make a mistake. After all Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he was born in Kenya. Obama, the author and current president, is Barack Hussein Obama II. So, she got them mixed up.
She is not lying when she said she made A MISTAKE.
Worse, that is nobody’s actual definition of “birther.” Generally, “birther” refers to any individual who has promoted as true the theory that Barack Obama
is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and therefore not eligible for the presidency. It fully encompasses any and all of the theories relating to place of birth, citizenship of parents or loss of citizenship via naturalization by other nations.
Birthers do not believe that Obama lied that he was born in Kenya. They believe that Obama was ACTUALLY born in Kenya, and lied that he was born in Hawaii.
A birther is someone like Obama who apparently told his agents that he was born in Kenya
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Re: “A birther is someone like Obama who apparently told his agents that he was born in Kenya.”
Answer: No, but publicist for the literary agent admitted to making that MISTAKE. For details see above.
Let me guess – you bought a bridge in Brooklyn?
yea, no one has ever fallen on a sword for their master! Here’s the catch 22. The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. So are you going to believe that Obama never lies? “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
Seriously, you are not even believable.
again, it does not matter where he was born. A birther is one who believes he was born in Kenya. So who first stated he was born in Kenya? Steven Goddard provides evidence of who DID.
The rest of your soliloquy is a non sequitur. The evidence has been presented on who was first. Dispute it or just claim ignorance of the written word.
@philjourdan
Actually, no. A birther is anyone who believes Obama is not eligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen. Belief that he was born in Kenya is only one of the flavors, and there appears to be no evidence that Miriam Goderich ever believed Obama was not eligible for the Presidency.
Nice try though.
Sorry, no linkies again. Your opinion is irrelevant. So you are wrong again. As i said, you seem to care, I do not. Anyone saying he was born in Kenya is the original definition of birther. Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically.
No cookie for you. And not even a nice try.
Philjordan said: “The fact she would lie about it means she would do ANYTHING Obama told her to. ”
Philjordan is claiming that a woman he has never met is LYING just so he can provide additional proof to the well-known fact that Obama has not always said what is factual. It’s well known that politicians lie, but to accuse an unknown woman of lying when she admits to making a perfectly human mistake is vile. Moreover, Obama had said in previous interviews with newspapers that he was BORN IN HAWAII.
If you think that he was lying about THAT we can discuss the total birther notion and the extreme improbability of Obama’s mother having taken a trip abroad in 1961. If you think that he was telling the truth, then why should he suddenly turn from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya”? Surely not to sell books because he did not know that the book involved was even going to be published—and it wasn’t. Then when he did get a book published, it said in it that Obama was born in Hawaii—and it sold very nicely.
Obama has undoubtedly lied—as have most politicians, so what else is new—but he did not lie about being born in Hawaii. He really was born in Hawaii, and he did not tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, and she is not lying when she said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not show the bio to Obama and that he was not told when it was put online so that he could not fix it. Obama’s FATHER, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya—-that is where the publicist’s mistake came from.
So are you going to believe that Obama never lies? “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
There is only one way you can know I never met her. That is if you are her, and you know who I am. Both conditions fail the skunk test.
And my statement was not the basis for anything. It was a throw away line, but then you are not smart enough to see that. However the truth is now out. You are she. And you think you know who I am. And you are wrong.
You have stated NO facts. period. Facts require proof or substantiation. All you have done is give us your stupid (proven now) opinion. Until you understand the difference between facts and opinions, your posts will contain no useful information and can be laughed at and ridiculed as the expressed opinion of an ignorant puppet
philjourdan said: ” Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically.”
Answer: That is actually precisely right. (I assume you mean Natural Born Citizen by NBC.) And Obama really was born in Hawaii has been proven overwhelmingly. Want me to show the evidence?
So the fact that the publicist made a mistake does not affect Obama’s NBC status.
YOU have claimed that she did not make a mistake, that she LIED when she said that she made a mistake, and that Obama had told her that he was born in Kenya. But there is no evidence that he did, and he had told newspapers before that that he was born In Hawaii (which he knew from more than his mother telling him; his book says that recalls seeing his birth certificate “in an old book.) So it is highly unlikely that he lied to her.
He did not lie. She told the truth when she said she made a mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).
Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II, really was born in Hawaii (the evidence is overwhelming), and because of that he really is a NBC.
YOU are entirely right Being born in the US makes one an NBC automatically. (slcraignbc’s screwy claims not withstanding.)
non sequitur moron. Again, no one cares where the idiot was born! The subject is who started the birther crap. And the evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) is Obama. There is no counterfactual evidence, and certainly none has been produced by you or your puppet master.
Philjourdan said: “There is only one way you can know I never met her.”
Okay, we rational people will simply have to assume that you never met her since there are about 150 million women in the USA and it is unlikely that you met them all, and since you did not say that you met her.
The facts are that (1) Obama said that he was born in Hawaii both before the bio blurb and after the bio blurb in his book; (2) He really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate that the confirmations of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices all show; (3) The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama or send him what she had written for him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
It is YOU who are claiming that the publicist is lying in her statement that she made a mistake. But people do make mistakes, and Obama had told the newspapers before and wrote in his book after that he was born in HAWAII, so the notion that he made an exception for the publicity writer and told her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. Moreover, it has nothing whatever as evidence behind it exact the fact that such bios are OFTEN (but not always) written by the authors or shown to them to correct.
The fact that neither happened in this case was part of the mistake. (And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, really was born in Kenya).
All these are facts. Your claim that the publicist is lying when she admitted to making a mistake is YOUR speculation and has no evidence to support it.
There are more than 150 million women. And your assumptions are like you lies. baseless and stupid.
Again, you DO NOT KNOW. We are dealing with facts. You are dealing lies, ignorance and assumptions.
I guess we know now that turnips cannot advance beyond vegetable state.
philjourdan said: “Again, no one cares where the idiot was born! The subject is who started the birther crap.”
Although philjourdain can say that he does not care where Obama is born, he CANNOT say that no one cares about that matter. There are people who care. In fact, there is an entire web site, the Birther Report, devoted to that matter. So all that philjourdan is saying when he says “no one cares” is that HE does not care.
NOW turning to the subject of who started the birthe crap (and yes indeed it is CRAP), I agree with you, the first mention of the false story that Obama was born in Kenya appears to be the bio blurb written by the publicist in 1991. However, you have used that fact to claim that Obama wrote the bio blurb or told her that he was born in Kenya., THAT is false since she said she made the MISTAKE all by herself and did not get it from Obama, and the fact that he had previously told newspapers twice that he was born IN HAWAII before 1991 and wrote in Dreams from My Father that he was born in Hawaii in 1995 makes it farfetched (to say the least) that he said he was born in Kenya in 1991.
So the MISTAKE by the publicist appears to be the first mention. If that is important to you, then that is what happened.
But it is not all that happened, the right wing took up the story and ran with it. They manufactured lies that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she really said he was born in Hawaii). They published three forged “Kenyan birth certificates (one from a convicted felon one of whose crimes was forgery). They posted links to a forged video in which Obama is supposed to have said “I was born in Kenya” (but you cannot see his mouth move; I wonder why not?). They claimed that Obama’s wife said he was born in Kenya (she said it was his “native country” meaning where his ancestors came from).
Those lies are important to the birther myth too, not just who started it.
In any case, the publicist admitted to making a mistake, and Obama’s birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties (and the index data and the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers sent to the papers by the DOH) show that Obama really was born in Hawaii.
The “no one” is no one here, since that is the audience turnip.
There is no use in asking you to learn how to read. You have demonstrated you are incapable of being educated.
@smrstrauss – All I can say is wow…
Do they pay you by the word? Because I cannot imagine anyone being that passionate about defending the presidential liar of the united states unless they were paid for it.
Maybe the publicist screwed-up. And maybe Obama thought he’d get more book sales as a foreign author. At this point, who knows? I don’t care. Maybe you care. Pecious few others seem to. I think the majority of the US citizens are aware that Obama lies as naturally as he breathes. As does most of the world.
Fact is, Obama doesn’t deal in truth. He never has and likely never will. He only says what he thinks he must to acheive his agenda. Nothing else matters. If it suited him, he would disavow his most ardent defenders without a second thought.
Stop defending what cannot be defended. Take a walk. Go enjoy life for a change. Defending the liar of the united states is a waste of your life.
+10
The funny part is that the money he is being paid is wasted. He is convincing no one (mostly due to the fact that no one cares, but partly due to the fact he has no facts), but then I guess when you have scammed millions of dollars from idiots as Obama has, you have money to waste.
Diogenes said: “Stop defending what cannot be defended. Take a walk. Go enjoy life for a change. Defending the liar of the united states is a waste of your life.”
Thanks for your advice. You should know that I was equally zealous in defending the FACT that George W. Bush really did receive more votes that Gore in Florida in the 2000 election and hence he really was elected, not “chosen by the US Supreme Court” as many liberals claimed. And I was equally zealous against the nutty myth of the “truthers.”
Of course Obama has lied and made mis-statements, but that does not mean that he was born in a foreign country (which is truly nutty) or that Miriam Goderich, the publicist, is lying when she admits to making a MISTAKE about the “born in Kenya” she wrote. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, and that is the source of her mistake.
And it finally comes out. Again ,it is all BOOSH’s fault. Wapo, AP, NY Crimes – all of them counted and found Bush won, yet the turnip NOW brings that out as his gotcha! Why? Because no one cares! He is a sore loser and having lost the debate here, he is trying another change of subject to see if he can lick his wounds and claims some sort of victory.
But alas, he does not have 2 brain cells to realize he cannot even lie his way out of a non-issue that is 14 years old. But then he is a turnip.
philjourdan said: “but partly due to the fact he has no facts),”
The facts are that (1) Obama said that he was born in Hawaii both before the bio blurb and after the bio blurb in his book; (2) He really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate that the confirmations of the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices all show; (3) The publicist said that SHE made the mistake and that she did not get the information from Obama or send him what she had written for him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
It is YOU who are claiming that the publicist is lying in her statement that she made a mistake. But people do make mistakes, and Obama had told the newspapers before and wrote in his book after that he was born in HAWAII, so the notion that he made an exception for the publicity writer and told her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched—to say the least. And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama (Barack Hussein Obama I), and Obama’s father actually was born in Kenya. Obama was not; he was born in Kapiolani Hospital—as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the index data and the birth notices sent to the 1961 newspapers and the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s status and wrote “one child born in Honolulu” all show.
Those are FACTS.
Non Sequitur turnip. I really do not care what Obama said before, or after. I really do not care where he was born turnip. We are only concerned with what he said for 17 years – in his Bio. So again, you have no facts. PERIOD.
learn what a fact is turnip. You still have NONE! Since you are being paid for this disinformation, it is up to YOU to prove he was totally CLUELESS about a Bio of HIMSELF for 17 years.
Good luck with that. turnip. Everything else is non sequitur.
The Brussels sprout philjourdan said: “Again ,it is all BOOSH’s fault. ”
Sane people will notice that I never said that Bush had anything at all to do with the claim that Obama was born in Kenya or the allegation that Obama lied in the “born in Kenya” claim in his literary bio. I simply said that Bush really was elected president in the 2000 election and that I have defended that fact the same way that I defend the facts that Obama really was born in Hawaii and that the publicist is not lying when she said that she made a mistake about Obama’s place of birth. The fact remains that Barack Hussein Obama I, Obama’s father, really was born in Kenya, and it was easy to mix them up. She admitted to making a MISTAKE, and she is not lying.
People will also note I did not say you did, turnip. I pointed out you merely again raised the issue of the 2k election turnip.
If you cannot read, stop writing. Your responses are merely ad hominems surrounded by non seuqiturs turnip.
philjourdan said: “We are only concerned with what he said for 17 years – in his Bio. So again, you have no facts. PERIOD.”
Answer: He did not say it. The literary agent said it and admitted to making a mistake in saying it. The fact that it was not fixed for 17 years is explained by Obama not being told that it was written and that it was put online. You cannot fix something that you do not know about.
Non sequitur answer turnip. You have no evidence. You do not even have a signed affidavit from the admitted liars about it turnip. You have nothing turnip.
We on the other hand have mountains of evidence turnip. I realize you have no clue what evidence means, but that is your problem turnip. You have convinced me that he is hiding something – the fact he was not born in the US turnip. Congratulations! That endorsement should get you a promotion in the democrat party turnip. They like their leaders stupid and failures turnip. You fill both qualifications turnip.
smrstrauss, have you ever considered counseling?
Notice that geran has not responded to the facts shown above. (I wonder why not?)
He cannot respond to that which does not exist. You have yet to present a single fact. Opinions are not facts.
Indeed. How it works — If I disagree with the young Kenyan’s policies then I am a racist.
You know who I really feel sorry for? Zero’s typical white grandmother and everyone else on that side of the family that temporarily disrupted the media’s quest for the first black US president….until Zero threw her, his mom and the rest under the bus. Don’t you love a happy ending?
And never to forget the immediate follow up Birthers were the Clintons. That is until their daughter was threatened. At this point the Clintons knew they were not the chosen ones.
It shows he was willing to lie early on to keep his past a secret no matter where he was born. However, that only puts him in the same boat as most politicians. It’s what happened later that formed such an unspeakably arrogant lack of character. I think it is the extreme arrogance in front of a mind that is totally incompetent and ignorant that bothers me the most. It’s like he inherited the worst traits of his parents and none of the good ones.
I don’t believe the Kenyan National Assembly was lying when they acknowledged Obama was born in Kenya. Check their records on their Nov. 5, 2008 session.
Does this issue matter anymore? No.
But calling someone a “birther,” if true, is now the easiest way that the left can stigmatize someone as being a nutty ultra-fringe extremist. And guess what? By doing this post you are turning yourself into… a “birther.” To no benefit. This is a battle we’ve lost: any effort to “mainstream” birthers is going to fail, despite Trump’s flirtation with it a couple years ago.
And the fact that a publicist said Obama is from Kenya is far from definitive evidence that he was actually born there. Arguably the publicist was motivated to sell books, and saying O was from Africa helped achieve that end. O has, what, two years left? Even if in the highly unlikely event that a majority of Americans all of a sudden concluded that despite his supposed birth certificate that he was in fact born elsewhere, nothing would change. What would change? Nothing. I don’t know what this has to do with climate change, but every time this issue is posted here again, when Drudge or whoever headlines a major breakthrough climate point made at Steven Goddard, the left can summarily dismiss the point as sheer quackery by simply saying that it was reported “by a birther.” I think we need to pick our spots to fight, and this like a Pickett’s Charge. Pickett was right to think that their bullets shot from the charging soldiers could hurt the Union. But his bullets never got there.
Of course, any non-climate-change related political posts are going to diminish the effectiveness of the climate aspect of this blog, because almost by definition that is showing overt political motivation. The point that climate change is almost exclusively pushed by a bunch of leftists needs to be constantly driven home, but the converse, that skepticism is solely the domain of political or worse “religious” right wingers is a characterization we should make an all out effort to fight. It’s great that now almost all conservatives, with a few bizarre exceptions, don’t buy the leftist garbage on climate change. But it would be a huge benefit if we could invite even a small fraction of Independents and Dems to join us as skeptics.
ROFL.
This blog is mainly about researching left wing BS. It is all the same cesspool.
You need to read what Tony posted again, slowly, focusing on the “in order to gain political or economic advantage”:
“Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage. – The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama.”
If I have interpreted Tony correctly, this post is not about where Obama was born. It’s about Obama’s (apparently) malleable approach to truth for “political or economic advantage”.
Bingo!
That would be more compelling were Tony capable of identifying a “political or economic advantage” to falsely claiming a Kenyan birth. But as Tony’s ultimate rhetorical question shows, he was not up to that task.
Sorry Mr. Alinsky, I am not responsible for Obama’s lying.
So, now it is required to prove the “elements of the motive” and not the “elements of the crime” ….?
But then, perhaps, you may have just un-artfully attempted to say “where’s the crime”, given that the 1st Amendment allows a person to lie freely about just about anything as long as it does no harm to others. And politicians are given even greater latitude to lie when campaigning.
Given that the structure of the “0”s life narrative appears to be a progression of endless campaigns where the lies begin and end may forever be lost in the murky twilight produced with the smoke and mirrors persona that the endless lies created.
Regardless of what “crimes” of fraud or forgeries that may exist, the Constitutional offense happens to be a “civil offence” by statutes. Of course, being found guilty of that particular “civil offense” opens the door to the full force of Political Will that could choose to pursue witnesses to some higher crimes.
Some where in your responses you seem to say that the Founders did NOT renounce allegiance to their prior attachments to Foreign Nations and Countries and therefore were Dual-Citizens post Ratification of the COTUS.
I take exception to such an interpretation of the structure of U.S. Citizenship and would cite the U.S. v Villato and Talbot v Janson to put such a notion to rest.
Returning to “motives and life narratives” I note in the later the possible cause of your positions on the subject in the former, as if following in the steps of Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg.
What would be more compelling is if you could actually read.
You are interjecting your own bias. Tony did not care about any implications, he merely was searching for the originator of the rumor/fact. Perhaps when you learn to read, you will quit making assumptions based upon your own biases.
@stevengoddard
You also do not appear to be responsible for your own posts.
You do not seem to be able to read.
@philjourdan
Don’t be obtuse. Tony’s entire position depends on there having been some advantage to pretending to be born in Kenya. He even specifically asked the question.
What were you saying about being able to read?
😆 Now you pretend to be clairvoyant again! Tony was not assigning any “advantage”. he DOCUMENTED who was the original. Do not speak for others. You are barely capable of doing so for yourself. idiot.
Yes, I went back in time to 1991 and created the fake bio which Dystel used for the next 17 years. Thanks for clearing that up.
Once again, Tony leaps back into the discussion and apropos of nothing blesses us with a non sequitur of the first order.
Actually that is a description of yourself. You made an accusation. he answered it. You do not like the answer as it is factual and counter to your attempt to turn the discussion.
In other words, you are the epitome of a troll. And a very bad one at that. Might help when you grow up to learn about such things.
Hey HistorianDude! You say: “Tony’s entire position depends on there having been some advantage to pretending to be born in Kenya.”
Sorry, but isn’t that a little obvious? Let us assume for the sake of discussion that Obama was born in the US. Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status and special scholarships while Obama was in college. There is also a certain societal advantage to being the “poor African who came to the United States and worked his way up by sheer dint of personal effort”. Once he left school, the obvious advantage to “being born in Kenya” was that when running for office, having immediate ties to Africa is a real vote getter among black voters. (No lectures, please. I am mixed race and live in a majority black neighborhood. That is how things work.) Additionally, if he said otherwise for his book, then he would be caught out in his earlier lies. It was not until Obama became a serious contender for the Presidency that being born in Kenya became a liability, and viola! Suddenly, he is no longer born in Kenya! Of course Obama is the original “birther.”
Jason Calley said: “Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status..”
It also means NOT qualifying for US government student LOANS, which are available only to US students. And, BTW, the claim that Obama went to college as a foreign student and/or received financial aid as a foreign student CAME FROM AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE.
Moreover, it is easy to show that he didn’t do either. How? Well, duh, by calling Occidental and Columbia and asking for the PR department and ASKING—what an idea. You will learn that he was never a foreign student.
Moreover, it has been pointed out on this page that Obama was interviewed several times before the bio blurb appeared, and each time he said that he was born in HAWAII. Moreover, when Obama’s first published book, “Dreams from My Father” was published, in 1995, it said right in it that Obama was born in Hawaii, and it was a best seller. So there is no evidence that the allegation of birth in a foreign country would increase the sales of the book.
He would not have qualified in any event due to his family’s income.
You keep tripping over your own tongue. Moron.
@Jason Calley
“Sorry, but isn’t that a little obvious?”
It could not be less obvious, and up to this very moment not a single person in any of these 200+ comments has even ventured to speculate. Let’s see if you can do better.
“Being born in Kenya means qualifying for foreign student status and special scholarships while Obama was in college. ”
Gong! In the first instance you simply restate the problem rather than provide a possible solution. I have been asking what the ADVANTAGES are from “qualifying for foreign student status.” Certainly you would not suggest that anybody be satisfied with a tautology.
But now we get the meat of the matter. Exactly what “special scholarships” would Obama have qualified for by being a “foreign student?” Birthers keep tossing that out there like it’s common knowledge, but you know what? In six years, no birther has ever been able to show us one that he would have qualified for. There was a funny effort four years ago to claim he went to Occidental on a Fulbright Scholarship. Too bad there’s no such thing as a Fulbright for undergraduate work, which is what Obama did at Occidental. And when you research Universities, they are happy to point international students to scholarship opportunities offered by third parties… but they almost never offer them themselves (and Occidental did not in the 1980s).
In actuality, international students are far more likely to pay full boat at US universities than any other class of person. That is why US universities love the foreigners.
“There is also a certain societal advantage to being the ‘poor African who came to the United States and worked his way up by sheer dint of personal effort’.”
Like what? Getting laid more? Guess what? You don’t need to REGISTER as a foreign student to pull that particular scam.
“Once he left school, the obvious advantage to “being born in Kenya” was that when running for office, having immediate ties to Africa is a real vote getter among black voters.”
Well, now you’ve crashed completely on the rocks of reality. Because when you actually look at all the coverage of Obama as a public person starting in 1990 with his selection as President of the Harvard Law Review, guess where he always and exclusively said he was born? Hawaii.
How, pray tell, does one get votes for being born in Africa when all your campaign material and publicity says you were born in Hawaii?
“Additionally, if he said otherwise for his book, then he would be caught out in his earlier lies.”
Oohh. Guess what. His book says he was born in Hawaii. That had to hurt.
I always laugh when a Blog visitor comes and demands that the context of the blog as the blogger who runs it envisions it be changed because it does not agree with what the visitor thinks the blogger should be doing. A blog is not a democracy. The host holds all the power. it is his house and we visitors are guests. Visitors need to learn to live with it or leave, or as some have found out that have become a nuisance, get banned.
In my over 12 yrs as moderator on various forums, it never ceases to amaze me that so many who yell and scream about how things should be run, are for ‘freedom’ of speech, profess unending and all encompassing toleration…at others forums/blogs/bbs/other venues.
philjourdan said: “He would not have qualified in any event due to his family’s income.”
Question, what is the thing that you claim that Obama would not have qualified for in any event due to his family’s income? (And what, pray tell, was his mother’s income at the time? [His father was back in Kenya.])
What was the subject my comment was in response to moron?
Ok, but I thought this blog was about climate change. Remember, there are literally thousands of blogs of every degree of professionalism reporting on conservative politics and the leftwing cesspool. In contrast, there’s only one Steven Goddard. I think that in terms of potential impact on climate change you could be the #1 blogger in the world. That’s why I care, and anything to increase your effectiveness in delivering the devastating kinetic energy round to the bullshit artists is helpful.
This blog is about whatever happens to be going through my head at the time.
I learned a long time ago that you can’t rationalize with progressives and other mentally ill people. Either they get it, or they don’t.
I gotta disagree with you.
#1 Never concede anything to a leftist that is not IN FACT true. The left wants you to cow to them when they push untruths. The more you concede the more outrageous they become. The story of how BHO’s birth cert disappeared and then suddenly re-appears is about as sound as the story concerning lois lerner’s hard drive’s disappearance.
#2 The birth cert stuff does hurt them a little. The non-going away furor over his phony birth cert does undercut his credibility even if most of the public is cowed into not speaking about it. The WTC truther hoax definitely hurt the Bush administration, and the Donks helped it continue.
Eric, what you don’t realize is that Leftists are going to attack anyone that does not COMPLETELY agree with everything they espouse. They use terms like “Denier” and “Birther” in an effort to intimidate folks. They do not want free thinking.
People that are afraid of being attacked by the Left are called “Moderates”. In “Moderate-ville”, you leave your core values at the door.
One of the things that I would seriously hope you would try to do is whatever to get more left-leaners and especially independents to come on over to the skeptic point of view. Because that’s where the climate change battle lines are right now. Actually, you could say that a couple of years ago the battle front line had to do with breaking the hold that the leftist climate loons had on many conservatives. We won that battle, for the most part. Now, the left is trying to move the front of the battle back to being over conservatives. Well, we can hope (and work to make sure) that that effort fails, and so keep the front lines of this battle on the issue of whether the leftist leaners etc will start to over sally over to our side on the climate change issue. And once that happens, even the support of the MSM for the fear mongers will be shaken.
So, this is the epic battle now on climate change, to win over a majority of independents and ultimately at least a fraction of those from the left. If we achieve that the whole agw edifice will fall apart. With that being the key thing, mixing in divisive politics on unrelated issues may not help “the cause” because it will tend to repel those independents et al that may be attracted to what we have to say. On the other hand, you can make this blog about whatever you feel like at the time, which, I understand and agree with, as life is about doing what one enjoys. But as far as making the greatest impact, doing your bit to “save the world,” that should be considered something enjoyable to pursue.
Eric, you’re still not getting it. If “Goddard” acquiesces and stops posting about how irresponsible the Leftists are, what will he have to do next? And, after that, what will he have to do next? Do you not understand “core values”?
Obama slacked his responsibility to provide creditable evidence of his birth, BEFORE the election. It was not until Trump forced the issue that the “birth certificate” appeared. Experts find MANY problems with the “birth certificate”.
Now, I believe that Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but it was HIS responsibility to resolve the issue, BEFORE his first campaign. He failed. Could it be that the original birth certificate no longer exists? Could it be that forgers, with or without Obama’s approval, crafted a fake birth certificate? It is Obama’s RESPONSIBILITY to provide verifiable evidence, not “Birthers”.
Why do you not want to hold Leftists responsible?
BTW, are you the same “Eric Simpson” that writes for Huffpo?
That might explain a lot….
This might be him, unless he goes into “denial”…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-simpson/
Re: “it was HIS responsibility to resolve the issue, BEFORE his first campaign. He failed.”
Only if you assume that birthers—who have the motive to keep asking questions about things that are already are proven—are the people of the USA. Except for those highly motivated enemies of Obama, showing the short-form birth certificate of Obama (which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, accepted by both the US State Department and the branches of the military for proof of birth in America) is entirely sufficient. And, guess what, the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii including the former Republican governor of Hawaii repeatedly confirmed that they sent it to him. THAT is sufficient. The fact that Trump gets publicity by alleging that those facts are not sufficient, does not change the FACT that by releasing his short form birth certificate, the OFFICIAL birth certificate, Obama proved that he was born in the USA in June 2008—FIVE MONTHS before the election.
Why would we assume anything about Obama? he is the original birther after all. And not too smart, like his publicist.
Long, entangled, sentences are NOW your effort to do what Obama should have done years ago. He did NOT take assume that responsibility. He left it for his obedient adherents to clean up his mess.
geran said: “Long, entangled, sentences are NOW your effort to do what Obama should have done years ago.”
Obama was the first presidential candidate in US history to put his birth certificate online. He did so in June 2008, five months before the election of that year. He put online the birth certificate that Hawaii sent to him, and which the officials subsequently confirmed repeatedly that they sent to him. And it was, and remains, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. FIVE months before the election in 2008—years and years ago.
Liar. He never put his BC on line. He put a COPY on line. A copy there is reason to suspect is a forgery (since there was no nation of Kenya at the time).
That is a fact.
philjourdan said: “he is the original birther after all.”
There is no evidence whatever that Obama ever claimed to be born in Kenya, and the publicist made a mistake. If making a mistake makes you a birther—then, yes, she was one. But Obama wasn’t. He told the newspapers and wrote in his 1995 book that he was born in HAWAII, and there isn’t any evidence at all that he wrote the bio blurb or told her he was born in Kenya. She said that she made that mistake—and it is an easy mistake to make (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya).
Liar. There is a lot of evidence. There is his bio – never refuted for him for 17 years. There are 2 newspaper reports from his ascension into the senate. These are facts, presented by our host.
You have presented nothing except moronic opinion. And until you do, you are now simply a liar.
philjourdan said: ” he is the original birther after all.”
NO, SHE is. She made the mistake after all, and she has admitted it. There is no evidence whatever that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya or wrote the bio blurb. She said that she made the mistake all by herself and that she did not send what she wrote to him to check and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
I have heard rumors that Obama is really a tranny, but I guess turnip believes he (sorry, she) is.
See how rumors are started turnip? You just started the one about Obama being a tranny – but like all libtards, you will blame the right for it.
philjourdan said: “You just started the one about Obama being a tranny..”
What is a “tranny?” And where did I ever use that word??
I was going to say “don’t play stupid with me”, but you are not playing turnip.
And you know what a tranny is – and you just started that rumor. One I will not repeat as it comes for a known liar, you turnip.
philjourdan said: “And you know what a tranny is – and you just started that rumor. ”
Answer: How could I, since I do not know what a “tranny? is Is it some form of a perambulator?
It is what you do on Tuesday nights turnip.
It doesn’t matter where Obama was born. The only thing that matters at this point is what the post points out, the story changes. Birthers like 911 truthers or Sandy Hook truthers make the mistake of going to far. They speculate on what the truth is. That is unnecessary, all that is necessary is to show the lies.
Speculation leaves one open to attack. Those who are vested in the politics, the government story, etc encourage speculation because that gives them something to attack. A demonstration of government’s lies without speculation leaves them with nothing, so at this point they demand speculation. It’s a trap.
The above post approaches the issue correctly. It demonstrates that there is a lie. Obama could have been born in both places. One or both is a lie. We don’t know which. We don’t have to. All we need to know is we’ve been lied to at one time or the other. That Obama’s birthplace changes for what is best for Obama at the time.
All stories change. Certainly, at least once in your life you must have played the children’s game of “Telephone.”
Welcome to the human condition.
Opportunistic stories opportunistically change.
Liars lie.
Apologists apologize.
Welcome to the human condition.
Very well stated.
To say that it does not matter is to say that the Laws derived from the statutory construction of the COTUS does not matter……..
…… so much for the value you place on YOUR “U.S. Citizenship”, if any………..
Sorry, but the Constitution does NOT define natural born. Period. So I am NOT saying the Constitution is not valid.
try reading the thing. You might get an education and a surprise.
The Constitution is STATUTORY in its Construction, (Marbury v Madison), and so TOO are the Acts of the Congress made in pursuance thereof.
Statutory language, the vernacular and nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, says things about people, places and things in such a way as to produce an effect within the parameters of the circumstances and context of the subject.
In other words, if the desired effect is to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen then you describe the circumstances wherein they will be produced.
The Constitution nor the 1790 Act does NOT describe the Doctrine of Coverture, in fact neither mention women specifically in any manner, yet the 1790 Act speaks of a child being born so a WOMAN MUST EXIST, and they existed under the doctrine of coverture, which made the wife of the same political character as the husband. REGARDLESS of previous political character, (1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act).
So now the circumstances are defined to this point, a U.S. Citizen husband/father and a wife/mother who, by marriage, is considered as a U.S. Citizen insofar as the Privileges and immunity’s of the COTUS extends to a woman, and we have a child being born OUT OF THE LIMITS of the U.S. yet within the U.S. CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION JURISDICTION under the authority of the U.S. Congress.between March of 1790 to January of 1795.
So during that period of time it can be succinctly stated that a U.S. natural born Citizen is a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.
The 1795 REPEAL of the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen, that PROVES the SR 511 re: J. McLame and the Senate that produced it as being IGNORANT of U.S. Laws written in their own chambers, but it did NOT extinguish the Constitutional requirement that they MUST exist to satisfy the needs of A2S1C5.
Also, the REPEALING ACT ONLY repealed the “natural born” hyphenation leaving a child born abroad under the same circumstances as the former being considered as a U.S. Citizen.
Thereafter and hitherto the circumstance of the birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen has been limited to within the limits of the U.S. to two (2) Citizen parents, married or not post the Cable Act, and not otherwise…….there are no constructions of U.S. Laws that would support the existence of any alternative circumstances notwithstanding the FACT that numerous proposed Acts and or Amendments have been suggested within both Houses of the Congress which have all been tabled.
As a matter of speculation, having read them all, that made to write-ups, is that they ALL failed by the lack of addressing the fatal flaw. In order to MODIFY something the something must be identified, i.e., it requires that the “existing circumstances” be identified before “modifications” could be made to them. Once correctly identified the prospect of “modifying” them by Congressional Vote or Ratification of Amendment would be doubtful.
So, the punted ball has been named “ambiguity” and is being fumbled back and forth between the opposing teams as if a hot potato.
And the bottom line is that just as the “definition” of a U.S. natural born Citizen is in a state of “legal ambiguity”, being avoided by the we that Justice Thomas referred to, then so to is the “legal occupancy” of the Office of the POTUS…….. “0”mbiguous.
“so somewhere along the way…”
Funny thing is about laws and lawyers. “Somewhere” does not exist in the law. However when written down, and enacted lawfully, they become laws. Just as the US Code did.
I gave you a specific reference that sets both the law and precedence. You come back with “somewhere”???
Please! Stop out-stupiding morondude. You are not up to the task.
@Colorado Wellington
Assumes facts not in evidence.
There is no assumption in his post. You need to learn English.
@slcraignbc
That would be one non-exclusive definition of natural born citizen. It forecloses no other definitions that might have their source in the common law.
HistorianDude RESPONDS @slcraignbc statement;
.…….”So during that period of time it can be succinctly stated that a U.S. natural born Citizen is a person born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.”………
with a statement that is non-responsive to the context of the statement, i.e., the “time period” of March 1790 to January 1795 by saying
That would be one non-exclusive definition of natural born citizen. It forecloses no other definitions that might have their source in the common law.
What revisedHistory Dude fails to acknowledge and attempt to obscure is that I never said that a U.S. natural born Citizen as I interpret them under the statutory construction and interpretations of the Constitution and ITS Laws was NOT consistent with MANY of the historical definitions arising out of natural law, English Common Law as interpreted by Lord Coke & Blackstone from the Queen Anne Statutes, et seq, on British Nationality, the ancient common laws and Doctrines of Just Soli & Jus Sanguinis going back to Aristotles, 350 BC, True Citizens”.
What I do say is that it does not matter if they do or don’t, the Constitution and its Laws ARE the Supreme Law of the land and that A2S1C5 and and the 1790 Act, et seq, ARE BLACK-LETTER LAW.
What is irritating is that the 0’pologists seem to think and suggest is that the Framers of the COTUS and the Congress’s that followed did not use Statutory Construction to arrive at the same EFFECTS that were to be found in the natural and common law histories on the subject.
The Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality is what those who support the Court Opinions and Dicta and call it English Common Law because the Statutes WERE interpreted by Coke and Blackstone under the system of stare decisis.
So, show me a case in which the question asked was “who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen as identified by parentage status, place and circumstance”, other than my failed attempts of course.
But back to the non-responsive response, which I will assert is, by context and on several levels, exclusive to the Constitution, its laws and U.S. Citizenship by ITS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION under the authority of the COTUS ( as opposed to being DICTA from a case that may or may not have been incidentally, but not specifically, related.)
Now, if you’re referring to “exclusionary”, then again I would assert that it is by the certainty of circumstances provided for and with the REPEAL of the “foreign-born provision” in 1795 it becomes even more “exclusionary”, as to place.
@HistorianDude
Duck, I says.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-CDMc2JJ24hbm7Y/unforgiven_1992_the_duke_of_death
At this point, Steve Craig has essentially stopped making any effort to actually communicate an argument. This no doubt has contributed directly to his multiple losses in court. He resorts ironically to declaring my comments “non responsive” and so he substantively ignores them. It is curious that he would keep up this particular style of discussion since by now he must understand that it gets him nowhere.
There are certainly details on the margin of this issue that can be debated. But there are other that cannot. Let us move from most clearly settled to most ambiguous.
The single most settled criteria for being a natural born citizen is the definition provided by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark decision. To wit: Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen. This is the ancient common law definition of the term. After all, natural born citizen/subject was a specific term of art exclusive to the British common law. At the time of the Constitution’s framing there was no competing definition in the entire English language. It is absurd to suggest that the Framers would use the term in some new and innovative way… and then forget to tell anybody.
This also remains to this day the only definition of NBC that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court. It is the precedent that at least two dozen courts have used to explicitly declare Obama a natural born US citizen and thus effectively settles the issue for this particular president. If Obama’s eligibility is the only issue at hand, the discussion would end here.
But if we are to consider other individuals, specifically John McCain or Ted Cruz, the the question is a different one. The question is whether or not the children of citizens born beyond the seas are also natural born citizens.
We clearly observe based on the Naturalization Act of 1790 that the First Congress (composed overwhelmingly of Framers) was certainly of the opinion that the answer was affirmative. This also reconciles with the understanding of the term inherited from the mother country, as the common law definition had been statutorily augmented in exactly this same way by the British parliament. The supercession (not “repeal”) of the 1790 law in 1795 replaced “natural born Citizens” with the more general term, but as generalization is not contradiction it tells us nothing about intent. The 1790 law remains the only direct window we have into the position the Framers had on whether or not the children of citizens born beyond the seas were natural born citizens. As such, it carries a vast amount of weight in any consideration of the issue.
Most importantly, though, the US Constitution itself considers two and only two effective classes of citizenship; naturalized and natural born. The similarity in the terms is not accidental, and there is no third class. Subsequent discussion by courts both supreme and petty have repeatedly made this observation; that there are only two classes of citizen. While both are subsumed in the general category of “citizens of the United States,” they are within that superset mutually exclusive. One therefore informs the other.
To conclude that the children of citizens born beyond the seas are not natural born citizens is to invent from whole cloth a new, third class of citizen for which there exists no basis in the law. Certainly the 1795 act suggests no new third class. Neither do any of the subsequent supercessions or repeals. Hence, it was of the utmost ease for the Senate to unanimously pass Senate Resolution 511 without any debate and declare John McCain a natural born citizen. And while fewer and farther between, court challenges to McCain’s eligibility have failed with exactly the same level of consistency as challenges to Obama’s. Anticipate the same result should there eventually be challenges to Cruz’s.
Now, before I leave this discussion for good, I need to point out again that in all of the vast amount of typing that Steve has placed on this forum supposedly in response to my comments, he has still made no effort to substantively disagree with me on any of my primary positions. For just one example, he seemed almost apoplectic that I would write that “there has never been a single US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits a dual citizen from eligibility to the Presidency.” And yet, onthe thousands of words he has written since, he never even tried to prove my statement false by showing us A SINGLE US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that did so.
We got hand waving. We got long run-on sentences of often dubious coherence. We got rhetorical contortionism of the highest form. But never the simple “fact” that would destroy the beautiful theory.
Steve tells us he is now returning to court because, Eureka, he has found in one of Strauss’s responses what he believes will be the magic bullet that ends his otherwise perfect streak of courtroom disasters. I am looking forward to more theater. I have always enjoyed a well written farce.
You say…………..
The single most settled criteria for being a natural born citizen is the definition provided by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
I say, what a twit……….
The single most definition derives from Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretation of English Barristers interpretations of English Common-Law cases interpretations of Queen nne Statutes on British Nationality…………..
What a twit……..
So, you accept that Justice penumbra zone Gray can MAKE LAW by saying that a “Citizen is a Citizen is a Citizen is a Citizen and ignore the FACT that the Constitution at A2S1C5 DISTINGUISHES between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen ON PURPOSE and WITH CAUSE.
What a twit……….
P.S. Aside from equating the two forms of Citizenship in DICTA where in the Order does he call lil’ wong a U.S. natural born Citizen…………
….not withstanding the FACT that lil’ wong would NOT have been born Stateless as he was born under the JURISDICTION of the Burlingame Treaty that provided for the temporary domicile of his parents, who were prohibited from naturalizing/expatriating under Article 6 of the Treaty….
So much wrong with Justice penumbra zone Gray’s Opinion that only a twit would stand by it…
Eric asks, “Does this issue matter anymore? No.”
===============================
YES!, it matters. Historically it is very cogent for the truth to come out. A bold faced lie enabling someone like BO to win the presidency is important history, if that is what happened. Knowing if this happened or not is very important to protect it from happening in the future. You sound like Hilary, “what difference does it make.”
Regardless, the salient points are one can’t be President if one holds dual citizenship (have to be a natural born citizen with no competing allegiance to other countries) nor can one attend public school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.
This is how those loss of Indonesian records may have gone down:
http://laotze.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-throwing-papau-under-bus.html
As long as Obama renounced the other citizenship before his 18th birthday it’s not relevant as his mother was a US citizen he is automatically a “natural born” US citizen. The point is that these people continue to lie about everything for no good reason.
No record of his denouncing Indonesian citizenship. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to US citizens, renounced his Canadian citizenship recently pending a possible run for President.
Plus, there’s that pesky matter of how did Pres. Obama, as an adult, travel to Pakistan during the travel ban for those relying on US passports in 1987. No restrictions applied to those traveling under Indonesian passports, however.
1) at the time the Naturalization law did NOT allow his mother to pass citizenship.
2) A Natural Born Citizen is the requirement for President and no other office.
3) An NBC requires born on the land AND Citizen parents.
4) BHO’s father was NOT a citizen. Arguably he is not an NBC due to his father not being a citizen along with his mother!!
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
Sorry Kuhn, check out the US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. His mother was a natural born citizen, so he is as well. Regardless of where he was born.
Reply to philjourdan;
You say……….
“Sorry Kuhn, check out the US Code, Title 8, Section 1401. His mother was a natural born citizen, so he is as well. Regardless of where he was born.”
1401 says;
” 8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
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;..”
So “Citizenship, by COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION turns on the Statutory Interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
We’ll leave that fight for another time given that I see NOWHERE does the STATUTE suggest, imply or state that such a child would be a U.S. natural born Citizen, nor “considered as” such or any other reference to the term of words found in A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act and NOWHERE ELSE.
Also; the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 INCLUDES the EXCLUSION of “Citizens” , post the passing of the Founding generation which would necessarily include ANY hyphenated form other than “natural born”, to say otherwise is to say that the Clause and provision has NO EFFECT, and such an argument is deemed inadmissible according to Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison.
Try here – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Specifically, this portion:
Or this one:
I’ve lost the progression of this specific thread so my impulsive response is to say I do not see “”natural born” attached anywhere in the citations you post.
Guess I should have quoted the entire page to you so you could read the entire thing. Notice the numbering (D, G). That means they are SUBSECTIONS. Of what you ask? (well if you had GONE to the page, you would SEE the section) headed by:
Don’t play stupid. You are not going to out stupid morondude and his sockpuppet.
THERE is NO “sub-section” that uses the term of words “natural born Citizen” whether “U.S.” is implicit or not., nowhere within 8 USC, zero, zip, nada……………..your acceptance that Jus Soli is equivalent to “natural born Citizen” only exposes your intellectual limitations given that it takes a purely “thought process” to READ the word “Citizen” have have the mind interpret that as “natural born Citizen”…………… The Constitution is SPECIFIC that “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are NOT one in the same and makes the distinction that excludes the one and requires the other within the provision of A2S1C5………….notwithstanding the FACT that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a determination as to what extent the Jurisdiction applies to a person before applying any Constitutional provision and ONLY those provisions of Law that deal with immigrants and naturalization applies to alien foreign nationals in the 1st instant, which is made plain when you reconcile ALL OF THE PROVISIONS of the 8 USC.
“Citizen at birth” is an NBC. There are ONLY 2 types of citizens. NBC and Naturalized. Period. RTFM – You could actually be something if you ever used your brain. Instead you are trying to be a moron. Congratulations. You are succeeding.
“Citizen at birth” is not the same as the term of words used at A2S1C5 and NO ACT or Opinion can change the Constitutional term of words;< (U.S.) natural born Citizen; save for a Constitutional Amendment.
Look at the Congressional record of PROPOSED ACTS and or AMENDMENTS that would provide for what you say IS, except for the lack of support to have them voted on……….
An "AMBIGUITY" exists, to that I acknowledge as FACT, however, to any definition that would depart from the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen that does not possess the REQUIRED characteristics as to provide a strong check against foreign influence and is consistent with the circumstance of the 1790 / '95 Acts I will continue to rebut, resorting to the ACTUAL U.S. Laws and to the EXCLUSION of FOREIGN LAW, especially the English Laws of subjegation as expressed by Justice Rutledge in the Talbot v Janson case 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795
No one said anyone was trying to change the meaning of the words moron! However, the Constitution does NOT define it. SO it is left up to others to define it. And they have. That is the purpose of the US Code. Not to change anything in the Constitution, but to define it further to avoid arguments such as yours.
You ignore it at your own stupidity. Frankly, just like the turnip, I do not care about your opinion. I only care about the facts. I have given them to you. Go file the case in court. You will get nowhere because judges do not care about your opinion either.
Calling me a moron is a bit ironic when you accept that the COTUS does NOT define the term of words, but then IGNORE the FACT that the 1790 Act DOES by the EFFECT of the words and what the words then REQUIRE, i.e, TWO (2) Citizen parents any where in the world,between March 1790 and January 1795, and then ONLY within the limits of the U.S……….
There is not and never have been any “extra-Constitutional” common or natural laws that have been controlling on U.S. Citizenship, that PLENARY POWER was given to the U.S. Congress by the mandate of A2S1C5 which was applied THROUGHOUT the United States.
You also are a maker of scare crows. i said you are a moron because you are living 225 years in the past. the 1790 act has no weight. period.
The US Code does. READ IT. It states who is eligible. Then argue whether any of the paragraphs pertain to Obama or not.
The CURRENT U.S. CODE does NOT contain the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen and Article II Section I Clause V SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY REQUIRES a distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen.
The 1790 Act REQUIRED two (2) U.S. Citizen parents to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen to be born ANYWHERE in the world. The 1795 Act then LIMITED WHERE a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born, i.e., within the limits of the U.S.
There has been NO Constitutional Amendment OR Congressional ACT that has changed the circumstances as required under the 1790 Act, except as to Race, the 14th Amendment, and marriage, the 1922 Cable Act.
The illegal alien anchor-baby policy citizenship is NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen under the INTENT of A2S1C5 and to argue that is to spit in the face of John Jay and the ENTIRE Founding generation.
There are only 2 types of citizens moron. Those naturalized and those citizens at birth – NBC.
The constitution makes no other distinction. Nor does the US Code. The US code defines the qualifications for the latter.
I tire of repeating myself, but you are almost as thick as the turnip.
Well, I’m a hair split-er, kinda like Statutory Laws are……kinda like A2S1C5 is when it makes a distinction between a U.S. Citizen, (the Founding Generation), and a U.S. natural born Citizen, (the progeny of the Founding Generation U.S. Citizens and the Posterity,(the U.S. Citizens that come after them from all over the world),
The ONLY WAY to be BORN a U.S. Citizen under the Constitution is to be born to at least one U.S. Citizen parent, however, that was not possible before the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.
Prior to that Act if a woman was married to a U.S. Citizen then the woman was ALSO a U.S. Citizen so when they had a child together the child was born a U.S. natural born Citizen
The 14th Amendment ONLY provides POLICY Citizenship to the children of alien foreign nationals and NO OTHERS.
ANY child with at least one U.S. Citizen parent is born with U.S. Citizenship and when BOTH parents are U.S. Citizens then the child is born a U.S. natural born Citizen.
Splitting hairs helps to get at the roots of the circumstances and actual EFFECTS of the Laws.
Dismiss ALL the SCOTUS Opinions and RECONCILE the ACTUAL Statutes for your self.
Statute at Large: 1 U.S.C. (March 26,1790;)
Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.
“The enactment of the law is positive, and in its terms perpetual. Its provisions are not made dependent on the treaty, and although the peculiar state of things then existing might constitute the principal motive for the law, the act remains in force from its words, however that state of things may change….” Chirac v Chirac 15 US 259 (1817) pg 15
phil,
at the time the code was different. Ex Post Facto laws are illegal. His father was not a citizen.
I am not trying to claim Barry is not a citizen of the US. That is a different argument. I am claiming he is not an NBC!! As the Supreme stated in the case I linked, there are two classes of citizens, NBC and Naturalized. The code only applies to Naturalized anyway. The requirements for NBC are clearly stated in the case as two citizen parents and born on the land. McCain might make it based on the fact his parents were out of the country due to Federal and not Personal Business similar to Ambassadors. Everyone’s favorite Cruz is NOT an NBC.
Don’t confuse the 14th Amendment and its alleged making everyone born on the soil citizens with making them NBC.
Kuhnkat – Can you find what it was at the time of his birth? I have not searched hard for it, but if you can find what it was, you have a case. Otherwise, we have to go with the law as it is written. And it clearly states he is.
Even if the law was not in effect when he was born, there is still a question as his mother was an NBC. And as I tried to tell the troll, the Constitution does not define NBC, so until over ridden with a different code, the fact his mother was (and had not renounced) he was an NBC.
There are only 2 types of citizens. naturalized and NBC. Obama is not naturalized. (he is not natural either, but as you said, that is a different debate).
@jlc
There was no possibility for Obama to renounce Indonesian citizenship since he was never an Indonesian citizen in the first place. Under Indonesian law at the time, he was already too old on arrival in Indonesia to gain citizenship through any act of his parents, and was required by law to wait until he was 18 to apply. By ten, he was already living back in the US, so the whole thing was moot.
@kuhnkat
Since he was born in US soil, his mother’s age was irrelevant. According to the US Supreme Court, anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
HistorianDude, apparently you are too ignorant to actually READ the Supreme Decision, which happens to be the latest on the subject, which I conveniently posted for those who are literate enough to READ something more complex than Jack and Jill.
@jlc
In all of recorded history, there has never once been a restriction for traveling to Pakistan on a US passport.
@kuhnkat
Again? Really, you want me to read Minor v. Happersett AGAIN? Sorry, I decline. I know the decision like the back of my hand. This is why I dismiss it as completely irrelevant to the definition of natural born citizen. Why?
1. The case was not a citizenship case, it was a suffrage case in which Virginia Minor’s citizenship ultimately proved completely irrelevant. Furthermore, her citizenship was never an issue before the court. It was full conceded by both sides without argument.
2. The “definition” offered in the case that is so beloved by birthers is mere dicta, and not a precedent setting decision of the court. As a result, it has never once been cited as precedent by any subsequent court regarding the definition of natural born citizen. And more devastatingly, it has been explicitly rejected as precedent by several courts which have ruled Obama to be a natural born US citizen.
3. The “definition” is also non-exclusive. It says that there is no doubt that children of citizens born on US soil are NBC. And of course, there IS no doubt of that. But it also immediately recognizes that there may be others that qualify as well, and then declines to settle the issue. As such, it tells us only what is sufficient for NBC status, but not what is necessary.
4. Even if we pretended arguendo that it defined natural born citizenship, it would have been abrogated by the more comprehensive and recent decision in the case US v. Wong Kim Ark. As you know, This is how stare decisis works. It is the most recent cases that set the reigning precedent, not the more ancient cases.
5. But that was just for argument sake. Wong did not abrogate Minor at all. Instead it settled the issue that the Minor court explicitly refused to consider; i.e. the status of children born in US soil to alien parents. This is (of course) closer to the category relevant to our President. And the court decided that anyone born on US soil who was not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation was a natural born US citizen. Since Barack Obama was not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation, then he is a natural born US citizen. At least two dozen courts have drawn that conclusion, and all of them have based their decision largely on US. Wong Kim Ark.
6. Wong remains the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court regarding the definition of natural born citizen.
You dissemble again with your analysis of Minor v even though noting that Justice Waite expressly disavowed any pretense to “defining” who was and was not a U.S. natural born Citizen.
” … For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ”
Then you mistreat his words insinuating that any child is “citizen” when he ACTUALLY says;
“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
The most pertinent takeaway from the DICTA,, which I believe stands and stands out, is;
“The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen…”
“The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen.”
I’ll let that sit for now and address my major issue with Justice Waite and his words. “Resort elsewhere”….., that damnable admonish-en avow-ably to be railed against as being offered as if a compass without the needle.
When he could as easily have said, “RESORT AS I HAVE, to the 1790, ’95, ’98 Act of Congress on the subject, having found all that was necessary for this case, perhaps the balance of the answers will be found there.”
But for good or ill, a great deal time spent on Aristotle to the Enlightenment gang of writers all lead back to the COTUS and ITS Laws, the culmination of eons of philosophy on nature and its laws and they apply to the conduct and affairs of men and nations.
The “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization as expressed in the 1790 Act can be characterized as saying;
“Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so oo are their children, at birth or otherwise…”
As for the 14th, it did and does turn on the Constitutional meaning of “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”, but suffice it to say that any one who REQUIRES and DEPENDS on the 14th for “Citizenship” MUST be a child of an alien foreign national, as Title 8 provides for all others under the “uniform Rule” as I characterized it.
Re: “The requirements for NBC are clearly stated in the case as two citizen parents and born on the land. ”
Who told you that It is WRONG. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the Common Law (not from Vattel, who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times and always with praise). And in the common law Natural Born refers to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents—not two parents, not even one parent.
And the US Supreme Court case that you THINK defined the matter, the Minor v. Happersett case, did not say what you think at all. It NEVER said that two citizen parents were required. It only said that if you had the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen, place of birth and both parents, like the plaintiff Virginia Minor, it was never doubted that you were, of course a Natural Born Citizen. OF COURSE if you have both of the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen you ARE a natural born citizen. But, duh, that does not say that you HAVE to have both of the two possible ways, one might be just fine.
So the Minor v. Happersett case did not say what birthers think. The case that did was the Wong Kim Ark case, which was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, so it would nevertheless be the key ruling if the Minor v. Happersett decision had really said something on the subject (which it didn’t). And the Wong Kim Ark ruling (six justices to two, one not voting) said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and hence EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of invading enemy armies.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
You can be lucent at times, and then you can be your normal idiot troll self.
English Common law may be where the founders got their ideas, but it is not “the law of the land” here. So is irrelevant. The ruling law is the US Code. Period. What it stated at the time of his birth is the only thing you need to know.
You trolls should get your acts together. You are arguing against your idiot brother in pay, history something.
If you ACTUALLY read the U.S. Code you’ll may note the disguised deception that is in plain sight.
8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
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;
Now look at Part I that says “nationality at birth and Collective Naturalization. 1401 (a) REQUIRES that the person born be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
The LAWS PROHIBIT persons to enter the U.S. without permission, so anyone that does is OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction insofar as the law is concerned.
There are other points of view on the term of words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” but no matter how you cut it the only jurisdiction that the COTUS and its Laws have over a person that broke its laws by entering illegally are those parts of the JURISDICTION that PROSECUTES the offender ultimately leading to DEPORTATION.
But to the point of who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen I ask you where do you see it anywhere in the U.S. Code besides the STATUTE at LARGE as ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act….?
NOT Court Opinions, but ACTUAL duly enacted Law….
And (a) is followed by 9 more provisions with 3 of those being sub-sections.
Part A is a non sequitur. I never quoted it nor used it. Try D & G. or talk to a lawyer about suing the government for producing the US Code.
I really do not care. You are wrong. Period. There is only one thing that can save you, and Kuhn has not found it yet. I suggest you help him in that endeavor.
Now I really have no idea what you are talking about or what positions you cling to or whether you are some kind of programmed spider spitting out words to see if they get a response or what……
How can can you say I am wrong if you have no position or interpretation of what I am saying that resides in reality……..??
READ THE FREAKING CODE!
I can link to it all day long, but if you do not read it, or cannot understand it, you will always be clueless.
SHOW me in the U.S. Codes where the term of words “(U.S.) natural born Citizen” is used !!!!
I’ve been looking since 2008 and the ONLY place I find it in the U.S. Law in at A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act……………”Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are NOT and can NOT be by the statutory construction of A2S1C5 and the 1790 Act…….
The SCOTUS can NOT define a Constitutional “term of words” that it has NEVER been asked to define…….
Learn the Law and obey it.
Show me where the constitution defines it moron.
You’re being insolently obtuse………
We can agree that the Constitution does NOT define who, how, why or when, a U.S. natural born Citizen was to be within the Clause of the Articles in which the term of words were used.
But the 1790 Act DID, and there were NO OBJECTIONS to it BECAUSE the PROVISIONS that provided for their ACKNOWLEDGEMENT were consistent with the natural law, common law, English common law and Aristotle’s conception of 350 BC.
The CIRCUMSTANCES that are relevant, in order of importance, IS 1st PARENTAGE CITIZENSHIP STATUS, and 2ndly PLACE of BIRTH.
It can ONLY be speculation WHY the 1st Congress provided for a “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen but I have 2 plausible explanations.
What is RELEVANT is that the “foreign-born” were ACKNOWLEDGED and “considered as IF’ born within the limits of the U.S., as would be occurring throughout the States during the time of the Acts authority.
There WAS / IS NO Jus Soli and or Jus Sanguinis in the U.S. Citizenship Laws because ALL of the Citizenship Laws requires a person to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution as a CONSENTING PARTY to which CONSENT is ACKNOWLEDGED.
Granting ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP is POLICY and NOT LAW and the PARENTS, being alien foreign nationals who have ENTERED the U.S. LIMITS without CONSENT are SUBJECT to DEPORTATION ……….assuming the Justice Department follows the ACTUAL LAWS.
No Craig, you are being obdurate. The 1790 act is not germane. The US Code IS. You are free to believe what you want, but you are clearly wrong. And I do not care! He is a citizen, he is President, and no court will hear the objection., So go bark at turnips. You are wasting both your time and mine time by being obstinate.
There is a Statute at Large that emanates from the original 1790 Act that is represented throughout the current U.S. Code, that is, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”……….
Try finding a Statute in the current Code that contradicts that.
The Constitution, the Acts of the Congress and the U.S. Code are ALL Statutory in their construction and they are ALL written and interpreted under the same Rules.
When you RECONCILE the EFFECTS that are provided for in the 1790 Act you’ll find that the EFFECTS visited on newly naturalized aliens is the SAME effect as ATTACHED to existing U.S. Citizens, ergo. “an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization.
@slcraignbc
I don’t think you know what “dissemble” means. You certainly do not use it correctly. It would have at least been interesting to find (in a post that pretends to be responding to mine) an actual response. As far as I can tell, you have disagreed with nothing I said.
Certainly, your prolix diversion into the completely non-controversial fact that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is simply declarative of preexisting law stands rather starkly as an answer to a question never asked. I have no idea how you found it relevant to anything we are discussing.
And while you rail against Wait’s needleless compass, I think I’ll go have a limoncello. Minor’s irrelevance to any discussion of the NBC clause renders it entirely uninteresting to me. So too with the wild leap into a discussion of naturalization… a subject relevant only in the negative, since under the Constitution naturalized citizens are the only citizens who are not natural born.
Well, I’ve read through your’s and your sidekicks non-responsive responses that make declaratory statements as if you knew of what you speak even though you say nothing wroth knowing.
But obfuscation is your goal so it did not really expect you to debate with any real interest in FACTS regarding the nature of U.S. Citizenship or the ACTUAL Laws, their words and the effects of their words.
You dismiss just as you dismiss the COTUS and the TRUTH, with disdain for having been found out and exposed as a fraud.
SO, unless and until you are willing to accept or offer a rebuttal, without RESORTING ELSEWHERE, to the characterization of the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization which I state as ” Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”, I will know you to be an 0’poligist and NOTHING more.
@ slcraigbc
I have sidekicks? Who’d a thunk?
Apparently not you. You have yet to pen a single thought.
jlc said:
“No record of his denouncing Indonesian citizenship. ”
Answer: Obama was never an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm. ((202) 775 5200 —- and ask for the press officer.)
philjourdan said: “English Common law may be where the founders got their ideas, but it is not “the law of the land” here. So is irrelevant. The ruling law is the US Code. Period.”
What IS relevant is (1) the US Electoral College, whose role in the selection of the president is specified in the US Constitution, elected Obama TWICE; (2) the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election twice unanimously; (3) the chief justice of the USA swore Obama in many times (at least a couple after each of the two elections); (4) Birthers brought specific lawsuits against Obama on the specific issue of whether he is a Natural Born Citizen and in every single one of them THEY LOST, and the courts ruled that, yes, he is a Natural Born Citizen.
So to argue that Obama does not fulfill a statue in the US Code seems, well, extremely farfetched.
Yes, the founders got their definition of Natural Born from the common law, and they used it when they created the term Natural Born Citizen in the constitution. That phrase refers to the place of birth, and since Obama really was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born US citizen. Neither any statute nor the words of the Constitution disagree with that fact.
Non Sequiturs again. Nothing you write has any bearing on the issue at hand. Absolutely NOTHING. Even a monkey gets somethings correct. You cannot even get that much. I should not insult morons by describing you as one.
They are smarter than you are.
philjourdain said:
“No one said anyone was trying to change the meaning of the words moron! However, the Constitution does NOT define it. SO it is left up to others to define it. ”
Answer: That is actually correct, and in the United States of America the final decision on what the US Constitution means is left to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six justices to two justices, one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.
Here are its words:
”
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
A short summary of what the above means was given by the Heritage Foundation in its book on the US Constitution, and it said:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
Wrong again Turnip. Wang did NOT define NBC. nor is it up to them! You are making Craig’s case for him idiot. Keep it up. You will end up in jail for defrauding OFA(l) due to your incompetence.
Philjourdan said: ” That is the purpose of the US Code. Not to change anything in the Constitution, but to define it further to avoid arguments such as yours.”
Answer: It is the Supreme Court, not laws, that define the meaning of terms in the US Constitution. And the US Supreme Court defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled six to two (one justice not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.
Wrong again turnip! SCOTUS can do NOTHING unless a suit is brought. So far, none have. Until that time, if the Constitution does not say it, the FEDS are free to define it! Moron.
SCOTUS does not go around looking for things to define. And to date, they have not. YOu are wrong again turnip. Wang is not on point moron.
Well, it seems you’ve come a long way, baby……….BUT; you say;
” … the FEDS are free to define it! Moron….”
The FEDS have NOT defined it except as it applies to ILLEGAL ALIENS….., go figure; but as far as the USDC Western TN is concerned ;
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
The best way to understand the status of the term of words is to take out the “0”s name and position and insert “ANY GIVEN PERSON”.
What is LOSTt on a lot of people is that the TRANSIENT POLITICAL ASPECT of “eligibility” does NOT attach until the person is actually born and MAY detach due to alienating circumstances, (which may be self-evident and / or contestable)
As for the Feds getting to say whatever they want stands a a violation of the COTUS of a Constitutional black-letter law that has NO Statute of Limitations attached to it.
Craig, I would suggest you quit while you are behind. The turnip has convinced me you are correct. Another stupid post like this and you will convince me you are not.
RTFM – in this case the US Code.
I’ve lost my de-coder ring so I can’t make heads or tails of what you mean by this.
“Craig, I would suggest you quit while you are behind. The turnip has convinced me you are correct. Another stupid post like this and you will convince me you are not.
RTFM – in this case the US Code.” ………..
philjourdan said: “The US Code does. READ IT. It states who is eligible.”
No it doesn’t.
The US Supreme Court defined who is a Natural Born citizen in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Wong again turnip. Wang defined one instance. The US Code defines 8. 8 is not 1 turnip. But I guess for someone who has no clue about what evidence is, numbers are especially hard for you turnip.
There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President. At least the following Presidents were all dual citizens: Taft, Truman, Tyler, Eisenhower, Arthur, FDR and JFK. Kennedy was arguably a triple.
Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were dual citizens of the US and France… and we were even in an undeclared war his adopted second country during Jefferson’s Vice Presidency. The US Congress at the time (overwhelmingly composed of Constitutional Framers) were fully aware of those dual allegiances and still elected them to either VP or President at least five times. It appears that the Framers did not share your convenient abhorrence of dual citizenship.
That has nothing to do with the topic of this post.
That’s okay. It has everything to do with the discussion in the thread.
Only to an illiterate. Thank you for confirming that.
HistorianDude,
lotta smoke, but, I notice you offer ZERO documentation of your claims.
Try some reality instead of that smoke you are breathing.
HistorianDude says:
August 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm
There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President…..”
Well, you are just completely out in the weeds on that little screed that contains not one FACT.
The provision in question, which reduces to an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” in analysis of its statutory language, says, IN FACT; “no person except a (U.S.) natural born Citizen …….{snip to remove defunct “Grandfather Clause”}, shall be eligible for the Office of President of the United States of America…”
Now, let’s vist the DEFUNCT Grandfather Clause, which DID provide for a U.S. Citizen who was NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen to be POTUS.
THAT provision is DEFUNCT and with ITS passing “no person except …. shall be” is the LAW of the LAND.
At the time of the Ratification of the COTUS any and all PERCEIVED “dual-Citizens” were SEPARATED with on set being U.S. Citizens and the others then “aliens” as there was NO provision to RECOGNIZE Dual=Citizenship given that to BE a U.S. Citizen required AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT and RENUNCIATION of any FOREIGN ATTACHMENTS. (see Talbot v Janson)
But while we’re on the subject of HYPHENATED CITIZENSHIP lets’ put the confusion to rest.
“No person (with any hyphenation other than less and) EXCEPT a (U.S.) natural born Citizen shall be eligible”.
Adding to, abridging or otherwise modifying the Constitutional term of words REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment.
The ENUMERATED PLENARY POWER of the Congress on the subject of the “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization” can NOT do it Act or POLICY nor can the effects of an election change it.
So your little canard of declaring the Founding Fathers “Dual-Citizens” fails in its fallaciousness as they threw off the bonds that tied them to their past and embraced the new with these words as U.S. Citizens of the Founding Generation;
“” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….”
@ kuhnkat
How, pray tell, does one “document” something that has never existed?
That would be a very neat trick.
You seem to think your very word can do just that! He is just calling you out on your own stupidity,.
So Propagandistic HistorianDudette,
You claim there is no evidence to support the claims you make??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That’s OK, it would appear that slcraignbc already ate your lunch and midnight snacks. That doesn’t really matter either as you try to use junk logic to carry your propaganda.
The fact that a number of people manage to get away with breaking a law does NOT make that law inapplicable bozo!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@slcraignbc
The comment to which you objected was “There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President.”
One would have imagined that when challenging such a statement, your task would be simply to demonstrate a US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that ever prohibited dual citizens from being President. But instead you provided 345 words worth of hand waving, without referencing a single one.
The Constitution in general (and the grandfather clause in particular) makes no mention of dual citizenship. You tacitly concede this fact by noting that there was “NO provision to RECOGNIZE Dual=Citizenship.” It was so completely a non issue to the Framers that it was never even considered. This is also true in the records of the Constitution Convention. Dual citizenship was so irrelevant that it was never even brought up.
This of course comports completely with the fact that both Madison and Jefferson BECAME dual citizens of France subsequent to the Framing. While I recognize that they were covered by the grandfather clause, that only made them eligible… they still needed (to become President) be found acceptable EVEN AS DUAL CITIZENS to the Congresses that elected them. Congresses that were overwhelmingly populated by Framers of the Constitution. No objections to their dual status can be found anywhere in the records.
Now, it goes with that saying that just because you are unable to come up with any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that ever prohibited dual citizens from being President, that does not permit you to retroactively rewrite actual laws and insert into them phrases, words and concepts they do not otherwise contain. This is especially true with the Constitution, a document that I appear to hold in greater reverence than you do. It would never have crossed my mind to take the Article II NBC clause and insert a tendentious seven word phrase that has no justification beyond your desire to make it say something it does not. It takes a vast amount of chutzpah to do that level of violence to our foundational document. I would have been unable to marshal quite that level of disrespect.
“the salient points are one can’t be President if one holds dual citizenship (have to be a natural born citizen with no competing allegiance to other countries) nor can one attend public school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.”
Not true as previous President’s have been dual citizens (Chester Arthur and Andrew Jackson were specifically mentioned by Theodore Roosevelt as being British subjects under British law).
There has never been an Indonesian law that prevented non-citizens from attending public school.
More importantly, President Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen under the law in effect at the time.
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html
Under Article 2, a child adopted before the age of five could gain Indonesian citizenship but there are no provisions in the law for adopted children over the age of five (Article 4 might be interpreted to allow them to naturalize by petition within one year after the age of 18). Under Law No.62 to be eligible under Article 2, President Obama would have needed to have been adopted by August 4th, 1966. In his step-father’s (Lolo Soetoro) immigration file there is a memo from September, 1967 that states that Barack Obama was legally classified as a “step-child” of Lolo Soetoro. In fact there are several letters and memos that refer him as the son from a prior marriage or the child of a previous marriage. He is never referred to as the adopted child of Lolo Soetoro.
“Does this issue matter anymore? No.”
Wha…? The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people doesn’t matter?
Have you heard of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation?
The veracity of the president is important.
The publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the mistake entirely by herself. See details above.
And Obama has never lied – see above.
Miriam, you said that you didn’t do your “fact checking”
What facts were you checking? Who told you that Obama was born in Kenya?
She has answered that question. No one. The mistake was original with her.
And Obama has never lied. How much is OFA(l) paying you?
As I said (see above) plausible deniability has to be believable.
Since the President has never said he was born in Kenya, his veracity in this instance is not in question.
Yes he has – as the evidence proves. You do not know the rules of evidence do you?
OFA(l) should pay better to get better stooges.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” – His veracity was proven a long time ago.
@philjourdan
I’ll take your violent change of subject as a full concession on the relevant discussion underway.
😆 You are ESL! I did not change the subject. YOU introduced the honesty of the clown. I provided evidence as to its level.
You really do not understand English.
Re: “And Obama has never lied – see above.”
Answer. Of course, he has lied—hasn’t every politician. But YOU are claiming that the publicist is lying, and she is not a politician—and you don’t even know her. And, as noted, Obama had given previous interviews to newspapers in which he said that he was born in Hawaii. So, if you are claiming that he always lies (which would be dumb), then he lied in those interviews–so you’d think that he was born in Kenya. But he wasn’t born in Kenya (want to see the evidence? It’s overwhelming.). So he told the truth to the newspapers interviews, and she is telling the TRUTH that she made a mistake in saying he was born in Kenya and that he never told her that he was born in Kenya. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, and that is where the mistake comes from.
Non sequitur. The issue is not about “every politician”. It is about Obama. Nor can you prove that “every politician” lies. So do not even bother.
Your duplicity and evasion is duly noted. You have no justification for your opinion other than “everyone” does it, with no evidence to support your stupidity.
Re: “And Obama has never lied. How much is OFA(l) paying you?”
First, I’m not be paid a cent. Are you? Well, if you are , good for you, but it would not change the facts. I’m not, and that does not change the facts either (and if I were, that also would not change the facts). But, sadly, I’m not.
And, duh, of course Obama has lied—as have most politicians—but that does not make the publicist, who is not a politician, a liar, and she said that she made a mistake. And it was an easy mistake to make, mixing up Barack Hussein Obama, Obama’s father who actually was born in Kenya, with Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was born in Hawaii. And that is what Obama had told newspapers before the bio was published, and the notion that he would switch and tell the writer that he was born in Kenya is farfetched.
She did not lie. She really made a mistake.
Liar. You are paid. Or you are living on welfare which means you are a slave owner. You pick.
I fully admit I get paid. By my customers when I take care of their IT needs.
So you are proven a liar. And we are supposed to believe you did not lie when you said it was your mistake because you had never heard of a son being named after the father?
2 of the first 6 presidents had the same name moron! Father and son. And you are thinking of talking about history? Cut us a break! Not even you can be that stupid!
You have no facts. Nothing you have said has been backed up with even a scintilla of evidence. So stop talking about facts you have presented., You have presented none. And stop lying about getting paid by OFA(l). It is no secret that your “job” is to hunt out the truth and squelch it. Obama has stated as much. But then, yea he is a liar, so he may just be paying you for being a brown shirt. He sure is not paying you for any mental capacity.
philjourdan said: “Non sequitur. The issue is not about “every politician”. It is about Obama.”
Non sequitur to you too. Even though Obama lies, you cannot prove that he lies in all things, so you cannot prove that he falsely told the publicist that he was born in Kenya.
Moreover, the fact that HE lies does not prove that she does, and she has said that she MADE A MISTAKE.
Obama had told two newspapers before 1991 that he was born IN HAWAII, and he wrote in his book that he was born IN HAWAII. IF you claim that he was lying in those three examples, we would have to discuss the factual situation of his birth (which you have said no one cares about). But, if you think that he was telling the truth in those examples, then it is a fantasy to imply that he changed his story from “I was born in Hawaii” before 1991 and again in 1995 to “I was born in Kenya” in the middle.
Non sequitur to you too—particularly about your claim that the publicist lied when she admitted to making a mistake.
No Turnip, non sequitur is not an insult. it means the statement is not on point. Obama IS ON POINT turnip. So my statement is not a non sequitur.
Nor do I have to re-prove he has lied. I have already shown he lies. I know you have no clue about evidence, proof and opinion, but that is the way it works turnip.
The statement is on point, and the proof is already provided. But that would require you to learn to read and retain the information for more than 3 seconds. A feat not possible for a turnip.
We’ve hear about Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation for three years. In that time it has accomplished nothing other than help Joe fund raise for reelection.
That has nothing to do with the topic here – which is 17 years of Dystel promoting Obama as born in Kenya.
That’s okay. It has everything to do with the discussion in this thread.
He published his findings. Again, that has nothing to do with the article (for the sloooooow learners).
He has been president for almost 6 years and elected twice. The issue of if he is or is not does not matter. However, this article is about WHO started it. And the evidence is clear.
@philjourdan
You guys really don’t think very hard about stuff. For Miriam Goderich to be accused of “starting” something, she would have actually had to start something. But nobody noticed this bio until May of 2012, at which point the birther movement was already four years old. SO how could she be accused of starting it?
The birther movement (to include the rumour that Obama was born in Kenya) was started on the right-wing FreeRepublic Forum at about 3:00 AM on the morning of March 1, 2008 with this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html
😆 Still a moron. As I have said repeatedly, where he was born does not matter. WHO started it does matter. Since you provide no evidence to back up a clearly made up story, then you are grasping at straws. So much that you do not even recognize when a post of mine actually buttresses your pathetic lies!
Clearly you have no clue. And clearly you have no evidence that Obama did not direct it except the word of a proven liar. Those are facts.
Now prove me wrong. Or continue to spew unintelligible garbage. That is the only thing you have proven you can do.
Yes Tony. Two Kenyan newspapers made the same mistake. Are you going to get around to trying to make an actual point?
Oh… I forgot. That generally doesn’t go so well for you. Never mind.
He has made several – for those with an IQ above a turnip. let me recap for the goldfish memory among us.
#1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else
#2 – The claim that it was a right wing conspiracy (which makes you a conspiracy theorist) was debunked by him by showing clippings from 2004 (4 years before you citation) saying exactly that.
Now all you have to do is PROVE the newspapers retracted the stories (alleged never shown) to prove one of your points that is a complete non sequitur.
OFA(l) is wasting money on you.
Nigeria is in Kenya?
2004 is after 2008?
1991 is after 2008?
Your BS isn’t going to get you very far around here.
Oh look! A garbled detail!! Gosh, I was so certain that never happens.
I noticed that when you cannot respond to something (or more likely just plain do not understand it) you say it is a “garbled detail”. I would suggest you get a better browser that does not garble web pages, or you learn the meaning of the term.
Or just simply quit lying. Yes, I know, another garbled detail for the moron and her sock puppet.
philjourdan said: “The records are sealed moron.”
Answer: NO, they are not “sealed.” They are protected against disclosure by the normal state and federal privacy law. That is all. The same state and federal privacy laws prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s records and John McCain’s records, and my records and your records—none of them are “sealed.”
He then said: “#1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else.”
Answer: No, the publicist made the mistake, and it was not corrected for 17 years.
Calling morondude – your puppet is broken again. Still stuck on stupid and irrelevant.
philjourdan said: “#1 – Obama was saying he was born in Kenya for 17 years before anyone else.”
NO, the publicist said it. Obama didn’t.
No turnip – it is NOT a biography of you. It is HIS biography. In other words, his preening of his feathers. if he is as stupid as you (probable) then yea, he never read it. He just OKed it.
Evidence turnip. You still need to get some. On the good side, I am laughing at the money Obama is wasting on the worthless carbon emitter that you are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Yep, and as the turnip turns.
He was smitten by Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA and, er, changed his tune?
Expose Barack Obama? Noooooo!
http://troll.me/images/anxiety-cat/what-has-been-seen-cannot-be-unseen-thumb.jpg
Expose Barack Obama? Noooooo!
http://troll.me/images/anxiety-cat/what-has-been-seen-cannot-be-unseen-thumb.jpg
The laughingstock-in-chief is just a disaster all around.
Like this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/21/Obama-Considering-Unilaterally-Granting-800K-Guest-Worker-Visas-as-90-Believe-American-Workers-Should-Be-Favored — the only reason I can think of for that escapade is to solicit some more “campaign contributions” (aka bribes) for his political party….
wtf is that vacuum-between-the-ears idiot thinking?
0bama is not a laughing stock or a nincompoop. He is not stupid or foolish.
He’s doing exactly what his oligarch handlers are telling him to do.
“the only reason I can think of for that escapade is to solicit some more “campaign contributions” (aka bribes) for his political party….”
Ol’ altruistic Barry. Horsehockey! He is raising money for himself; he cares nothing about the party.
I am proud of my 1/2 Seminole ancestry, if I could say I was born on a Seminole reservation, definitely. But I would not be a lying sack of shyt running around telling everyone that I was born next door to ‘Walton’ville to get around some kind of election law.
The guy had no father to bring him up right.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is Mr. Common Sense. When he started looking into the issue, at first he was very skeptical. But now he has changed his opinion 180º. He is emphatic that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and he has completely deconstructed the recent, computer-generated fabrication that was passed off as Obama’s birth certificate.
I will believe Sheriff Arpaio way before I would believe Obama’s spokesholes.
Smokey, where can I find Arpaio asserting he wasn’t born in Hawaii? I try to follow everything on that issue, and haven’t seen that. What I have seen is his Posse lead stating that what they have uncovered was “Universe Shattering”, so I assume pretty shocking. His team actually got an affidavit from the document expert most often used by Obama’s legal team… on the BC posted on White House.org
This guy is a lefty, and didn’t even want to look at it, but after spending 15 minutes with the file, he could see multiple problems, and ultimately wrote a 45 page scathing opinion of the document, saying at one point that it was the most obviously altered document he had ever examined.
From WND on Arpaio’s investigation:
Most recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes had said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/cnn-raises-alarm-over-cruz-eligibility/#jYcrR5D0x8XMURt0.99
Send Al to the Pole,
I worded my comment badly. Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, and Sheriff Joe says that birth certificate is a forgery.
Reed Hayes has never been “used as (Perkins Coie’s) reliable expert” to testify in any case, ever. Perkins-Coie is also not the law firm that Obama uses to defend himself in eligibility cases.
Finally, Reed Hayes has exactly zero experience in digital document forensics. He is a handwriting analyst whose most significant work to date are books about the pseudoscience of Astrology.
Reed Hayes is the ONLY real expert that the birthers have on their side, and he admits that he did not read the results of the investigation of the way the Xerox WorkCentre works.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
So, with the single exception of Reed Hayes, who has not proven his expertise in examining digital documents (he is a specialist in documents on paper, and he has not seen the paper copies) and who admits he has not seen the research on the way that the Xerox WorkCentre works) ONLY birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged. And they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).
One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.
Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.
And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.
Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.
And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.
So Reed hayes is on Obama’s side? Since when?
RTFM – the article is about the ORIGINAL birther. Not some ad hominem you throw around out of total ignorance.
Re: “So Reed hayes is on Obama’s side? Since when?”
As noted above, he is the ONLY birther expert who has some qualifications in court, and even his digital document qualifications are vague. (He is an expert in physical documents). And he admits that he did not read the research on the Xerox WorkCentre, which is a tremendous admission of not being fully qualified.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly said that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that all the facts on the copy that the White House put online MATCH those on what they sent to him.
Non Sequitur. I asked a question. I did not need your ignorant and erroneous opinion. As I have said before, you have yet to present a single fact. And you did not just then.
That is an Obamanism. They never said they sent the short form to Barry. If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be??
Khunkat said: “They never said they sent the short form to Barry. If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!”
Poor Khunkat, another gullible person who has been fooled by the LIES of birther sites.
The officials in Hawaii have said that they sent both Obama’s short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL of the facts on them are exactly the same as on what they sent to him. That includes the former Republican governor of Hawaii, who was a strong supporter of Sarah Palin (it is not likely that a strong supporter of Sarah Palin would commit a fraud to benefit Obama). In addition to these confirmations by people there is also three documents : (1) the pubic Index Data file that has been open in Hawaii since LONG before Obama’s first election and shows he was issued a birth certificate in 1961; (2) microfilmed copies of the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so in 1961 for births IN Hawaii; (3) a handwritten note by an inspector for the INS in 1962 or 1963 that reports on Obama’s father’s residence status and says “One child, born in Honolulu.”
Also, there is no indication that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy.
Yet birthers hope a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that both of those happened and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and the officials of both parties are lying and the Index Data and the birth notices are forged and the INS inspector made an error in his “one child, born in Honolulu” note. But you’d have to be terribly GULLIBLE to think that all of that happened.
To repeat what khunkat said: “If they sent what was posted on the WH website, the Long Form, to Barry, they are part of the FRAUD!!”
Answer. They certainly said it, and here are only SOME of the many times that they did:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/
(and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who agreed that that statement is legal proof that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and that he has a birth certificate from Hawaii, and who then then put Obama on the ballot.)
Arpaio has stated he doesn’t care where Barry was born. He’s got this phony birth certificate on his hands.
This story is about Obama lying about his birthplace.
Re: “This story is about Obama lying about his birthplace.”
Answer. No, the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the MISTAKE entirely by herself. See details above.
Answer: Yes it is. he lied by commission or omission. I will let you pick.
@ stevengoddard
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Actually no.
RTFM – or in this case the article.
There was no Internet and no Google in 1991. The bio contains details which would have had to have been obtained directly from Obama. That is how these bios are done.
There was an Internet – but you would not find Bios on there (just the latest egg head stuff and some commercial stuff).
I remember Archie and Gopher. You do not want to remember those things.
There does not need to be any source at all for a garbled detail.
That’s why we call them “garbled.”
YOU call them garbled. That does not make them so. You do so to explain away your own ignorance.
They are not garbled. They are clear and easily understood. That does not make them true, but that does not make them garbled either.
get a dictionary. And learn how to use real words.
“There does not need to be any source at all for a garbled detail.”
>>>>>>>>
HD, after you believe you have finished defending the indefensible, you might want to consider a career in “climate science”.
@geran
At this point is becomes crystal clear that you do not understand what “indefensible” means,
At this point it is clear you have no clue on what it means.
What was your excuse before “this point”?
Excuse for… what exactly? Go ahead. Use your words.
“At this point is becomes crystal clear that you do not understand what “indefensible” means,”
>>>>>>
You indicated your confusion brought you to the conclusion that I did not understand what “indefensible” meant. Your conclusion is, of course, wrong. So, your “crystal-clear” logic makes you wrong. My asking “what was your excuse before” referred to what “fuel” were you running on before you switched to illogic?
I indicate no confusion. You STILL don’t know what indefensible means.
For that observation I need no excuse.
And you still lie. Touting opinions as facts is indefensible. it is also not a rebuttal. But then being ESL, we should cut you some clack for your lack of understanding.
“I indicate no confusion.”
>>>>>>>
You sure are in denial about a lot of things. Have you ever made a list? Here’s a start:
1) You deny that you are in confusion.
2) You deny that Obama, whether because he is trying to hide something or is just incompetent, has allowed the whole “birthed” issue to exist.
3) You deny that others have the right to come to their own decisions.
(I’ll let you finish the long list.)
@Geran
Here you nail the core of the issue. Obama not only started the birther issue, he fostered it, and nurtured it and continues to keep it brewing! he could have easily squelched it long ago! But he keeps it going. Why? Well morondude will tell you that is not happening as there is no reason for him to do it. But the facts speak for themselves.
it is a distraction! Like any magician, he pretends something is going on in one area (birth place) while pulling the rug out from under you with the other hand!
I stated long before Steven Goddard proved, that Obama was responsible for the whole conspiracy tripe as it served his purpose. I applaud Steven for basically presenting the evidence that backed up my hypothesis.
As long as people waste time on where Obama was born, he will continue to lie, cheat and steal from his current thrown of repression.
@geran
You really need to learn how to argue with the people you are arguing with rather than the voices in your own head.
You should look up the definition of strawman. Then take your own advice.
4) You deny that you have nothing else of substance to add.
philjordan said: “Answer: Yes it is. he lied by commission or omission. I will let you pick.”
You are accusing a woman whom you don’t even know and who is not a politician of lying. Obama had given previous interviews to the press in which he said he was born IN HAWAII. The idea that he would suddenly reverse that statement and tell the publicist that he was born in Kenya, is farfetched. Far more credible is that she saw that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, and assumed that that BHO was the author, Barack Hussein Obama II.
She is not lying. She really did make a mistake, and it wasn’t fixed for years and years because she did not tell him that she wrote the bio and did not tell him when it was put online, so he could not fix it.
Obama the president was born in Honolulu (and the evidence for that is overwhelming). Barack Hussein Obama I, his father, was born in Kenya.
Stop with the stupidity already. Either prove that I do not know you, or shut up. You really do not want me to reveal what I really know about the slut.
steven goddard said:
“details which would have had to have been obtained directly from Obama. That is how these bios are done.”
Answer: The details were in the text of the unpublished book, which was an autobiography, and bios OFTEN, but not always, are written by the authors or sent to the authors for checking, but the publicist admits that neither were done in this case. SHE made the mistake—and it was an easy mistake to make. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
Another lie. You claim that no one read the book because it was unpublished. Now you are claiming everyone read it and that is how they got out of talking to Obama.
You keep contradicting yourself turnip.
philjourdan said: ” Obama not only started the birther issue, he fostered it, and nurtured it…”
NO, the publicist admitted to making the mistake. He did not say it or write it; she did.
Here is what she said: “You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
YOU claim, without any evidence, that she did not make a mistake, that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya. But you have no proof of that, and Obama’s having given newspaper interviews saying that he was born IN HAWAII before the bio and his book Dreams from My Father having said that he was born IN HAWAII after the bio makes the notion that he told her that he was born in Kenya farfetched, to say the least.
Oh, and it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
Evidence turnip, still need evidence. So far, all we have is the opinion of a turnip.
The only evidence we have supports my conclusion.
philjourdan said: “You really do not want me to reveal what I really know about the slut.”
The above sentence is an example of the politeness and respect for other people of the extreme right wing of the Conservative movement.
Again, your inability to comprehend the written language means you have no clue.
It has nothing to do with conservatives or respect. As the statement attests to. I have no respect for you and never indicated I did. But I guess that went right over your head turnip.
Re Sheriff Joe Arpaio:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
The line that makes me spit coffee on the laptop is “and [Obama] was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago”
Obama never saw Chicago until about 1985 when he began “community organizing”, following his law degree from Harvard.
At what point does the young lad stop being “raised” and begin making his own way in the world?
Of course, he was certainly being influenced/mentored by Vernon Jarrett, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, and various other Communists/Marxists/proto-Progressives, and the like, but “raised”?
Sounds like someone was still changing his Pampers.
His post-presidential bio can add the White House for additional prestige.
His White House contributions will fit in nicely with his Pampers’ contributions.
What is it that people don’t understand about politicians? Most of them would sell their mother/father sister/brother wife/husband and soul to gain more power. The problem is that these politicians don’t understand that it is the buyer who is in power and that the buyer can take him/her out whenever they want to. You play the game or you’re dead.
There is no left or right or We The People. Slavery was never abolished It only changed shape.
nice to see someone else really gets it.
“Slavery was never abolished It only changed shape.”
I am guessing that you meant that metaphorically. We citizens today are living under the control of what are in essence “masters.” On a historic scale they are fairly good masters, but still masters. But in actual fact, what you said is literally true. The 13th Amendment did not outlaw slavery — it nationalized it. Here is what it says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” So, while private individuals may not place any person into a state of slavery, it is still perfectly legal for a local, state, or federal court to punish a person convicted of crime (what crime? Any crime…) by declaring them a slave. The court could, hypothetically at least, then auction off the new slave to the highest bidder. One difference between the old slavery and the new post-13th slavery is that under the new slavery, children of slaves would not automatically be slaves as well. I understand that the 13th has not been implemented this way — but a good lawyer could easily interpret it exactly like that.
Ah, heck, those that were defending slavery in the 1850s were saying that it was really no different in the free states. That those in the North were “wage slaves” and instead of a plantation they were working under their slave master in a factory or shop.
This is a serious question. Can you point me to ANYBODY in the 1850s who actually ever made that argument? I would be obliged of you had a link.
How about you give ANY link to support ANY of your stupid opinions?
Northern Wage Slaves:
Also
From: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/section7.rhtml
Also: indentured servant
Apprenticeships
Historian dude. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/lincolns-Fitzhugh/
My own statement is from reading of dead tree literature, both history books such as ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’ and some source materials in Southern Newspapers way back when I was researching it. It was an argument that appears to have been made frequently in the South in defense of Slavery. I guess if your wanting this for reasons of knowledge instead of argument I can dig some actual names of the authors up.
@Gail Combs
Thank you very much. Great reference. I deeply appreciate it.
You are correct You are a slave. You probably do not realize it, but you are.
What is a slave? Someone who’s labor is confiscated by another by force.
However now through political sleight of hand or rulers confiscate a lot more than the 50% confiscated from the slaves and serfs of olden days.
25 years ago when I first started a small business I added up the visible taxes I paid. It was 64.5% of my earnings (This does not include “151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread — it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread.” — Reagan 1975) That is ~ 18% more in invisible taxes or ~82% of my earning/labor was confiscated at gun point by the US governments, local state and federal.
What about the 18% I had left? The bankers confiscate another chunk through interest on student loans, car loans, credit card loans, mortgages (a large part of rent payments likely goes to mortgage payments) ….
The US money supply is 3% cash and the rest is LOANS! As Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada said to the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939.
“Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.”
So all that tax money you pay is also funneled to the Banksters because governments ‘borrow’ fairy dust created on the spot ‘money’ from banksters and then pay them back with YOUR LABOR!
I wish the Progressives would get this through their thick skulls. Obummer’s trillions in debt is the mechanism for the banksters to confiscate MORE wealth from the masses.
If you think the 1% are going to pay that extra tax you really are a turnip. Complicated IRS rules are specifically made to provide loop holes for the elite.
Was Obama lying then or is he lying now? Sometimes you just don’t know with liars.
None of the above, he has never stopped lying … it’s pathological.
http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar
Are his lips moving?
If yes, then yes, he’s lying…
He wasn’t lying at all. The publicist for the literary agent admitted to making the MISTAKE entirely by herself and that she did not get the information from Obama and that she did not show it to him to correct and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it. (See details above.)
He is lying. And she is covering for him.
Prove she is not covering for him.
Re: “Prove that she is not covering for him.”
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that she lied, and the fact that OBAMA has lied (as have most politicians) is not proof of that.
Obama had told newspapers before the publicists bio blurb was written that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and the notion that he would reverse that and tell her or write her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched.
What is far more likely is the simple mistake that the publicist saw the name Barack Hussein Obama in the unpublished manuscript, read that that BHO was born in Kenya, and thought that that BHO was the author and the current president. In fact, it was Barack Hussein Obama I, his father, not Barack Hussein Obama II, the author and president.
😆 Nope! I have the evidence that shows he knew and validated it. It is in the fact he did nothing for 17 years. YOU have to prove that he did not know. Which would include your lie.
Sorry, you fail logic 101. As already explained, even a turnip would not buy into the contortions you are trying to create.
Philjourdan said: ” It is in the fact he did nothing for 17 years. YOU have to prove that he did not know. ”
Once again, the burden of proof is on you, the accuser.
It is a fact that the mistake was online for 17 years. Now YOU prove that Obama knew about it.
BTW, I noticed recently that the New York Times early this year corrected a mistake that it had made 161 years earlier.
Once again the turnip throws around words he has no clue on.
I already proved he is a liar. The Bio is about him. I am stating facts. It is up to you to prove the totally incredulous. I can just sit back and laugh at the money Obama is wasting on vegetables like you who are so pathetic that you are doing more harm than good.
You are convincing me that Obama is hiding something. And I never thought he was until you decided to rant about it so childishly.
If you can get past the decibels, it’s not a new thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqkTqTLl9s
My belief is that all birthers who formed their birther beliefs after 2000 are losers. All people who made mistaken birther comments before the year 2000 were simply mistaken. The present day birthers need a spokesperson similar to the Reverend Al Sharpton who can ignite the masses. Right now, the masses don’t care and the birthers are in need of something to fill the void in their lives.
My belief is that people who think this post is about Obama’s birthplace, are not very intelligent.
My belief is that Birthers are not as intelligent as they think they are. And, if I wanted to find out why various people mistakenly reported that Obama was born in Kenya, I would at least ask one or more of them why they said what they said and if they still believe that Obama was born in Kenya. But then maybe the Birther movement is not really about where Obama was born.
Maybe not.
You wanna get into qualifications ?
Jim,
I take it that you didn’t actually read anything in this post, and are just spouting off. That makes you look pretty ignorant. You don’t even know what the topic is.
You will have to ask Hillary Clinton the true purpose. She started it.
@philjourdan
You are misinformed. Neither Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton nor anyone even distantly associated with the Clinton campaign ever once questioned Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth or eligibility for the presidency.
And you are a liar (and a poor one) – http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement
Seriously dude, get a better lie going. But do not demand more money from OFA(l) – you are not earning the money they are paying you now.
philjourdan cites a Business Week article, which everyone should read because it does not say that Hillary or Bill or any Democrat ever said that Obama was born in Kenya. To be sure, they wanted to raise the question and HOPE that they could pick up votes by misleading people on the subject. What else would you expect a political campaign to do? But they never SAID that Obama was born in a foreign country.
Okay, so why didn’t they say that Obama was born in a foreign country? Also why didn’t McCain and Mitt Romney? Because, of course, Obama wasn’t born in a foreign country.
Would they have said that he was born in a foreign country IF he had been born in a foreign country? Of course they would have, and so they checked on whether or not he was, and they found that he was born in Hawaii. It is nutty to think that all three of them did not check, and there is an article about one of McCain’s lawyers who said that of course they checked, and that they could not find anything to prove that Obama was born in a foreign country. Want to see the article? (And it is farfetched to think that one of McCain’s lawyers would have lied about that.)
That of course is by no means all the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the chance that Obama’s mother even took a trip abroad in 1961 is extremely unlikely. (Want to see that evidence too?)
But, specifically about this point, the article that is linked to does not show that Hillary or Bill or any Democrat SAID that Obama was born in a foreign country.
Another straw man. The challenge was that Hillary or any democrats did not USE it. The article clearly shows they DID use it. The challenge was not origination for that source, It was usage.
Now given that you want people to believe that Obama was so nobody that no one wanted to read his bio, yet so famous that everyone wanted to write it, you are trying to say that democrats never knew about the controversy. When Hillary’s campaign raised it first! Of course through deniability, you will not find the memo where she said float it. But as it is HER campaign, and under HER total control, only a moron like you would say “duh, gee, yea, her campaign was rogue”. Which is still a non sequitur since the article was not to prove she did it, it was to prove DEMOCRATS did.
you really need to get your story straight with your puppet master.
Re: “Another straw man. The challenge was that Hillary or any democrats did not USE it. The article clearly shows they DID use it.”
It is normal to cast aspersions during a political campaign, but that does not mean that Hillary went so far as to SAY that Obama was born in Kenya. IF she had said it, it would have indicated that she had checked out the possibility and believed that he was born in Kenya. But she didn’t say it.
Non sequitur. Again, who cares what you think is “normal”. That was not the discussion. The challenge was if they USED it. The article proves she did.
You have no capacity for higher levels of thought turnip.
The folks who, out of generosity or politeness, believe or pretend to believe that Obama didn’t write or approve his own bio, are being silly. That’s not even plausible.
Miriam Goderich now claims that the Kenyan Birthplace claim was her fault. But even her acceptance of responsibility was weaselly: she claimed it was her own “fact checking error,” but never said where the “facts” came from that she didn’t check.
In fact, she obviously lied. Publicists for new authors don’t invent bios for those authors.
Dystel requires, as is standard practice in the industry, that a prospective author submit his OWN bio. The claim that they invented a fictitious foreign birthplace for a new American author, and inserted it into his bio, is utterly absurd.
Who would presume to write a new author’s bio for him? In fact, who would presume to write anything about her client, and publish it, without at least running it by him?
And how could such a falsehood in an author’s be disseminated by the author’s publicist from 1991 until April 2007, if the author didn’t want it to be?
Here’s what an industry insider has to say about the absurdity of that lie:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/a-word-from-tom-lipscomb.php
If someone suggests that Obama and his confederates would never tell a lie, ask them if they are the last person on the planet who still believes that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it“ under Obamacare.
Goderich’s lie for Obama doesn’t even pass the laugh test:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/why_kenyan_birth_claim_was_no_fact_checking_error.html
{Why Kenyan Birth Claim Was No ‘Fact Checking Error’}
Goderich’s motive to cover for Obama’s lie is obvious. Her firm has a contract with Obama for future book deals. She hopes to make a bunch of money from him. So she scratches his back, and he scratches hers.
Under U.S. law in 1961, if Obama’s parents were legally married, and if he were born overseas, then he’d not have been entitled to U.S. citizenship.
The requirements have changed over the years, but in 1961 the requirement was that the citizen parent have resided within the USA for five years after her 14th birthday.
Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942, and Obama was born August 4, 1961, so Dunham was only 18 years, 8 months & 5 days old when her baby (the future President Obama) was born. That means only 4 years, 8 months & 5 days had elapsed since her 14th birthday, which is less than the 5 year minimum needed to qualify her baby for citizenship on that basis.
If Obama’s parents were legally married, then he would not have qualified for citizenship if born overseas, because his mother hadn’t resided in the USA for a full five years since her 14th birthday, per this chart:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-a-2014-05_01_final.pdf
(Chart A)
However, that didn’t apply to Obama, because his parents were not legally married, because his father was a bigamist. When Obama’s father married 18yo Stanley Ann Dunham in Hawaii, who was already pregnant, he already had another wife back in Kenya. That means his marriage to Dunham was illegal and invalid, so Obama is a bastard. Because of that, he would have been entitled to U.S. citizenship solely by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, even if born overseas. That means he would have been a “natural-born” citizen, qualified to run for President, even if he had been born overseas.
This is the chart that actually applies to Obama:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-b-2014-05_1_final.pdf
(Chart B: Acquisition of Citizenship – Determining If Children Born Outside The U.S. and Born Out of Wedlock Acquired U.S. Citizenship at Birth)
You might suppose that would eliminate any incentive that Obama’s parents might have had to ensure that his birth was recorded as having occurred in the United States, and perhaps to lie for that purpose. However, Obama’s mother presumably didn’t know about Obama Sr’s other wife. She thought she was legally married. Thinking that, she’d have also believed that her baby would only have U.S. citizenship if born in the USA. That would have given her a strong motive to make sure that she was in Hawaii when her baby was due — or, failing that, to lie about his birthplace — so that he could have U.S. citizenship.
Since we now, finally, as of 2011, have a birth certificate for Obama showing a hospital birth (albeit not in the hospital that he used to claim as his birthplace), it seems very unlikely that he was actually born overseas and then brought to Hawaii as an infant. If that had happened, his mother would almost certainly have claimed that he was born at home, and his birth certificate would show that as his birthplace. Since the birth certificate records a hospital birth, that scenario doesn’t seem plausible.
So I don’t think he was actually born overseas. That means he lied to his book publicists (and probably to others, perhaps including one or more of his three colleges), when he claimed that he “was born in Kenya.”
I don’t fault Obama for his father’s crimes of adultery and bigamy, but it is relevant to this conversation because it is only due to his father’s bigamy that Obama’s parents’ marriage was invalid, and it was only that lack of a legal marriage that makes the issue of Obama’s actual birthplace moot w/r/t the question of whether Obama is really entitled to be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, constitionally qualified to serve as President.
If his parents had been legally married, then his citizenship would have been dependent on his birthplace. Since his parents were not legally married, his birthplace does not matter: he would have been a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born.
No silliness necessary. In simple point of fact, there is no good reason to suspect Obama was ever aware of this “bio” or of the original publication within which the detail was first garbled. Its subsequent casual replication on the Internet is a classic example of a persistent and ubiquitous problem with the World Wide Web… the cutting and pasting of material without any effort at fact checking.
First and foremost, lets put the specific “fact” back into its actual context. Birthers are fond of representing it as an “invented biographical detail.” In actuality it is the sort of mildly garbled detail that is so common that anyone who has ever attempted to write biography or do family history is generally able to come up with a half dozen similar examples without significant effort. Obama’s father WAS born in Kenya. Obama himself is ethnically half Kenyan. If this mistake was going to be made, what other country would be more likely? South Korea? In the course of 30 years of genealogy research, I have identified in my own family no fewer than eleven mistaken accounts of place of birth. In seven of them, the mistake was to attribute a parent’s place of birth to a child.
Second… this is not the only garbled detail on that particular page of the Dystel client list. The publication included three bios per page, and while one of the three bios on Obama’s page is difficult to fact check (as the individual has left almost no significant on-line paper trail) the third, Tip O’Neil’s, is not. And O’Neil’s bio ALSO garbles a detail; specifically the date on which he became Speaker of the House. I note that no one is asserting that Tip O’Neil was responsible for a deliberate misrepresentation on his Dystel bio.
Third… the claim is repeatedly made that the mistake somehow served to benefit Obama. Heller here asserts that “For 17 years it was advantageous to say that he was born in Kenya.” Oh? What pray tell would have been “advantageous” about that? There is a remarkable gap in the birther narrative at this point, where the assertion is that some inchoate advantage would have accrued but nobody seems to know what it might have been. Even Heller comes up empty, ending his silly post with the loaded “Why did Obama choose to lie about his birthplace?”
In fact, not only is there no clear advantage to such a claim, the widely accessible record of the entire 17 year time period shows that had there been such an advantage Obama was doing his damnedest to avoid gaining it. The original Dystel client list was published in 1991. But Obama had already long been giving interviews and profiles in which he was explicit that he had been born in Hawaii.
For example, the February 6, 1990 New York TImes published an article “First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review,” in which we find, “His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?pagewanted=1
The very next day, the Chicago Tribune’s article on Obama’s rise to the head of the Law Review explained that, “Born in Hawaii to the late Barack Obama, once a finance minister in Kenya, and Ann Dunham, an American anthropologist, Obama went to Columbia University before moving to Chicago to work as a community organizer.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-07/news/9001110408_1_ann-dunham-chicago-housing-authority-barack-obama
A month later, the LA Times noted that “His own upbringing is a blending of diverse cultures. Born in Hawaii, where his parents met in college, Obama was named Barack (blessed in Arabic) after his father.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
How does one seriously reconcile the claim that Obama was trying to misrepresent his birthplace with the actual fact that Obama every other time he was being interviewed or profiled in the nations most important publications the detail was correct? And more droll is the fact that when Obama’s book was finally published in 1995, it claimed a Hawaiian birth, and not a Kenyan one… even as the Dystel and Goederich web site cluelessly replicated the error for another 12 years,
One of the key characteristics of irrational conspiracy theorists is their affection for anomaly mining. And it works for them specifically because all of us have left paper trails and traditions that are filled with anomalies. Some are significant, some are not… but since all of us have them anybody with the time and intention to find them will never be disappointed. The hard part comes, however, when the conspiracy theorist tries to use those anomalies to assemble an alternative theory of history. It is an exercise in dot connecting that resolutely resists providing an actual picture at the end. This is why conspiracy theories generally spin off the rails into complex Rube Goldbergian contraptions that defy logic, probability and often even possibility. Birthers (for example) regularly solve problems in their otherwise incoherent narratives by appealing to time travel.
In 1991, Miriam Goederich garbled a detail. Occam’s razor is your friend.
Complete bullshit. This story is about Obama and his literary agents.
Gotta tell you, Tony. As “responses” go, that was was remarkably flaccid.
A quality you are intimately familiar with.
The President could clear up the whole thing at once, go on TV and say to the nation:
Good one.
You still are not explaining why Barry and wife lied and claimed he was born in Keny, on video.
So, what kind of conspiracy theorist are you HistorianDude??
Still no FACTS, just that smoke coming from under your dress…
Re: “You still are not explaining why Barry and wife lied and claimed he was born in Keny, on video.”
Answer. They didn’t. Neither of them did. Michele said that Kenya was Obama’s Home Country—meaning the place where his ancestors came from, not the place where he was born. And except for obvious jokes about the subject (you do know what a joke is, don’t you?), Obama has NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. There is a forged video that claims to show him saying it, but it is obviously forged because (1) you cannot see his mouth move; and (2) the original of the video before “born in Kenya” was inserted is available on the Web, and it does not say “I was born in Kenya.” The reason that birthers feel compelled to forge videos that say “I was born in Kenya” and forge “Kenyan birth certificates” THREE times and say that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—where the transcript of the tape recording show that she said that he was born IN HAWAII several times and birthers simply did not quote her—reveals the MOTIVES of the birthers, as well as their willingness to lie.
So neither Michele nor Obama SAID that Obama was born in Kenya (and for that matter neither did any relative).
And, more importantly, Obama WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA. He was born in Hawaii.
Here is the complete Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) report for the year that included August 1961:
http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/n4/mode/1up
Scroll down to page 74, about two-thirds of the way down in the book, and you will find the Kenya arrivals listing—there were only 21 arrivals.
On page 77, the same report shows the number of people who WENT to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and that shows that only 63 did (of whom 60 were Americans), and that of the 63 not a single person, not one, went by air. They ALL went by ship.
So, according to birther theory, Obama’s mother, in the last two months of pregnancy at the age of 18, was among the 60 Americans who went to Kenya by sea in fiscal 1961 and one of the seven Americans who came to the USA from Kenya in fiscal 1961, and again she traveled by sea (since no Americans came to the USA from Kenya by air).
There were, by the way, no normally scheduled direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961—making an alleged trip by Obama’s mother and Obama highly unlikely—-to say the very least.
AND: (1) the government of Kenya has said that Obama was not born in Kenya; and (2) the government of Hawaii, the birth certificate plus the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties, plus the Index Data file plus the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii) all show that Obama was born in HAWAII.
Nobody in a position to actually know (to include Obama himself and his wife) have ever claimed Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii. There is certainly no video of either ever doing so.
Before there was video, there was the written word. And in a court of law, that is still called evidence.
So you lied again.
Lack of knowledge is called ignorance. Rejection of knowledge is called stupidity. So it is safe to call you stupid now, without using it as a pejorative.
Again, it does not matter. It was the bio he PUSHED. If there was an error, it was up to him to correct it. Period. Show us proof of his efforts to correct the error. If you cannot, your whole long rambling of nonsense is merely trying to cover for him about his lying. A trait that has more evidence than you have rambling words.
@philjourdan
Close, but no cigar.
Lack of knowledge is called ignorance. Rejection of knowledge is NOT called stupidity. It is called WILLFUL ignorance. Of course, that presumes that knowledge was actually rejected, and that the knowledge was true. As usual in your posts, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
1. It was not only a bio he never “pushed” it was a bio of which he was never even aware.
2. It is up to nobody to correct an error of which they are unaware.
3. There can be no proof of something that never could have happened in the first place.
4. There can be no lie if the claimed lie never happened in the first place.
So the story is that the bio was created by someone other than Obama, no one sent it to him for his approval, and no one Obama knew noticed it for 17 years.
Makes sense, if you have the IQ of a turnip.
Please Steven! Do not insult turnips!
slcraignbc said:
“the 1790 Act”
The 1790 act was REPEALED.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+2nd+inauguration&oq=OBAMA+2ND+IN&gs_l=img.1.1.0i24l3.1489.5966.0.9133.14.12.0.1.1.0.260.1143.1j5j2.8.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..5.9.1139.6DYGPfwSl4U
You are truly a [redacted]…………..the 1790 Act’s provision for the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen was the ONLY non-re-established provision of the 1795 Act which re-established all other provisions of the 1790 Act.
The net EFFECT was ONLY to limit WHERE U.S. natural born Citizen could be born thereafter.
But understanding Statutes at Large has proved to be a bit beyond you abilities of comprehension, but I’ll offer this as a bread crumb tale since you’re fond of the WKA et al, fairy tales;
A2S1C5 REQUIRES that U.S. natural born Citizens MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be Constitutionally Legally occupied and its “Grandfather Clause” established that a DISTINCTION EXISTS between a U.S. natural born Citizens and all other “hyphenated” forms of U.S. Citizenship, such as, “naturalized, foreign-born”, “dual, aka, alienated” along with any other forms of Citizenship the Congress may establish, such as “U.S. national”.
The 1790 Act established the CIRCUMSTANCES required to be born a U,S, natural born Citizen, two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world, (similar to some British Nationality Statutes).
The 1795 Act repealed the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision consigning their births to WITHIN THE LIMITS of the U.S. leaving the “foreign-born” children of U.S. Citizens to be considered as U.S. Citizens.
The 1790 Act, having established the requisite circumstances, less the foreign-born’ provision, attaches to the use of the term of words of A2S1C5 by virtue of their CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT to “exist” and thereby becomes a Statute at Large established by the repeal and replace provisions of the 1795 Act.
Unless of course anyone is suggesting that U.S. Law is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land.
You’re finally catching on, Tony! Good for you. The boy can be taught.
One small correction, though. For 17 years NOBODY noticed, whether they were people who knew Obama or not. This includes all the well paid teams of opposition researchers hired to dig up dirt against him in campaigns going back to at least 1997.
People create their own bios. That is how everyone does it.
If you think that behaving like a jackass is going to convince anyone of anything, you are sorely mistaken.
No, Tony. People do not always create their own bios. It is not how everybody does it, and the head of Acton & Dystel (Jay Acton) is on the record in the original Bruetbart piece that “almost nobody” wrote their own.
And you think I’m being a Jackass? You? The guy declaring the people who are kicking you all over your own blog have “the IQ of turnip”? You must have a vampire’s aversion to mirrors.
So you claim Dystel writes their client’s bios, and doesn’t have them approved by the client before releasing promotional literature? You are really a piece of work.
ROFLMAO
Um, morondude – no one is kicking him anywhere on his blog. So far, you have yet to address what the blog said. You have set up a field of scarecrows, but you have YET to provide even a scintilla of evidence of your opinion or lies!
You really are 3 beers short of a six pack.
I don’t have to make the claim. Jay Acton and Miriam Goderich already made it for me.
No, they lied. You have to swallow the lie and then propagate it. Which you are doing.
RIF – you really need it.
It is not a tree, and it is not a forest. For 17 years no one CARED. Many noticed.
I notice that when you lose a point you resort to childish rants. You were just proven wrong again.
philjourdan said: “For 17 years no one CARED. Many noticed.”
Notice that he does not have a shred of evidence to back up either claim.
Moreover, the publicist said this:
““You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
philjourdan claims that the above statement is a lie, but has no evidence to prove that claim.
Yes publicists often send what they write to the people involved for checking, but not always, and in this case she admits to not doing that and that she made the mistake all by herself. And it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
What claim? That his bio for 17 years says he was born in Kenya? Do you have the memory of a goldfish turnip? The evidence has been presented.
You CLAIM the author made it up. Yet you have never presented any evidence. In other words, it is your OPINION which given your now multiple proven lies, is as worthless as you are.
Yes, I have not repeated all the evidence presented in this article as any moron can read it. But vegetables apparently cannot. Turnip.
philjourdain said: “No, they lied. You have to swallow the lie and then propagate it.”
NO, they told the truth. It is you who are lying.
And it is a stupid lie. Obama had told newspapers before 1991 that he was born in Hawaii, and he wrote in Dreams from My Father in 1995 that he was born in Hawaii, and the notion that he would switch in the middle to the lie that he was born in Kenya is farfetched, to say the least.
Your problem turnip is that if you said that in court, you would perjure yourself. You have no evidence. And since you have shown a great propensity to lie, your opinion is worthless.
I have evidence they lied. So until you can prove otherwise, the evidence stands.
philjourdan said: “#1 – Prove it. Not one link yet.”
Here is proof that Obama told the New York Times in 1990, repeat 1990, that he was born in HAWAII.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22}
The fact that Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” says he was born in Hawaii is well-known. It is not online, but, if you doubt me, you can check on that FACT by reading the Wikipedia article on “Dreams from My Father.”
So Obama had told the press BEFORE that bio blurb he was born in Hawaii, and he wrote in his book AFTER that bio blurb that he was born in Hawaii. Yet, you’re claiming that in the middle, in 1991, he wrote or said that he was born in Kenya.
AND not only are you claiming that Obama did said that he was born in Kenya in the middle of two sets of “I was born in Hawaii”—-but you are claiming that the publicist, who admitted making the mistake about Obama’s place of birth, was lying in admitting that she had made a mistake. Yet, it was a fairly easy mistake to make—-Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
You asked for links, and there they are.
All we know about the “0”s TRUE bio is that he was a “work in progress” from an early age surrounded by anti-“Constitutional” America communist sympathizers, at the least, and full-blown radical revolutionary’s at the worst.
The bits and pieces of his “documentation” were acquired and or fabricated as needed during the course of his life and as the usefulness of one set of documents came to an end or became a liability they were scrubbed.
At the same time, as holes were noted in his “public persona documentation” actions were taken to “retroactively” plug the holes, with glaring examples being the “birth notice” in the HI papers and the Selective Service Registration unicorn date stamp.
Having so far being successful in “sealing” most school records or access to the original entry documents and or ledgers along with Pass-Port Records, which are apparently sketchy enough to require the death of those that have seen them, we are left with a half-non-white and half-caucasion half muslim half Christian half U.S Citizen half British Colonial Kenyan National subject with a bio so full of holes it makes you wonder where the Swiss cheese connection comes in and if there is any real American cheese at all.
#1 – It does not show that. It shows the NY times SAID it. It does not QUOTE him turnip!
#2 – He did not change his story until 91. And he has since changed it again!
So you have proven nothing again! Turnip. That is merely more of the lies of Obama.
Learn what a quote is turnip.
slcraignbc said:
“Having so far being successful in “sealing” most school records or access to the original entry documents and or ledgers along with Pass-Port Records, which are apparently sketchy enough to require the death of those that have seen them, we are left with a half-non-white and half-caucasion half muslim half Christian half U.S Citizen half British Colonial Kenyan National subject with a bio so full of holes it makes you wonder where the Swiss cheese connection comes in and if there is any real American cheese at all.”
Poor slcaignbc. The above is an excellent example of why Ann Coluter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.
BTW, I’m not paid, and Obama’s school records and other records are not “sealed”—they are covered under the normal state and federal privacy laws, the same laws that prevent the disclosure of Mitt Romney’s grades and other records, and the same for John McCain—and the same for you and me. In short, they are not “sealed.” They are private, and Obama like Romney an McCain (and previous presidents) simply chose not to disclose them.
As for Obama having at one time been friends with communists and other leftists. He was elected despite that, and if you don’t like it—TOUGH.
The links I have provided show that Obama said both before and after the bio blurb that he was born in HAWAII, and others that I showed prove that Obama’s parents were married. The allegation that they were not married simply shows the extent of the dislike of Obama by the radical right. But that does not justify LYING.
You say…….
” …. As for Obama having at one time been friends with communists and other leftists. He was elected despite that, and if you don’t like it—TOUGH…..”
I say, …..Aye, there’s the rub ….whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous SOCIALISM, or to take up arms, rise up, and oppose it, ………for in the depths of SOCIALISM is the tyranny that binds men’s minds to slavery that gives rise to thoughts of death being a better end, so bitter the life under the yoke of FOREIGN IDEALS ………. thoughts of FREEDOM being the only true HOME where TRUTH resides for any man and every man being conscious with a conscience,….to be, or not to be, I say NOT to SOCIALISM, that foreign born philosophy antithetical in word and effect to the COTUS……….
slcraignbc said:
“, I say NOT to SOCIALISM, that foreign born philosophy antithetical in word and effect to the COTUS……….”
Answer: You are entitled to your OPINION, and there are millions just like you, but your and their OPINIONS do not make Obama born in a foreign country, nor do they change the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled came from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.
And it does not change the fact that Obama, who had Socialist and Communist friends, was elected president TWICE and is the president at the moment—and his term will run until Noon on January 20, 2017. (And if anything were to happen to him, Joe Biden, who is slightly to the left of Obama, would take over).
Don’t like it–TOUGH.
You remain obtuse, apparently by choice, given that you have NEVER read anything that I have written that would suggest that I think the “0” was born in Kenya, or Indonesia or any other 3rd World shit-hole country, nothing, zero, nada………!!!!
Want to know why….???
Because his “Public Personnel Bio” says that he was born a DUAL-CITIZEN and for purposes of qualifying for the National Election Ballots, Electoral College Vote and the Congressional Count and certifying IS, under the Law of the Constitution, un-Constitutional.
Now I understand that you accept the Rulings of Black-Robes AS IF LAW, but when they did not and HAVE NOT looked at the ACTUAL U.S. Law I have a RIGHT to disagree ……
It is ALSO true that the attempts I’ve made in the Courts have failed under the proposition of Law that the Courts should construe the Law on their own when there is an unresolved conflict, when a SCOTUS openly in a Senate Hearing yuks it up over the subject acknowledging that the “we” he was referring to was “avoiding the question.
Well, I have refined my argument and augmented my “standing” and have designed a Petition under the Rules of the Court that will. IMO, cause a rally ’round the question across the country by causing the realization that “AMBIGUITY” is in fact a “legal-loop-hole” that allowed the SR 511 diminish the eligibility requirement to the point where a DUAL-CITIZEN, by his own account, usurp the Office and allow a gaggle of FOREIGN BORN U.S. Citizen, along with Naturalized Citizens waiting to throw their hats in the ring. Following that track leads to the U.N APPOINTING POTUS or some other type of FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE………(narrative, conjecture and speculation not part of the Petition).
I do however believe that the “0” clings to the Communist Manifesto and the Koran which I consider “Foreign Influence” that is irreconcilable with the COTUS and the Principles, Ideals and Intent of the COTUS.
Socialism fails as soon as other peoples money and all people’s hope under it is gone everywhere it is tried and the Jeffersonian model of dealing with the Mooselmen is as apt today as while it worked for the 1st 200 years it was used.
There is NO WAY to reconcile the National Security wise and seasonable concern of John Jay and your mixed up Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretation of Lord Cokes and Blackstones interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes as addressed in cases where the interpretations of the Statutes were in conflict before a British Courts. Seriously,….???
The term of words of “natural born Citizen” PRECEDED English common law by at least 1,200 years and defined by a writer who at once is known as the Father of Natural Law theory and the Father of the Western Civilization in 350 BC..Politic’s BK III Part II
“But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’ Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. ”
Not ONLY does this paragraph encapsulate the concept of a “true” Citizen, but is a primer on the Political Concept of “naturalization” along with some insights of both as they apply to a NEW STATE for those with the intellectual fortitude to flesh it out.
So I understand your insistence of trying to change the CONCEPT of a U.S. natural born Citizen to mean anybody because the the ACTUAL definition of a U.S. natural born Citizen is applied, well, don’t worry, after Marx was Lenin, after Lenin came Statlin, after Stalin came Gorby with Putin in the wings…………..so hold fast, people like you always have another Dear Leader in your future……
slcraignbc said: “Because his “Public Personnel Bio” says that he was born a DUAL-CITIZEN and for purposes of qualifying for the National Election Ballots, Electoral College Vote and the Congressional Count and certifying IS, under the Law of the Constitution, un-Constitutional.>”
Yes, Obama was born a dual citizen—which he states quite clearly in his book.
Like Obama, Woodrow Wilson was born a dual citizen since his mother had never relinquished her British subject status when she married Wilson’s father becoming automatically a US citizen but without having to relinquish her British subject status or swear an oath. Thus under British law Wilson was a dual citizen at Birth. He appears to have been a loyal citizen and president.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT, since both had been made full voting citizens of France during the French Revolution, and neither relinquished that citizenship.
Neither James Buchanan’s father nor Chester A. Arthur’s fathers were US citizens when they were born (and although birthers have claimed that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen—there is no evidence of any of hiding whatever). Moreover, the father of the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, James C. Fremont, was French at the time that Fremont was born, and Fremont did not hide that fact but instead proclaimed it loudly in his campaign biography—and, you know, if Fremont had thought that his father’s nationality would have any effect on his eligibility, he would not have been so public about it. (Fremont lost that election, but it was not because of his father’s citizenship.)
There are some articles claiming that EISENHOWER was a dual citizen at birth because of old German laws that made the grandchildren of its citizens GERMAN at birth.. He certainly does not seem to have had much loyalty to Germany.
Spiro Agnew, a vice president, was certainly a dual citizen of the USA and Italy.
Fogbow points out that: “Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson were all eligible for French citizenship through ancestry. ‘
So there seems to be NO historical precedent for your notion that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status.
NOR does it legally affect—since the term Natural Born Subject INCLUDED dual citizens at birth—-and, duh, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us if they were changing the legal requirements to be a Natural Born Citizen from the legal requirements to be a Natural Born Subject (and they didn’t).
Finally, the notion that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status makes no sense at all LOGICALLY. That is because if it were true ANY foreign nation could fool around with US presidential eligibility by simply passing any law that they wanted. For example, if Mexico had the notion that it did not want anyone born in the areas once part of Mexico (say Texas) to become president of the USA—well, then Mexico could just pass a law saying that any child born in Texas was also a Mexican citizen at birth, making millions of people dual citizens, and so those millions of people would not be eligible to be president.
It is truly sad that your hatred of Obama makes you blind to the possible presidential eligibility of Jindal, Rubio, Santorum and Cruz. They all were dual citizens at birth, and Santorum and Cruz may still be (Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship, but he may still be a dual citizen of Cuba).
Face it, hatred does not make a good insight into the meaning of a law. The common law meaning of Natural Born Citizen included the US-born children of foreigners INCLUDING dual citizens, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen come from the common law. And that is that.
Well, I’ll address you CONTRIVED CONTROVERSIES over the Citizenship status of previous POTUS”, albeit with a tinge of contempt and disdain……
Woodrow Wilson happened to be the POTUS that signed BOTH the 19th Amendment Suffrage act, fulfilling Virginia Minor’s aspirations, and the 1922 Cable Act on the heel’s of the 19th. Up to the time of the Cable Act, a womans Citizenship status was COVERED under the Doctrine of Coverture, insofar as a woman’s U.S. Citizenship is concerned. Your attempt to assign some obligation by the U.S to acknowledge PERPETUAL ALLEGIANCE of subjection by U.S. Citizens is somewhat Ironic but the DOCTRINE of Coverture BOUND Mrs Wilson to her husband and NO OTHER.
Jefferson and Madison were covered under the Grandfather Clause WHICH ESTABLISHED a distinction between a U.S. natural born Citizen and ALL other forms of hyphenated Citizenships.
James Buchanan’s situation is actually covered under the two previous FACTS.
Chester Authors Citizenship status WAS contested vigorously during his campaign, but whether by contrivance, oversight or ignorance of the requirements the contesting parties were RESORTING to the wrong question. They, like many “birthers” persist on the question to determine birth place rather than the Citizenship status of his father at the time of lil’ Chets birth. It was NOT until post 2008 that the Chet’s daddy’s Citizenship status was verified as being UN-naturalized at the time of Chet’s birth, putting all of Chet’s tenure in Office in question. Woe to Justice penumbra zone Gray.
Now, under the laws of naturalization the Notice of intent to naturalize carries some legal weight statutorily regarding a wife and children, born or unborn of that father in the event of his death prior to completing the process. I see where that could EASILY be the basis of a legal argument but will offer no speculation whether it would prevail in an effort to legitimize lil’ Chet’s term in office.
President General Eisenhower and the German connection is just an example as to how LOW 0’poligists will go and the suggestions that Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson were all eligible for French citizenship through ancestry is barely a step up.
ALL U.S. Citizens have the RIGHT to EXPATRIATE and or ALIENATE their Citizenship by AFFIRMATIVE ACTS, such as Lil’ Stanley Annie did by conceiving issue with the Big Daddy “0”.
And here offers me the OPPORTUNITY to explain another reason that the current AMBIGUITY is harmful to otherwise well intentions people. CHOICES have consequences, and although ignorance of the Law is no excuse, the Law should be clear, NOT ambiguous in meaning so that the consequences can be known.
That, in sentiment, is my conclusion why the 1790 Act contained the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision. Given that the U.S. uniform Rule of Citizenship departed from the convoluted English system, those persons who were abroad, many in service to the interests of the U.S. Foreign Affairs under John Jay, would have an EX POST FACTO law unfairly attach to any of their children that may have been born after Ratification. I don’t know it as FACT, nevertheless, the ‘temporary’ reprieve could not be called anything but just
You say;
” … Face it, hatred does not make a good insight into the meaning of a law. The common law meaning of Natural Born Citizen included the US-born children of foreigners INCLUDING dual citizens, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen come from the common law. And that is that….”
I say, NUTS…!!! Except to the HATRED, of that I am guilty, and hold ANYONE that clings to the SOCIALIST DOCTRINE in BOTH contempt and all the HATRED my Spiritual underpinnings allow.
You want me to relent to Stare Dicisis” of the cases you cits as being the LAWwhile YOU refuse to acknowledge the RULINGS of the contemporaneous Justices in the cases U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet who ACTUALLY LOOKED at the U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization..
You Citizens of the world are tiresome and vexing at once…..U.S. Citizenship is a product of the U.S. Citizenship naturalization Laws and THOSE LAWS ONLY, beginning with the “collective naturalization EFFECT” of the Ratification of the COTUS…..And that is that.
….Stare Dicises, had it been followed, would, and still may, NULLIFY all of the holdings in the cases you cite.
But I can not imagine that you or you sidekicks would bother to have the intellectual honesty to read even the “synopsis”, let alone the the Majority Opinion, (noting that it was originally the practice for each Justice to issue their Opinions “seriatim”, (individually)
slcraignbc said: “ALL U.S. Citizens have the RIGHT to EXPATRIATE and or ALIENATE their Citizenship by AFFIRMATIVE ACTS, such as Lil’ Stanley Annie did by conceiving issue with the Big Daddy “0”.”
Answer: The above is another example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.
The fact that Jefferson and Madison were covered under the Grandfather clause does not by magic make them loyal. They were dual citizens and they were loyal, and the grandfather clause is not the thing that makes them loyal.
Wilson and the others, including probably Eisenhower, were all to some extent affected by foreign nationality laws, and yet they were perfectly loyal. There is no evidence that Buchanan’s father was naturalized, nor Fremont’s, and there is no evidence that Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. And the bottom line is that the common law includes dual citizens as Natural Born, and there is NO evidence that the writers of the US Constitution switched from the criteria of the common law (birth in the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents, even including dual citizens) to some new criteria—and IF they had switched, they would have told us.
More importantly, the meaning of Constitutional terms is defined by PRECEDENT, and the precedent is the Wong Kim Ark case, and unless and until that is overturned or there is a new constitutional amendment on the subject (neither of which is remotely possible), its ruling remains the LAW.
So the Heritage Foundation book is right, and the ten appeals court cases, and the views of Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson, and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Congressional Research service, and your view is wrong—and nutty.
Well, obviously you refuse to do ANY critical thinking whatsoever, proved to be the case by this odd repetitive statement that I prove to be incorrect every time you assert it…..
“… (from smartass); : … And the bottom line is that the common law includes dual citizens as Natural Born,….”
ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, .. IS NOT ….. IS NOT ….. IS NOT ….. IS NOT …., U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!! U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…!!!
See U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet ………they ain’t going to disappear just because you ignore them……..!!!!
SLcraignbc said: “You want me to relent to Stare Dicisis” of the cases you cits as being the LAWwhile YOU refuse to acknowledge the RULINGS of the contemporaneous Justices in the cases U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet who ACTUALLY LOOKED at the U.S. Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship and naturalization…
Answer: NONE of those cases even mentioned the term Natural Born, and the all were before the Wong Kim Ark ruling (and later rulings overturn earlier ones—don’t like it? TOUGH).
So the Heritage Foundation Book is right, and so are senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and Black’s Law Dictionary and the Congressional Research Service and the ten appeals courts and the current US Supreme Court that turned down the appeal of one of those case (which had ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen). And you are wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+inaugration+2008&oq=obama+inaugration+2008&gs_l=img.3…1954.7367.0.7741.22.17.0.5.2.0.242.1794.11j5j1.17.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..4.18.1732.LZHB-fK-Smc#hl=en&q=obama+inaugration+&tbm=isch
Now you have PROVED that you are a COMPLETE IDIOT and TOTALLY disdainful of the Rule of Law emanating from the Constitution and Congress and submitting to idiots in Black Robes ….
…. do you NOT notice that the cases that you cite are interpreting FOREIGN LAWS on the subject of U.S. Citizenship……….and that’s who you want to believe …????
I never said that the cases I cite said the words, “natural born Citizen”……….what they DO SAY is that the various State Laws were not consistent with the 1790 Act, et seq, and therefore NULL and VOID insofar as U.S. Citizenship and naturalization was concerned.
That you do NOT understand that “common-law” is the evolution of “natural law” “as they affect the conduct and affairs of men and nations”, as expressed by Vattel 1,300 years after Aristotles Books on Politic’s ……..
You idiots that think that there is ANY LAWS, including the Judeo Christian Laws of God and Allah of Isalambmuhama that are NOT POLITICAL are neophytes to comprehended thoughts.
a CITIZEN is a POLITICAL CREATURE by definition and their existence requires the POLITICAL DETERMINATION to create and acknowledge them.
And you want to retroactively surrender to the British Law of WKA to the exclusion of the Laws of the U.S. Congress….???
What a dolt….!!!!
slcraignbc said: “ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ENGLISH COMMON LAW, .. ”
Why YES, you are absolutely right. The term does come from the English Common law (like Habeas Corpus and Ex Post Facto), and when both the US Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution say that it comes from the common law, you can bet that it does indeed come from the common law.
The cases you cite are not relevant because they do not have the words Natural Born Citizen in them, and all of them in any case were BEFORE the Wong Kim Ark case, and later cases overturn earlier cases. That’s simply the way that Supreme Court cases work.
So your loony dream is yours and you can keep on dreaming it, but the Electoral College elected Obama twice (without a single elector changing her or his vote to vote against Obama out of the notion that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election and received the votes of 356 electors, and he wan 332 electoral votes in the 2012 election and received the votes of 332 electors—in other words not one of the thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen (and not every state has law binding electors to vote the way that the general election in that state went). And Obama’s election was confirmed twice UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress, and Obama was sworn in repeatedly by that RINO, the Chief Justice of the USA, and birthers have lost all ten of the appeals court cases they brought claiming that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen—and the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten (which had ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen).
So face it, nobody sensible gives a fart about your loony theory.
slcraignbc said: “That you do NOT understand that “common-law” is the evolution of “natural law” “as they affect the conduct and affairs of men and nations”, as expressed by Vattel 1,300 years after Aristotles Books on Politic’s”
Answer: Vattel recommended that every country should have a STATE RELIGION and force people to join it or force them to leave the country. We did not adopt that, in fact we adopted the reverse of that—-that there cannot be a state religion in the USA. And there is no evidence that the Constitution adopted his two-citizen-parent idea either. In fact, he is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the COMMON LAW is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise.
Moreover there is not a single quotation from any of the men who had attended the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. They only used it the same way as in the COMMON LAW, to refer to to citizenship due to the place of birth. And in fact John Jay, apparently the first American leader to use the term Natural Born Citizen, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, and so he would have said if he intended to use the term any differently than in the common law, and he never did.
The Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court are right, and your loony theory is wrong.
“…So face it, nobody sensible gives a fart about your loony theory….”
I’m taking an editorial prerogative and correcting your over generalization;
” So face it, nobody SOCIALIST gives a fart about your loony theory.”
But your ignorance and lack of intellectual honesty has kept you from even reading the actual LAW of the 1790 Act and its provisions so you argue in self-imposed ignorance.
You think that it is proper that an Amendment that had NO INTENTION EXPRESSED to change a provision in the Executive Articles can do so on the words of a Justice that did not even CITE THE ACTUAL LAW you say he changed…………idiot socialist 0’pologist, you iz……..
Just a little P.S. to snap you back into REALITY, I am NOT the only one that grasps the situation and recognizes the LACK of a Constitutional identification of circumstances that constitutes actually being a U.S. natural born Citizen; 1st;
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
and then there is a sitting SCOTUS Justice;
http://youtu.be/zijev_8MF84
Uploaded on Apr 17, 2010
Clarence Thomas admits they are avoiding the Constitutional requirements of being a Natural Born citizen to be President
filmed on April 15th, 2010 during the Appropriations Subcomittee on General Government. Here is the audio exchange between Rep. Jose Serrano and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
slcraignbc said:
“…the 1790 Act…”
Answer: The 1790 Act was REPEALED.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+2nd+inauguration&oq=OBAMA+2ND+IN&gs_l=img.1.1.0i24l3.1489.5966.0.9133.14.12.0.1.1.0.260.1143.1j5j2.8.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..5.9.1139.6DYGPfwSl4U
Just out of curiosity I’m offering “definitions” of a “citizen” found in the historical writings of a “natural law and political philosopher” to ask you a simple question:
“Did the adoption and ratification of the COTUS establish a more perfect Union …???”
” …. But we must not forget that things of which the underlying principles differ in kind, one of them being first, another second, another third, have, when regarded in this relation, nothing, or hardly anything, worth mentioning in common. Now we see that governments differ in kind, and that some of them are prior and that others are posterior; those which are faulty or perverted are necessarily posterior to those which are perfect. (What we mean by perversion will be hereafter explained.) The citizen then of necessity differs under each form of government; and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not necessarily to other states. For in some states the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly, but only extraordinary ones; and suits are distributed by sections among the magistrates. At Lacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors determine suits about contracts, which they distribute among themselves, while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes are decided by other magistrates. A similar principle prevails at Carthage; there certain magistrates decide all causes. We may, indeed, modify our definition of the citizen so as to include these states. In them it is the holder of a definite, not of an indefinite office, who legislates and judges, and to some or all such holders of definite offices is reserved the right of deliberating or judging about some things or about all things. The conception of the citizen now begins to clear up.
He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. …”
slcraignbc said:
“Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;”
Answer: The quotation merely says that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship is important. And that is only a preliminary motion. In the final decision Judge Anderson ruled, as has the judges and justices in every single other case, that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
Justice Thomas was, anyone sane will notice, JOKING. And he was talking specifically about the issue of whether someone born in Puerto Rico, which is merely a territory not a state (like Hawaii), can become president.
Judge Stephens made NO determination regarding the “0” Citizenship status, the case was dismissed on other procedural issues.
As for Thomas yukking it up over a the question with a “foreign born” naturalized U.S. Senator because he was unable and unwilling to express his opinion whether the foreign born naturalized Senator would be eligible for the office of POTUS is significant in that it is a perpetuation of the AMBIGUITY emanating from the highest levels of the Federal Government and ESTABLISHING that it is NOT a SETTLED QUESTION of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Sorry, no candy cigar for you. Ignoring knowledge is WILLFUL ignorance. rejection of knowledge is stupidity. WHich is more proof of your stupidity.
#1 – Prove it. Not one link yet. And I am sure you want it both ways, that the smartest man in the world is also the stupidest, but no one buys that. If he is stupid, he may not have known. If he is smart, he knew.
#2 – It is up to nobody except the one who created it. However prudence says you try to correct it. As he did know about it, your statement is proven false.
#3 The proof is that it did happen. Plugging your fingers in your ears while yelling lalalalala is not how to deny facts. I doubt you will, but the phrase put up or shut up comes to mind. So far, you have put up nothing. And given the juvenile behavior of you and your sock puppet, shutting up is also not your forté.
#4 – repetition is not rebuttal. learn it.
Obama’s father was a Muslim it was easy for him to divorce a wife
Obama’s father was an atheist, and his divorce from Obama’s mother was done under Hawaii law. And what, pray tell, does your posting have to do with the overall subject of this page?
No, it was done in Chambers without proof of legal marriage as a common-law relation with “issue” in order to facilitate a legal marriage and possible adoption.
slcraignbc said: “No, it was done in Chambers without proof of legal marriage as a common-law relation”
The following link shows both an index page showing marriages conducted and the actual divorce papers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married.html
(And American Thinker is a conservative site.)
Isn’t it interesting that as the “holes” are noticed the HI DOH comes to the rescue with their trusty dot matrix printer and an editable data base in order to show what it would have looked like if it had been printed in ’60 to ’65 instead of using their multi-million dollar computer system to access the data base servers and use their lazer-jet or xerox to pdf system to print out the info……. nice try, but that b.s. has no wings and won’t fly…….nice two’fer of hole filling though, BHO & Lolo, alphabetically and chronologically in order, one on top the other………..also note that the INS last typewritten caution on the reliability of the marriage claim…….
But then, I’m skeptical of ALL things regarding the “0” ……. being a socialist is enough, if only that were the worst of it……
Someone upstream said Obama Sr had not divorced first wife.
And from the same source this interesting bit of scuttlebutt:
slcraignbc said:
“Isn’t it interesting that as the “holes” are noticed the HI DOH comes to the rescue with their trusty dot matrix printer and an editable data base in order to show what it would have looked like….”
Sadly slcraignbc cannot refrain from showing how loony slcraignbc is—an example of the overall lack of sanity of the extreme right wing of the Conservative movement.
Notice that slcraignbc does not actually reference any document, much less provide links.
The overall claim that Obama’s birth certificate is forged can be answered with this:
With the single exception of Reed Hayes, who has not proven his expertise in examining digital documents (he is a specialist in documents on paper, and he has not seen the paper copies) and who admits he has not seen the research on the way that the Xerox WorkCentre works, ONLY birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged. And they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).
One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.
Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.
And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.
Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.
And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.
Re: “Someone upstream said Obama Sr had not divorced first wife. ”
Maybe, but if so it has no legal effect on Obama whatever. And in fact it does not change the fact that Obama’s mother and father were legally married in Hawaii.
yes it does turnip. If his father was already married, the marriage to his mother was not legal, period. Making Obama a bastard child (now he is just the first half, although still very childish).
Bigamy is not legal in the US even today. Another lie from the turnip.
What does your post have to do with the subject of this page turnip?
Phil: You, I and the turnips are one nation, one people. You must believe. For the children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHUGWUlRorU
My children are too smart for the turnip.
philjourdan said: “Making Obama a bastard child…”
I suggest that you read up on illegitimacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28law%29
Notice the part about ” putative marriages.”
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word bastard – not the slang meaning turnip.
Re: “bastard.”
A bastard is a person born of parents who are not married to each other. Obama’s parents were married under Hawaii law, and the evidence for that is both a marriage listing and their divorce.
No turnip. A marriage license obtained under fraudulent circumstances is not legal or valid turnip.
Still no evidence turnip.
Obama would pimp out his own daughters if he thought he would profit by it.
philjourdan says:
August 24, 2014 at 1:47 am
Obama would pimp out his own daughters if he thought he would profit by it.
==============
Whoa Nellie.
You sure you wanna go there ?
Sadly, yes. I make observations. I do not necessarily like them.
Does this issue matter anymore?
Yes. If true it seems that a lot of people conspired to commit a crime. If true it may well make it a future requirement that candidates are vetted by the government. If true it could make laws, regulations and executive orders unenforceable.
What “crime” pray tell are you suggesting that “a lot of people conspired to commit”?
> it may well make it a future requirement that candidates are vetted by the government
So you want a Democratic government to have a say in which Republican can become President? Not really, do you?
GoneWithTheWind says:
‘A lot of people conspired to commit a crime’
Yes, and millions of people believed the lie without question, even when it was challenged. It’s very depressing.
Not too bad, really.
Birther sites have been banging away at this lie for six years or so, and yet only slightly more people believe it than believe that space aliens crash landed at Rosewell, NM.
There have been active LIARS for the “he was born in a foreign country” lunacy, and nobody organized is backing the “space aliens in Roswell, NM” lunacy . Yet only slightly more Americans believe “he is a foreigner” than believe that space aliens crash landed. The survey shows that 23% believe the “Obama is a foreigner” myth, while 20% believe that space aliens crash landed in Rosewell, NM.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/have_we_got_a_conspiracy_for_you_9_11_jfk_obama_s_citizenship
Oh, and a varying percentage—increasing rapidly—believe in ghosts. The latest appears to be 40-45% (It was 35% about ten years ago, I recall.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/real-ghosts-americans-poll_n_2049485.html
That doesn’t seem so bad, does it?
So you support slavery eh?
😆 Who cares who believes that he was born in Kenya??? Really after all this you still come back to the straw man! You are an idiot.
It is not about WHERE he was born. It is about WHO SAID IT FIRST.
Well, it certainly wasn’t Hillary or Bill or McCain or Mitt Romney, and it certainly wasn’t Obama either. He had given interviews to the press in which he said that he was born in Hawaii, and it is farfetched to think that he reversed that and told the publicist that he was born in Kenya. If her mistake mixing up Obama’s father who was really born in Kenya with Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was the first birther story, so be it—but it remains a mistake.
Since it WAS Obama, as the evidence shows. If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it. hearsay is NOT evidence.
So shut up moron.
philjourdan said:
“Since it WAS Obama, as the evidence shows. ”
No it was the publicist, as the evidence shows, and she has admitted to making the mistake. And, to repeat, Hillary and John McCain and Mitt Romney all never said that Obama was born in Kenya.
Evidence turnip, Evidence. I did not say your opinion. I know you have no clue what evidence is, but until you understand that concept, you are simply a mouthpiece for a liar and a liar yourself.
You lied. We know that. It is not in question. Obama lied as well. We know that. it is not in question.
The question is which is the lie, that he was born in Kenya or that he was born in Hawaii ….????
Neither. He was born in Hawaii, and the bio’s assertion that he was born in Kenya is merely a garbled detail.
Ya, “plausible deniability defense” follows the “0” around like the “nuke-code-football” that’s attached to his “body man” full of alternate scenarios that allowed he and his mommy to be in two places at once and to go to places that U.S. Passport holders were warned off of and or work out negotiations with the State Dept. to get back into the country or the marriage cert and registration is misfiled but an In-chambers” divorce decree is relied on to confirm a marriage and an ABSTRACT Certification is all that’s avaiable until an MODIFIED_ABSTRACT LONG-FORM is negotiated in a 24 hr turn-around D.C. to HI trip and on and on and on and …..the “plausible deniability defense” follows the “0” around like the “nuke-code-football” that’s attached to his “body man” ………………..
“Plausible deniability” has nothing to do with it. Before, during and after the time this bio was being composed and published, Obama was widely and very publicly declaring his Hawaiian birth. To this day, nobody in an actual position to know has ever declared a place of birth for Obama anywhere other than Honolulu.
Most of the rest of your post is incoherent. While you have a well deserved reputation as an “anomaly miner,” several of what you appear to be declaring anomalies are simply false facts.
For example… there is no record of Obama ever “to places that U.S. Passport holders were warned off of.” That certainly would not describe his 1987 trip to Pakistan, a country that at that time offered a no-questions-asked 30 day tourist Visas automatically to anybody who showed up at a Pakistani airport with a US passport. And your descriptions of Obama’s birth certificates (both short and long forms) is so tendentious as to border on parody.
Why is that birthers believe such goofy stuff?
There certainly was a State Department Travel Advisory Warning regarding Pakistan at the time the “0” said he made his Hajj.
Now, whether he actually went to Pakistan remains unclear and as you well know there is NO documented “proofs” one way or the other.
Maybe, being a ‘blessed one,’ he just fabricated the story to enrich his relations with his muslim friends, with memories of a Virtual Pilgrimage of composite recollections of imaginings of what may have been.had any of it actually happened.
As for what I believe is obviously diametrically opposed to MOST of you positions.
I happen to know a lot about Birth Certs, having been intrigued at a young age with the “anomaly” within my own at a young age and since have studied 1,000’s from all over the country wondering if I’ll ever see another “anomaly” like the one on mine.
That alone does NOT make me an expert, but I know enough to say that a PDF file without an Original Signature and seal from the State Registrar is NOT an Original Certified Copy, so until one is entered into evidence within a Court of competent Jurisdiction and Rules on its authenticity we will continue to disagree on the legitimacy of the one the “0” had posted on his campaign cum White House web site.
But, I feel that the topic of this blog along with all of the red-herrings, wild geese and monkeys chasing weasels around the mulberry bush are calculated distractions from the ONLY issue that holds the FORCE of the Constitution, including the Operation of Law, in enforcing its requirement.
Plausible Deniability has everything to do with it. That is because you lied again.
Steven presented DOCUMENTED evidence that Obama knew. You CLAIM Obama was doing something else, yet have presented NO EVIDENCE of your claim.
That is called not being believable. And that is why it is all about plausible deniability.
And you are fraudulently getting paid by OFA(l) because you are not doing your job. In fact, you are making us think there is something there, as that would be the only reason Obama would be paying idiots to argue against documented evidence that has NOTHING to do with his legitimacy, just his honesty – which is already destroyed from his own lips!
Re: “There certainly was a State Department Travel Advisory Warning regarding Pakistan at the time…”
Answer: Baloney there was. The US government was eager to have US citizens visit Pakistan at the time because Pakistan was at the time a GOOD ALLY (remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”?). And Pakistan on its part certainly did not keep US citizens from visiting because it was very anxious for tourist dollars, so it gave every US citizen who showed up a free 30-day visa. US newspapers were even running travel articles recommending visiting “scenic Lahore” at the time.
@slcraignbc
First off… you have a detail garbled. How ironic considering the post that started this thread don’t you think? Obama’s Pakistan trip did not take place in 1987. It took place in 1981. And look… I even replicated the error in my responding comment. And we don’t even have Miriam Goderich to take the blame for our mistake.
See how that works?
Your problem is that the State Department issues travel advisories even when things are hunky-dory and when there are no travel restrictions. Here is the Pakistan travel advisory that was in effect when Obama went to Pakistan. Read it:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
You will notice that there is no travel restriction… in fact no hint of any reason a US Citizen traveling on a US passport should be at all anxious about going there. As to whether or not Obama “actually” went to Pakistan then, I could not possible care less. I also do not care where George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Katy Perry went the summers before they went to college either.
I have no reason to challenge your claimed familiarity with birth certificates. But in response, I should point out that my user name, HistorianDude comes from the fact that I am my family’s historian… well, four families actually. Those of my parents and those pf my parents-in-law. I am actually an engineer. But as a family historian I have in my own files at least 850 birth certificates from 19 states and 6 foreign countries. With that context in place, let’s look at your comments.
No one except birthers have ever suggested that the Whitehouse.com PDF is admissible in court as proof of the President’s citizenship. Instead the signed and certified paper document from which the PDF scanned is that proof. So in the manner of public document releases since long before the Internet, the paper certified copy was circulated to the journalists present at the release for them to verify it’s authenticity. The PDF is merely a method for allowing as large an audience as possible to see it, just as in generations past a picture in a newspaper would have accompanied the article covering the release.
Now… your special demand (irrelevant to any actual authority) that “until one is entered into evidence within a Court of competent Jurisdiction and Rules on its authenticity” it is somehow suspect betrays only that you are completely unclear on the concept of why we invented them in the first place. They were invented so that the details of a person’s birth could be guaranteed as true without any additional requirements for verification. We do not need a court ruling to use them for any legal purpose. Furthermore, under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, no court has the authority to even make such a ruling. They must, under the Constitution, accept it as prima facie proof of the information contained.
Now of course, we both know that there is an exception to the acceptance of prima facie evidence as true. Prima facie evidence can be rebutted by contradicting evidence of equal or greater probative value. Alas… here we are six years into the birther movement, however, and birthers still have been unable to provide any admissible contradictory evidence. Worse, given the “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil court (in which 100% of all birther efforts have taken place) birthers have failed to even come up with admissible evidence that would contradict Obama’s simple assertion that he was born in Hawaii. That is how weak your position actually is. Obama (or his sister even) could simply walk into court and declare without any corroboration that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you have lost your case,
Nope don’t remember the term “bIrther” showing up in reference to McCain until after the fact. As I recall it the moniker was made up originally and specifically to label those demanding a birth certificate for BHO.
This truck driver just had to get re certified for my HazMat endorsement. To do so I had to produce either a Birth Certificate or a US Passport. Apparently the current president didn’t have to produce either to be elected either time.
And yet, when John McCain was running against candidate Obama I well remember there being questions raised about his eligibility because he was born to US parents at a US military facility in the Panama canal zone. They claimed he was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. If such a claim were true then every single person born to US parents anywhere outside of the United states that is not deemed to be sovereign to the US, would be ineligible to be president even if their parents were their in the service of the country.
I think a valid green card would have worked for HazMat certification. Not that it matters. Mexican and Canadian truck drivers carrying HazMat in the USA don’t have to comply with US HazMat certification because of NAFTA. Canadian and Mexican truckers drive on their nations’ equivalent of America’s CDL–I have to screen truck drivers for possession of a valid CDL in order to allow them admission to a warehouse complex. It gets complicated because my Spanish and French are rudimentary at best.
Not to be confused with the International Driver’s Licenses…
Candidate Obama didn’t even have to produce a driver’s license to run, having been vetted by his party–but I did need “government issued picture identification” to vote. To get a driver’s license I needed proof of residence, my birth certificate and a Social Security card.
Ain’t democracy great?
@rah
No. Neither the current President nor any prior president has ever needed to produce either a birth certificate or passport to be elected, ever. This is good since of the 43 people who have ever been President, 35 of them never had birth certificates at all, and at least two others never got them until after they had already become President.
As to McCain, the “McCain birthers” absolutely did challenge his eligibility for the Presidency. What is less well known is that the “McCain birthers” were all right-wing conservatives. The meme was most aggressively pushed by Ron Paul supporters, championed at the Paulista web site, The Daily Paul. The two legal cases that were filed against McCain were filed by hard core conservative and Markham Robinson (chairman of the right-wing American Independent Party) in California and Republican activist Fred Hollander in New Hampshire.
In response, the two Democrats who (at that time) were most likely to end up facing McCain in the 2008 general election, Clinton and Obama, sponsored Senate Resolution 511 “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.”
Morondude – liar again – http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127362/
Oh yes, that legally meaningless nonbinding resolution. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to bestow citizenship or citizenship status upon anyone.
As for where the whole question came from? Fred v. John McCain. That doesn’t really matter so much as where the question was amplified into the national news. And that would be every single major leftist media organ in this country pretty much from the DailyKos to the NYT.. The very same ones that picked up the moniker “birther” to describe those that questioned where BHO was born.
Just as with Obama birthers, it was covered in the media. This surprises you… why?
philjourdan posts a link to a WND article showing that there were several news articles raising the question of McCain’s eligibility due to his birth in the Canal Zone. What the article posted does not say is that while the news articles raise the question, they ultimately concluded that McCain IS a Natural Born Citizen, as did the one lawsuit against McCain on that issue.
HIstorian Dude’s point about presidents before Obama never showing their birth certificates remains accurate, of course.
The challenge turnip, was not whether he was cleared or NOT (of course he was turnip!). The challenged was that McCain’s right to run for president was challenged!
Notice how the turnip does not seem to be able to read and comprehend what he reads. so he is constantly trying to interject non sequiturs.
philjourdan said: “The challenged was that McCain’s right to run for president was challenged! ”
NO, it was discussed. Big deal. He would have been the first US president who was not born in on of the US states, and naturally it was discussed. There was one lawsuit against him, in contrast to more than 200 against Obama, and the one lawsuit against McCain lost—just as the more than 200 against Obama lost.
RTFM turnip – it was CHALLENGED. Just as Obama’s was. Did it ever make it to SCOTUS? WHO the hell cares! The challenge was if it was CHALLENGED. It was. The proof is in hundreds of articles from the year.
You still need to learn to read turnip.
That’s a new one – a lie is now a garbled detail.
No, it is a lie. Obama Knew, and the biographer took the fall.
By saying “No, it is a lie. Obama Knew, and the biographer took the fall.” philjourdan is claiming that the biographer, whom he does not even know, is lying when she admits to making a perfectly natural mistake (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya, you know). But notice that philjourdan does not produce any evidence whatever to support his claim that the biographer did not make a mistake.
Notice how the turnip tries to enter his lies as facts into the debate. He claims to know everything about me, yet cannot read simple sentences that are posted!
OK, turnip, prove I do not know anyone.
Philjourdan said: ” claims to know everything about me, yet cannot read simple sentences that are posted!”
He claimed above that Obama “knew” and his biographer “took the fall”—meaning that what she said was false. She said that Obama did not know. philjourndan said “Obama Knew.” philjourdan does not know that Obama knew, he just claims it, and he claims that the biographer, who wrote the bio, is lying when she said that she wrote it, and made the mistake and that Obama did not know.
philjourdan has also claimed, without any proof whatever, that I am paid to post. Well, i’m not.
So, philjourdan is also lying in his claim that the publicist lied. She SAID that she made the mistake, and it was an easy mistake to make. Yet philjourdan insists that this woman is lying. Obama said that he was born in HAWAII in newspaper interviews in 1990 and in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995—yet philjourdan insists (without any proof) that Obama lied in 1991 and told the publicist or wrote that he was born in Kenya. Well, there isn’t any evidence of it, and it would be extremely unlikely and the publicist said that she made the mistake—and yet philjourdan says that she is lying.
Still cannot read, eh Turnip? Quote where I stated the fact.
Then look up the word “implausible” idiot. And stop your lying. You have NO EVIDENCE Obama did not know and also approve of the bio. NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NICHTS.
learn to read, Your lack of a brain is getting tiresome turnip.
Re: “Implausible.”
Philjourdain claims that Obama switched from saying in newspaper interviews “I was born in Hawaii” to the lie: “I was born in Kenya” in 1991—-and that he then switched back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book in 1995, and that the 1991 biography was not the result of a MISTAKE that the publicist admitted to making. All this despite the fact that Obam’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he really was born in Kenya, so it was easy for the publicist to make the mistake that she has admitted to.
Talk about “Implausible.”
Turnip, show us where he said it in a Newspaper interview. YOu have not. Learn what a quote is turnip.
Implausible is finding someone as stupid as you. You would be dead long ago after forgetting to breathe. So it is just an act turnip. You are merely Obama in drag.
Philjhoudan said: “Turnip, show us where he said it in a Newspaper interview. YOu have not. Learn what a quote is turnip.”
Here is a newspaper article in 1990 that says that he was born in Hawaii. Are you claiming that the newspaper made it up and that Obama never told them where he was born?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Moreover, the article certainly does NOT say that Obama was born in Kenya or that he said that he was.
You already showed us that turnip. And I pointed out to you it was not a quote, paraphrase or attribution turnip. And it predated his story about BEING born in kenya turnip. So it has no bearing on this article or the originator of the birther story turnip.
Still do not have any facts, are clueless on the meaning or definition of evidence, have no clue about the difference between opinion and fact, and now showing more pronounced signs of dementia. You are clearly first class liberal material turnip.
The author of this piece left out some very important facts:
1) In 1990 (before the literary agent’s brochure) the Los Angles Times, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune did interviews with Barack Obama II on the occasion of his being elected to be the President of the Harvard Law Review. All three articles say he was born in Hawaii. In fact, between 1990 and 1999 there are approximately a dozen newspaper or magazine articles that say he was born in Hawaii. this is culminated by his Illinois State Senate webpage which says he was born in Hawaii.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
2) In the original Breitbart article about the literary agent brochure “the text [of the brochure] was edited by Miriam Goderich”. The Breitbart article goes on to say “He [Jay Acton of Acton and Dystel] indicated that while “almost nobody” wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom “the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,” were “probably” approached to approve the text as presented.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
3) Miriam Goderich (the editor of the brochure) wrote:
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html
I guess when it comes to ignoring salient facts, the left and the right are the same coin.
So how do these facts add to the narrative? Apparently, in publications meant for widespread circulation (newspapers, magazines, etc.) President Obama indicated he was born in Hawaii, but in one publication only seen by a small group of publishing companies, in a bio he likely didn’t write, he was born in Kenya.
Okay, how is this for a scenario that incorporates the known facts?
A relatively obscure, 30 year old potential author submits a list of biographical facts to his literary agent for use in a brochure. The editor of the brochure in drafting the bio conflates the name Barack Hussein Obama (who was born in Kenya) with the name Barack Hussein Obama II (who was born in Hawaii). Jay Acton says the authors “probably” reviewed the text but that doesn’t mean they definitely reviewed them. This leads to several possibilities:
1) As he was the one who sent the facts to the agent the text was not sent to him for review.
2) The text was sent to him for review, he suggested a change from Kenya to Hawaii but the agency screwed up and the change was not implemented.
3) The text was sent to him for review, he never sent it back for correction either by oversight or neglect (this would be supported by the Obama was a slacker mime).
4) The text was sent to him for review, he decided to leave it since being born in Kenya rather than Hawaii would sell more books (Okay, that one I don’t quite get as to why Kenya would be more marketable than Hawaii for a book on race relations in the United States).
I’m sure that there are other possible explanations could be developed but these seem to me to be the most likely.
Now as to the occasional “updates”. These updates are not updates to the brochure but are simply their clients list. The client list consist of three or four lines of biography. Wouldn’t the facts in the client list be taken from the their existing bio that was used for the brochure? Wouldn’t they assume that it was accurate? Would they really send the three or four line listing to the authors for review?
I think a reasonable person would say that yes, they would take the info from the original bio rather than starting over from scratch and yes, they would assume the facts are correct and no, they would not send the client list entry to the authors for review of previously published information.
Until Miriam Goderich explains who told her that Obama was born in Kenya, and why they persisted with that story for 17 years, your comments are a complete waste of time.
The explanation is very simple. Obama’s father has the same name as Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, WAS born in Kenya. Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, was not born in Kenya; he was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii all show.
It is a common literary device when talking about someone’s past in a book to start off with their full name, even if they are your father. So, the book probably said something like: “Barack Hussein Obama was born in x place Kenya.” And the publicist glimpsed that and thought that it was Barack Hussein Obama II, the author.
So, that accounts for the MISTAKE. She also said that (1) she did not get the information from Obama; (2) she did not check the bio blurb with Obama; (3) she did not tell him when it was put online so that he could not fix it. The notion that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya is also undercut by Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father, published in 1995—-which says right in it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii, and of course, he was.
Further to: “A relatively obscure, 30 year old potential author submits a list of biographical facts to his literary agent for use in a brochure…”
Answer: As noted above. She said that she DID NOT GET THE INFORMATION FROM OBAMA. So he did not submit a list of facts, or in fact anything. She got the mistake by misreading the text of the draft book (it was never published).
Answer: As noted above, the lie does not carry on for almost 20 years without the person knowing about it.
And (great shock for OFA(l) idiots) People lie – especially those told to by the liar in chief himself.
This went on for 17 years, until Obama announced his candidacy for President. Then it changed immediately.
No one that Obama knew noticed for 17 years?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Miriam,
Why are you telling me this under a fake name? Why not go to the press and explain it to them?
The press are fools – but they are not even that stupid.
Yep. No one that Obama knew noticed for 17 years.
So how’s that bridge working for you?
Rightttt! No one in the history of the planet had the same name as his father until Obama!
I see they are gutting the budget for OFA(l) as the quality of the help has deteriorated significantly.
Hint: You are not believable. See above.
philjourdan said:
“People lie…”
Answer. No question about it. Birther lies are CLASSIC.
Some examples of classic birther lies:
(1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)
(2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.
(3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?
(4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?
(6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)
(8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???
(9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.
(10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.
And the lie on this site is the claim that the publicist is lying, when she has admitted to making a mistake. (And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.)
Non sequitur again turnip. The story is not about those who REPEATED the rumor. It is about who STARTED it. I doubt you will ever understand that as that does require more than 2 brain cells turnip, and you are not even half way there.
Frankly,. you calling anyone a liar means they are more trustworthy than you or Obama. Since the 2 of you have not been able to state a single word of truth YET.
philjourdan said:
“The story is not about those who REPEATED the rumor. It is about who STARTED it.”
NOTICE that philjourdan would like to obscure the interesting facts about the people who CONTINUED the birther myth by their lies by simply focusing on who started it. Well, duh, things that exist do so for two reasons, the things that cause them and the things that continue them—but philjourdan wants to mislead people by just focusing on the start (I wonder why?)
Second, okay, the blurb written by the publicist was the start, and it was a mistake, so the myth started with a MISTAKE. It then was continued and deepened by the birther lies, such as the LIE that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when she actually said that he was born in Hawaii).
You really are a moron turnip. The story is NOT about who continues it. RTFM again! It is about who STARTED it. I am obscuring nothing. I am COMMENTING on an article about who STARTED it. If you want to write an article about who is CONTINUING IT (see, the 2 words even start with different letters), get your own blog (kind of hard since you cannot read) or ask Steven if you can guest host an article.
Until such time, turnip, you are the only one obscuring anything. idiot.
Starting =/= Continuing (which is evident to all sentient life, which leaves the turnip out).
Philjourdan said: “You really are a moron turnip. The story is NOT about who continues it. RTFM again! It is about who STARTED it. ”
Too bad for you Brussels Sprout that things have a beginning and a continuation. The fact that someone stresses the beginning does not make the continuation less important. In fact, it is just as important.
So the beginning of the story was a MISTAKE made by a publicist. That was the start, but it was not the whole story. The rest of the story was the continuation of the myth that was mainly caused by birther lies—such as the LIE that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she really said that he was born in HAWAII. And that was only part of the lie. Another large part of it was birther sites not telling their readers that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copies the White House has put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.
philjourdan would like to hide all those nasty lies by the birthers by just saying over and over “this story is NOT about who continues it.”
Too bad for you turnip that you still do not understand “begin” versus “continue”. Too bad for you that you are so brainless that all you can do is parrot – even your insults are parroting.
Too bad for you turnip that I now agree with S. L. Craig and Kuhnkat – and you convinced me.
But I am not sad that Obama wastes his money on you turnip. As long as he is wasting it.
Again. Miriam Goderich is on the record that the error was original with her.
And in which court has she sworn to this?
Again (see above) “plausible deniability” requires it to be believable.
She has explained it to the press. Why slay again the already slain?
Why try to explain away the indefensible?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Then stop doing it. Please, you are making even morons look smart.
Uh, are you in denial that you are trying to explain away Obama’s “issues”?
I am in denial that there is still an issue here. As such, to call it “indefensible” is psychotic.
You finally got one thing correct. There is no issue here. All the evidence presented (note the word) shows the original birther was Obama.
Nothing was slayed. Duh!
Try using your hat rack for more than growing hair.
Nonsense, as long as Miriam Goderich has explained that she did not get the detail from Obama, EVERYTHING else is a complete waste of time.
So, why all of your relentless comments on this thread, desperately trying to defend the indefensible?
Schadenfeude.
The word is Schadenfreude. Do not use words you are ignorant of.
Bahnhof
nonsense, as long as she is a proven liar, then all her statements become suspect.
Moron.
Let me guess Billy, reading is not your strong point.
The title of the article is “The Original Birther” – in other words who started the rumor that he was not born in the US FIRST. Where he was born is immaterial. As is any evidence pre-dating the start of the myth (or fact) of him being born in Kenya. Since the article is about who started the talk about him being born in Kenya, and NOT about where he was actually born, your putrid drool is irrelevant.
Seriously, try to keep up.
Since this bio did not start the rumor, I can only respond as we used to say in Ranger School.
“Nice attack. Wrong hill.”
Speaking of Hill …
“supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html
Sadly, that pleasant fiction also turns out to not be true. While PUMAS were certainly early adopters of the meme, it did not begin with them.
The very first birther post took place at about 3:00 AM, March 1, 2008 on the conservative right-wing web forum Free Republic, Here is that post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391
Three days later the rumor was picked by pseudonymous right-wing blogger Alan Peters here:
http://alanpetersroundup.blogspot.com/2008/03/freedoms-enemies-obama-story.html
At that point it was off and running in the right-wing blogosphere. The first use of the meme by an apparent Hillary supporter was not until more than a month later in a comment at Snopes.com. And yes, Democrat Phil Berg was the first to file a birther lawsuit. But at no point in the history of birthism were Clinton supporters the primary promoters of the meme. It has always been a right-wing Republican franchise.
But nobody actually associated with the Clinton campaign (to include Bill and Hillary) ever expressed the tiniest doubt as to the President’s eligibility.
Sadly, you still cannot read or write. Evidence has been presented showing the first birther posts to be 1991 (by Obama) and 2004 (by his native country). To any sane, rational person, they clearly know that 2008 > 2004 and 1991. Except to kooks that are obsessed with maintaining the purity of the messiah’s bloodline.
False acclamations of accomplishment are as useful as your opinion. And as worthless.
You have only proven how you reject knowledge. Which is why stupid in your case is a description, not a pejorative.
philjourdan said: ” Evidence has been presented showing the first birther posts to be 1991 (by Obama) and 2004 (by his native country). ”
The 1991 post was by a publicist who admitted to making a mistake, not by Obama, and the 2004 post was by a Kenyan newspaper, not by Kenya (the country) or even by the government of Kenya.
Those mistakes may have been the start of the birther movement, but the LIES of birther sites certainly fostered it.
Some examples of classic birther lies:
(1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)
(2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.
(3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?
(4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?
(6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)
(8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???
(9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.
(10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.
Evidence? none. just another long narcissistic soliloquy by a turnip. Until you present some evidence there is no point in posting anything but the label for your actions.
You will not remember it anyway – that is if you can even read it.
philjourdan said:
“Evidence? none.”
What in particular would you like evidence for?
To select some of the lies at random:
Among the lies is the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian Passport.
Here is the telephone number of the Indonesian Embassy, they will confirm that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen. (202) 775-5200 — ask for the press officer)
And here is the transcript of the taped telephone interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother in which birther sites CLAIMED that she said that he was born in Kenya (but you will notice that she said that he was born in HAWAII):
TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
[Big discussion. Questions. Male voices only]
OGOMBE (The translator, and a cousin): No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born. (6:13 on tape)
[At this point Ogombe asks a question to the grandmother and you can hear her voice. I think it says Hawaii; you may say that it is hard to hear. But you can hear something in a woman’s voice.]
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
Note that Ogombe did not know before he asked her where Obama was born. He asks the question, she replies. He then says clearly Hawaii and repeats it.
Ogombe then repeats that she was in Kenya when he was born and that he (Obama) was in Hawaii.
TRANSCRIPT ENDS.
Non Sequitur turnip. Go back and read the article again (since you have the memory of a gold fish) then come back with some relevant posts WITH evidence turnip.
I do not care where you think he was born. I do not care if you were fooled by fake birth certificates. I do not care that you trust a proven liar. I said E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.
Stop wasting our time with your moronic opinions turnip. Produce some evidence or admit you are bilking OFA(l) for whatever money they are paying you.
Re: “Yep. No one that Obama knew noticed for 17 years.”
Answer. Sure. She did not tell him that she had put it online, so HOW could he fix it?
Sorry, I still do not find it credible that the Illinois Senator Obama’s political handlers would not have scoured his history and reviewed any use of his name or materials when he was running for the senate.
Thus given the laughingstock-in-chief’s current track record with the truth, the story “he was blissfully ignorant of his agent’s flawed bio” becomes all that much more difficult to believe.
The current occupant of the whitehouse has a serious credibility problem. Should he (accidentally) tell the truth some day, no one would believe it. He has earned that reputation by his own diligent efforts.
Political expediency has a price. Once the trust is gone, it’s gone.
Your personal threshold for what is or is not credible is completely uninteresting. And your faith in the comprehensive perfection of political “handlers” is… well… quaint.
Ah yes. The idea of honesty is indeed so very quaint and old fashioned, and dare I say it….. uninteresting….
The concept that government only exists upon the consent of the governed is something that does indeed terrify the political classes. As it should.
And yet there is a different set of laws for the governors vs. the governed. Insider trading is legal for members of congress and the house, and yet illegal for everyone else. Why is that?
Something to keep in mind is this old “quaint” quotation:
“When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.”
? Émile Durkheim
Upon the path the liar-in-chief is currently on, the end result is a people that are ungovernable when they decide to emulate the example of their government leaders and ignore the laws. All laws.
Thus the laws become completely unenforceable. When compliance with the laws is only possible through force, the end result is that governing becomes very, very expensive.
Just about any one of the south american countries provide an example of what results when the people perceive that their government is totally corrupt.
Hmmm…. I label your naive belief in “perfect handlers” as quaint, and you read that as having something to do with “the idea of honesty?” You guys never disappoint.
The rest of your diatribe was a leap from from incoherence to irrelevance. Hope it made you feel better though.
Your personal threshold for what is or is not credible is completely uninteresting. And your faith in the comprehensive perfection of political “handlers” is… well… quaint.
Ah but I was quite specific. You labeled my personal threshold of what is or is not credible as “completely uninteresting”. I chose to explain myself on that point.
As to the abilities of the laughingstock-in-chief’s political handlers, well, they have certainly demonstrated enough tone-deafness and incompetence for a lifetime. As to my expectations of their “perfection”….. Well, I have none…..
Here’s a tip: When choosing to explain yourself on on point, it’s a good idea not to simultaneously try and parody a completely different point. Clarity counts.
The rest of your “response” has nothing to do with anything, so I’ll just let is hang there.
Since you did not “@anyone”, the only conclusion anyone can make is that it is @you. Since that is who the messages was “replied to” as.
You should heed your own advice.
Your inability to stick to the facts, you inability to present facts, and your denial of facts makes you totally non credible. So be happy they pay you. They are wasting their money.
The brochure was put out seven years before Dystel went online.
Oh well, there went almost half of that horrific “17 years” for nobody to notice,
opinion based upon supposition. Prove no one noticed.
You apparently confuse “knowing” with “caring”. But people did “know” It was in print and being circulated. Which means some DID know. So you lied.
When he lied to her in the first place. Duh!
Not sure which of you is more worthless. But whatever OFA(l) is paying you is too much.
HistorianDude says:
August 26, 2014 at 11:36 pm
@slcraignbc
The comment to which you objected was “There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision that prohibits dual citizens from being President.”
So you are saying that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is NOT a U.S. Law by the effects of the Statutory construction of the COTUS…………mmmm,…. let me mull that over a moment….OK, you’re still wrong.
“The HYPHENATION of DUAL -Citizen is by definition NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen, whether Dual-Citizen at birth or otherwise.
Being a “U.S. natural born Citizen” commences at birth within the parameters of the requisite circumstances and continues until death OR it is alienated by some affirmative act of the person so named.
To suggest that a “U.S. natural born Citizen” can NOT alienate their selves is an offense to the Laws of Nature and the Laws of this Nation. Any U.S. Citizen may “expatriate and or otherwise alienate” with their affirmative acts to do so.
That of course would not change the fact that such a person WAS born as a U.S. natural born Citizen, and perhaps your argument is meant to suggest that a person does not have to be a U.S. natural born Citizen at the time of seeking the Office of POTUS as long as they were when they were born.
I do not think it would hold up and I would argue against it should THAT be you suggestion.
But let’s get specific in identifying the requisite circumstances of actually being born a U.S. natural born Citizen by focusing on the provisions that convinced Justice Waite in the 1790 Act by analyzing the term of words “CONSIDERED AS” as used in the 1790 Act.
What is the implication of “considering ” one thing “as” being another while confined to the CONTEXT of the provision….????
Not even close. It is fascinating how much difficulty you have understanding clear, direct, unambiguous language. I am saying that Article II Section 4 (not 5 anymore) does not prohibit a dual citizen from being President. You have shown us nothing in either the Article itself or subsequent statutory construction that changes that simple truth.
Hyphens have nothing to do with it. Article II tells us what a President MUST be. It does not tell what ELSE a President must NOT be. It does not say that a President can’t be tall. It does not say that a President cannot be a woman. It does not say that a President cannot be a guitarist, or a red head, or an amputee, or an only child. And it does not say that a President cannot be a dual citizen.
A President can have as many other citizenships as nations are willing to give them. As long as one of those citizenships is natural born US, they are eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution.
The assertion that “The HYPHENATION of DUAL -Citizen is by definition NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen, whether Dual-Citizen at birth or otherwise” is unfounded in any US law. I have no doubt that you believe it to be true. But as law, it is a tendentious fiction.
Moving on, I have no doubt that a natural born citizen can renounce that citizenship. Possessing or gaining a second citizenship does not accomplish that (Afroyim v. Rusk). In fact, tens of millions of natural born US citizens are dual citizens and don’t even know it. Certainly, you would not recommend assigning the decision of US Presidential eligibility to the whims of the Zimbabwean Parliament. But by asserting that dual-citizens cannot be President you are effectively doing exactly that. It is an abdication of national sovereignty so extreme as to be laughable.
Your penultimate paragraph is incoherent. Perhaps it might have helped had you finished your though regarding what it was exactly that you imagined Justice Waite was “convinced” of. But as to your ultimate question:
“Considered as” can only mean afforded all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens. This necessarily includes eligibility for the Presidency.
HistorianDude says;
” … “Considered as” can only mean afforded all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens. This necessarily includes eligibility for the Presidency …”
I will constrain myself from addressing your other gibberish and speak to the juvenile attempt you make to dissemble on the statutory intent of the term of words :considered as” in the context of determining who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen.
In order for those who were born abroad to be “consider as” ANYTHING there must be a COUNTERPART that they are being “considered as” given that a distinction WAS made. The CONTEXT was a that a married U.S. Citizen father was abroad with wife/mother when a child was born. The ONLY counterpart that could be considered in that context is a child born to the wife/mother of a married U,S. Citizen father WITHIN the limits of the U.S.
I will let you stew on that and forego extrapolating the implications of that FACT and await your constructed dissembling by whatever pretense you might formulate, or, invite you to relent and engage in an honest debate in pursuit of the TRUTH on the subject as construed under the Constitution and ITS Laws.
@slcraignbc
I sympathize with you completely. Saddled as you are with an opinion at such complete opposition to all history, law and evidence, the temptation to distort ordinary language beyond recognition in order to force it into the Procrustean bed of your prejudice must be overwhelming. But you are not so good a surgeon, and your patient has bled to death from the amputations before it ever got into the bed.
First, let’s consider the EFFECTIVE difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen who is not natural born. Leave aside the arcane minutia regarding the definition, and focus entirely on the EFFECTIVE difference. There is (as far as I can tell) only a single difference between a natural born citizen and any other who is not natural born.
This is eligibility for the Presidency.
So, to reflect back on the EFFECTIVE consequences of the Naturalization Act of 1790, what conceivable reason could the Congress have “considered as natural born Citizens” the “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” if not to declare them eligible for the Presidency?
That is not a rhetorical question. I’d love to hear your answer.
Remember also, this clause is not the only use of the magic (to you) phrase “considered as” in the 1790 Statute. The law first gives a comprehensive set of requirements for the voluntary naturalization of aliens, and declares that after having met them that “thereupon such person shall be CONSIDERED AS a Citizen of the United States.” (emphasis added)
An advocate of your position, had they any intellectual integrity, would have to consequently affirm the idiotic and absurd contention that somehow a naturalized person is not really Citizen of the United States after all. But wait… one clause later the Congress is at it yet again. Not only is the naturalized citizen to be “considered as a Citizen of the United States,” their minor children “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
Your “reasoning” here (if applied without hypocrisy) essentially turns the entire 1790 law into a bad farce, posing as a uniform rule of naturalization, but instead creating an entire class of faux “citizens of the United States” who apparently are not citizens after all. While you may not yet be grasping the transcendent insufficiency of your reasoning here, rest assured that no one else is deceived.
So, with the prior two sections OF THE VERY SAME STATUTE as precedent, we have no trouble divining exactly what the Congress meant by the phrase “considered as natural born Citizens.” It means that they ACTUALLY ARE natural born citizens. If it does not mean that, then the entire Naturalization of Act of 1790 fails to naturalize anybody at all.
Further, in the initial two instances of the statute’s use of the magic (to you) phrase “considered as” the class of citizen considered was the unadorned “Citizen of the United States.” And of course, this makes sense since they are speaking explicitly of naturalized citizens which are excluded from status as natural born. But in the third instance of usage, the class was “natural born Citizen.” Certainly, there was no obligation for Congress to make that distinction unless it had some intended effect. Congress could very well have simply declared them “Citizens of the United States” as in the previous two instances and then, in that way, actually supported your argument. But they did not.
If Congress had intended them to NOT be eligible for the Presidency then by definition they could NOT be said to be “considered as” natural born Citizens” at all. And yet, Congress said that they WERE “considered as” natural born citizens. There is no way to logically reconcile your argument with the actual statute itself.
So, here we are. Unless and until you are able to find for us an effective difference OTHER THAN eligibility for the Presidency between the two classes of citizen, the only possible conclusion is that the intent of Congress was exclusively to declare that those persons (but not the others) were eligible for the Presidency. And since the Constitution also tells us that the President must be a natural born citizen, the Constitution and the Statute in conjunction can drive only one possible conclusion. It declares “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to ACTUALLY BE “natural born Citizens.”
I could leave your argument in ruins here, but I want to cover one more facet. It is subtle, and so risks being completely misconstrued in your ferocious compulsion to parse and whittle. But it does go some way to account for the dissonance you feel when considering the phrase “considered as.”
In the history of Anglo-American Common Law (from which “natural born citizen” derives as a term of art) the concept arose purely as an expression of the jus soli established allegiance between ruler and subject. This was the original, narrow and exclusively common law derived meaning of the term. The extension of natural born subject-hood/citizenship to the children of Englishmen born beyond the seas was not via the common law but via the statutory prerogatives of parliament. And it came some centuries IIRC later than the original common law definition. As a result, simply the temporal seniority of one version of natural born subject versus the other version establishes a “counterpart.” Both are identical in status and effect. They are simply two different ways of obtaining that status. They CAN be discriminated between each other… but not in any way that rescues your argument from impotence.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is doing exactly the same thing as the parliamentary statues that extended the definition of natural born subject beyond the purely common law definition. But unlike the parliamentary acts, it is not an extension but instead a declaration of continuity between the American law of the new nation and the English law from which it largely derived.
Even though slcraignbc is incorrect,. he does present evidence for his case (he omits the critical piece however). You on the other hand presented nothing but Opinion!
In short, you are making his case for him. But I guess that is what you get when you send a moron to do an adult’s job.
I’m responding to the following section of posts because I’m curious in knowing on what points does philjourdan believe that I am incorrect. I ask because I have a difficult time keeping up with philjourdan’s actual position on the various points………..
philjourdan commented on Exposing The Original Birther.
in response to HistorianDude:
@slcraignbc I sympathize with you completely. Saddled as you are with an opinion at such complete opposition to all history, law and evidence, the temptation to distort ordinary language beyond recognition in order to force it into the Procrustean bed of your prejudice must be overwhelming. But you are not so good a surgeon, and […]
Even though slcraignbc is incorrect,. he does present evidence for his case (he omits the critical piece however). You on the other hand presented nothing but Opinion!
In short, you are making his case for him. But I guess that is what you get when you send a moron to do an adult’s job.
@SL – my position is to let the facts decide. I think history and SMR are both idiots and just goading you because they can. And you are falling for it.
#1 – read the US code. regardless of what was, it IS. Kuhnkat indicated it may have been changed since 1961 (Obama’s birth year). A distinct possibility that I have asked him to help me research to find out what it was then. Until I can find any changes that would impact Obama, he is an NBC by the definition in the Code.
#2 – Since #1 makes him an NBC, you are letting him play you. Obama purposefully made it an issue to distract people from his agenda! And he succeeded (he did not think he would rook Hillary in on it, but then she has never been the brightest bulb in the box).
#3 – regardless of where he was born, and the US Code in 1961, he is president – elected twice. We have to suffer because of him. Just as the 22nd Amendment did not pertain to FDR, so any amendments or laws that seek to eliminate the next birther controversy will not apply to Obama (and I suspect there will be rules for documentation of NBC coming about in the future, if for no other reason than the instigators of birthing nonsense, democrats, will want to try to circumvent republicans).
You are projecting definitions into the U.S. Code that does NOT reside there.
NOWHERE in the U.S. Code is the term of words “(U.S.) natural born Citizen used, NOWHERE.
ONLY (u.S.) Citizen.
The statutory construction of A2S1C5 EXCLUDES any and every form of U.S. Citizenship, however “hyphenated”, POST the passing of the Founding Generation EXCEPT that ONE known by the term of words (U.S.) natural born Citizen with BLACK-LETTER-Constitutional Law; ” no person except …. SHALL be eligible…”
Being a Constitutional provision within the Executive Articles it can ONLY be changed by a Constitutional Amendment.
Contestable interpretations of the 14th Amendments words CAN NOT “incidentally” Amend the words of an Executive Article or term of words within it.
ESPECIALLY by the convoluted interpretations of FOREIGN NATIONALITY STATUTES by a SCOTUS case that had NOTHING to do with the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen, noting that the case did NOT address the Constitutional “transient Political aspects” that attaches to a U.S. natural born Citizen by the exclusivity of its purpose of use within the Executive Articles.
To support, protect and defend the Constitution requires understanding it and the divisions and separation of powers within it.
The SCOTUS can ONLY interpret when asked under a bone fide Petition where the question of Constitutional Law and or meanings is STATED in the presentation of the Petition.
The SINGULAR question of WKA regarded being a U.S. Citizen, and nothing more. The subject Clause EXCLUDES U.S. Citizens of whatever “hypenated” form from the subject office post the expiration of the Grandfather Clause EXCEPT and leaving ONLY U.S. natural born Citizens eligible.
A “judicially-kidnapped-alien-foreign-national” is NOT synonymous wit a U.S. natural born Citizen.
I am projecting NOTHING. The US Code DEFINES who is eligible to be president. Period. That is its one of its stated purposes. As such, it is the law of the land. Why don’t you RTFM (in this case the link I provided for you multiple times). If you had even READ it, you would see you are arguing against the standing law.
You are free to challenge it in court if you like. However, until such time as it is rewritten, repealed, or overturned by SCOTUS, it is the standing law. Period.
Stop acting stupid and RTFM
You say that
“The US Code DEFINES who is eligible to be president. Period.”
So I assume you are referring to A2S1C5 …??? Right ????
If so, then WHY do you ignore the Act of Congress that includes the term of words within ITS provisions, with the IMPLICIT understanding that the two (2) usages are the one and the same “creature” ….?????
I HAVE ignored nothing. I am NOW ignoring you. Old dogs and such. You stopped learning long ago.
slcraignbc said
“NOWHERE in the U.S. Code is the term of words “(U.S.) natural born Citizen used, NOWHERE.”
That is true because, duh, it is not an election law. The term IS used in the US Constitution to refer to the election of a PRESIDENT, and the US Constitution is, not to understate the matter, IMPORTANT.
The correct meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the US Constitution has been stated by the Heritage Foundation:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
and by the 10 appeals courts, and by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.
The Heritage Foundation is NOT the COTUS or Congress assembled………..
The Clause of A2S1C5 REQUIRES a distinction between a U.S. Citizen who is NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen, and visa versa, by virtue of the Grandfather Clause, which CODIFIES a (U.S.) natural born Citizen into the vernacular and nomenclature of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
That term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen was used in the 1790 Act which ESTABLISHED that U.S. natural born Citizens were born of TWO (2) U.S. Citizen parents, (see “coverture” pre 1922 Cable Act), anywhere in the world and the term of words of the Act attached to their usage in A2S1C5 by their explicit usage.
The REPEAL and replacement 1795 Act replaced the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision” with “considered as U.S. Citizens”, thereafter consigning “foreign-born” U.S. Citizens” to the EXCLUDED class of Citizenship under A2S1C5.
Lacking an Amendment saying otherwise the EXECUTIVE BRANCH CLAUSE and the Statute at Large of the 1790 Act stand as the Law of the LAND, notwithstanding the “policy” to the contrary due to manufactured “AMBIGUITY” of erroneous interpretations of the flawed interpretations of Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretations of Lord.Coke’s and Blackstone’s interpretations of English Court cases o n conflicts arising from the interpretations of the BRITISH STATUTES of Nationality.
Heritage Foundation….REALLY….????
philjourdan said: “I am projecting NOTHING. The US Code DEFINES who is eligible to be president. Period. ”
Actually, the US Code defines who is a citizen. It never defines what the meaning of Natural Born is; that was done by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and in the United States, the US Supreme Court is the final decider on what the US Constitution means.
This quotation in the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution, is a good summary of what the US Supreme Court ruled:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
You say;
” … Actually, the US Code defines who is a citizen. It never defines what the meaning of Natural Born is; …”
And yet for the 1st 5 years of this Nation the 1790 ACT WAS the U.S. Code on U.S. Citizenship and naturalization.
The Act said that it took 2 (2) U.S. Citizens for a child to be born a U.S. natural born Citizen along with the provision that required an alien Father to BECOME a U.S. Citizen in order for his children present within the limits of the U.S. to be considered a U.S. Citizen, NO MATTER WHERE HIS CHILDREN WERE BORN.
So, if a child of an alien becomes a U.S. Citizen concurrent with the naturalization of the Father does it not FOLLOW that a child of a person who is already a U.S. Citizen would be a U.S. Citizen at birth….????
There is no provision requiring alien fathers to bring any newly born child to the court for affirmation of that child U.S. Citizenship.
Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at BIRTH or OTHERWISE, appears to be an accurate characterization of the ESTABLISHED UNIFORM RULE which could be further characterized as the ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW of U.S. Citizenship, by BIRTH or Naturalization.
Where have all the critical thinkers gone…???? ….. (to pot…???)
Wrong again turnip. The Code defines it. SCOTUS NEVER DID. You are merely making Craig’s point turnip.
RTFM – the Code in this case. It clearly states who CAN be president.
Please show me what it is you are referring to with this declaratory statement;
” … RTFM – the Code in this case. It clearly states who CAN be president….” ….???
HistorianDude says:
August 26, 2014 at 9:08 pm
BTW ………. dissemble … to mislead.
I’m glad you finally looked it up. Now, I hope will also begin using it correctly.
Congratulations to Steve Goddard. This is a new personal best: 325 comments. This isn’t a hot-button issue, it is a mine field with daisy-chained Claymores!
Perhaps he should just go full birther all the time. The blush is off the AGW denier rose.
Back again?
Obama gets info about his place of birth all messed up and confused, and you are obsessed with defending him. And, now, you let it leak that you are also obsessed with AGW “Deniers”.
(Please don’t stop.)
The publicist for the literary agent said that SHE made the mistake, not Obama. And in previous interviews Obama had said that he was born in Hawaii, and in his first published book he said that he was born in Hawaii. (And he was born in Hawaii).
The literary agent was telling the truth when she said that SHE made the mistake. And it was an easy mistake to make because Barack Hussein Obama I, Obama’s father, really was born in Kenya.
😆 Garbled speak (according to your sock puppet). Links? Or are you link impaired? While your alter ego is English impaired.
Why didn’t you send the bio to Obama for his approval sometime during the next 17 years?
If I am “obsessed” it is with the generally paranoid, conspiracist mind set of right-wing ideology. Someone who was actually paying attention would have noticed that I make almost no effort to defend Obama at all. Instead, I expose the sloppy thinking, affection for falsehood and general hysteria of the birther movement. I do the same with creationists, chemtrailers, 9/11 truthers, and yes sometimes even with AGW denialists.
But right now, birthism remains the most target rich environment. So right ow, that’s where you;ll generally find me.
No little man. There is no talk of conspiracy in the article. There is just a scholarly researching into WHO first said Obama was born in Kenya. You are obsessed with browbeating anyone who strays from the party line. You have never commented here before, a blog primarily concerned with CAGW. yet when this one article is written, you spring up and thread bomb it with 200 entries of your opinion. As you have YET to publish a single fact.
You are obsessed. The irony is that you are so obsessed you cannot even see your own obsession.
Go play in the street until your mama calls you to dinner.
Why would she have EVER sent it to Obama for his approval?
Uh, because it is about him. I guess you do not know the difference between “authorized” and “unauthorized”. The former is more valuable to a writer.
Put down the joy stick and go learn.
No you are trying to smear me as a birther, for pointing out that you promoted Obama as born in Kenya . ROFLMAO
No one creates bios for strangers, much less distributes them without approval.
Stevengoddard said again: “No one creates bios for strangers, much less distributes them without approval.”
Apparently you do not read what has been posted in response to what you said before.
Here it is again:
I agree, nobody just makes up a bio [and the same holds for creating bios for strangers. Besides, Obama wasn’t a stranger. He was an author whose book was being considered for publication by that publisher].
Moreover, the publicist didn’t make it up. She had the text of the unpublished book to work from. (At the time they were probably still thinking of publishing it.) So, she had the text of an autobiography before her when she wrote.
And that autobiography mentioned Obama’s father, whose name was—-wait for it—Barack Hussein Obama. Well, Barack Hussein Obama was indeed born in Kenya. That was Obama’s father. So the publicist thought that was Barack Hussein Obama II, the author of that book. Well, she was wrong. She made a mistake. But she did not, as you dream, “make up” Obama’s biography.
She got Barack Hussein Obama mixed up with Barack Hussein Obama II—a mistake.
SHE has admitted to making that stupid mistake. YOU claim that she is lying and that Obama told her that he was born in Kenya despite his second book (the first published) saying in it that he was born in HAWAII and despite previous newspaper interviews in which he said that he was born in HAWAII.
YOUR motive, apparently, is to throw dirt on the president. Well, you can find other and more obvious things to do that about. For Obama to have lied and told the publicist he was born in Kenya requires TWO lies, his at the time, and hers recently, and the only motive would be to sell more books but at the time Obama did not even know that the publisher would accept the book (and the publisher didn’t). Then when Obama’s first published book “Dreams from My Father” went on sale in 1995, it said in it that he was born in HAWAII—and it sold well despite stating that FACT.
The publicist got the mistake from the unpublished manuscript which said that Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama (NOT Barack Hussein Obama II), was born in Kenya.
Guess you missed the part about Obama being the ONLY man in the history of the world to have the same name as his father. NOT!
You can tell a liar because they cannot hold the lie together. A person who writes promos for a living does not make a 17 year mistake. They can make a short mistake, but it is quickly corrected. Same with someone claiming to be a journalist and not using the “its and it’s” correctly.
That is why we know you are a liar. yes, the original could have been an honest mistake. But the author would have noted the mistake and corrected it before 17 years ran out – unless they had a reason not to. And the reasons are that A) it is true, or B) it served a purpose.
And the next question is, how stupid must an author be to blatantly lie about something and expect everyone to believe them?
Who exactly does Tony hallucinate he is responding to in this thread?
Get off the drugs. LSD does not expand your mind. Your mindless ramblings are proof of that.
no doubt just a coincidence that you and Miriam always show up and post at the same time.
Oh my? You actually ARE hallucinating that Miriam Goderich is commenting on this post.
Earth to Tony. Miriam is not in the building.
Earth to morondude – you just outed your sock puppet. I surely am not in the building with you or Tony. But then I did not say what you did.
So you and your sock puppet are now playing dress up. Congratulations! You are proof that not all morons are either gender.
philjourdan said: “Guess you missed the part about Obama being the ONLY man in the history of the world to have the same name as his father. NOT!”
Answer: I guess you missed the fact that people writing about men with the same names as their fathers have fairly often gotten them mixed up.
Only morons and turnips. not highly screened biographers.
Only a turnip would think that. Even a moron would see the stupidity in that statement.
HistorianDude says:
August 27, 2014 at 6:23 pm
This Obama scholar knows things. Has evidence.
philjourdan said:
“Only a turnip would think that. ”
The fact remains that Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama II, and another facts is that Obama had told newspapers in 1990 that he was born IN HAWAII and wrote in his book in 1995 that he was born IN HAWAII. And it is also a fact that the publicist said that she made a mistake (which was easy for her given the similarities of the names).
There is no evidence whatever that she is lying and that Obama switched his story from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then switched back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995.
The fact that my brother has the same name as his father who was the same name as his grandfather completely escapes you, and Obama. So you decided since NO ONE ELSE ON THE PLANET HAS THE SAME NAME AS THEIR FATHER, it must be the same person.
And you decided since Obama did not correct the error (or truth since neither of us know the truth) for 17 YEARS he never saw it. And that the smartest bio writer on the planet, who had to compete for the privilege to WRITE the thing would write something that NO ONE WOULD EVER READ.
But then it does not take brains to believe the implausible turnip. For the rest of us WITH BRAINS, it requires evidence for you to refute the facts. So far, none. So who cares what you think? The echo chamber between your ears is deafening to you turnip.
So far, you have a very stupid opinion and NOTHING else.
And it comes out! “denier”. Wow! Do you think HD that you can get any more childish? What a pathetic ad hominem. But then the source is just as pathetic.
Why don’t you define what is being denied little man. Let’s see if they told you that at OFA(l) school.
Poor President Obama. The continuing pattern of apparent deceit is self-inflicted “dirt.”
Or hasn’t everybody heard? Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. There have been far more than three instances of apparent deceit.
Not that President Obama is doing anything different from President Bush, or President Clinton, or President Bush, or President Reagan, or President Carter or President Ford, or President Nixon, or President Johnson or President Kennedy…
For example, President Johnson’s war record:
http://hnn.us/article/153
There is good news in this: no President Kerry!
So now it’s the publicist…
About par for the course. President Obama tosses everybody under the bus–especially his supporters. Then he raises his arms and does a victory lap. “I win!”
Fortunately he still has enough sense to refrain from doing a happy dance on the corpses.
His grandmother.
His reverend and best friend, Jeramiah Wright.
His mentor and best friend, Bill Ayers.
DevGru, the SEAL team that got bin Laden.
Now a publicist.
Nice to have so many fall upon their swords. Who’s next?
Just remember–somebody else did it! You have the President’s word!
Reminds me of Donald Duck’s theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhlf6pfZpXU
Entertain yourself. Follow the link. It’s 28 seconds.
This discussion, especially Obama’s defenders, make me smell quite a bit of smoke under the pile of cover-ups.
You SHOULD be smelling smoke.
The entire birther movement has been composed exclusively of people blowing smoke for six years.
You keep denying the point of this post: “Obama was the original “Birther”.
(Are you working on your list of other denials? Do you deny Obama said he had been to “57 States”? Add it to your list….)
I do more than merely deny it, young geran. I have demonstrated beyond serious challenge that the claim is untrue.
morondude again – liar! You have yet to produce any evidence. All you have proven is that you are clueless about the difference between facts and opinions.
No, you have demonstrated that you are confused, living in denial, and obsessed with defending Obama. That’s all you’ve really demonstrated, but you will deny that also.
Of course I deny it. It is untrue.
Denying without citation is merely being a denier. And has no weight. Again, put up or shut up. The truth is not your whipping boy.
It is the cover-ups that stink to high heaven.
Every employer I worked for got my transcripts straight from high school and univ. The last employer even had a Pinkerton agent investigate me. Yet we citizens of the USA, EMPLOYERS of Obama are not allowed to look at his college transcripts? Millions are spent hiding his past?
STINKS….
Ah but his was to be the “Most Transparent Administration in History”.
As to those claims of an April fools prank, that ever so transparent administration could have released the information to refute the claims.
Then there is this lame excuse: And the reason that Obama did not show his grades is, wait for it, simply because Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents and presidential candidates did not show their grades either.
It looks as if the liar-in-chief’s decision was to follow the crowd.
Making it a deliberate choice to make that pledge to be the “Most Transparent Administration in History” a total lie.
For a “cover-up” to do any thing… stink, dance, play tennis… it must first exist. Barack Obama has released more proof of his citizenship and identity than any other President or Presidential candidate in all of US history. If one is going to accuse any president of covering up their personal records, Obama would objectively fall to 43rd place on that list.
However, it seems that you are compelled (for a reason I cannot begin to fathom) to want this particular President to jump through additional hoops that no other President has ever been asked to navigate. It is entirely within your rights to want to see anything you want to see.
I want to win the lottery. Life is just filled with little disappointments.
But rejoice! If you are unsatisfied with what you have seen, you have a powerful Constitutional remedy for that disappointment. It is among the greatest gift of our Constitutional Republic,
Do not vote for him.
😆 – The cover up does exist! it does not matter which president did what! Obama was asked and then refused to release. That is a cover up! moron!
Now if there is nothing there, then it is just a stupid coverup. Which given the mental prowess of Obama is probably true. But it exists. And it stinks. And you saying “no it does not” does not change the facts! idiot.
@Shazaam
If the standard for “transparency” is the release of personal records, Obama has objectively achieved the status of the most transparent President in all of US history.
😆 – More newspeak from the morondude!
The simple fact is less is known about Obama’s life than any other president! And that is called “opaque” not “transparent”.
You really need to learn English.
@Shazaam
I’ll just let you sit their, stewing the stupidity of suggesting that anybody, let alone the President of United States, should release personal records to refute an April Fools prank.
You guys are a hoot.
It was Obama’s prank. Nice way to duck the issue! Hmm, do we know what Boosh’s transcripts are? Shazaam! (Gomer Pyle, not Captain Marvel morondude) We DO! We even know Kerry’s transcripts! But do we know Obama’s?
Nope. Yep! That is a good fools joke on you.
philjourdain said: “Obama was asked and then refused to release. That is a cover up! moron!”
No it isn’t. The fact that birthers, Obama’s enemies, asked for something does not mean that he has to provide it. MItt Romney and John McCain did not provide their grades either, and MItt Romney only provided two years of tax returns despite being asked for more.
Ok, turnip, quote where I said he HAD to provide it.
Another non sequitur from the vegetable.
philjourdan said: “Ok, turnip, quote where I said he HAD to provide it.”
Answer. You and I agree that he did not have to provide it—and so he didn’t provide it. Obama did not provide his school or college records because he did not have to provide them. The birther claim that he “sealed” his records is FALSE. He simply did not provide them.
It is true that no POTUS Candidate or POTUS has a duty to disclose ANYTHING under election laws as they are deemed to be vetted by the Political Party with which they are affiliated in the 1st instant, the Press in the 2nd, the Electorate in the 3rd and the Electoral college and the Congress in the 4th instances.
A Statesman, it would seem, would not fail to disclose any information regarding their personal history, the good, the bad and the ugly, thereby fleshing out their character of a Statesman worthy of the Office they seek.
With holding information raises more questions that go directly to the character of the person.
Failing to provide verifiable documentation has proven the nature of the “0”s character while accomplishing his true purpose of instigating inquiries into various facts of his persona, that is he KNOWINGLY scoffs at the A2S1C5 provision using the manufactured “ambiguity” of its Constitutional meaning and intent for its usage as a legal-loop-hole so that he, with the support of the Democrat-Nationalist-Socialist Party and its complicit partners could Usurp the Office and further diminish the authorities of the COTUS.
Although the Executive Order below does not address “personal document”, once a person occupies the Office of POTUS ALL documents become “Presidential Records”
Executive Order 13489 of January 21, 2009
Presidential Records
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.
(a) ? Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) ? The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) ? If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) ? If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sealed turnip! You do not have to be a court to SEAL a record. If you refuse to voluntarily release it, you are SEALING IT.
I do not care what your ignorant opinion causes you to believe. Go look up the definition – if you know how to use a dictionary turnip.
For the last time, morondude – this is not about your conspiracy theory! This is about who ORIGINATED IT. And that is the smoke she is smelling. And your moronic protestations are merely confirming it.
philjourdan says:
“For the last time, morondude – this is not about your conspiracy theory! This is about who ORIGINATED IT.”
Answer: Okay, the mistake by the literary agent appears to have been the start of it. If that is all you are interested in, her mistake started it.
Of course, birthers did CONTINUE it, and made up their own lies to do that—but you are not interested in those additional facts (I wonder why not???)
Evidence turnip. Evidence. As in you still have none. But at least after hundreds of posts, you finally got the question correct. I guess you can teach a vegetable – with enough patience.
philjourdan said: “Evidence turnip. Evidence. As in you still have none.”
The evidence that Obama did not say that he was born in Kenya in the bio blurb in 1991 is that (1) He had said that he was born IN HAWAII in interviews in1990 and wrote that he was born IN HAWAII in his book in 1995 so it does not make sense for him to have switched from “I was born in Hawaii” to “I was born in Kenya” and then back to “I was born in Hawaii.” AND there is no evidence that he ever said “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 only the claim that the publicist is lying when she said that SHE made the mistake. But in fact she is telling the truth about making the mistake, and YOU are lying about her.
No turnip. That is not evidence. I already showed you where the statement was made by the NY Crimes, NOT OBAMA turnip!
And it was NOT about his bio. So that is 2 strikes against you turnip.
They try to weave a story of bumbling, incompetence, and coincidence and expect people to believe it. They have never heard of Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s razor: The simplest explanation is likely to be the right explanation.
Do people make mistakes? Yes. When people admit to making mistakes, are they likely to be lying? No.
Occam’s razor = she told the truth when she admitted to making a mistake.
BTW, it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
Yes, it was a mistake to teach you to type. But then turnips got to do something.
Occams Razor does not state the “simplest”. It states the simplest that FITS the facts. Not opinions. Not hyperbole. Not lies. FACTS. So far, you have presented none.
Occam’s razor: The
simplestmost politically advantageous explanation is likely to be the right explanation.You are talking politics and the rep of a President. The explanation by his supporters will be the one that does him the least damage/ puts him in the best light.
The fact that Obama’s Supporters/Disinfo agents are STILL pounding on this point after over a week on a minor conservative blog shows that trying to get people to believe it was Miriam’s ‘mistake’ and not Obama’s is very POLITICALLY IMPORTANT.
philjourdan said: “Occams Razor does not state the “simplest”. It states the simplest that FITS the facts. Not opinions. Not hyperbole. Not lies. FACTS. So far, you have presented none.”
The facts are that Obama had stated that he was born IN Hawaii in newspaper interviews in 1990 and in his book in 1995, so it is complex (and unproven) to think that he switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995. AND the publicist said that she made a mistake.
The simplest explanation that fits all of the facts shown above is that the publicist really did make a mistake and is not lying.
No the facts do not turnip! learn what a quote is moron. The article does not have quote marks around it or even an indication Obama SAID it moron. (and it is ONE article, not more than one – another lie by you).
What Obama believes then and now ONLY he knows, so stop speaking for him turnip. You are not Obama no matter how much you want to be.
Evidence moron. learn what a quote is.
smrstrauss,
You are pathetic. I hope you get paid well for your efforts. You have pushed this thread to over 650 comments, nearly half are yours. Give it a rest.
He gets paid by the word. That is the reason there are so many non sequiturs, lies, opinions and stupid statements by him. In that, he is defrauding OFA(l) so I do not care how many words he writes. Most of them are unintelligible in any event.
From Huff ‘n Puff on writing Author Bios:
And another look into the subject of Author Bios
Wantabe writers are a dime a dozen. There is no way in He!! an editor is going to waste time Interviewing and handholding a new writer through something as simple as a bio. The person is a WRITER isn’t he? So let HIM do the writing. Just be glad they are giving you a chance to get published.
That’s probably all great advice for somebody off the street… what you called “Wantabe writers (who) are a dime a dozen
Obama was instead pursued and solicited to write his book after becoming the first black President of the Harvard Law Review.
Notice the contradiction. First morondude says no one saw a bio produced for 17 years. Then he says that everyone wanted to write it however!
Yep! He has more twists and spins than a sit and spin on a twister sheet.
The bottom line is that the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making a mistake and that Obama did not tell her that he was born in Kenya nor write it, nor did she show her writing to him to check, nor did she tell him when she put it online so that he could not fix it.
Here is what she said:
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
YOU have claimed that the above statement is a lie, but you have no evidence to disprove what she said, and it was an easy mistake to make because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
Turnip is still reading impaired.
#1 – I HAVE NOT stated anything. I have reported the FACTS
#2 – I have EXPRESSED incredulity that the number of lies, incompetence, malfeasance, ignorance and stupidity needed to make your OPINION true defies belief.
#3 – YOU have not stated a single fact. Just ignorance, stupidity, and lies.
philjourdan said:
“#3 – YOU have not stated a single fact. Just ignorance, stupidity, and lies.”
Answer: The FACTS are once again that Obama had said in press interviews in 1990 that he was born IN HAWAII. That is a fact—want to see the links?
And, the facts are once again that Obama said in his book Dreams from My Father that he was born IN HAWAII in 1995, want to see confirmation?
AND it is a fact that Obama’s father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and that he was born in Kenya.
And it is A FACT that the publicist admitted to making a mistake about the place of birth of Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II.
There are NO facts whatever to support your claim that Obama switched from saying “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995 AND that the publicist is lying.
That’s what YOU calm, but there is no evidence to support that claim. RATIONAL people will agree that she is not lying in making such a simple mistake and that she really did not show what she wrote to Obama and the simple reason that the mistake was not found for so many many years was just that Obama was never told that it was online so he could not fix it.
Liar Turnip.
#1 – Obama did not state that in your sole source. if he had, attribution would have been required. There was none turnip.
#2 – contrary to your gold fish memory, 1990 is NOT 1991.
No one cares what you believe. No one cares what Obama believes. I said evidence turnip. So far, still none from the vegetable.
philjourdan said: “There was no other choice but to declare it a mistake. Do you think she was going to destroy Obama, no matter what the truth was. Fact is, it HAD to be a mistake, no other choice. You have zero ways to prove it was a mistake. Logic would consider the length of time it persisted..”
There have been mistakes that persisted for even longer than 17 years, and the simple explanation that this one was not fixed is that Obama was never told that it was online, so he couldn’t fix it.
To be sure, the publicist MIGHT want to lie for Obama, or might not—but the fact of the matter is that you do not know that she DID lie for Obama. For her to have lied, Obama would have had to have lied and said that he was born IN KENYA in 1991 (although his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, and his book shows that he had seen his Hawaii birth certificate as a child). So, to say that he was born In Kenya would have been a lie.
But Obama had said that he was born IN HAWAII in newspaper interviews in 1990 and he then said that he was born IN HAWAII in his book in 1995. So, for the publicist to be lying in saying that SHE made the mistake in 1991, Obama would have had to have switched from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in 1995.
And the fact is that Obamas’ father’s name was Barack Hussein Obama I, and he WAS born in Kenya.
So the publicist was not lying when she admits to making such a simple MISTAKE, and that she did not get the information from Obama or show what she wrote to Obama or tell him that it was put online so that he could not fix it.
Someday the mistake that is you will have lasted 17 years. But not yet turnip.
Evidence turnip. You have none. Quelle Surprise.
Again, your opinion is worthless. Facts. So far you have provided none turnip.
There was no other choice but to declare it a mistake. Do you think she was going to destroy Obama, no matter what the truth was. Fact is, it HAD to be a mistake, no other choice. You have zero ways to prove it was a mistake. Logic would consider the length of time it persisted and the possibilities of correcting it before it became a thorn in the side, along with other quotes in papers. It would raise a red flag to any unbiased person and to accept someone declaring it was a mistake demands a great deal of trust that seems unwarranted.
Mr. Banks: Just a moment, Mary Poppins. What is the meaning of this outrage?
Mary Poppins: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?
Mary Poppins: First of all, I would like to make one thing quite clear.
Mr. Banks: Yes?
Mary Poppins: I never explain anything
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/quotes
So, is President Obama channeling Mary Poppins? Or is it simply that the mainstream news media doesn’t press him to ‘splain things?
HistorianDude says; @slcraignbc
I sympathize with you completely. Saddled as you are with an opinion at such complete opposition to all history, law and evidence, the temptation to distort ordinary language beyond recognition in order to force it into the Procrustean bed of your prejudice must be overwhelming. But you are not so good a surgeon, and your patient has bled to death from the amputations before it ever got into the bed.
Show me what words that I distort in ANY fashion, let alone history Law and evidence. Your declaring it without identifying of what you refer is offensive to the rules of debate and polite discussion.
First, let’s consider the EFFECTIVE difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen who is not natural born. Leave aside the arcane minutia regarding the definition, and focus entirely on the EFFECTIVE difference. There is (as far as I can tell) only a single difference between a natural born citizen and any other who is not natural born.
This is eligibility for the Presidency.
That is a correct summary of the status of a U.S. natural born Citizen vs that of a U.S. Citizen, (of any other hyphenation).
But that ONLY refers to the “eligibility” as stipulated in A2S1C5, which is, in fact, a constitutionally attached TRANSIENT POLITICAL ASPECT to the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen that did NOT exist prior to the COTUS and ONLY becomes relevant when a person stands for consideration of the Office.
But by the attachment of the Transient Political Aspect comes the REQUIREMENT that U.S. natural born Citizens MUST exist within the electorate population in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied.
That they MUST EXIST can be further considered when discussing the 1790 Act and the usage of the term of words and the requisite circumstances that produce a U.S. natural born Citizen.
So, to reflect back on the EFFECTIVE consequences of the Naturalization Act of 1790, what conceivable reason could the Congress have “considered as natural born Citizens” the “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” if not to declare them eligible for the Presidency?
That is not a rhetorical question. I’d love to hear your answer.
Well, I’ll be happy to explain.
Your “constructive interpretation” REQUIRES that ONLY foreign-born “U.S. natural born Citizens” exist, whereas my Statutory Interpretation PROVES that they exist being born ‘elsewhere’ concurrently, i.e., within the limits of the U.S
“Exist” is meant to convey that the requisite circumstances of their birth occur, under the Act, anywhere in the world including within the limits of the U.S., with the “modifier” of “considered as” being attached to those born abroad.
Whether they would be “eligible” for the Office of POTUS could have been the subject of contest * ,………. but having never arisen it is left to speculation, just as is the reasoning behind providing for “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizens in the 1st place.
John Jay was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation at the time of the Ratification and its probable that he sent many men and families abroad in service of the interests of the impending new Nation. It may have been in concern for those that may have children while abroad being excluded in an Ex Post Facto fashion that such a provision was made.
Offered as considered speculation.
Remember also, this clause is not the only use of the magic (to you) phrase “considered as” in the 1790 Statute. The law first gives a comprehensive set of requirements for the voluntary naturalization of aliens, and declares that after having met them that “thereupon such person shall be CONSIDERED AS a Citizen of the United States.” (emphasis added)
Exactly, being considered as equal in station in all things with existing U.S. Citizens, SAVE ONE, and subject to evidence of prior bad acts and or misinformation for the purpose of evasion, etc etc,, and so it goes when a person is a “naturalized (note hyphenation) U.S. Citizen.
An advocate of your position, had they any intellectual integrity, would have to consequently affirm the idiotic and absurd contention that somehow a naturalized person is not really Citizen of the United States after all. But wait… one clause later the Congress is at it yet again. Not only is the naturalized citizen to be “considered as a Citizen of the United States,” their minor children “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
The actual language in whole is; “ … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States….” Again, with the same “subject to’ and “hyphenation” as the parents.
Your “reasoning” here (if applied without hypocrisy) essentially turns the entire 1790 law into a bad farce, posing as a uniform rule of naturalization, but instead creating an entire class of faux “citizens of the United States” who apparently are not citizens after all. While you may not yet be grasping the transcendent insufficiency of your reasoning here, rest assured that no one else is deceived.
It is you and those who would agree with you that are deceiving yourselves.
NATURALIZATION is NOT a RIGHT, but, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, (subject to conditions and provisions of the COTUS and ITS Laws)
.
ALL U.S. Citizens face the prospect of having elements of their Citizenship Rights stripped from them based on acts they may commit or offenses against Acts the Congress may make and of course the right of expatriation..
But to be specific; in part;
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part III › § 1481
8 U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
So, with the prior two sections OF THE VERY SAME STATUTE as precedent, we have no trouble divining exactly what the Congress meant by the phrase “considered as natural born Citizens.” It means that they ACTUALLY ARE natural born citizens. If it does not mean that, then the entire Naturalization of Act of 1790 fails to naturalize anybody at all.
What you are protesting is your own thoughts I suppose because I never suggested that persons would not be naturalized under the Act.
Further, in the initial two instances of the statute’s use of the magic (to you) phrase “considered as” the class of citizen considered was the unadorned “Citizen of the United States.” And of course, this makes sense since they are speaking explicitly of naturalized citizens which are excluded from status as natural born. But in the third instance of usage, the class was “natural born Citizen.” Certainly, there was no obligation for Congress to make that distinction unless it had some intended effect. Congress could very well have simply declared them “Citizens of the United States” as in the previous two instances and then, in that way, actually supported your argument. But they did not.
If Congress had intended them to NOT be eligible for the Presidency then by definition they could NOT be said to be “considered as” natural born Citizens” at all. And yet, Congress said that they WERE “considered as” natural born citizens. There is no way to logically reconcile your argument with the actual statute itself.
So, here we are. Unless and until you are able to find for us an effective difference OTHER THAN eligibility for the Presidency between the two classes of citizen, the only possible conclusion is that the intent of Congress was exclusively to declare that those persons (but not the others) were eligible for the Presidency. And since the Constitution also tells us that the President must be a natural born citizen, the Constitution and the Statute in conjunction can drive only one possible conclusion. It declares “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to ACTUALLY BE “natural born Citizens.”
With the exception noted above*(being conjectured speculation) you reinforce the statutory interpretation I make that U.S. natural born Citizens MUST exist by virtue of the Constitutionally attached Transient Political Aspect being IMPERATIVE to the legal occupation of the office of POTUS.
Stipulated.
I could leave your argument in ruins here, but I want to cover one more facet. It is subtle, and so risks being completely misconstrued in your ferocious compulsion to parse and whittle. But it does go some way to account for the dissonance you feel when considering the phrase “considered as.”
In the history of Anglo-American Common Law (from which “natural born citizen” derives as a term of art) the concept arose purely as an expression of the jus soli established allegiance between ruler and subject. This was the original, narrow and exclusively common law derived meaning of the term. The extension of natural born subject-hood/citizenship to the children of Englishmen born beyond the seas was not via the common law but via the statutory prerogatives of parliament. And it came some centuries IIRC later than the original common law definition. As a result, simply the temporal seniority of one version of natural born subject versus the other version establishes a “counterpart.” Both are identical in status and effect. They are simply two different ways of obtaining that status. They CAN be discriminated between each other… but not in any way that rescues your argument from impotence.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is doing exactly the same thing as the parliamentary statues that extended the definition of natural born subject beyond the purely common law definition. But unlike the parliamentary acts, it is not an extension but instead a declaration of continuity between the American law of the new nation and the English law from which it largely derived.
Here you go out into the weeds and depart from the rules of STATUTORY INTERPRETATION which places some limits on where one may resort.
You speak of the SOURCE of this and that which has NO statutory basis.
The Congress was mandated to “establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization” under the “enumerated powers section” of the POTUS with the “plenary power” to enforce it “throughout the United States.
I see NO mention of Feudal Laws or ancient doctrines in the words of the Congressional Acts.
I do see and have expressed that the statutory interpretation of the Clause its-self that provides for the characterization of saying;
“establish a uniform common law of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization throughout the United States”
As well as being able to characterize the provisions of the 1790 Act as saying; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise. (Subject to conditions and provisions as enacted by the Congress). based on the effects that the actual words require.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Children born to US citizens traveling abroad MAY be Natural Born Citizens.
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Notice the “OR.”
Or they might not. Notice that the Heritage Foundation says that that is “much less certain.”
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
But there is no question whatever that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and of members of invading enemy armies.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.
In addition, there are articles like this:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
and this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
and this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett
The 1795 Act of the Congress REPEALED the “foreign born” U.S. natural born provision that was within the 1790 Act.
I do not find a REPEAL of the REPEAL or a RE-ENACTMENT of the “foreign born” U.S. natural born provision so I fell on safe ground saying that the proposition you assert is unsupportable under the ACTUAL LAWS of the U.S.
As for ALL of the cases you cite, please go back into the transcript and let me know how many of the parents called “foreign” had NATURALIZED prior to the birth of the child, etc.
Being “foreign born” is not a bar to being ‘naturalized’ by definition of both the noun and verb sense of the word “naturalization”.
Re: “how many of the parents called “foreign” had NATURALIZED prior to the birth of the child, etc.”
NONE of them.
Obama’s father was not naturalized, nor were any of the parents in these other cases.
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
YOU see, NONE of them were naturalized. ALL of them were Natural Born Citizens due entirely to their place of birth—-which means that Rubio and JIndal are like Obama Natural Born Citizens FOR SURE. Cruz MAY be since he was never naturalized, but, as I showed, there are some who have doubts, including the Heritage Foundation book on the Constitution.
In any case, to repeat, NONE of their parents were naturalized before the children were born.
Well, I greatly appreciate the citations you posted as I have sued the the U.S. in Fed Courts and Agencies as well as State Courts attempting to be acknowledged as a ‘U.S. natural born Citizen” and have been told that the best they could do was acknowledge me a being a “native-born U.S. Citizen.
But now, with these citations expressing an un-Constitution and Statutorily unsupported identification of the children of alien foreign nationals along with any others I suppose I may find in the dockets of DEPORTATION COURTS, I ‘m going to file again.
So thank you for exposing me to those cases, I would never had thought to look there given that it was the USCIS that told me all they could do was acknowledge me as being a “native-born U.S. Citizen”
Oh? Can you point us to the passage in the court decision where they said that “the best they could do was acknowledge (you) a being a ‘native-born U.S. Citizen'”? I’d love to see exactly how they said that.
That was from the “Administrative Appeals Court” in an action against the USCIS that ended up in the USCA 10th on Administrative Appeal.
I’m away from my files at the moment but it’s in the record at the USCA 10th under Craig v U.S as exhibit of cause .
The case was ultimately dismissed because I wasn’t under an order of Deportation…..
Wouldn’t you think an agency named “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service” would be able to answer a simple question…???
Here’s a copy and paste from the current “Citizen’s Almanac” published by the GPO for the USCIS:
* U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.
Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with
the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which
require candidates to be native-born citizens.
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/M-76.pdf
slcraignbc said:
“But now, with these citations expressing an un-Constitution and Statutorily unsupported identification of the children of alien foreign nationals along with any others..”
Answer: You have the right to disagree with the rulings, but THEY are the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen, not your dreams.
BTW, do you consider the Heritage Foundation to be “un-constitutional?”
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
So an American Statesman quotes English Common Law interpretations of Statutes on British Nationality to SUGGEST that “PLACE” makes a person such and such which would NOT have been possible upon the Ratification of the Constitution as the COTUS did not say so and the 1790 Act specifically excludes PLACE as a determining factor except in the two instances referring to children, 1st the alien children MADE Citizens concurrent with fathers naturalization and 2nd, a child born to two (2) Citizen parents, specifically while abroad and by EFFECTS of the two provisions also within the limits of the U.S.
Long sentence to keep you up late.
The 1790 naturalization act was REPEALED. Hence it has no effect whatever. What counts is what the US SUPREME COURT RULED, and as the cases I cited all show, the US Supreme Court RULED in the Wong Kim Ark decison that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and referred to the PLACE of birth. That’s why Meese is right, and the 13 appeals court cases, and you are wrong. Oh, and there is not a single example of a member of the Constitutional Convention EVER using the term Natural Born Citizen (or even simply “Natural Born”) to refer to parents.
Well, the problem is the explanations, definitions, the Constitution its-self was not written in a manner so that the most simple-minded people in the room would be able to understand all of its parts and how they work together without thinking at all.
Here we have a situation where the Framers wrote a provision about the Office of POTUS that has a provision that requires the ability to distinguish between forms of Citizenship, allowing for one form and one form only and EXCLUDING ALL OTHERS that the Congress may provide for in the future.
There were NO U.S. Citizens prior to the Ratification of the COTUS, by definition . But there were enough “WE THE PEOPLE” to agree on the Ratification of the COTUS. The day before they were all State Citizens under a Confederation of Independent States in a Perpetual Union and the next day they were United States Citizens of the New NATION with a general government throughout the States.
So the canard of “natural born Citizen” of the natural law and or English Common Law is an “explanation and definition” that the SIMPLE-MINDED cling to because to accept that the 1st U.S. Congress ESTABLISHED the UNIFORM RULE of U.S. Citizenship under the DOCTRINE of NATURALIZATION would REQUIRE some critical thinking.
NOWHERE in ANY ACT or Amendment OTHER than the COTUS and the 1790 Act is the creature known as a U.S. natural born Citizen mentioned in the Laws of the U.S.
So to accept that the Courts can MAKE them within circumstances that are not CONSISTENT with the 1790 Act as revised by the 1795 Act is to accept simple-mindedness as your proper station in life.
Re: “There were NO U.S. Citizens prior to the Ratification of the COTUS, by definition ”
You forget the Articles of Confederation.
Re meaning of Natural Born Citizen. The Heritage Foundation book and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision are correct and you are wrong.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
BTW, the writers of the US Constitution had two friends who wrote books about it while many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were still alive, and those two legal experts, Tucker and Rawle, used Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born was used in the common law.
Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And John Jay, who was apparently the first US leader to have used the term Natural Born Citizen, was an EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW. If he had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born from that in the common law, he would have said so. And no quotation can be found from ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just “natural born”) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
The “Articles of Confederation” are NOT part of the United States of America. idiot. It predates it. It has no more leverage than the English Crown law.
philjourdan said: “The “Articles of Confederation” are NOT part of the United States of America. idiot. It predates it.”
Poor phil — no background in US history. Yet he hopes to convince people that his interpretation of the US Constitution is correct when the US Supreme Court has stated an entirely different meaning.
Show me where the SCOTUS said it was giving a meaning of a U.S. natural born Citizens for the purpose of it being applied to A2S1C5.
Poor turnip, does not understand that the ancestors are NOT the individual.
It is a part of the history of the country. It is NOT the country. It was not the United States when it was 13 colonies of England. it was NOT the United States when they were bound what is in effect a loose confederation (hence why it is called the Articles of CONFEDERATION).
I guess I was wrong. Turnips cannot be taught.
Hey moron! I guess you write like you research.
Try this one – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
philjourdan has cited the US code on citizenship, which in fact confirms that every child born on US soil is a US citizen at birth (except for the children of foreign diplomats). The US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born on US soil, every citizen at birth, is a Natural Born US citizen.
Wrong turnip! It gives EIGHT (8) scenarios of WHO is an NBC. And 2 of them apply DIRECTLY to Obama even if he was NOT born in the US.
Turnips are so stupid.
Testing bbcode: emphasized strong
@slcraignbc
You started in an earlier post by rewriting Article II Clause 4 (no longer 5) of the US Constitution by fraudulently inserting a fictional 7 words prohibition of dual citizens from presidential eligibility. That was certainly the most egregious example in this particular set of comments. But in this case I was referring specifically to your violent reinterpretation of the two-word English phrase “considered as.”
As long as it remains the only effective difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen who is not natural born, so what? I also note that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed three years post COTUS, and as such, the “transient political aspect” of which you speak was fully in force.
Gong.
As you may recall, the grandfather clause provided a minimum 24 year window during which no natural born citizens need exist at all for the office of POTUS to be legally occupied. It would be (after all) 1811 before any natural born US citizen would be old enough to meet the second of the three eligibility requirements for the Presidency. Natural born US citizens absolutely already DID exist during the period during which the Constitution was framed and ratified. Unfortunately, the oldest of them was only 11 years old. That is the reason we needed a grandfather clause in the first place.
So your handwringing over whether or not “natural born Citizens MUST exist” is covered. Thanks for your concern, but we got that one checked off, no problem.
That is among the dumbest things I have ever read. My interpretation requires no such thing. Entire herds of cattle in Montana risk starvation at your misuse of so much straw. The extension of natural born citizenship status to the children pf citizens born beyond the seas does not magically revoke the common law definition of natural born citizen that by that point already had a 300 year old history.
Prior to the Naturalization Act of 1790, at least one group of natural born US citizens already existed; i.e. those born on US soil who were not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation. It can be debated whether or not the relevant clause of the 1790 act established a new group or was simply declaratory of what was already understood by the Framers. But either way, following that act there were at least two groups of natural born US citizens; i.e. the first group augmented now by the children of citizens born beyond the seas.
Though they gained their natural born citizenship via two different mechanisms, both are natural born citizens and both are eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution.
Anything can be the subject of contest. Even things unworthy of being subjects of contest. Even when the offered contest is entirely without legal merit.
That would be a more compelling claim had you made a serious effort to challenge my argument. Instead, you set up a straw man so surreal as to be worthy of framing. I note that to this point, you have yet to actually disagree with anything I wrote, and in fact you have explicitly agreed with my foundational observation; that the only effective difference between natural born and any other citizens is eligibility for the Presidency.
Of course you didn’t suggest it. It is quite clear that you never even noticed it. But your anomalous and tendentious usage of the phrase “considered as” demands it.
You cannot argue that the 1790 act does not actually make the children of citizens born overseas natural born citizens without also arguing that the act does not actually naturalize anybody.
I have read that statement five times. I have concluded that it is entirely devoid of meaning. Or at least of significance. It certainly makes no argument whatsoever against my prior post, and adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
In point of fact… you have not disagreed with anything I actually wrote.
LOL… seriously? You pretend to assert by fiat that there are “limits on where one may resort”? My father would have immediately responded in his thick East Coast accent, “Who died and made you boss?”
Certainly, the US judiciary recognizes no such limits. As Justice Gray noted in US v. Wing Kim Ark, “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Neither, I should point out, does the United States Constitution.
And your personal myopia is, in your mind, a compelling argument on what issue? I simply note in passing that no member of the US Supreme Court could likely suppress a chuckle at the suggestion. Read again what Justice Gray had to say on that issue.
Thanks for playing. Perhaps someday you will disagree with me, and then we can have a real argument.
I am sorry that you are unable to reply to my comments without twisting what I say so that your responses become more about your twisted thoughts than about what I actually say.
But thanks to one of your sidekicks I now have a missing-link that will allow me to fast-track the case I’ve been preparing so I’ll leave you better informed whether you acknowledge it of not and see you at the polling places Nov ’14, ’16.
Buh-bye.
You have to be a burned out politician. I have never seen so many words used to say absolutely NOTHING. Your title fits you morondude.
HistorianDude says:
Hmmm…. I label your naive belief in “perfect handlers” as quaint, and you read that as having something to do with “the idea of honesty?” You guys never disappoint.
The rest of your diatribe was a leap from from incoherence to irrelevance. Hope it made you feel better though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ‘diatribe’ was not at all irrelevant to the USA and the governance of this country.
Actually the statement “Upon the path the liar-in-chief is currently on, the end result is a people that are ungovernable when they decide to emulate the example of their government leaders and ignore the laws. All laws.” is a major point. A point that where the Democrats and Obama have lost much ground.
Voters overwhelmingly believe that most members of Congress are for sale, and over half think it’s at least somewhat likely that their own representative has been bought with cash or a campaign contribution.
VIDEO: What America Thinks: Is Congress For Sale? “Most voters know Congress has been riding an historically low approval rating, typically sitting in the single digits. But there may be even worse news in store for our elected officials. With midterm elections looming…”
So what happens when voters start viewing their government with contempt? Shadow Economies Grow as People Flee High Taxes and Stiff Regulations
Knock yourself out with that diversion. At the moment, it is entirely uninteresting to me.
Oh, I am sure it is uninteresting to you until the ramifications finally bite you in the ass. That is the problem with the short sighted people who think that reality can be wished away. Those who are idiotic enough to believe the philosophy of Hegel and Marx
Some how they always seem to forget the reward for loyal servants who know too much… A bullet in the back of the neck. Willi Muenzenberg had the smarts to run when he was recalled back to Moscow but it didn’t save him in the end.
Ask Kent Clizbe, he is very knowledgeable on the subject.
Go have a beer.
I HATE beer.
I’m taking HD’s advice. It’s the wisest thing he’s said in two days!
Then do not comment on it morondude! Geez! I have seen mold with more intelligence than you.
Thanks Gail.
Those completely uninterested in history obviously will not learn from history (the easy way).
I think the liar-in-chief’s “Story Line Protection Team” is hard at work. So much to hide and gloss over, so little time.
The very reason this has so many comments, suppression team at work.
Which works like all of Obama’s other planning – miserably.
just think, in 2 more years, OFA(l) and the rest of the brownshirts will be just a statistic. on the unemployment line.
….About par for the course. President Obama tosses everybody under the bus–especially his supporters. Then he raises his arms and does a victory lap. “I win!”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You forgot one. Loretta Fuddy, the Hawaii official who verified and released Obama’s birth certificate died in a plane crash. The pilot and eight other passengers aboard the aircraft all survived without significant injuries.
Loretta Fuddy was chairwoman of Subud USA (a small cult one of whose members was Ann Soetoro, Obama’s mother.) The Subud cult has roots in Indonesia, and was founded by the Javanese Muslim Muhammed Subuh. The World Subud organization was based in.Chicago. Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s. Fuddy became Director in Hawaii in January 2011, just a few months before the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.
SubudVoice – 2011
Kinda handy to have the person connected to your Mama’s cult do the verification and even more convenient to have her be the ONLY person to die in a plane crash shortly there after.
I’m curious… what exactly was “convenient” about Loretta Fuddy’s death? Specifically? She is not the only official from the Hawaii Department of Health who has publicly verified the President’s birth. The DoH archives did not magically disappear with her death.
What exactly do you hallucinate is a reason that she might have been worthy of murder?
Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Soebarkah Bounel Soetoro Obama entire life is a series of misprints, typos, clerical errors, missing & destroyed documents.
and has used all these names.
Perhaps you think that people entering data never make mistakes?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/obamas-typos/
a lifetime of it? all a mistake? oops.. destroyed all your school documents?
Obama records which have not been released
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Passport records
Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released
Adoption records
Obama kindergarten records
Punahou School records
Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released
Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released
Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available
Harvard University records and transcripts – Not released
Harvard Law Review articles published — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Bar Association records
Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘said to be lost’
Illinois State Senate records — ‘said to be lost’
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
mauser98 has listed a long list of documents NOT released. Big deal. Obama does not have to release them–so what? Obama’s school records have not been “destroyed.” They simply have not been released because, duh, neither did Mitt Romney nor John McCain. The same for passport records, kindergarten records, parents marriage licenses, etc etc etc etc.
Correction, Obama’s parents’ divorce records are public and have been put online (though they were not released by Obama, of course) and they show that, wait for it, Obama’s parents were indeed married (a divorce is usually a good sign of marriage) and that they were divorce and that Obama’s mother got custody. Hardly shocking.
You cannot get a divorce unless you are married first. Bigamy is STILL illegal in all 50 states.
sorry, that should read: “and that they were divorced…”
Wow, Steve Goddard–you garnered more than 600 comments! This is the Western Front of the Great War with two entrenched sides annihilating everything and everybody in No Man’s Land. No prisoners! And anybody in the middle of the two positions vanishes like many French villages during that war.
Including the village that mentioned “the stories keep changing”–that village is caught in a barrage of “he was born in Hawaii” “was not!” “WAS TOO!”
While missing the simple statement that “the stories keep changing.”
Will there be a Christmas Truce and a soccer game held in No Man’s Land this year? Or will the partisans punish apostasy? If this is still active in 118 days, we’ll know!
http://www.xmasclock.com/
slcraignbc said “I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government..”
Me too. He was advising the writers of the Constitution not to allow NATURALIZED citizens to become president. But that is all. He was an EXPERT in the common law, so he was using the COMMON LAW meaning of Natural Born, which refers to the place of birth. He was saying that only children born on US soil should become president, and not naturalized citizens (none of whom are born on US soil, you know).
And there isn’t a particle of evidence that John Jay, an expert in the common law, was using Natural Born any differently than in the common law. And—guess what—there isn’t a single quotation from one single member of the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just Natural Born) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Hence the Heritage Foundation book is correct.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And so are Senators Hatch and Graham:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
And so is the Wall Street Journal:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
And so is the Wong Kim Ark ruling of the US Supreme Court (six justices to two justices, one did not vote), and so are the 13 legal decisions I cited above. Obama, having been born on US soil, in Hawaii (and the proof of that is overwhelming) is a Natural Born Citizen, and so are Rubio and Jindal. Cruz MAY be, but since he was born in Canada, maybe not. But EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (yes, even including the children of illegal aliens) is a Natural Born Citizen.
Nice try, but you and all those Opinions regarding “native Born” and “Dual-Citizen” and any other form of HYPHENATED Citizenship OTHER THAN what the Constitutional provision provides for are NOT Constitutional FORMS of a U.S. natural born Citizen.
The 14th WAS / IS and always will be a COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION PROVISION which COLLECTIVELY NATURALIZED all of the Emancipated black race.
To SAY otherwise is to say that those emancipated blacks at the time of the passage of the 14th did NOT become U.S. Citizens.
Just as the Ratification made all of those State Citizen into U.S. Citizens so too did the 14th by intent and effect of the words, make all of the emancipated blacks U.S. Citizens BECAUSE they were SUBJECT to the JURISDICTION thereof BECAUSE they WERE Stateless in their Political Character.
In order to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof: insofar as the 14th and its words are concerned a person MUST be born Stateless without it.
I doubt you’ll agree, but then that makes you a “history denier”, given that all the emancipated blacks went to bed Stateless one night and woke up U.S. Citizens the next day, COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION………..look at the Title in 8 USC ……….
slcraignbc said: “The 14th WAS / IS and always will be a COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION PROVISION which COLLECTIVELY NATURALIZED all of the Emancipated black race.”
Sure, and the tooth fairy is alive and well and giving out cash to all good girls and boys.
The 14th has nothing to do with the Natural Born part of Natural Born Citizen—only with the citizen part. The Natural Born part is the same as it was when the Constitution was written, and as the Heritage Foundation and the Wong Kim Ark case, and Tucker and Rawle (who knew the writers of the Constitution) all have said, the term comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.
You are permitted to dream, of course, but the 13 cases I have cited, and the quotations from the Heritage Foundation and Tucker and Rawle are the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen. And that, duh, is why that RINO, the Chief Justice of the USA, swore Obama in several times after each election, and that is why, duh, the US Supreme Court rejected a birther appeal of the Farrar Case in Georgia, which had held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That’s because it is true.
You really are obtuse aren’t you………….you connect to refuted propositions in order to refute a proposition I did not make……..
You say “Heritage Foundation and Tucker and Rawle are the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen….”
But that is TOTALLY unsupportable by the 1790 et seq Acts of the Congress who had / has plenary power over U.S. Citizenship naturalization……………and Jus Soli, aka, PLACE, is NOT a feature or circumstance of any provision in ANY Act except as incidentally regarding children of existing U.S. Citizens and newly MADE U.S. naturalized aliens.
But it’s obvious you have no clue of what you speak, parroting ignorance has you believing your an eagle…… …..
My previous response to your response to my previous response was poorly written, on point, but poorly written in the sense that I really did not convey my level of contempt for the citations that you blindly accept………..
……….you see, not ONE of them cite the ACTUAL LAW that guides them to their conclusion.
That’s because the Law, actual Law, would have them arrive at a different conclusion.
You say that the 13 legal decisions I cited above PROVE your position and yet not a single one were asked or answering a question on a U.S. natural born Citizen.
The 14th does not MAKE anyone a U.S. natural born Citizen. Soil does not make anyone a U.S. natural born Citizen. Blood does not make anyone a U.S. natural born Citizen.
But MORE importantly the COURTS do not make anyone a U.S. Citizen, natural born or otherwise.
You want citations then go read the U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet where all three overturned the existing STATE naturalization laws in favor of the 1790, ’95 Acts.
Why are THESE cases not cited…? Because they do NOT distort the laws they interpret and apply them.
In Tablot v Janson said after a thorough discussion of the English Laws continued;
” Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.
Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.
Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.
Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.
With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate.
On the 22nd of August, 1795 by Justice John Rutledge 2nd Chief Justice Nominated by George Washington Preceded by John Jay
So don’t give me the crap about the later Courts holding to ‘stare dicies” because if they had we would not be having these debates………
Your total misunderstanding of natural law, common law, and the history and PURPOSE of committing them to writing makes you and those that THINK like you so overwhelmingly obtuse that it makes my heart ache for the sacrifices that the Founding Patriots endured.
Can you really in your heart of hearts reconcile you obtuse proposition with the INTENT that John Jay had in mind when he penned the Letter to Geo. Washington….??? …and when finding that it does NOT reconcile would you seek to understand why….????
slcraignbc said: “But MORE importantly the COURTS do not make anyone a U.S. Citizen, natural born or otherwise.”
YOU are wrong. The final decision on what the Constitution means, short of a constitutional amendment overturning its ruling, is THE US SUPREME COURT, and it ruled that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case.
I cited 13 cases that all confirmed that the US Supreme Court had ruled it that in the Wong Kim Ark case, and indeed it did. Here are its words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
The above says that the meaning came from the common law (“by the law of England for the last three centuries”) and it says that the same rules were adopted in the colonies and the early states as were used in England, and it says that the same rule prevails “under the Constitution as originally established.”
So the meaning of Natural Born came from England. What then did it mean? It meant that “every child born in England of alien parents was a Natural Born subject.” And since the same rules applied in the colonies and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION–the rule applies in the United States. And therefore EVERY child born in the country, unless the child of a foreign diplomat or “an alien enemy in hostile occupation” is a Natural Born US citizen. EVERY child.
So the Heritage Foundation book is right and so are the 13 cases cited, and you are wrong.
The US Supreme Court is not going to take a birther case and reverse Wong Kim Ark. It already had the opportunity to do so, when it rejected the appeal of the Farrar case (which had ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen back in October 2012). So unless you get the US congress (two thirds of it) and THREE QUARTERS of the states to approve a new Constitutional amendment redefining Natural Born status to be based on parents, THE RULING OF THE WONG KIM ARK CASE IS THE LAW.
You can rant about “Natural Law” (about a dozen natural law philosophers all disagree on what that means), and you can speculate that John Jay, an expert in the common law, was not referring to the common law (highly unlikely) and that he wanted the president to exclude the US-born children of foreigners and not just naturalized citizens (but there is no evidence of that whatever), so the Heritage Foundation book and the 13 cases that I cited are still correct, and you are still wrong.
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
You expose your ignorance of the COTUS and the SCOTUS with these words;
” … YOU are wrong. The final decision on what the Constitution means, short of a constitutional amendment overturning its ruling, is THE US SUPREME COURT, and it ruled that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case….”
1st, WKA DID NOT say the lil’wong was a U.S. natural born Citizen ………but your ignorance goes deeper……..
…. Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison established the proposition that the SCOTUS is an arbiter when there is a QUESTION on the meaning of what the SCOTUS and its Amendments and Laws says, that is TRUE, however they CAN NOT MAKE LAW.
Now I know you will be confused by this and will probably not accept the correctness of it, but TRY to follow along.
1st, NOWHERE in the 14th is a U.S. natural born Citizen mentioned, ONLY U.S. Citizen.
A2S1C5 mentions BOTH U.S. Citizens and U.S. natural born Citizens and allows for U.S. Citizens to be POTUS until the passing of the Founding generation, thereby ESTABLISHING that the TWO are NOT one in the same.
So, by SCOTUS rhetorically MAKING U.S. natural born Citizens out of the words of the 14th Amendment which ONLY says U.S. Citizen they did indeed exceed the powers of the Branch by not limiting there inquiry to what the words of the Amendment required but they CHANGED the meaning of one from of U.S. Citizenship into another.
WKA is reversible on its OWN error and an Amendment is NOT necessary to correct it.
(That’s why I find the citations from the Deportation Courts so exciting because by the Courts using the words they do and linking them to the 14th allows for challenging their very usage as well as the POLICY applications of the WKA Opinion in whole with that linkage to a U.S. natural born Citizen by a Court where it is not found in ANY duly enacted LAW or Amendment other than the 1790 Act.)
slcraignbc l, said: “1st, WKA DID NOT say the lil’wong was a U.S. natural born Citizen…”
Answer: NO it didn’t. Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. The bottom line was that he was a citizen, the court ruled that—which is what it was supposed to do.
In addition it defined Natural Born Citizen. Here are its words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (“by the law of England for the last 300 years”), and it says that the same rule applied in the 13 original colonies and the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, and it says that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.
That is what the TEN appeals courts have all agreed that it said, and as the quotation says, in fact it did.
Re The US Supreme Court cannot make a law. Quite true, but it is the final legal authority on what THE CONSTITUTION MEANS, and the phrase Natural Born Citizen is in the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court has ruled on what it means, and as show above, it ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.
Unless and until the US Supreme Court reverses that (which it had a chance to do with the Farrar appeal but turned down) or you get a US Constitutional Amendment redefining Natural Born Citizen, that is the law.
I have read WKA more times than I care to and almost always puke, get angry or otherwise wonder how such a stupid man got on the bench………..but all I need to do to put to DISQUALIFY the entirity of it is to repeat the 1st Words:of it that you start with;
” … “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England……”
HEY, HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME, I’m talking about the U.S. Constitution and ITS Laws ……
As for the SCOTUS Opinions that DO support my position that the OLD LAWS of the COLINIES and INDIVIDUAL STATES were laid aside insofar as U.S. Citizenship and U.S. Citizenship naturalization is concerned see U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet all of which turned on the questions of whether the State Laws stood in light of the Congressional Acts of the Congress under the authority of A1S8C4…………..NO should be ringing in your ears, but if not yet read a summary re Collet v;
* It is remarkable that the argument in this case, turned entirely upon the point, whether the Federal power of naturalization was exclusive, or concurrent; and nothing was said by either side respecting the existence and operation of the act of Pennsylvania, which, as it depended in form and spirit on the old Constitution (State of Penn under the Articles of Confederation) was virtually repealed, when that Constitution was abolished. The ideas of the reporter on that subject, are contained in a note upon the naturalization laws of Pennsylvania, in his edition of the acts of the General Assembly, (1 Vol. p. 7. a) It may be proper to add, that there has since been a decision before Judge Biddle, in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, where the existence of the Pennsylvania law was the gift of the controversy: And in that case, as well as the case of the United States v. Vilatto (post.) the act of Assembly was adjudged to be obsolete.
If you’re having trouble with context of some of the statements above, suffice it to say that the Old Laws were laid aside in light of the “uniform Rule” that controls “throughout the United States”.
slcraignbc said: “I have read WKA more times than I care to and almost always puke, get angry or otherwise wonder how such a stupid man got on the bench……”
Answer: That ruling of the Supreme Court was the opinion of SIX justices, not only the one who wrote it, and only two voted against it (one justice did not vote).
As for the use of a term from English law, that is normal. Such terms as Habeas Coupus and Ex Post Facto come from the common law. The term Natural Born comes from the common law too—and that is not only Gray’s conclusion, but it was the conclusion in the Lynch v. Clarke case in 1844 and it was the conclusion of Tucker and Rawle, who were friends of the writers of the US Constitution in their writings in 1803 and 1829 as well. Moreover, there is not a single example of any of the members of the Constitutional Covention ever using the term Natural Born Citizen (or even simply Natural Born) to refer to the parents of a citizen. They only used it to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. And that is what the Heritage Foundation book concluded as well.
The cases that you cite do not mention the words Natural Born AT ALL.
The Heritage Foundation book is right.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
and you are wrong.
You are wrong given that the term of words and POLITICAL CONCEPT of “natural born Citizen proceeding the QUEEN Anne Statutes and the CODIFICATION of BRITISH Nationality ……..
But I relent and leave you to your self-imposed Constitutional ignorance and adherence to the rule of men of black-robes and disdain of the Rule of Law under the Constitution ……..
The LAW is to be found in the EFFECTS of the provisions in the 1790 Acts and had the black-robes that you rely on taken the time to read THOSE Acts they would have found NO NEED to RESORT ELSEWHERE…………..
au1corsair–you nailed it.
Obama should have taken responsibility to fix this YEARS ago. His lack of responsibility is what they are now trying to cover. The “cat is out of the bag”, and they can’t put him back in.
(While they order more kool-aid, we order more popcorn. Let the “wars” continue.)
Geran said: “Obama should have taken responsibility to fix this YEARS ago.”
Obama did fix it. He was the very first presidential candidate in US history to publish his birth certificate. (And the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly confirmed tha they sent it to him and all the facts on the published copies.)
Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year, and, BTW, he showed it way back in June 2008, five months before the election), and he also showed his long form Hawaii BC in April 2011.
And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts, are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. The fact that Hawaii issued a birth certificate for Obama in 1961 (when Hawaii was not allowed by its law to issue birth certificates to children born outside of Hawaii) is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notice in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspapers (which ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to) and by the INS inspector who checked on Obama’s father’s status and wrote: “one child, born in Honolulu”—and by the Hawaii teacher who wrote home about Stanley having a baby.
The fact that birther claim that with all the facts shown above the situation is not fixed simply shows their motives. What else would birthers do? Obama fixed the situation when he published the perfectly official perfectly valid short form birth certificate. The fact that birthers CLAIM that it (and the long form) are forged is again caused by their motives.
Also: There is no indication whatever that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy. Yet birthers hope a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that both of those happened and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and the officials of both parties are lying and the Index Data and the birth notices are forged and the INS inspector made an error in his “one child, born in Honolulu” note and the teacher who wrote home was lying. But you’d have to be terribly GULLIBLE to think that all of that happened.
The fact that Obama is a Lame Duck President and yet the dis-info Agents are swarming this blog sure looks like a cat busy covering something smelly. One wonders why they bother at this late date.
slcraignbc says:
August 28, 2014 at 3:31 pm
No, the ORIGINAL BIRTHER was John Jay and then the delegates of the Constitutional Convention and then each of the Ratifying States and then the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congresses
……….. then “ambiguity” started to get a foot-hold and distortions in the ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of (U.S.) Citizenship) of naturalization began distorting the effects of the LAW of the COTUS.
I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government……….. and although I sometimes feel alone in that belief, I can not help but to rely on the Hand of Divine Providence to open the eyes of my fellow countrymen………..
slcraignbc said “I stand with John Jay and believe that it is wise and seasonable to hinder foreign influence in the administration of the national government..”
Me too. He was advising the writers of the Constitution not to allow NATURALIZED citizens to become president. But that is all.
John Jay was an EXPERT in the common law, so he was using the COMMON LAW meaning of Natural Born, which refers to the place of birth. He was saying that only children born on US soil should become president, and not naturalized citizens (none of whom are born on US soil, you know).
And there isn’t a particle of evidence that John Jay, an expert in the common law, was using Natural Born any differently than in the common law. And—guess what—there isn’t a single quotation from one single member of the Constitutional Convention that ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just Natural Born) to refer to the citizenship of the parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Hence the Heritage Foundation book is correct.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And so are Senators Hatch and Graham:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
And so is the Wall Street Journal:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
And so is the Wong Kim Ark ruling of the US Supreme Court (six justices to two justices, one did not vote), and so are the 13 legal decisions I cited above. Obama, having been born on US soil, in Hawaii (and the proof of that is overwhelming) is a Natural Born Citizen, and so are Rubio and Jindal. Cruz MAY be, but since he was born in Canada, maybe not. But EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (yes, even including the children of illegal aliens) is a Natural Born Citizen.
Reblogged this on Liberalism is Trust Fucked with Prudence. Conservatism is Distrust Tainted with Fear and commented:
quit mediawhoresmanure
DNA of person born in usa is different than the same person born kenya. get the technology working and you have a home tun on birther dilemma.
re “dna”—that comes from the British NUT Shrimpton, who has claimed that he got it from British intelligence, but not shown any proof, and he BTW has claimed that four Biritish Prime Ministers were secret agents for Germany.
Oh, and Shripton’s story is even nuttier than that. It requires that Obama’s father brought Obama from Kenya to Hawaii—but it does not say how he did it (you know that infants cannot be carried into the USA without documents. [and if you say: “They are carried across the Mexican border, well sure, but Hawaii does not have a border with Mexico]) So somehow Obama’s father was able to get infant Obama from Kenya to Hawaii without getting a US visa for him, or that the application for that visa was lost or stolen.
AND then, in addition to getting Obama from Kenya to Hawaii without a visa, Obama’s father was able to convince the officials in Hawaii to issue a birth certificate that says that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital and to convince Stanley Ann to raise Obama as her son all of her life.
(Tell me why birthers are nutty enough to believe stories like this?)
quit mediawhoresmanure
DNA of person born in usa is different than the same person born kenya. get the technology working and you have a home tun on birther dilemma.
See above.
Turnip!
You know they are parrots when they chase white rabbits down bore holes!
Lost in the tidal wave of propaganda was the point of the original post: Namely that the most likely source of the “Birther” rumor was indeed the liar-in-chief, Obama himself.
Based on Obama’s track record of spin control and propaganda, I find the strained “explanations” of how the bio of a relatively unknown (at that time) was written by a stranger (who screwed it up) to be rather entertaining.
The Story Line Insertion / Protection Team (SLIPT) has over-sold and over-propagandized their position to the point of the ridiculous. I’ll give the SLIPT team an A for effort. Yet the point remains that they are attempting to defend the veracity of the liar-in-chief. And that is at best a herculean task (if not an impossible one).
If Obama called me up and told me the sun was shining outside, I would feel honor-bound to step outside to check before believing him.
I still do not find any of team SLIPT’s “explanations” credible. Especially in light of the tidal wave of spin and propaganda that has been visited upon the comments of this post.
I’ll bow out of this one. I am still not convinced by any of the alternative explanations. The simplest explanation (and premise of this post), that the liar-in-chief, Obama wrote the bio, is the most likely explanation. And Obama has worked diligently to earn that liar-in-chief title.
OK, team SLIPT. Propagandize away!!! (I’ll continue laughing at the massive propaganda effort)
Re: “Based on Obama’s track record of spin control and propaganda, I find the strained “explanations” of how the bio of a relatively unknown (at that time) was written by a stranger (who screwed it up) to be rather entertaining. ”
This is what the publicist, who was not a stranger but a professional working for the literary agent for Obama’s book, wrote:
”
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
YOU apparently claim that her statement is a lie. But you have no proof that Obama told her he was born in Kenya, and he had told previous newspaper interviews that he was BORN IN HAWAII, so his reversing himself and telling her that he was born in Kenya is farfetched. And it was easy to make that mistake because Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya.
So, why are you claiming that this woman—who you don’t even know—was lying???
You are kinder than I am. I do not give a pencil an “A” when the thought behind the words written is from the person wielding it. SO I give nothing to the SLIPT (or OFA(l)) group. As you can see from the moron and turnip, anyone can parrot a message. But they cannot do so on their own (hence the lack of evidence presented by either).
This has got to be a record for a minor blog: over 1000 comments. I’m not seeing an end to this–not yet. While not quite the “push Zion into the ocean” eternal war of the Middle East, this promises to be a long, noisy session of advanced primates hooting over who has the biggest pecker!
And most will ignore the point: Barack Obama hasn’t bothered to set the record straight. In defense of the President I will admit that many people will never be satisfied that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on 4 August 1961 no matter what the proof. And “pouring dirt on the President” are the many versions of President Obama’s “virgin birth” and different names used during his “community organizer” and academic careers. Advertising hype gets more people into trouble!
At least Barack Obama didn’t have war records like John Kerry or Lyndon Johnson. Dwight Eisenhower’s war record isn’t spotless, but he had a high profile record. John Kennedy received the Navy Cross under circumstances that might have warranted a court martial–Captain Brindel of FFG-31 Stark was reprimanded for “allowing” his ship to absorb two Iraqi Exocent missiles on 17 May 1987.
Still, 1000 comments. My e-mail won’t even load up this thread any more!
Re: “And most will ignore the point: Barack Obama hasn’t bothered to set the record straight. ”
What makes you think that? Obama was the FIRST US presidential candidate to put his birth certificate on line, the short form Certificate of Live Birth—which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA for issuing passports and by the branches of the US Military for enlistments. And Obama did this back in JUNE 2008, five months before the election of that year. And, quite naturally, he thought that that would be sufficient (as in fact it is), but birthers insisted that it wasn’t. Then the officials of BOTH parties confirmed that they had send both the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that ALL the facts on them were exactly the same as on what they sent to him—but birthers have insisted that that also is not sufficient.
Well, it is sufficient, that is all. So don’t blame Obama. Blame the nutty birther sites.
Re multiple names. Yes Obama used his step-father’s name when he was in Indonesia. But he never legally changed his name, so it remains the same name as on his birth certificate—Barack Hussein Obama II. The stuff about his social security number from Daniel Ludwig or “Harrison J. Bounel” have all been disproved (the SS Administration says that there isn’t even a file for “Bounel”), and the CT SS number was the result of entering a single digit wrong in Obama’s zip code when he first applied.
In any case, it is not factual to claim that Obama hasn’t bothered to set the record straight. He published both his short form and his long form birth certificates, and as noted, the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent them to him and that all the facts on what he posted are the same as on what they sent to him.
smrstrauss, your bruised ego is showing. What’s the name of your dog in this fight, anyway?
While I was satisfied that even the Great and Powerful Planters Party wasn’t crass enough in 2008 to front a person who was disqualified for the presidency on the grounds of birth and citizenship–Barack Obama was born in Hawaii–the snarling and evasion were self-inflicted wounds not unlike a certain Professor Henry Louis Gates when asked by police responding to a burglary report to identify himself. Bruised egos: “What do you mean, who am I?” Don’t forget to hurl threats and belittle the opposition! Intimidation–the tool of thugs–works well for thugs.
For the rest of us, it backfires. Thugs back up their bluster with bullets.
As for Barrack Obama using his step-father’s name in Indonesia, as a minor it didn’t matter because little Barry couldn’t legally change his own name. There was some unanswered questions about being a “foreign exchange student” that have neither been proven or disproven–but officially sealing academic records is a good way to fuel rumors. On the other hand I can see the point: poor academic performance is embarrassing, opinions of an angry young man can come back to haunt the mature politician, and during the early years of Affirmative Action many people who were “unqualified” academically for admission to colleges were admitted anyway to right past wrongs–because there weren’t any opportunities back then for large segments of our American population to get qualified. Channeling Mary Poppins (“I never explain anything!”) can be perceived as stonewalling and covering up.
The mainstream news media failed to report Senator McCain publishing his birth certificate–because it wasn’t newsworthy. President Obama published his “short form” in 2011–and then due to perhaps unreasonable demands made public his “long form” in the race against Romney.
“Neither confirm nor deny” is the tag line of the Central Intelligence Agency. People, especially Congress, got upset at being lied to and the CIA performed CYA with this tag line. There are many political enemies who will hound the opposition no matter what–but treating all questions, legitimate or otherwise, with “I can neither confirm nor deny” or simply saying “drop dead, birther scum” are regarded as evasion–or worse.
Set the record straight? Not quite. There is a recurring pattern of deception from the Planters Party and its minions. “Setting the record straight” by posting a copy of a birth certificate while the State of Hawaii maintains that the records are sealed under the Privacy Act is like me posting a “copy” of my high school transcript but forbidding release of my transcript from the official source. I would have to ask; “Don’t you TRUST me?” And the answer any reasonable person would expect is “Hell, no!”
No, I don’t suggest that President Obama is a CIA plant!
Frankly, President Obama didn’t “have” to release a copy of his birth certificate. He chose to do so, and my speculation is that it won him enough undecided voters to get re-elected. If President Obama had not released that copy, we most likely would have President Romney in the White House today. Or not. The trick isn’t “fooling all of the people some of the time” but fooling enough people to win elections and re-elections. If we could see all of our elected official’s blemishes, very few would be elected.
No, I don’t suggest that President Obama is a CIA plant!
Hmmm…that does explain a lot of things…maybe he’s just a plant…something like a highly evolved ficus or something.
Given that Obama only surrounds himself with people less intelligent, that does give us a base to work with. He is marginally smarter than a turnip.
It is difficult to reply to all that you have said. Much of it is simply your attitude towards liberals—which you have every right to, but it is an opinion.
So, let’s discuss FACTS. You sidestep the use of the name, which you yourself raised. It is true that he used his step-father’s name as a child which is neither illegal nor immoral. I think we agree on that—what confused me was you claim that there were doubts about Obama’s name. (There aren’t any.)
Where you are actually wrong is in this statement: “There was some unanswered questions about being a “foreign exchange student” that have neither been proven or disproven–but officially sealing academic records is a good way to fuel rumors. ”
First, Obama’s academic records are not sealed. They are no more sealed than Mitt Romney’s academic records or John McCain’s or anyone’s. Obama simply did not release them. That’s all. they are not “sealed,” They simply were not released (and in fact NO president has released his academic record, Bush’s was leaked, but he did not release it). So what birther sites told you about Obama “sealing” is records is false. He simply did not release them, and they are covered under the normal state and federal privacy laws.
The first part of your statement is this “There was some unanswered questions about being a “foreign exchange student” that have neither been proven or disproven…”
They HAVE been disproven. How would you like to confirm that they have been disproven? Simple, here are the telephone numbers of Occidental and Columbia. You can call them up and ASK.
Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)
Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)
BTW, there is online a FORGED “Columbia University Student ID” (question for you, why do birther sites keep running these forgeries? Why do birthers forge them?) that claims to show that Obama was registered as a foreign student at Columbia. But it is forged. How do we know? Because Columbia University has never issued a student ID that identifies foreign students differently than US students—and you can ask Columbia that yourself.
Re: “Frankly, President Obama didn’t “have” to release a copy of his birth certificate. He chose to do so..”
That is quite true. He did chose to do so. And isn’t it a good thing that Obama started the tradition of presidential candidates shown their birth certificates? In doing that Obama certainly WAS setting the record straight, not as you said above that Obama “hasn’t bothered to set the record straight. ” He did indeed bother and he did indeed set the records straight. BTW, Mitt Romney posted his birth certificate too—and for much the same motive, he wanted to get votes (what’s wrong with that?)
BTW, Senator McCain did not publish his birth certificate. The one that is online is a forgery (and from an ENEMY of McCain at that). You see, that forged BC says that McCain was born at a hospital in Colon, Panama—which is outside of the Canal Zone. But McCain says, and I believe him, that he was born in the family hospital on the naval base INSIDE the Canal Zone. In any case, he did not publish his birth certificate. (Which is why the press did not give the story that “McCain published his BC” any play at all because it was not true.)
When liberals are not even smart enough to breathe without an audio reminder, it is kind of hard to have any respect for them, turnip.
Re: ““Setting the record straight” by posting a copy of a birth certificate while the State of Hawaii maintains that the records are sealed under the Privacy Act ”
Mitt Romney, was the second presidential candidate to post his birth certificate, and like Obama, the State of Michigan has sealed the originals under that state’s Privacy Act. The fact is that states do have those privacy acts, and they should be obeyed. Obama has shown his long form and his short form and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent them to him and all the facts on them—and that should be sufficient to rational people.
(If that is not sufficient to you, well then there is also the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 and the teacher who wrote home and the INS Inspector who investigated Obama’s father’s residence status and wrote: “One child, born in Honolulu.” )
strauss, are you still over here fuming because Obama messed up on this? Wow, wait until you hear about all his other mistakes\lies\omissions\misspeaks….
He will never hear about them until his puppet master returns and puts the words into his mouth.
Geran said: “are you still over here fuming because Obama messed up on this? ”
Answer: No because Obama did the right thing by posting his short form and long form birth certificates, and both of them have been confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii.
They were copies turnip. Even Obama has admitted that. Go argue with him.
mjc says:
That’s an intriguing idea but if we are to believe the media and the culinary part of his biography he’s not a ficus.
Philjourdan said: “They were copies turnip.”
Yes they were acorn squash. Yes they were. They were the OFFICIAL copies of Obama’s birth certificate sent to Obama by the DOH of Hawaii, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him and that all the facts on them are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.
Here are links to SOME of the many confirmations by the officials in Hawaii that they saw Obama’s original birth certificate in the files and that they sent copies of it to him and that all the facts on the copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org…
No they were not turnip. Kenya did not exist in 1961. So when they forged the birth place of his father, they used a 2008 knowledge (just as Dan Blather did).
There are several mistakes on the copies. They are NOT official (no seal either turnip).
Stop the lies. I do not CARE where he was born. The story is Obama was the original birther. Period. Now prove otherwise.
Besides the Purple Heart he received the Navy and Marine Corp. Medal. The highest ranking medal for Heroism in a noncombat situation.
JFK’s actions do not appear negligent to me based on reading a fair amount about the boats. Several PT boats in WW II were run down by Japanese Destroyers under similar circumstances and believe it or not a PT that did not have the best fuel or had a bottom fouled by sea growth could be outrun by the faster Japanese destroyers. . It was a tough gig attractive to many of the sons of the US aristocracy that had grown up sailing and rowing and were part of the Ivy league set and guys that that been college athletes. This was because it was the one duty where a LJG and sometimes and ensign could get command of a combat vessel.
I was wrong–Navy and Marine Corps Medal instead of the Navy Cross.
PT Boat service in World War Two was hazardous duty–and you are correct in that this was the place where a junior naval officer could command. Often, only two power plants on a PT boat worked due to lack of spare parts or bad fuel or other things that cropped up with those airplane engines–think of how many aircraft aborted due to engine troubles during World War Two–and due to being fuel hogs only one or two would be running when on patrol–in addition to your mention of bottom fouling, and water-logged plywood, and being overloaded on combat patrol… Speaking of aircraft, the other place a junior naval officer could command was aviation–but there’s indications that John F. Kennedy couldn’t pass a flight physical. Submarines were not the path to glory–Silent Service and all. Naval Intelligence could have been a way to get fame–or not–the captain of the Pueblo was threatened with court martial but the Secretary of the Navy intervened. Courts martial are often politically driven and not just for criminal conduct. “Fair” doesn’t enter into the political equation.
I don’t know where I got the mistaken notion that JFK was awarded the Navy Cross. The Navy and Marine Corps Medal was appropriate for the actions, and I agree that JFK’s actions did not appear negligent. I’ve been in combat zones myself–I have a good idea of what happens when fatigue and numbing routine gang up on people.
How about the WWII mission where five Army pilots received the Navy Cross? Until it was explained to me that Operation Vengeance was a Navy show with a Navy chain of command I didn’t accept that Army personnel were awarded a Navy medal–not in 1943!
And before I forget, the full and proper original name for the destroyer was Torpedo Boat Destroyer. The original destroyer was swift enough to counter the motor torpedo boat (itself armed with the Whitehead self-propelled torpedo) and the Japanese put the first ones in the water in 1885–armed with four 37mm cannon (quick fire) and six torpedo tubes. The destroyer’s original prey was the motor torpedo boat and had to be swift enough to intercept swarming little torpedo carrying speed boats.
But for blazing speed in heavy seas, the aircraft carrier is queen! Or the modern nuclear submarine that is below the weather…the Silent Service isn’t given to bragging.
Brindel’s father did not have senators in his pocket.
Again, the Original “Birther” was John Jay……….without debate at the Constitutional Convention, the Birther movement spread through the populace at a breakneck speed, without debate and Ratified, without debate, making the ENTIRE Founding Generation supporters of the Original Birther, John Jay.
By subterfuge or Constitutional ignorance Chet Arthur, whose “eligibility” remains questionable, usurer-ed in an ENGLISH RENAISSANCE throughout the U.S. culminating with Justice penumbra zone Gray’s questionable opinion in the WKA case causing the ‘Policy” codification of British Nationality Statutes, subjection becoming a new feature of U.S. Citizenship..
Freemen, objecting to subjugation, began inquiring of Constitutional means to end the “AMBIGUITY” created by the WKA interpretations of the British Nationality Statutes as applied to U.S. Citizenship and have found the the U.S. Laws on the subject exist to overturn the FOREIGN INFLUENCE that has infected Constitutional applications of U.S. Citizenship Laws;
…………..the 1790 Act, “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship), naturalization”, provided for the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen yet was the ONLY non-re-established provision of the 1795 Act which re-established all other provisions of the 1790 Act.
The net EFFECT was ONLY to limit WHERE U.S. natural born Citizen could be born thereafter.
A2S1C5 REQUIRES that U.S. natural born Citizens MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be Constitutionally Legally occupied and its “Grandfather Clause” established that a DISTINCTION EXISTS between a U.S. natural born Citizen and all other “hyphenated” forms of U.S. Citizenship, such as, “naturalized, foreign-born”, “dual, aka, alienated” along with any other forms of Citizenship the Congress may establish, such as “U.S. national”.
The 1790 Act established the CIRCUMSTANCES required to be born a U,S, natural born Citizen, two (2) U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world, (similar to some British Nationality Statutes).
The 1795 Act repealed the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision consigning their births to WITHIN THE LIMITS of the U.S. leaving the “foreign-born” children of U.S. Citizens to be considered as U.S. Citizens.
The 1790 Act, having established the requisite circumstances, less the foreign-born’ provision, attaches to the use of the term of words of A2S1C5 by virtue of their CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT to “exist” and thereby becomes a Statute at Large established by the repeal and replace provisions of the 1795 Act.
Unless of course anyone is suggesting that U.S. Law is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land.
slcraignbc said: “Unless of course anyone is suggesting that U.S. Law is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land.”
The 1790 Act was repealed. Citizenship acts, BTW, are not election laws, and the US Constitution is what applies to the election of a president, and it uses the term Natural Born Citizen. The US Supreme Court has defined that term in the Wong Kim Ark case to mean the same thing as Natural Born did in the common law, and the Heritage Foundation book and the ten appeals courts all agree. Your definition is wrong.
The WKA DID NOT DEFINE a U.S. natural born Citizen, it defined a BRITISH natural born Citizen…………are you obtuse by birth or by environment…
SCOTUS DICTA is NOT U.S. Law, and the holding was that lil’Wong was a Citizen, and Citizen only, albeit by Judicial-Kidnapping and contrary to the 6th Article of the Burlingame Treaty that provided for the LEGAL temporary domicile of ‘lil’Wongs parents under the ‘labor & trade” Treaty..
A2S1C5 REQUIRES a DISTINCTION between a U.S. natural born Citizen and any and ALL other Citizenship “hyphenations”……..
Here is some contemporaneous PROOF that it is NOT “Settled Law”……..
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
The WKA DID NOT HOLD the a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen was one in the same but only paraphrases Lord Coke and Blackstone’s interpretations of British Statutes that provided that is some cases a “subject” and a ‘natural born subject” were sysnonomous depending on context.
The is NO counterpart in the British Nationality Statutes for a U.S. natural born Citizen because any person born a “subject” of any form can NEVER rise to be King / Queen as the Royal Class hold different adjectives denoting their Political standing..
Discussion during the Fourteenth Amendment
Two different types of citizenship:
The subject is murky but the intent is clear. The president must be a citizen AND owe no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Obama’s father was a foreign student and did not become a naturalized citizen. His mother was a minor at the time of his birth. Where the heck he was actually born is still the subject of controversy and whether, at age 18 he went to school as a foreign student is also murky. (Mia Marie Pope a high school friend of Barack Obama, says that Obama identified himself as a foreigner)
He also lived during his formative years outside of the USA
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man” – Jesuit maxim
I for one do not like having a president with so many clouds over his loyalty to this country. He should never have been put forward as a candidate in the first place. After all there were 300 million others to choose from.
Gail Combs gave a quotation from Bingham. Apparently she did not know that Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Notice that both of those quotations say exactly the same thing that Tucker and Rawle said in the early 1800s?
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And exactly the same thing that the US Supreme Court RULED (six to two, one justice not voting) in the Wong Kim Ark case:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
And, if you disagree, then notice that the Heritage Foundation book says exactly the same thing:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and 356 ELECTORS in the 2008 election and 332 ELECTORS in the 2012 election, and the chief justice of the USA swore Obama in several times after each election.
In rebuttal, A priori :
Justice Rutledge: Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 September 1795
” …. Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.
Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.
Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.
Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.
With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate.
You say;
” … “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. …”
I say;
“… SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States;”
Implicit in the Institutional MANDATE is that it IS on the subject of U.S. Citizenship, that it be UNIFORM in its application on the various statuses of persons and applied THROUGHOUT THE STATES”
and further I say
” … United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed….”
NOWHERE in that do I see any mention of PRIOR-EXISTING common law, natural law and or ancient doctrines of blood or soil.
What I do see is a succinctly written 276 words that provides for ALL circumstances of U.S. Citizenship POST the “collective naturalization EFFECT” of the Ratification of the COTUS.
Show me the Court case that has analysed the A2S1C5 provisions that REQUIRES a “distinction” between U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen …. Oh, wait, you can’t because there has been none………….divining British Law does NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen make…!!!!
Re: “divining British Law does NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen make…!!!!”
Despite the exclamation points it does. When the US Supreme Court says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the Common Law, and that the common law says that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, then the legal meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born in the USA. And that is why this happened:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+swearing+in&oq=obama+swearing+in&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i24l6.1387.17559.0.18221.17.14.0.0.0.0.568.1763.1j8j5-1.10.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..7.10.1750.D0cYe-Y0CIs
The Heritage Foundation book -said this:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
and it is correct, and you are wrong.
Do you understand what you wrote….????
English common-law trumps the U.S. Law…..is THAT what you are saying….????
The what about the U.S. v Villato, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet, that each held the the State Laws at the time, which WERE based on the English common-law, were, after the passing of the 1790 Act NULL and VOID in any provisions that conflicted with the 1790 Act.
The 1795 Act expressed in the EXPLICIT language saying…….
SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien,[reconciled by amendments], may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —
Once MADE Citizen then that persons Citizenship afford their Children to be born Natural born Citizens, and NOT OTHERWISE.
The is NO Jus Soli any ANY Act by the Congress and there is NO Just Soli in the 14th, ONLY “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
In order for the FED to have “jurisdiction” over all State soil requires the repeal of the 10th Amendment.
Immigrants, under U.S. Law, are required to obtain permission to enter the U.S. and that permission extends only LIMITED RIGHTS and make them subject to naturalization Laws, if that is the intent of entry.
But, you Hail Britannia types only know enough about the British Nationality Laws and Common-Law to parrot among yourselves.
No intellectual honesty required to be an 0’pologist, in fact, it’s an obstacle, isn’t it….?
slcraignbc asked:
“English common-law trumps the U.S. Law…..is THAT what you are saying….????”
NO. I am saying that the term Natural Born Citizen really did come from the common law, and if it had come from something else, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us, and they didn’t tell us. America, which was British once, did not change EVERYTHING when it became independent. We kept such things as Habeas Corpus, and Ex Post Facto, and there is no indication whatever that we got Natural Born from anywhere else than in the COMMON LAW. The common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise. So that is where the term came from. So what did it mean?
Answer: The Supreme Court is the final decider on what the Constitution means, and it has decided that the term Natural Born Citizen refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH (which is what the early writers and friends of the members of the Constitutional Convention Tucker and Rawle wrote too). And that is the final decision on the matter—baring a new Constitutional Amendment on the matter (which isn’t likely) or the US Supreme Court reversing its Wong Kim Ark decision—which isn’t likely either, in fact it had a chance to take an Obama eligibility case that had ruled that every child born in the USA is Natural Born Citizen, and it turned that opportunity down.
So that’s the law. It happens to be right, as the Heritage Foundation book and the Tucker and Rawle quotations and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling of 1844 all show. But right or wrong, the decision of the US Supreme Court is the law.
That means that in addition to Obama Jindal and Rubio are Natural Born Citizens because of their place of birth. Some hold that Cruz is too (because he was never naturalized), but there’s a question about him because of his place of birth (Canada). There is no question whatever about JIndal and Rubio, and yes, Obama, because all of them were born on US soil—and the citizenship of their parents at the time does not matter a bit. Once again, if the writers of the US Constitution were making a change in meaning of Natural Born status in the USA from Natural Born status in Britain—-THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US, and they didn’t.
IF they were planning on making an exception from “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” to make the US-born children of foreigners NOT EQUAL to the US-born children of US-citizens——-THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US, and they didn’t.
So:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+swearing+in&oq=obama+swearing+in&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i24l6.1387.17559.0.18221.17.14.0.0.0.0.568.1763.1j8j5-1.10.0….0…1ac.1.52.img..7.10.1750.D0cYe-Y0CIs
Gail Coombs said:
“#2. There is a question as to whether, to get the goodies of a foreign student, Obama declared himself a foreign student and thereby gave up claims to Us Citizenship.”
Do you share that question? If so, why not be self-reliant enough to find out the answer for yourself? (Self-reliance is a good Conservative value).
Both Occidental and Columbia have telephone numbers and PR departments, and they will tell you that Obama was not registered as a foreign student.
Here is the Columbia University main number: ((212) 854-1754 — ask for the PR department.)
Here is the Occidental main number: (323) 259-2500 — again, ask for the PR department.)
Re other “people think that” points.
Answer: About 40% of Americans say that they believe in ghosts. That does not mean that there really are ghosts.
Gail Combs (sorry about earlier) said: “#3. The INTENT of the words “natural born citizen” is to make sure the person who is our president is loyal to the USA and has no ties to a foreign country.”
Answer: Have you forgotten about STRICT CONSTRUCTION? The above is precisely what you are NOT allowed to do in strict construction legal interpretation (which is a conservative legal principal). You are NOT allowed to make assumptions based on “the penumbra” of an intent. (Liberals have done it in the past, for sure—but principled Conservatives should not fall to their level).
More importantly, it is based on what YOU think the writers of the Constitution felt about the US born children of foreigners—that, you think that the writers thought that the US-born children of foreigners were greater security risks than the US-born children of US Citizens.
Well, are they???
The US-born children of foreigners, yes, even those who were born BEFORE their parents were naturalized, have fought and died for America in two world wars—-and there is not a particle of evidence that they were the slightest bit less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens. That being a FACT—-what makes you think that the writers of the US Constitution held another viewpoint? Since the US-born children o foreigners HAVE proven that they are loyal, what makes you think that George Washington and the other writers of the US Constitution THOUGHT that they would NOT be loyal?
IF they had said it, that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were likely to NOT be loyal—well sure, that would be the law—but they never ever said it.
Gail Combs said:
“Also when talking of British common law do not forget that the UK was impressing American sailors and declaring them subjects of the British crown. The U.S. Declared War on Great Britain on June 18, 1812 over that issue.”
That is quite a different legal point. Both the British and we the Americans believed in citizenship due to the place of birth, and both agree on the meaning of Natural Born, which refers to citizenship due to the place of birth and excludes citizens who were naturalized.
The difference is that the British thought that allegiance to the state had to be permanent, and we held (and still hold) that a person can change her or his allegiance. That does not change the basic meaning of Natural Born.
You misunderstood what I said.
#1. There is a bit of a question at least in some citizens minds as to whether Obama was born in the USA.
#2. There is a question as to whether, to get the goodies of a foreign student, Obama declared himself a foreign student and thereby gave up claims to Us Citizenship.
#3. The INTENT of the words “natural born citizen” is to make sure the person who is our president is loyal to the USA and has no ties to a foreign country. Again there is a question mark about Obama, especially when his wife Michelle Obama said “for the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America.” SEE: link
Given these three points, Obama was a very very poor choice when there was 300 million others to choose from.
Also when talking of British common law do not forget that the UK was impressing American sailors and declaring them subjects of the British crown. The U.S. Declared War on Great Britain on June 18, 1812 over that issue.
So thirty six years after the War for Independence, Great Britain was not acknowledging the citizenship of people born on American soil of British born parents.
Gail,
The 0’pologist’s refuse to see the irony of their position…….along with seeing the intuitive naturalness of a New Nation “establishing a uniform Rule, aka , common-law, of U.S. Citizenship BY naturalization” beginning beginning with the “collective naturalization” of the Citizens of the various States BY the Ratification of the COTUS…………..just as the 14th Amendment did with all of the emancipated blacks throughout the various States due to their STATELESSNESS upon its Ratification.
Just as they seem not to understand their standing in the Socialist structure as useful-idiots.
He was the bad choice when there were only 2 of them.
Gail……….Hat Tip to you……..
I’ve just gotten around to analyzing the Elk v Wilkins case and find it COMPLETELY contradictory to the WKA case with Justice Gray delivering the Opinions in BOTH……..
excerpt; (that seems to be saying what I have been asserting here the past few days]
” … The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. ….” [pg 101-102] Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
You are correct about the people born within Indian tribes.
I knew a woman (my age) born of a white father and Cherokee mother (who was sold to him) raised on the Cherokee reservation here in NC. Because she was deemed an Indian she was required to BUY ALL her school text books while I, born of 2nd generation immigrant parents, had mine given to me for my use – free.
There are several court cases about whether or not an Indian is a US citizen or not and the decision revolves around whether the person considers himself a US citizen, lives on or off a reservation AND WHETHER HE PAYS STATE AND FEDERAL TAXES.
As I said the concern is loyalty to the USA and Obama doesn’t pass the smell test on the subject of complete loyalty to the USA.
I really do not care about the fine points of the law. I have seen lawyers argue black is white and win in court too often. What I care about is the fact the Democratic Party picked such a questionable character to run for president. A guy with ZERO qualifications except for the color of his skin. I would rather have seen the black plant manager at my first company run or the black chemist or my black room mate. All three could think circles around B.O. (all were chemists/chem engineers. with a min. of a masters.) Heck I would rather see any of those three run instead of Hitlery!
Gail;
The Elk case ultimatly lead to this Act of the U.S. Congress regarding American Indians in 1924;
The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (43 U.S. Stats. At Large, Ch. 233, p. 253 (1924)) reads as follows:
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States:
Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.”
Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]
SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924.
See House Report No. 222, Certificates of Citizenship to Indians, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Feb. 22, 1924.
Note: This statute has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(b).
The Act was another INSTANCE of “Collective Naturalization” of a class of persons, as with the Ratification of the COTUS “Collectively naturalizing” all of the State Citizens of the various States and the 14th Amendment “Collectively naturalizing” all of the Stateless emancipated blacks”.
There are many MORE instances of “collective naturalization” of both Citizenship and Nationals.
The meaning of Natural Born has remained UNCHANGED since the Constitution was written, and it includes every child born on US soil. That is not “collective naturalization.” That is the legal meaning of the term, and the Heritage Foundation book is correct about it:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
You, and your 0’pologist sidekicks, show such disdain for the COTUS, the U.S. Congress and the ACTUAL Laws of the U.S that it leaves me to wonder if it isn’t REALITY that you hold in contempt..
You say;
” …. The meaning of Natural Born has remained UNCHANGED since the Constitution was written, and it includes every child born on US soil. …”
Show me where in the U.S. Law that you find any such support, U.S. Law between 1790 and 1868 ……… show me any instant that SOIL alone provided U.S. Citizenship to ANYONE under U.S. Law…..
Amazing that this simple observation by Tony Heller has grabbed over 700 comments. Must be a real sore point with the Obummer Admin…..
It’s a sore point with ME. I have no idea what the Obama Administration thinks.
As for me, I have no relations with the Obama Administration or with government or with Democrats. I simply dislike stupid lies.
You have absolutely no PROOF that it is a lie.
All we have is the word of someone with a vested interest (keeping her job) and a lot of political pressure saying it was her fault. It is really a minor white lie compared to a lot of others.
As a lab manager I have been directed to falsify Certificates of Analysis by three different companies and lost my job when I refused to do so. So please do not try and say this does not happen. Unfortunately it happens all too often to the point where honesty has become a very real millstone around the neck of anyone who wants to advance in a company or in business.
Here is an example of how the US government (and the MSM) systematically LIED to advance a political agenda — to get the Food Safety Modernization Act passed. The FDA and USDA did not care how many people became sick or died as long as that act, regulating small farmers out of business, was passed. Implementing HACCP, industry self-inspection, doubled the food borne illness rate in the USA, I know I analyzed the stats. So I hope you read this.
The de-regulated poultry slaughter facilities (and higher line speeds) explains why I have found blood and feathers in my chicken both Tyson and Perdue brands when before the birds were clean and well bled.
A separate investigation validates Stan Painters testimony Shielding the Giant: USDA’s ‘Don’t Look, Don’t Know’ Policy
Oh and why did I post this?
To show Political Pressure ====> LIES
Even when those lies can cause the illness and death of little children.
A friend got hung with the multi-million dollar lawsuits resulting from over 200 children becoming ill that should have been hung on Conagra or not have happened at all if the USDA had been doing its job instead of conducting witch hunts against farmers.
Gail Combs said:
“You have absolutely no PROOF that it is a lie.”
Answer: It is YOU who are claiming that the literary agent is lying when she admitted to making a mistake. The evidence that she made a mistake is, duh, that Obama said in interviews in 1990 that he was born IN HAWAII, and he said in his book “Dreams from My Father” in 1995 that he was born IN HAWAII.
Yet you claim that in the middle, between these two sets of statements that he was born IN HAWAII, Obama told the publicist “I was born in Kenya.” Or that he wrote: “I was born in Kenya.”
Well, THAT is something that YOU do not have any proof of whatever.
Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, WAS born in Kenya—and that was in the unpublished book that the literary agent had in front of her. So, that is where the MISTAKE came from.
She was not lying. She really did make a mistake. (People do make mistakes you know, particularly when they see that Barack Hussein Obama (Obama’s father’s name) was born in Kenya. Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and there is not a shred of evidence that he ever said that he was born in Kenya.
Re “You have absolutely no PROOF that it is a lie.”
Baloney, Pope is a woman desperate to get her name in the news and to throw dirt at Obama—and the stuff about the CIA having gotten him into his high school shows her lack of sanity. Her claims are not backed up by anything at all. They are the same kind of stuff that was used against Herman Cain.
Re: “I was directed.”
But there is NO evidence that the publicist was directed, and Obama’s father’s name really was Barack Hussein Obama I.
Yet you pretend to know what they think in almost every post! The contradictions with this turnip are strong!
I have never said what the Obama Administration thinks. The facts remain that the literary agent admitted to making a mistake. And, although birthers claim that she is lying that that Obama lied and told her he was born in Kenya—there is no evidence of that whatever. Moreover, it would have required Obama to switch his story from the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” in newspaper interviews in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991, and then a switch back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995.
LOL! Right turnip. You claim to know what Obama knew for 17 years. You claim to know what his biographer knew for 18 years. You claim to know what I know!
You are a liar turnip. You claim a lot of things, and when challenged you huff and puff like a toy train. Lots of steam, but no facts.
Yea, their OFA(l) crew is trying FUD tactics. As yet they still have NOT addressed Tony’s article. The 2 idiots they sent over here (but then which OFA(l) clowns are not idiots?) keep wanting to change the subject, blame everyone else, and not address the point itself. Going so far as to lie about the facts in evidence. Which is another thing they have no clue about. Evidence.
The facts, which do address the article, are stated in the posting above.
In reviewing the issues, comments, rebuttals and various positions taken that arose from the context of the original post ” Exposing The Original Birther ” … with 773 Responses over 12 days it is an example of how nature abhors a vacuum.
In this instance the “vacuums” are created by the notable “inconsistencies” that arise when attempting to reconcile the various biographical timelines, people, places and things relating to the “0”.
Whenever the “vacuum bubbles” are held up for public viewing in rush the 0’pologists to fill the vacuums with “plausible defenses’ that reconcile the various timelines people, places and things relating to the “0”.
The irony is that THEY do not realize that in doing so only fills the “vacuums” with a miasma that can only be speculatively described as having the appearance of smoke, a reflection of substance as it were.
Numerous inconsistencies exist regarding the “0” and that condition contradicts the nature of “truth”
.
The distinctions between Truth and plausibility are often little more than a hairs breadth, but the distinctions still separate the one from the other and accepting the later “as if” the former is the same as accepting “U.S. Citizen” “as if” a U.S. natural born Citizen.
The result of such an acceptance renders the Clause” without effect, and any argument that suggests THAT is acceptable is inadmissible as a plausible outcome of statutory interpretation.
Steven Lee Craig,
With about 200 comments by just one person,
a person never seen before on this blog,
a person who never once comments on any other subject,
a person who continually comments for two weeks,
a person who diverts the thread from the original topic,
a person who twists and turns like an eel,
One can only think that the person is a paid dis-info agent assigned to the defense of Obummer especially when he is wasting so much time and energy on a completely dead issue.
Gail Combs
Yes, I am a “single issue” poster for the most part.
A2S1C5 is Constitutional Black-Letter-Law and but for the manufactured “ambiguity” of the term of words (U.S.) natural born Citizen all of the ISSUES regarding the “0” would be moot in that he would NOT be the Usurper POTUS that he is.
I have unsuccessfully sued in State and Federal Agencies and Courts seeking to have the “definition” of a U,S. natural born Citizen “declared in Judgement” and thereby having myself acknowledged as being a U.S. natural born Citizen.
All of the actions were unsuccessful when arguing the “common-law and natural law” historical sources.
It was then that I began RESORTING back to the Constitution and ITS Laws in the CONTEXT in which THEY were ESTABLISHED and realized that the answer was in plain sight , obscured only by the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.
Laws are made to have “some” effect upon people, places and things and it is OFTEN that the EFFECT names the subject of the law. Such is the case with a U.S. natural born Citizen.
The EFFECT upon the CIRCUMSTANCES of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents having a child, (anywhere in the world between 1790 & ’95), was for that child to be “considered as” a U.S. natural born Citizen.
And the “uniform effect” of the Act in whole is that once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, under the STATUTES at LARGE emanating for the 1790 & 1795 Acts, ” to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization.”
Were these FACTS more widely understood the “0” would not remain the Usurper pretender much longer.
That is the problem Gail. She has not been talking about the “one issue”. She has tried to turn the discussion at every point to her straw men. If he was a climate nut, I would say she was cook or lewandowsky. Trying to get more fodder for their next fake paper.
No, I do not distract from the impetus of the original topic, I stay on point and do not chase the red herrings and wild geese that MOST of the incidental questions of the “0”s life narrative are.
You totally misunderstand what “Bitherism” is all about, the totality of it.
A2S1C5 is Constitutional black-letter-law and a “Dual-Citizen at birth”, as the “0” professes to be, is NOT the same, by circumstance and INTENT, as a U.S. natural born Citizen.
Birther’s take the Oath to ‘support, protect and defend the COTUS seriously” and that includes paying heed to John Jays hint that it would seem wise and SEASONABLE to have a strong check against FOREIGN INFLUENCE within the administration of the government.
SOCIALISM is a FOREIGN POLITICAL DOCTRINE as is Islam.
The singular FACT of the “0”s dual citizenship at birth should have been sufficient to exclude him, but a MANUFACTURED AMBIGUITY exists regarding the EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES that constitutes actually being a U.S. natural born Citizen and a person of LOW Character has taken advantage of the “ambiguity” as a “legal-loop-hole’ and crawled through it like a snake USURPING the Office of POTUS.
Not everything is about you MORON. You are not a “she”. Strauß is
steven lee craig said:
“Numerous inconsistencies exist regarding the “0” and that condition contradicts the nature of “truth””
It is surprising that you assume that anyone’s history does not have inconsistencies. They are NORMAL. The people who enter data make mistakes.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/obamas-typos/
And none of the inconsistencies in Obama’s record show that he was born in a foreign country or that he lied about it to the publicist. However, in Obama’s case, in addition to the inconsistencies there are also the LIES about Obama—such as these:
(1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)
(2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.
(3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?
(4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?
(6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)
Those are not “inconsistencies.” They are lies.
You make my point in your rushing in to fill the vacuum of inconsistencies with a version of plausible explanations that may or may not reconcile with the totality of inconsistencies………..making you a gold medal player of whack-a-mo ……………
Re: “One can only think that the person is a paid dis-info agent …”
Nope, it’s my hobby, and I have shown THE FACTS.
Again turnip: Opinion =/= Facts! You have shown NO FACTS. So stop lying. You have proven you do that a lot.
Opinions are not facts turnip. So far you have yet to post a single fact.
Opinions are not facts turnip.
philjourdan says:
“I have heard rumors that Obama is really a tranny, but I guess turnip believes he (sorry, she) is.
See how rumors are started turnip? You just started the one about Obama being a tranny – but like all libtards, you will blame the right for it.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERRRRRrrrr Hate to tell you Phil but that rumor is already circulating.
Remember that Herman Cain was smeared by a woman claiming she was his mistress and there by removed from running for president in 2012…..
Re: “Remember that Herman Cain was smeared by a woman…”
Does that make it right? Because one woman lied about Herman Cain, should another one lie about Obama?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/miss-october/ (note crazy CIA speculation. You think that the CIA really would be interested in a mixed-race left-leaning high school student?)
Re multiple SS numbers. A little research is all that it takes and you will find out that MILLIONS of people have multiple SS numbers (did you really think that SS clerks never made data entry errors?) Well, they made millions of them, and they resulted in millions of people having errors and/or multiple SS numbers.
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name
Obama’s CT SS number was caused by one such error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.
Gail, Transvestites are not necessarily homosexuals. They can be, but they are 2 distinct groups within the umbrella. So your source (and Larry Sinclair) says he is homosexual. The turnip says he is a transvestite. But (s)he will blame the VRWC – when (s)he was the one that started it!
Liberal rule #1 – Always blame the opposition for your sins.
smrstrauss says:
Gail Coombs said:
….Answer: About 40% of Americans say that they believe in ghosts. That does not mean that there really are ghosts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First off you can not even spell my name correctly.
Second perhaps those “40%” had experiences that lead them to believe there really are ghosts.
My Mother certainly did based on her experience on the night of her mother’s death. (Lucid dream perhaps?) Grandma threatened to take me with her and scared Mom out of her wits. A short time later I almost died in an accident (severed artery) and am only alive because a medic was feeding a neighbor’s cat while they were away.
You would have a really hard time convincing Mom ghosts did not exist after that. Other situations similar to this one happen frequently and leave those they happen to plus their friends and relatives at least considering that possibility.
I am pointing this out to underline the fact most people have reasons why they come to believe something. MSM propaganda is based on this and CAGW shows it works on about 40 to 50% of the population. The Human race is a suggestive lot as are most animals. It is a survival trait. Run first, ask questions later means you live to have off-spring.
Now let me say it once more. “I DON”T give a rat’s A$$ where the heck Obummer was born. I DO give a rat’s A$$ that a completely unqualified IDIOT was dumped on the US by the elite.
(Look up the Bilderburg Conference where Hilary Clinton was told she wasn’t going to get the slot in 2008 and Ron Paul was told to get the heck out of the running.)
Shazaam asked:
“Why on earth would you spend 5 minutes let alone the hours and hours you have invested here defending the current occupant of the white house?”
Answer: It is a more amusing hobby than collecting stamps.
Go back to stamps. You suck at this one.
“I DON”T give a rat’s A$$ where the heck Obummer was born. I DO give a rat’s A$$ that a completely unqualified IDIOT was dumped on the US by the elite.”
AMEN! Preach it sister!
Tough.
https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+swearing+in&oq=obama+swearing+in&gs_l=img.12..0l4j0i24l6.1333.5615.0.8186.17.15.0.0.0.0.517.1683.0j8j5-1.9.0….0…1ac.1.53.img..8.9.1670.wFJop3lTH8o&gws_rd=ssl#tbm=isch&q=obama+first+inaugural&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ckcWjNIkFY2iYM%253A%3BXeguNuLhZAP0PM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fa57.foxnews.com%252Fglobal.fncstatic.com%252Fstatic%252Fmanaged%252Fimg%252FPolitics%252F0%252F0%252Fobama_09speech.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.foxnews.com%252Fpolitics%252F2013%252F01%252F21%252Fobama-first-inaugural-speech%252F%3B660%3B371
For you turnip. Learn to quote. We already know you do not know what a quote is.
smrstrauss sez: It’s a sore point with ME. I have no idea what the Obama Administration thinks.
As for me, I have no relations with the Obama Administration or with government or with Democrats. I simply dislike stupid lies.
OK, I know I bowed out of this discussion. Yet that statement just pegged the irony meter.
So, smrstrauss, if we assume that you really “simply dislike stupid lies”…..
Why on earth would you spend 5 minutes let alone the hours and hours you have invested here defending the current occupant of the white house? Barack Hussein Obama has consistently demonstrated that he will lie to gain any political advantage.
It would probably be easier to list what few things Barack Hussein Obama may have told the truth about, than to attempt to list the totality of his lies.
And yet, here you are, someone who has declared that you “simply dislike stupid lies” spending hours of your life defending the liar-in-chief?? Pardon me while I take a break to laugh at you some more…..
You are just too funny!!!
Carry on…….
Shazaam asked:
“Why on earth would you spend 5 minutes let alone the hours and hours you have invested here defending the current occupant of the white house?”
Answer: It is a more amusing hobby than collecting stamps.
Re Lies. Here are some of the BIRTHER lies:
(1) Birthers said that Obama’s draft card was forged, but Obama did not post his draft card, nor did any representative of Obama—so, if it were forged, who do you think forged it? (Okay, I’ll make it easy—the guy who posted it.)
(2) Birthers have said that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia—but a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy shows that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Why do you suppose that the birthers did not call the Indonesian embassy to check? The same goes for the claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. It is easy the check with the Indonesian Embassy whether Obama ever had an Indonesian passport—they will tell anyone who calls that Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen.
(3) Birthers said that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—but the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was BORN IN HAWAII—why do you suppose they did not quote her accurately and in fact cut off the tape recording of the call on their sites just before she said “born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” Why do you suppose they did that?
(4) Birther sites did not tell you about SS Administration clerks making lots of mistakes and that a single digit entered wrong in the zip code would generated a SS number from a place other than where it was applied from. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(5) Birther sites did not tell their readers that the Kenyan government said that Obama was NOT born there. Why do you suppose they did not tell their readers that?
(6) Birther sites did not even tell their readers that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—or how very few 18-year-olds did in those days, or how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in those days because of the high risk of stillbirth. Why do you suppose they did not tell you that?
(7) Birther sites posted videos of Obama that claimed to show that he said “I was born in Kenya”—but you cannot see his mouth move and the originals of those videos have been found, and they do not say “I was born in Kenya..”” Why do you suppose that they forged and posted those videos? (Ditto, by the way, for three forged “Kenyan birth certificates.” And what do you suppose was the motive for forging them??)
(8) Birther sites said that Obama spent “millions” on hiding his birth certificate. But Obama showed his birth certificate and did not spend a cent on hiding anything. And in fact, as birther sites did not tell their readers, there wasn’t even one lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate or for records, not one. There were lawsuits to keep Obama off of ballots, but NO lawsuits for his birth certificate or records of any kind. Why do you suppose that birther sites implied that there were lawsuits for Obama’s BC—when there weren’t ANY???
(9) Birther sites said that Obama’s records are “sealed,” but they are not sealed. They are covered under the ordinary state and federal privacy laws, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not release similar records either.
(10) The claim that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport is also a LIE. As the facts show above, Obama never had an Indonesian passport. Moreover, he did not need an Indonesian passport or any other passport than an ordinary US passport because, it is a LIE that Pakistan was on some kind of a no-travel list when Obama went there or that Pakistan kept US tourists from visiting. NEITHER are true. When Obam went to Pakistan, the country was relatively peaceful, and it encouraged tourists to vist, and so did the US government because at the time Pakistan was a US ALLY (Remember the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War?”) So, it is LIE that Obama went to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He never had an Indonesian passport, and he didn’t need one.
I really don’t give a flying rotten fig about what all those “birther” sites have to say about the laughingstock-in-chief. However, given that you apparently have a deep and abiding concern about the above issues, why aren’t you trolling those “birther” sites?
If you could take a moment, and scroll to the top and read carefully. (sound-out the hard words if you must, we’ll wait) You might comprehend that this post concerned who most likely originated the Barack Hussein Obama born in Kenya meme.
I’ve seen your story that the “assistant publicist did it”. And while it is a nice, neat story, the simple fact remains that Barack Hussein Obama has a well documented history of consistently and continuously lying for political advantage.
In light of Barack Hussein Obama’s veracity track record and ability to lie convincingly I believe that Obama was the most likely author of that bio. If Barack Hussein Obama thought promoting himself as Kenyan born was advantageous at that time, I believe he would not have hesitated to do so. And when it became advantageous to lie again and say “assistant publicist did it”, I cannot imagine the liar-in-chief would hesitate.
The liar-in-chief has no credibility left. And it is the liar-in-chief’s lack of credibility that makes the “nice and neat” publicist story unbelievable.
Your massive spamming of the comments with the premise that Barack Hussein Obama told the truth doesn’t help the story pass the smell test. If anything your massive spamming effort cements the premise that yet another lie is being covered-up….
Perhaps you should take-up stamp collecting. You just might have a trifle more success at it.
A noble attempt, but wasted. The turnip has no ability to read of comprehend what he is reading. He is now accusing us of trying to obscure something that is not in the article! Just because we will not talk about it.
Philjourdan said: “He is now accusing us of trying to obscure something that is not in the article! Just because we will not talk about it.”
Answer: YOU don’t have to talk about it at all. But that does not mean that I cannot talk about it. So, in addition to the beginning of the story, which was the MISTAKE by the publicist, the story CONTINUED and deepened based on the lies of the birthers among which were the claims that Obama had not shown his birth certificate (he did, twice, the short form and the long form, and they were repeatedly confirmed by the officials of Hawaii), and the blatant lie that birther sites ran that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother had said that he was born in Kenya—-when she actually said repeatedly that he was born IN HAWAII.
YOU do not have to answer, of course. But those are some facts that explain the continuation of the story.
Then that makes you the obfuscater turnip. So you lied again.
Are you capable of posting a comment where you do not lie turnip? Or is that also the commands from Obama for all his OFA(l) folks turnip?
And you have yet to present any pertinent facts turnip. 2 weeks and no facts turnip. Since you are retired, turnip, you have the time. But I guess like your master, you do not have the intelligence to research the issue for facts, right turnip?
shazaan said: “scroll to the top and read carefully…that this post concerned who most likely originated the Barack Hussein Obama born in Kenya meme. ”
TWO answers. First just because this post concerned who started the “born in Kenya story” does not mean that other people cannot discuss who CONTINUES the “born in Kenya” story. Any thing that exists does so because it began and because it continues, so to just concentrate on the beginning begs the question about the continuation—and there is no question at all that birther LIES have contributed greatly to the continuation.
Second answer. The publicist’s mistake (which you ASSERT was not a mistake for your own motives) was the start of the myth. Okay, so big deal, a mistake started the myth. You assert that Obama really wrote the bio or told the publicist that he was born in Kenya.
But for that to have happened (1) she would have to be lying when she said that she made mistake; (2) Obama would have had to have changed his story from “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 (which of course is a fact as the birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the index data and the birth notices in the 1961 newspapers sent to the papers by the DOH all show) to “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book in 1995.
YOU claim based on your speculation about Obama’s character that he lied because he would lie if there was an advantage for him but that is (1) YOUR assertion about what Obama WOULD do; (2) Has no evidence behind it that Obama actually DID do it; (3) is even speculation that Obama saying that he was born in Kenya was even an advantage to him in any way—it is mere speculation that being born in Kenya would sell more books than being born in Hawaii; (4) requires the publicist to be lying, and as far as we know, she is a truthful person; (5) ignores the fact that it is easy to make a mistake about “born in Kenya” when Obama’s father, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, actually WAS born in Kenya.
In short, the birther myth began because of a mistake. However, it continued mainly because of lies such as the one that claimed that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (when she actually said that Obama was born in Hawaii). Then there are three forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and various videos claiming to show Obama saying “I was born in Kenya” and there is even a report of a British barrister who claims close links with the British intelligence agencies and claims that they told him that they did DNA tests proving that Stanley Ann is not Obama’s real mother, and that Obama’s father smuggled him from Kenya to Hawaii and then got the officials in Hawaii to issue a false birth certificate and got Stanley Ann to treat Obama as her son all of her life.
ALL the above are lies and crap. But the motive for them is exactly the same as the motive for insisting without any proof that Obama switched from the truthful statement “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991, and it is the same motive for saying that a publicist is lying when she said “I made a mistake.”
You could have shortened you post to:
In short, the birther myth began because of a mistake. However, it continued mainly because of lies . And that would have communicated all you had to say.
I did say the story that the “assistant publicist did it” is a nice, neat story.
And the simple fact remains that Barack Hussein Obama has a well documented history of consistently and continuously lying for political advantage. That is the problem in it’s entirety.
Barack Hussein Obama as the liar-in-chief has no credibility. And it is the liar-in-chief’s lack of credibility and the massive spamming in his defense that makes the “nice neat story that the publicist did it” look like a cover-up.
I disagree. Obama has plenty of credibility with people like Strauss. That doesn’t define Obama, though. It defines Strauss.
When you put all your faith in a liar, you really have no self esteem.
Shazaam said that because Obama has lied, he has a record of lying. That is a tautology, and it does not show (1) that he lies in every case; (2) that he lied to the literary agent.
IF you are shocked, shocked, that politicians lie, well that shows that you are naive. IF you insist that because Obama has lied about other things that he must have lied to the publicist about his place of birth, that is unproven. If you then go on to claim that Goderich must be lying when SHE admitted to making an easy-to-make mistake, well that is really pushing a stupid myth. Sure politicians lie, but she is not a politician, and there is no evidence that she lied, and the mistake was easy to make.
Moreover, for her to have lied and Obama to have written or told her that he was born in Kenya, it would have required Obama to switch his story from the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” in newspaper interviews in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991, and then a switch back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book Dreams from My Father in 1995.
However, we do agree that Obama has probably lied about SOME things and made mis-statements about other things. So, what else is new? He’s still president, you know, and will be until Noon on January 20, 2017. But YOU have the RIGHT to say how sad that makes you.
Your straw man turnip. It shows he lied – that is all Shazaam said. Since it is a proven FACT he lies, it is up to you to prove what he says is not a lie. Unless proven otherwise, the fact that he lies shows he is not trustworthy and therefore all he says is suspect until PROVEN otherwise turnip.
You are simple a vegetable that bleats the message of the day. That is also a proven fact.
Oh please. I expect all politicians to lie when they think they can get away with it.
The laughingstock-in-chief has taken lying to a brazen banana republic level and doesn’t even attempt to hide it. That’s Obama’s signature accomplishment in his tenure as president.
In my opinion, the liar-in-chief’s lack of credibility (well earned) and your massive spamming in his defense that makes that “nice neat story that the publicist did it” look like a cover-up.
Carry on with your cover-up activities.
I’ll try not to snicker too loudly.
Shazaam: Strauss is descending deeper …
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/in-order-to-check-a-fact-you-have-to-have-a-fact-to-check/#comment-418068
Oh yeah, I should probably explain why I’m laughing at you and your cover-up efforts….
Remember you posted this gem:
It’s a sore point with ME. I have no idea what the Obama Administration thinks.
As for me, I have no relations with the Obama Administration or with government or with Democrats. I simply dislike stupid lies.
And yet, you wonder why some people consider it a bad thing for the laughingstock-in-chief aka president Obama to speak falsely at every turn? To ignore the law when he chooses? To represent his campaign contributors over the people?
The reason is quite simple.
As president of the US, Obama is setting the example for all government employees to follow. And they will follow his lead. They are following his example.
The end result shall be a government that will always lie to get what it wants, a government that will choose to not follow it’s own laws when the laws are inconvenient, a government contemptuous of the taxpayers, and,….. Well, I do hope you get the picture.
That my friend is what you are defending so vigorously.
I do hope you enjoy the results.
Re: “The laughingstock-in-chief has taken lying to a brazen banana republic level and doesn’t even attempt to hide it. That’s Obama’s signature accomplishment in his tenure as president.” And then he said that because Obama has lied and because I chose to to refute the claim that the publicist is lying—that is a “cover up.”
Answer: Obama, like other politicians has lied—whether Obama does it more than other politicians is a matter of opinion. You think so, I disagree. But you cannot use the “born in Kenya” story as another example of him lying because you do not have evidence for it. YOU simply claim that the literary agent admitting the mistake is a convenient coverup.
But in fact her making a mistake is vastly more likely than Obama switching his story from “I was born in Hawaii”—which he told newspaper interviewers in 1990—to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book in 1995.
The fact that Obama HAS lied on other matters does not prove that both he and the literary agent are lying in this case—especially since the mistake was so easy to make (Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, really was born in Kenya). The fact that I point out these things has no effect on the situation in the slightest. It was an easy mistake to make, and the literary agent admitted making it.
Shazaam said: “And yet, you wonder why some people consider it a bad thing for the laughingstock-in-chief aka president Obama to speak falsely at every turn? To ignore the law when he chooses? To represent his campaign contributors over the people? ”
THAT is your opinion. In our political system, millions upon millions of people get to make the choice whom they will have as president, and they did. Don’t like it? TOUGH.
It is amusing that one who claims to “simply dislike stupid lies” enjoys such a “hobby”.
I don’t think you appreciate the irony.
Remember, with all propaganda, repetition is the key.
Carry on with your “birther” cover-up.
With all lies, repetition is the key as well. Notice that she now has to keep repeating the same thing since she has already tripped himself up and proven herself a liar.
RTFM turnip! Have you been snipped for discussing it? Nope. But no one except you is “discussing” that, so you are not ‘discussing’ it, you are pontificating. And no one is listening turnip!
Learn to read turnip. Or go troll somewhere else idiot.
It also brings up another point. She either thinks her lies are not stupid (like her crap don’t stink) or is a hypocrite.
Or both.
Mr. Craig,
You have made some very interesting arguments regarding the expected meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution. However, I am reminded of a scene from the movie 1776, which I bet you have seen, in which the Congressional Delegates are considering changes to the draft Declaration of Independence that sits on the table (quotes are approximate):
Needless to say, Congress did not reach a conclusion of the matter on that precise day. ^_^
I would simply point out that based on this (admittedly fictionalized) dialogue, it seems Rutledge, Adams, and Jefferson all agreed on at least one thing: for the persons in question not to have been “Americans”, they would have to have been mere inanimate property, and not persons. Since that is a tautology (The persons would need to have not been persons), it appears, then, that there was no basis in law (natural or otherwise) for them to have been considered anything less than “Americans”.
Dare we think that the Constitution could have in any way reduced what the slaves already were from the Founding in 1776?
God forbid!
Just saying that perhaps the applicability of jus soli is not as cut-and-dried as you have portrayed it. Besides that, I think you have generally made some very good points.
RTF
And, what they decided upon was this principle: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
And there is no evidence of ANY kind that the writers of the US Constitution wanted the US-born children of foreigners not to be treated as equal to the US-born children of US Citizens where the eligibility to become president was concerned. IF they had intended the US-born children of foreigners NOT to be equal. IF they had really thought that the US-born children of foreigners would tend to be more disloyal than the US-born children of US citizens, then they would have said so—–but they never ever did.
It is obvious from your disjointed thoughts that you STILL have not taken the effort to contemplate the EFFECTS of the provisions within the 1790 Act and how the DO “equalize” the station of persons under the appellation of “Citizen”.
Your conception is that a Magic Wand” makes a U.S. natural born Citizen, but the FACT is that the Statutes MAKE Citizens and then the CITIZENS make a natural born Citizen child.
The CONCEPT of a “natural born Citizen comes from the Father of natural law philosophy, Aristotle, who wrote in 350 B.C.:
” … Bk III Part II
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. …”
I am right and you are not, but I have no expectation of you doing anything but what you’ve been doing, obfuscate, distort, distract, convolute and deny the TRUTH.
slcraignbc said:
“contemplate the EFFECTS of the provisions within the 1790 Act …”
The 1790 act was REPEALED, and a piece of legislation has no effect on the meaning of the US Constitution in any case.
The meaning of the US Constitution is defined by the US Supreme Court, and it has already ruled that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.
Don’t like it?
TOUGH.
https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+2nd+inaugural&oq=obama+2nd+inaugural&gs_l=img.12..0i24l2.1107.6206.0.9003.19.9.0.9.9.0.143.877.4j4.8.0….0…1ac.1.53.img..2.17.906.yWMy9kfFk1o&gws_rd=ssl
https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=615&q=obama+2nd+inaugural&oq=obama+2nd+inaugural&gs_l=img.12..0i24l2.1107.6206.0.9003.19.9.0.9.9.0.143.877.4j4.8.0….0…1ac.1.53.img..2.17.906.yWMy9kfFk1o&gws_rd=ssl#tbm=isch&q=obama+swearing+in
BTW, that gives a chance to become president to Jindal and to Rubio—but it is not clear about Cruz (who was born on foreign soil), but there is no question that Jindal and Rubio are both eligible.
You say;
” … The 1790 act was REPEALED, and a piece of legislation has no effect on the meaning of the US Constitution in any case….”
I say, you are a MORON or contemptuous of the COTUS altogether that to say an ACT that WAS IN EFFECT for the 1st 5 years of this Nation had NO EFFECT………..MORON……
…the ONLY thing that was “effectively REPEALED” was the “foreign-born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision being changed to U.S. Citizen, with ALL other provisions reaming in tact as far as EFFECTS are concerned.
But there is no cure for stupid, if you won’t take the only EFFECTIVE medicine, TRUTH and FACTS.
Steven Lee Craig said: “an ACT that WAS IN EFFECT for the 1st 5 years of this Nation had NO EFFECT………..MORON……”
An act that has been repealed has no effect. We had Prohibition once; it was repealed, and it has no effect any more.
Repealed acts are cancelled; they don’t exist anymore. They have no effect.
Well, it only shows that you do not understand the nature of Statutory Construction and the codification of it into Statutes and Statutes at Large.
In this instance the USE of the term of words in the 1790 Act must be taken as being consistent with the SAME term of words within the COTUS, lest the usage in the Act would have NO MEANING at all, under the COTUS.
The Clause of A2S1C5 REQUIRES that a “distinction” exists between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”, but does not say what the distinction consists of, other than the “hint” that “natural born” is pertinent to the distinction.
The circumstances by which an alien may become a Citizen is spelled out in the Act and the children of the aliens that are present with him, (within the limits of the U.S.) are provided for also.
It must be noted that NO provisions are made for the children of newly naturalized aliens that may be born AFTER the naturalization, that circumstance is provided for in the proceeding provision dealing with the children of EXISTING Citizens.
Together the two (2) provisions ESTABLISH the uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship that provides for the circumstance that once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise,
The 1795 REAL of the FOREIGN BORN U.S. natural born Citizen provision DID NOT and COULD NOT Repeal their birth WITHIN THE LIMITS of the U.S. which was ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act as being one in the same “natural born Citizen” as in the A2S1C5 usage.
All children born to a married U.S. Citizen father between 1790 and 1922 were born to TWO (2) U.S. Citizen PARENTS, the women, wives, mothers being considered as U.S. Citizens under the cover of the doctrine of “coverture”, (couveture).
The 14th Amendment DID NOT and COULD NOT Amend the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen without saying so in explicit terms, as the term of words resides in the Executive Articles, which were NOT mentioned in the 14th Amendment, (nor was the term of words (U.S.) natural born Citizen, for that matter)
Steven Lee Craig asserted: “In this instance the USE of the term of words in the 1790 Act must be taken…”
Answer: Actually there is no MUST about it at all. The US Supreme Court decides for itself what sources it will use to construct words, and it chose the common law (as did Tucker and Rawle) and not a law that had been repealed.
The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
smrstrauss says:
August 29, 2014 at 5:54 pm
The bottom line is that the publicist for the literary agent admitted to making a mistake….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good grief you even have that incorrect.
Dystel hired Goderich as her ASSISTANT and then took her with her when she and Aton formed their own company just before Dystel became Obummers lit. agent.
Even a decade later the company only had 11 people.
Goderich was indeed the “agency assistant” for the literary agency when the bio blurb was written. The key fact is that SHE admitted to writing it. She also stated that she did not get the information from Obama, nor did she show what she wrote to him for checking, nor was he told when it was put online so that he could not fix it.
Her TITLE was “agency assistant”–but her function in writing bio blurbs was as a publicist.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
The only important truth is that his mindset is absolutely not American. I don’t think ‘fundamentally transform’ was a typo.
You have the right not to like Obama, and there are millions of people like you (and other millions who disagree), but your OPINION about Obama’s “mindset” does not change the place of his birth or the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Nor does it show that Obama said “I was born in Kenya” to the publicist, who has admitted to making a mistake about what she wrote about Obama’s place of birth.
Just as none of those change his unAmericanism. There’s many not born here that are more American than him. Making them much more qualified for POTUS.
Just as none of those things change his Un-Americanism. There’s countless people not born here that are more American than he, making them much more qualified for POTUS.
‘What he is’ is far less important than ‘Who he is.’
You have the right not to like Obama and to do so for what in your opinion is “un-Americanism.” But others disagree, and he will be president until Noon on January 20, 2017. You have the right to say over and over and over again why you dislike him and why you think that he is “un-American.” But the fact is that people who do not consider him to be Un-American voted for him twice, and elected him, twice, and he was confirmed by the US Congress unanimously twice and sworn in by the chief justice several times after each election, and so he is President of the United States and will remain so until January 20, 2017. YOU have the right to weep and wail, however.
Actually turnip, some voted for him more than twice (as has been proven in a court of law). So you are wrong again turnip.
But that is again a non sequitur, bereft of facts, and lacking in any relevance to the issue at hand.
Except those that voted for him because he share’s their Un- Americanism.
Non sequitur turnip. You are so obsessed with “opinions” you have yet to present a fact.
The issue is not WHERE he was born. The issue is who started the talking point that he was born in Kenya. And the only evidence presented so far is that Obama did moron.
Learn to read turnip.
You as Obama’s mere functioary, an apologist are wrong and a failure.
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what Obama’s literary agent said/wrote about him, on his behalf, was OBAMAs responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED.
Bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
Do you have your own family group plan, Strauß?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/in-order-to-check-a-fact-you-have-to-have-a-fact-to-check/#comment-418317
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20131011/obamacare-should-help-those-with-mental-health-issues-advocates-say
The funniest part of the morons claiming it was a mistake by the editor of the book is that Barry and wife were trading on Barry’s being born in Kenya to promote his career in politics and with the left generally. Easy enough to find the videos on You Tube…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLGItF-Y8Uc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5zvGF6u9g
This playing the race card was so bad that for a number of years news agencies have had to issue retractions when they mistakenly stated Barry was born in Kenya.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nope, I don’t claim to know where he was born and it doesn’t matter. Under the laws at the time his mother could not confer citizenship and his father was not a citizen. Sorry, no NBC for Barry or anyone else not born on the soil of citizen parents.
Re: “Nope, I don’t claim to know where he was born and it doesn’t matter. Under the laws at the time his mother could not confer citizenship and his father was not a citizen…”
The law that you are referring to applied ONLY to births outside of the USA. Obama was born inside the USA, in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers sent to those papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 [and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and in 1961 it only sent those notices for births IN Hawaii] all show).
And every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
So in fact the place of Obama’s birth does matter (as does that of Senator Cruz) and since Obama was born in the USA, he is a Natural Born Citizen—as are Jindal and Rubio (but it is not certain about Cruz, who was in fact born in Canada).
BTW, MIchelle said that Kenya was his “native country”—meaning the place where his ancestors came from (and some of them did). And, duh, the speech by Obama was at the Correspondents Club dinner—where he is supposed to make JOKES, and that, duh duh, is a JOKE.
Yup, it was a joke. And an even bigger joke is your apparently claiming to have seen Barry’s birth certificate. Was it stuck on the Unicorn’s horn?? Please link that official BC for us, why don’t you, so we can all look yet again at the marks of its also being a joke!!
As to every child being born on the soil of the US being an NBC you are delusional. Every child born on the soil isn’t even a citizen even though you leftards still claim that the 14th make them citizens because of misconscrewing the “under the authority clause”.
Please post a couple more volumes of invalid links supporting the propaganda.
kuhnkat said: “Yup, it was a joke. And an even bigger joke is your apparently claiming to have seen Barry’s birth certificate. Was it stuck on the Unicorn’s horn?? Please link that official BC for us, why don’t you, so we can all look yet again at the marks of its also being a joke!!”
Here are web images of Obama’s short-form birth certificate, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Here is the White House image of Obama’s long form birth certificate:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Here is the jpg copy taken by Savanna Gutherie, on which she stated that she had felt the raised seal:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/LongFormPhoto.jpg
In addition to the images there the confirmations by the officials of Hawaii that they sent the short form and long form to Obama and that the facts on the copies that have been published are exactly the same as on what they sent to him:
Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/
Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
In addition, there is the further confirmations by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.
Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
(And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)
Here is the Index Data file:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html
Further confirmation comes from the interview with the Hawaii school teacher who stated that she had been told by the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital that a child had been born to a woman named Stanley:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm
In contrast, birther sites have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961, and it would have been rare for her to have one since so few 18-year-olds did in that year. And EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 (and she would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy since she was attending college for most of the year) because of the risk of stillbirths.
Yet birthers hope to convince a few GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND the officials of BOTH parties are lying about it AND so is the Index Data AND so are the birth notices AND so is the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley, and BTW, Kapionani Hospital has now confirmed Obama was born there–in fact it has done so TWICE (birther sites did not show either of them).
And BTW, birther sites LIED about the Kenyan grandmother. She never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly. Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just BEFORE she was asked where he was born (I wonder why they did that??) Her answer to the question where Obama was born was “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.” (But birther sites refused to quote her and cut off the tape that included her statement.)
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent wrote about him, on his behalf, was OBAMAs responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED.
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
smrstrauss,
now, when are you going to show us a real Birth Certificate?? Even if the electronic images on the net weren’t forgeries, they are not legal to use.
If you had spent ANY TIME AT ALL looking at the claims and the actual digital images you would be ashamed.
Oh wait, leftards are never ashamed of lying for the cause…
Re: “propaganada.”
The Heritage Foundation does not support liberal “propaganda.” Here is what its book on the US Constitution says:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And the same definition comes from Senators Hatch and Graham (who do not support liberal “propaganda”) and the same from former Senator Fret Thompson.
QED.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/in-order-to-check-a-fact-you-have-to-have-a-fact-to-check/#comment-419278
You as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said/wrote about him, on his behalf, was OBAMAs responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED.
Bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
It’s the Borg. The Strauß are the Borg.
The Strauß could also be an earlier, less advanced version of this squishy thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ww9VtkZ8Pw#t=15
Hardly! The borg were formidable. Can you see a recurring theme centered around boobs that cannot get anything correct? Ships disintegrating in space, weapons that blow up the shooters.
Maybe for the Star Trek Parody, but not for one of the serious series.
The Keystone Borg?
Now THAT would be a movie I would pay to see! 😆
Do not forget Atlas Shrugged Part III is playing tonite! (at least it is here in MC)
Notice that Colorado Wellington no longer discusses facts. (I wonder why not???)
No longer?
None of the many participating Strauß discussed any facts with me. The Strauß has a problem talking to self but did it stop speaking completely? Did it have an argument with self?
The only role of the Strauß on this blog is for amusement and ridicule. It’s done well.
Colorado Wellington is saying that he has NEVER discussed the facts. Well, too bad, but I publish them for rational people.
Obama’s literary agent made the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya in the bio blurb that was put online. She admitted that she made the mistake.
She said that Obama did not tell her that he was born in Kenya. And she’s not lying; he didn’t. So the literary agent made the mistake. Obama did not write or say that he was born in Kenya. SHE did. (And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya.) Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii and the birth notices and the index data files all show.
And Obama did not switch his story from the truthful “I was born in Hawaii” he had told the newspapers in interviews in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book in 1995. He said that he was born in Hawaii consistently. So the publicist was not lying—she made the mistake.
That’s the liar-in-chief’s story. Smrstrauss believes it. And Smrstrauss will keep repeating that story (propaganda) until everyone believes it……
According to smrstrauss, King Putt would never tell a lie about where he was born.
{snickers}
Well, there is a large enough gullible population to keep the Nigerian email scammers in business. So there will be some gullible souls who still might believe Obama is truthful.
So it just makes sense that there are some very gullible people that might believe smrstrauss’ explanation that it was all just a misunderstanding that was never noticed for 17 years.
Just wasn’t noticed when the liar-in-chief ran for any other public office….
Wasn’t noticed until it mattered…
{snickers}
Shazaam said:
“That’s the liar-in-chief’s story. Smrstrauss believes it. And Smrstrauss will keep repeating that story (propaganda) until everyone believes it…”
Here is the 1990 NY Times article in which Obama told the newspaper that he was born IN HAWAII.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
And I have read Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father, and it clearly says that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in it.
So, if you allege that both of those were lies, then the birth certificates from Hawaii and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties and the Index Data and the birth notice sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 would all have to be lying too.
It is far more likely that Obama was telling the truth when he said in that interview and in his book that he was born in HAWAII.
And so you’d have to believe (without any evidence at all) that Obama switched from the truthful statement “I was born in Hawaii” in 1990 to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1961 and then back to “I was born in Hawaii” in his book, and that is precisely what the literary agent said did not happen since she admitted to making A MISTAKE.
(And it was an easy mistake to make since Obama’s father really was born in Kenya, and his name also was Barack Hussein Obama [Barack Hussein Obama I}.)
The fact that the mistake was not found for years and years is normal. Lots of mistakes take years to find, and the explanation is simple—Obama was never told that the bio blurb was written and put online so, duh, he did not know about it in order to fix it.
King Putt and his IRS without a “smidgen” of corruption is somewhat less than believable on any issue.
Including where he may or may not have claimed to have been born in a publisher’s bio. It’s just so “convenient” that after 17 years, someone discovers a mistake was made just when it really mattered….
For someone who “just hates stupid lies” you have chosen a pretty lame horse to ride……
shazaam said: ” It’s just so “convenient” that after 17 years, someone discovers a mistake was made just when it really mattered…. ”
Mistakes are made and not fixed for years very very frequently. What is far more rare are literary agents who never make mistakes. Here is one of them who admitted to making a mistake. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya. Obama himself, Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii. She got her facts wrong. She admitted it. YOU claim that she is lying.
Well, she isn’t. Obama did not switch from “I was born in Hawaii” (a true statement made to the newspapers in 1990) to the lie “I was born in Kenya” in 1991 and then back to the true statement “I was born in Hawaii” in his book. There is no evidence that he did that, and it would be a stupid and unnecessary thing to do. (There’s no indication that it would even have sold more books.)
So, she got the story wrong. She mixed up Barack Hussein Obama I with Barack Hussein Obama II. People do really make mistakes, you know, and it really does happen that the mistakes that they make are not discovered and fixed for years and years.
A short collection demonstrating the liar-in-chief’s “truthiness”……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Q2EZJr0_0
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMAs responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED.
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
Notice that the turnip never discussed the facts. I do not wonder why.,
See the facts above.
The mistake is and always has been Obamas. Period.
No amount of your sophistry will change that.
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
The ones I posted or the ones Steven Goddard posted? You have yet to post any turnip.
smrstrauss says:
“….Here is the 1990 NY Times article in which Obama told the newspaper that he was born IN HAWAII…..”
So we are to BELIEVE the New York Times? The SAME New York Times that ran stories by Soviet Agent Walter Duranty DELIBERATELY HIDING the existence of the Holodomor.
April 21, 2014 Walter Duranty—Still Honored by the New York Times
I wouldn’t believe the NYT if it said the sky was blue without double checking first.
Re: ““….So we are to BELIEVE the New York Times? ”
I post the facts for rational people. The NY Times has been wrong, and it has had journalists who have lied—like many newspapers. But there is no evidence that it lied in 1990 and that Obama told the NT Times that he was born in Kenya, but then the NY Times lied and said that he was born in Hawaii. That would be a STUPID thing to believe. Obama said he was born in HAWAII (which he was), and the Times put down that he was born in HAWAII.
And you don’t have to believe Obama’s book either. It says that Obama was born in Hawaii—which is the same thing as his birth certificate and the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and only the DOH of Hawaii could send those notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births in Hawaii).
YOU don’t have to believe any of those facts. You can dream that they are all lying, and that the literary agent who admitted to making a mistake about Obama’s place of birth is lying when she admitted that mistake. YOU can believe whatever you want.
But I post the facts for the benefit of rational people. Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii. She made a mistake.
The mistake is and always has been Obamas. Period.
No amount of your sophistry will change that.
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
YOU have absolutely no evidence that Obama said it. And the literary agent said that she made the mistake. It was an easy mistake to make, but YOU insist that she did not make a mistake and that she is lying. Well, there is no evidence that she is lying.
I’m guessing that your purpose for being here is to test if the Goderich “read it in a book” claim is adequately defensible,
The Answer is clearly not if the turnip is doing the presentation..
Wrong again.
Read the top of the post fool.
Obama IS responsoible regardless of what YOU think.
Hey, failure no amount of repeating the same lies makes you correct
No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMAs responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED.
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
Of course there is another way of looking at the various inconsistencies in the “o”s bio-life-narrative.
A distinct possibility that he knew nothing about who he was and what he was supposed to say about his life until he was told by those who were “caring” for him.
The publisher responsible for this “bio” may or may not have ever actually spoke to the “0” and the “0” may or may not have been aware that a book by him was being discussed by the publisher and those that “care” for him.
Whack – O – mo, jello, and squeezing a balloon has nothing on pinning down the FACTS of the “0”s bio-life-narrative.
Wrong you’re also a failure.
No amount of sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility. Nobby else Obama’s. It was Obama responsibility that what HIS literary agent says is true – nothing the Obama apologists say can ever deny that FACT.
Don’t misunderstand, I am NOT an 0’pologist.
What I’m saying is that every thing we know about the “0” may well be the musings of those that “cared” for him from his childhood and as things progressed breadcrumbs were dropped so they could backtrack and fill in empty spaces with fabricated documents and photo-shopped photos, etc.
The published bio was useful when it was 1st introduced and then became unhelpful when it created an unintended inconsistency and so it’s being managed by the “0”poligists to minimize its circulation as directed by those that “care” for the “0”.
The 0’poligist’s are many and deep within the layers of the American Political system as testified by the fact of getting 100% of the Socialist votes in two (2) National election cycles.
So finding the threads of inconsistencies are easy, finding the documentation of ANYTHING regarding the “0”s TRUE history is, at this point in time, improbable, being locked up in Al Gores “LOCK-BOX” along with the Social Security Trust Fund.
The bottom line is as Steven says –
“Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage.
The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya.”
and Steven shows that Obama failed to correct it, failed to refute it, and now wants to take no resposibility for what HIS agent said of him in the publicity for so many years.
This IS Obama’s failing, nobody else. He failed.
That is NOT a quote of mine ………. and I am also NOT saying that the “0” is not ultimately responsible for participating in a charade persona cum usurper which made him a FAILURE from the moment a vote was cast for him, State and National.
Unfortunately, FAILURE is a relative judgement assuming that a person holds a goal and an end that is consistent with the historical records of previous office holders.
The “0” has ACCOMPLISHED a great many of the historical SOCIALIST GOALS and all that is left is to keep the PEOPLE preoccupied on one crisis after another while the agents within the bureaucracy lay legal land-minds against any attempt to undo them.
YES, the “0” is a FAILURE as an AMERICAN, but he has succeeded enough to be on T-Shirts for years to come along with Che and true sycophants will hang his pic right next to Mao.
You have no evidence that Obama told the NY crimes he was born in Hawaii – yet you maintain that delusion turnip.
In fact, you have no evidence he ever read the Ny Crimes article on him.
You post your opinion turnip, not facts. So far you have yet to post a single pertinent fact. The NY Crimes did indeed say he was born in Hawaii. Obama did not. His bio did indeed say he was born in kenya. Obama never denied it for 17 years.
Those are the facts. The rest is your opinion turnip.
It is not an “opinion.” It is instead a FACT that the literary agent said that she made the mistake. You claim that she is lying. That is your OPINION—but you have nothing whatever to back it up. Yes the mistake was not found for many years—but that does not make it any less a MISTAKE.
Those are the facts. The rest is your opinion Brussels sprout.
It is NOT a FACT, it is nothing but hear-say. Given the lies surrounding Obummer nothing you can say will change UNSUPPORTED hear-say into a FACT.
That you would spam this site for weeks just shows how desperate the Obummer/Democrat Propagandists are becoming.
Now THAT is a fact supported by your 200 plus comments.
I really didn’t pay much attention to the Births because I am an Independent. However your spamming is making me change my mind about filing them under the ‘Tinfoil Hat’ category. Take that FACT back to your pay master.
“Birthers are those disgusting people who claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, in order to gain political or economic advantage.
The original birther seems to have been Barack Obama, who apparently told his literary agents in 1991 that he was born in Kenya.”
“The writer of the “born in Kenya” bio has admitted to making the mistake all by herself, ”
is immaterial to the FACT that Obama allowed his paid for agent to lie. It was Obama’s responsibility to ensure that what is said about him by a paid agent is true, IT IS OBAMA’S RESPONSIBILITY nobody else. No amount of your sophistry will change the FACT that what his literary agent said about him, on his behalf, was OBAMA’s responsibility.
Obama failed to take responsibility, again Obama FAILED. And lied again!
Or more bluntly, you as Obama’s apologist are wrong and a failure.
Obama’s wrong and a failure.
Obama’s literary agent can say what she wants, it is Obama’s failure.
The faiure of Obama to take control of this situation and correct any mistakes made on his behalf by his agent, this shows that he is negligent at best.
Obamas record is of negligence, lies, misdirection, and failure. He is negligent in that he failed to use reasonable care about what HIS agent said. Obama DID ALLOW this to happen which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or failed to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.
This begs the question why. And that question cause speculation, some of which is that as a negligent, irrisponsile, lying person Obama has much to hide.
Re: “The faiure of Obama to take control of this situation and correct any mistakes made on his behalf by his agent, this shows that he is negligent at best.”
Big deal. Negligence about what a literary agent writes about you is neither a high crime nor even a misdemeanor.
I would appreciate it if nobody would respond to this comment. I want this thread to cease. It is unbelievably annoying.
It is a big deal turnip. No one said that his instigation of the birther rumor was a planned event. That his negligence was the source, or whether he did it himself, the responsibility is still his.
You just agreed with Steven’s evidence turnip
It is also a FACT that Obama said you could keep your doctor, turnip. However the FACT is you cannot under obamacare.
Again, no one cares who lies about what. Present some facts turnip. Presenting someone’s lies is not presenting facts.
philjourdan said: “It is also a FACT that Obama said you could keep your doctor, turnip. However the FACT is you cannot under obamacare.”
Obama was wrong about Obamacare. But that is not proof that he lied and told the literary agent in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. Nor is it proof that SHE lied (and she is not a politician) when she said that she made A MISTAKE about Obama’s place of birth and that Obama did not tell her that he was born in Kenya or write the bio, and that she did not send it to him for checking and that she did not tell him when it was put online so that he did not know that it was online in order to fix it.
The Strauß street vendor cart, herring on sale.