On Responding to Opponents of Presidential Eligibility
To date, a number of commentaries have appeared on the web fundamentally questioning — and producing endless numbers of leading conclusions — the rationale behind why sites such as mine are “still” questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility. I’ve responded to a few of them, including The Politico, TheExaminer and HoustonPress (who didn’t even perform enough cursory reporting to realize that my site is not Dr. Taitz’ site), and — at the request of some in the opposition — a systematic analysis of the Holocaust Museum shooter, James W. von Brunn.
Today, however, CNN featured commentary that simply went over the top (even beyond what many opposition commenters on this site would dare venture to go). My posting is going to take the opportunity of this bombastic hyperbole to address some key points that go beyond a rational explanation for the eligibility question (links below).
From Roland S. Martin’s commentary, “Obama birth issue is nutty” (I’ll briefly embed my analysis and then continue with further points below):
Editor’s note: A nationally syndicated columnist, Roland S. Martin is the author of “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith” and “Speak, Brother! A Black Man’s View of America.” Visit his Web site for more information.
(CNN) — The YouTube video of an out-of-control woman yelling and screaming at Republican Congressman Mike Castle’s town hall meeting in Delaware, demanding to see the birth certificate of President Barack Obama, is utterly hilarious.
To watch others cheer her insanity, and then boo the congressman who says the president is an American, shows you that we have a serious problem with mental illness in this country.
Much more on this below, but it did not occur to me that rhetorical dissention equals “mental illness.”
The nut jobs that continue to promote this story are wacky, right-wing radio and TV talk shows hosts and no-credibility bloggers. They have latched onto this story like bloodsucking leeches, and actually want us to believe this story has legs.
Well now, aside from the fact that DHS already thinks that individuals such as myself are “right-wing extremists,” I think anyone who has casually observed my blog knows that I’m “far right”-enough to believe in such concepts as a constitutionally strong but limited federal government that wholly respects individual rights (where the greatest minority is the individual).
As far as “no-credibility bloggers” such as myself “want[ing] us to believe this story has legs,” perhaps you’re barking up the wrong tree. Go talk to these media outlets. Oh, and let’s not forget — I guess Rush Limbaugh is now officially a “birther,” because he has mentioned Mr. Obama’s eligibility not just once but twice.
Last week, in a suit filed by perennial presidential loser, Alan Keyes, they even tried to claim a court victory after a federal district judge in California asked to listen to the merits of their case. I’m sure he simply wanted to see for himself how delusional they are.
“I’m sure?” Now begins the litany of leading conclusions with no basis in fact whatsoever. Why don’t you go ahead and ask Dr. Keyes yourself? He’s already made Friends with me on my Facebook page; maybe if you’re nice he’ll do the same for you, too 
From the moment President Obama entered the race, he has had to endure the so-called flag-waving American patriots who think they are the arbiters of what’s right for the country. What cracks me up is that in order to justify their loony beliefs, they say, “The president could just end this once and for all by producing the birth certificate.”
You know, if it weren’t for that blasted language of “Of the People, By the People, For the People,” I’d perhaps think you’d have some sort of point regarding the fact that our constitutional republic is ultimately in the hands of the People. And from my reading of that classical document, I only ever see the People and maybe the States, per se, having rights; the federal government has none.
Ah, but remember — I’m merely a concerned citizen; what do I know about such sophisticated documents of statecraft such as the Constitution?
Do you actually believe these wackos will stop there? They will then accuse the president of doctoring the document and ordering up the state of Hawaii and federal officials to create the birth certificate.
Leading conclusion with no factual basis number two.
The next thing you know, one of those nut job right-wingers in Congress — and yes, there are left-wing nut jobs as well — will demand a federal investigation into the production of the birth certificate.
Oops! The next best thing has already occurred. Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) HR1503 makes such a demand for future presidential candidates, and it currently sports 9 co-sponsors.
At least this leading conclusion number three has some semblance of factual basis to it.
During the presidential campaign last year, the issue of whether Barack Obama was a “natural born citizen” legally qualified to be president was scrutinized by reporters and researchers who concluded that Obama was born in the United States.
For example, in August, 2008, factcheck.org published the following: “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false.”
Bad example, for two reasons I can think of:
1. FactCheck.org has never done what they’ve proclaimed to the original birth certificate; they allegedly did these things to a certification of live birth (see links below for further info);
2. Even if the certification of live birth “[met] all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship,” that is a mutually exclusive question from presidential eligibility.
President Obama is right to ignore these losers. They are right up there with Holocaust deniers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the people who insist that the landing on the moon was done in a television studio.
Conspiracy theorists are everywhere. It’s just that today, we have to deal with the Internet and all the mess that is disseminated in the name of so-called transparency.
So nut jobs, keep it coming. In such difficult times, we all need a good laugh every now and then, and you provide great comic fodder.
OK. Time for a more in-depth analysis as well as what people can expect — really, have been expecting — from me and folks who think similarly to me regarding the eligibility issue.
I think we can all agree that, as Americans, we hold freedom of speech to be sacrosanct, especially as the concept is embodied within the 1st Amendment. We agree that classical liberalism and democracy absolutely depend on a free flow of debate on any given topic.
And this is really at the heart of it, isn’t it? We do not believe that anyone has the right to be offended, nor do we believe that any one individual or entity has the right to be the gatekeeper of determining exactly what can be discussed nor to what degree that thing can be discussed. Does this mean that such a debate is always going to be pretty or result in the conclusions that we each would like to see? Of course not, but with a free flow of discussion comes the innate understanding that either side may come to a better understanding of the topic at hand.
For example, folks over at TheBirthers.org have presented a very different view of the importance of the status of Mr. Obama’s parents (most people would agree that parenthood has at least something to do with presidential eligibility), specifically his father:
Currently there is a new myth being propagated by Obots that Obama is the son of an immigrant. They want the American people to think that he qualifies to be a natural born citizen as the child of an immigrant. They are misleading the American people and what is evident is that these are educated people with access to the facts, which makes their misleading the public intentional.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, Obama’s Father was never at any time an immigrant to the United States, by intention or by law. He was a person of a “transient” nature to the United States. For Obama’s supporters to equate him to those who gave up home, friends and family to pursue the American Dream is to make a mockery to their contributions to making the United States their home.
On the US State Department’s website on the page entitled Immigrants to the U.S. it clearly states,
Immigrating to the United States to live here permanently is an important, and complex decision. This section provides information to help foreign citizens desiring to permanently immigrate to determine the visas, requirements, and related materials they will need to apply to immigrate to the United States.
Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. had no intention of residing in the United States permanently, he was here in the early 1960’s because he was hand picked by the founder of the socialist, Nairobi People’s Congress Party to come to the United States to study in preparation for Kenya’s independence.
There are two types of student visas for the United States, F-1 and M-1. Both are classified as nonimmigrant visas by the U.S. State Department.
Like father, like son, both transients. One a transient to the United States the other a transient to the Oval Office. In their passing through, both have left their mark. One left a young woman with a baby to care for, the other is damn determined to leave every baby for future generations with a debt that our children’s children will never be able to repay.
True immigrants serve a special purpose in the United States, and that purpose is not for cheap labor. They serve as a walking reminder to us that our ancestors left their mother and father lands to give their children the fruits of a dream they had, where their children and their children’s children would live free and be a part of the greatest experiment in the history of mankind. There dream was to be Americans. Obama and his supporters use of the term “immigrant” when describing his father is insulting and demeaning to the sacrifices true immigrants to the United States have made over the past 200 plus years.
Do you folks — and I’m including everyone in this — get it yet? This has nothing to do with anything except the Constitution.
Some may say, “But Phil, all you’re really doing is trying to discredit an African-American.” Really? Have you actually thought about the undeniably bigoted ramifications of such a leading conclusion? How about this — are individuals such as myself prevented from questioning this man purely because of his ethnic background? What would that say about you and me?
What it would say is this:
Concerning the office of the President, it is of absolutely no consequence who this person is as long as they fulfill the requirements of the Constitution to the letter. To say anything above and beyond this truth is to add to the qualifications — or subtract therefrom — that anyone with any sort of distinguishing characteristics is above the law.
Perhaps you’re now beginning to get it. When individuals such as myself believe in respecting the Constitution, we didn’t say it was going to be an easy task; we simply find it so bizarre that there are any number of individuals who wish to see the politician as being somehow immune from constant and continued questions.
To be clear, I’m not talking about those who think that the eligibility issue has been settled; I say, “good for you.” Instead, I’m addressing individuals who have the same mindset as Mr. Martin manifests, above. He goes well beyond the concept of eligibility being settled for him. He literally holds individuals like myself to such a disdainfully low position that not only are we not qualified to hold an opinion, but to further question this President’s eligibility is like being a Holocaust denier or thinking that the Moon landing never occurred.
In my view, that kind of rhetoric is what’s dangerous for this country. Rather, what he should be saying is the following:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
– The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Nobody is above the law. Regardless of our personal ignorances, the Constitution is what it is; if anyone needs to re-familiarize themselves with it, then the eligibility question has provided a wonderful opportunity to do so. It certainly has for me.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy CNN
MGB says:
Neither did I.
Why “suspect” when the issue is so clearly resoled? As you can see right here, I’ve been called worse than I’ve called anyone. Name-calling has never been my issue, even though I’d win on it.
Gee, I thought I did just that, even in my very latest post in response to you, Oh look: I did — check it out: I cited Akhil Reed Amar stating, for a lay audience, that the serious candidates were all constitutionally eligible, and specifically explaining what “natural born citizen” means. http://slate.com/id/2183588/
MGB wants to pretend the issue is “name calling”, but is anyone fooled? In addition to court decisions, we who are called ‘obots’ can cite first class constitutional scholars and peer-reviewed articles in legal journals. We can also cite leading Republicans, such as Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl, who wrote, “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.”
MGB, when I cited Professor Amar, you responded with the claim, “Other Constitutional law scholars would disagree.” What other “Constitutional law scholars” disagree? That’s what I asked, and I did so with no “name calling”.
Do you think you are fooling anyone? I cited top Republicans and top Constitutional scholars flat-out stating the President Obama is eligible for the office he holds. At times I’ve expressed disrespect for those who hold otherwise, by my recent response to you in this thread contained no “name calling”.
You, MGB, claimed that other Constitutional scholars disagree, so I challenged you to cite them. I think that challenge to be fair. Instead of citing who you were talking about and what they say, you falsely pretend that I was just “name calling”.
MGB, you made the claim. Where are these Constitutional scholars who take your side, in disagreement with Professor Amar? Challenging you to support what you claimed is not mere “name calling”.
As I wrote last time
When faced with the challenge to cite just one reference of comparable caliber, MGB proclaimed he would not respond.
It’s open to anyone; no big deal that MGB cowered away. Can anyone cite any serious American legal journal, any noted American Constitutional scholars, claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States? We’ve heard Leo Donofrio’s sophistry, echoed by Berg and Apuzzo, but do the eligibility-deniers have even one legitimate legal scholar? Any citations comparable to what we obots so easily show?
Well? Still waiting.
MGB:
SUGGESTIONS. To you. Not orders. Suggestions. See the difference?
How does anyone ”order” anybody to do anything on the Internet?
If you took some of these suggestions, maybe you would learn something. But that does not appear to be something that interests you. It is not convenient to your prejudices.
Here’s another suggestion: Less whining, more thinking.
HistorianDude and brygenon: I didn’t study debating in school, but I suspect that you would lose many points in a debate by your persistent name calling. It doesn’t add anything to your arguments.
I am neither a liar, nor a hypocrite. Why can’t either of you simply debate honestly, without name calling? It will please both of you to learn that I will never again respond to either of you. It’s an exercise in futility. And no, you have not “won.” I choose not to waste any more time on you. Anyone who reads and understands can see and judge for themselves. Truth will out. Depend upon it.
HistorianDude: I said, in regard to Chris Matthews: “He treated that Congressperson abysmally. In my opinion, he owes the man an apology. It’s no wonder that certain networks are losing viewers faster than Obama is losing.”
Is this an order? NO. It’s my opinion.
You said, “Great. Right back at you. I’m sure Chris Matthews feels the same way too. So don’t be a hypocrite. Stop giving orders to other people to apologize for stuff.”
I did nothing of the kind. I stated an opinion. I gave no orders to Chris Matthews or anyone else. Here are examples of orders, your words:
“Take an hour, and go through RSoL”
“Read what Birthers here repeatedly and with great relish call the elected President of the United States.”
“Make a little list of the names he is called.”
“Make another of the “crimes” he accused of.”
“List the attacks on his wife.”
“Count the calls for his arrest or his deportation.”
“Spend one hour doing that”
“then come back to me . . .”
ORDERS. To me. Not opinions. Orders. See the difference?
If you don’t, then you are intellectually dishonest and do not know as much about the English language as you pretend.
What is “nutty” is the courts and their take on what is considered an NBC. The MSM will continue to denigrate and marginalize the eligibility concern as long as we continue to perpetuate the focus of the birth certificate.
I include the following in light of the courts and a case before the USSC in 2001.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/07/semantics-court-and-temporal.html
-1SG Nosworthy
You are the best. Sending this to everyone I know. I hope Orly will heed your advice, take a breath before she speaks and allows the Judge to finish his thoughts. She has a slam-dunk case but she needs to articulate it to the Judge in an organized and coherent manner. The only thing of value on the birth certificate is “Name of Father”.
Thank you for staying with us on this.
MGB:
First, let’s point out how the tape was manufactured in the attempt to make up for a previous Birther lie. Berg (and others) had been claiming since at least August of ’08 that Sarah Obama had said she present at Obama’s birth in Kenya. The claim is included in his original court filing. It turned out to be uture, no such clasim could be found anywhere. The tape of which you speak was not made until the following October, specifically for the purpose of trying to turn the earlier lie onto a true story.
Unfortunately for the Birthers, it did not work.
Have you actually listened to the tape? I mean actually listened to it? If so, you would have recognized the following very simple and straightforward facts.
1. At no time on the tape do we ever once hear Sarah Obama say that she was present at her step grandson’s birth.
2. Instead we hear an unknown translator say she answered. “Yes.” But not only do we not know that she really did answer yes, we do not even know what question she was asked since it was asked out of “earshot” of the phone, and in a language that is not English.
3. The only Obama relative whose voice is ever actually heard on the tape making any claim about Obama’s place of birth is a cousin who repeatedly corrects the interviewer that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Your asserted “step-grandmother’s claim” does not exist. She never said it a single time on that tape, let alone “more than once.”
First, I never said you had to “prove” anything. All I asked for was a single piece of evidence that contradicted the proof he has already offered. What you offered was a tape you appear to have actually never even listened to, and that does not contain what you asserted it contained.
Unless and until you can provide a single piece of evidence that contradicts the COLB, then it is exactly what you falsely claim he has never provided. Proof that he meets the qualifications for the job.
You guys seem to forget that in the battle of evidence, Obama has some and you don’t.
Then perhaps you should spend more time trying to correct your fellow Birthers so they will not tar your entire movement with the brush of willful dishonesty.
What is it that you guys don’t get about the fact that you will never personally see anything better than the Internet image? Obama is never gonna mail each of you a certified copy. We know that last July it was in Chicago, because FactCheck went there and held in their own hands and photographed it. That’s as close to the real thing you are personally ever going to get.
What WND did not tell you is that while some COLB’s may not be absolute proof, the Obama COLB is. Not only does it perfectly meet the requirements of State Department regulations, but they have also testified under oath that it does so.
Not quite. He claims he has just passed 400,000. Sadly, the petition has no protections against people signing it more than once, or using their real names to do so. How do I know this? I’ve signed it myself at least a dozen times using names like “Bozo The Clown,” “Lolo Soetoro” and “Osama Bin Laden.”
That was Jon Stewart’s line. It was very funny, but not the funniest in his review of the Birther movement.
So I make you happy then? Okay. That works fine too.
I have answered the question repeatedly. You simply do not like the answer. He proved what he claims by producing the COLB. He cannot produce the long form because it would set a disastrous legal precedent.
I can repeat the answer just as many times as you can pretend to have not heard it.
No. I think it has everything to do with the fact that they are professionals, and often get the story right. This time, they have gotten the story right.
Great. Right back at you. I’m sure Chris Matthews feels the same way too. So don’t be a hypocrite. Stop giving orders to other people to apologize for stuff.
Congressmen are grown-ups. If they cannot take the heat of criticism from the press, they should find other work.
MGB says:
Who are you talking about? What great Universities have given them professorships and how many times has the Supreme Court cited them? You would need just one counterexample to disprove my claim: “They [birthers] have no articles from peer-reviewed legal journals, no noted constitutional scholars on their side.” How come you cite zero?
It is a myth that Obama only showed a web image of his B.C. He made the actual document available for journalists to inspect and photograph, and The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Political Fact-Check did just that. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
That’s another birther lie, as I demonstrated last time, and this very thread demonstrates.
If you have some problem with Hawaiian birth certificates, you should take that up with Governor Lingle. Obama simply got the form of birth certificate that his state of birth issues, and of course that’s fine:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” — U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1
earl says:
July 24, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“right-wing extremists,” “fringe,”
Hooray for birthers! You’re being called the Radical Racist Right by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups. Their President is calling for CNN to take Lou Dobbs off the air and he says in part:
“As he has in several other instances, Mr. Dobbs, in taking up the birthers’ claims, is adopting an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that originated on the radical racist right. As Gawker.com has reported, this particular conspiracy theory was first developed by an open anti-Semite and circulated by right-wing extremists who cannot accept the fact that a black man has been elected president of the United States. Among its adherents was neo-Nazi James von Brunn, the alleged murderer of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., this June. Von Brunn had helped spread the birthers’ claims on the Internet and attacked the “dishonest & conspiratorial Media” for not taking them up.”
http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=390
In short,SPLC says Birthers = Right Wing Extremists = Radical Racist Right. Welcome to the mainstream.
************************************************************************************
Earl,,,,,just for you…….
AS posted at Leo Donofrio’s site…..send this question out far and wide people…if you have GIBBS email send it to him too!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make this question your mantra. Don’t be distracted from it.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK GIBBS NEXT TIME, WND:
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
AS posted at Leo Donofrio’s site…..send this question out far and wide people…if you have GIBBS email send it to him too!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make this question your mantra. Don’t be distracted from it.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK GIBBS NEXT TIME, WND:
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?
Black Lion says:
July 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“It looks like the TRO that Orly filed for Major Cook was thrown out….As usual Orly outstanding legal filing skills were on display…
. . .
First year law student stuff. Think about it, 150 page document and forgetting to file the actual complaint. I guess Major Cook should look into getting a lawyer to be his lawyer instead of a dentist pretending to be one.”
I think the judge recognized this. When he denied the TRO, he declared Cook to be pro se – without a lawyer.
syc1959 wrote:
No, that was just another false birther report. Hawaii stated no such thing. Obama might have multiple COLB’s — they only cost $10.00 — but there’s no actual evidence that he does.
This is why there’s no point in trying to appease conspiracy theorists. There is no document they cannot proclaim to be a forgery.
BO is Constitutionally Unqualified to be POTUS by his own admission. It is just a matter of time before BO is legally removed from POTUS.
It is as simple as that.
“right-wing extremists,” “fringe,”
Hooray for birthers! You’re being called the Radical Racist Right by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups. Their President is calling for CNN to take Lou Dobbs off the air and he says in part:
“As he has in several other instances, Mr. Dobbs, in taking up the birthers’ claims, is adopting an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that originated on the radical racist right. As Gawker.com has reported, this particular conspiracy theory was first developed by an open anti-Semite and circulated by right-wing extremists who cannot accept the fact that a black man has been elected president of the United States. Among its adherents was neo-Nazi James von Brunn, the alleged murderer of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., this June. Von Brunn had helped spread the birthers’ claims on the Internet and attacked the “dishonest & conspiratorial Media” for not taking them up.”
http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=390
In short,SPLC says Birthers = Right Wing Extremists = Radical Racist Right. Welcome to the mainstream.
HistorianDude,
I’m still waiting on that list of UserIDs on this site that you claim to have turned over to your side. In a previous thread you stated that you had persuaded others to your way of thinking. So let’s see the evidence.
I want to see the ID’s that were previously questioning eligibility, but is now posting opposition messages such as yourself. That would be tangible evidence that could be verified, as opposed that hogwash you normally espouse . But you won’t provide that, your answer (If you respond at all) will be some kind of redirect or non-answer.
Below is a comment I found at Mario Apuzzo’s website….I just called and talked to one of the producers to have Mario on. I stated that Roland Martin was a biased misinformed person who was giving Americans the wrong information. Please call or email this Emily and tell them we want the truth and not the LIES they are spreading!!!!
*************************************************
Now that you are in a waiting game with the courts and the MSM has started discussing the issue, you should step up your efforts to get some major interviews, especially with Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs seems to be on our side and we have to keep him on our side before he loses interest. Please try to get an interview with Lou Dobbs. Orly posted the contact information she used to get her interview with Lou Dobbs:
Emily Benson
CNN * Lou Dobbs Tonight
212-275-7931 office
212-275-8100 newsroom
emily.benson@turner.com
See if you find more inside information to contact Lou Dobbs.
Wait until Lou Dobbs interviews you…..
Historian Dude: Where to begin?
First of all, I have never made a “vicious personal attack” on anyone. I am not speaking for everyone who has ever commented on this blog. I should have said, “we who have more class” debate and don’t personally attack those with whom we disagree.
You said, “Get some actual evidence that your otherwise wacky ideas have a reason to be taken seriously. To this point, Birthers have been unable to deliver a single piece of evidence that (for example) Obama was born anywhere on the planet other than Honolulu, Hawaii.”
There is the evidence of his step-grandmother’s claim, on tape, that he was born in Kenya and that she was present at his birth. She said this more than once, by the way. This is as much evidence as a digital image on a website of what purports to be a true copy of a legitimate, authenticated birth certificate.
To say that we must prove that he was NOT born in Hawaii puts it exactly backwards. HE, as our employee, must prove that he meets the qualifications for the job. So far, he has not done so.
You said, “2. Stop glomming onto every idiotic and easily refutable lie that supports your position. How many times must it be proven that Pakistan has never been on a US State Department “no travel” list, and specifically was not on one in 1981? How many times must it be proven that a COLB is, by law and regulation, absolute legal proof of citizenship? How many times must it be proven that the “de Vattel” definition of natural born citizenship did not even exist when Article II of the Constitution was written?
As long as Birther keep repeating proven lies, they will be characterized by reasonable people as repeated liars.”
I have never glommed onto any of the above. I don’t talk about a “no travel list” or de Vattel.
A legitimate COLB may be proof of citizenship. Where is it? A picture OF it is not IT. In addition, Hawaii AND the State Dept. said that a COLB may NOT be absolute proof. See WND for particulars.
You said, “3. Get better mouthpieces. The Birther movement is not well served by being led by people of the cartoon incompetence of Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo. Is there not one competent lawyer among the 200,000 or so hard-core Birthers in this country? Is there not one Birther leader who can stand up in front of a microphone and not end up getting labeled “the lost Gabor sister?””
I speak for myself. None of the above are my mouthpieces. There is no “birther movement” that I know of or of which I am a participant. Concerned individuals across the country act as individuals. We don’t have a “community organizer” that I know of.
Where do you get these figures that you throw out, by the way? 200,000. Wow. Did you take a poll?
Last I heard, Farah over at WND had over half a million signatures on his petition.
Who is making vicious personal attacks now? “lost Gabor sister?” Nice.
You said,”I know it is uncomfortable and makes you unhappy, MGB.” You, sir or madam, know nothing of the kind. You do not know me. You do not know how I feel. Your snide assumptions add nothing to the conversation.
You still cannot answer a simple question: Why does he not simply PROVE what he claims by producing his original birth certificate?
You said, “But it cannot for a second be a surprise to you that when the issue finally broke in the MSM the story would not be the one you wished for. The story that is being covered is not “Obama’s eligibility,” it is “those crazy Birthers.””
There, you may be onto something. MSM bias is no surprise to me. They have sold out, especially MSNBC and NBC. Do you think perhaps this has something to do with the billions that GE will make from the “change” that Obama is bringing to America?
You said, “Let me take this moment to get serious, and perhaps just a little angry at you. Take an hour, and go through RSoL… just this one Birther blog. Read what Birthers here repeatedly and with great relish call the elected President of the United States. Make a little list of the names he is called. Make another of the “crimes” he accused of. List the attacks on his wife. Count the calls for his arrest or his deportation.
Spend one hour doing that and then come back to me and try to make with a straight face the claim that this Congressperson was “treated abysmally” or is “owed an apology.””
I do not take orders from you, nor will I accept assignments from you. And I’m sorry if simply expressing my opinion makes you “angry” with me.
If you are interested in the results of such research, then do your own work.
I will borrow a phrase from Bill O’Reilly here: One doesn’t excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
The commenters here are not journalists, as Chris Matthews purports to be. Whatever others have said here, I’m not responsible for. Chris Matthews is responsible for what he says. He ought to treat Congresspersons with respect, just as people ought to treat everyone with respect.
Matthews owes that man an apology. Obama owes Officer Crowley an apology. Gates owes Officer Crowley an apology, too.
Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone would be respectful of others? Wouldn’t it be nice if, for example, we didn’t tell each other to “grow up” and only debated issues reasonably, instead of name calling?
Phil, thank you for your comments to HistorianDude.
brygenon: Thank you for Akhil Reed Amar’s OPINION. Other Constitutional law scholars would disagree. Amar’s opinion does not equal a Supreme Court ruling.
Name calling does not add credibility to any of your arguments.
A digital image of something that purports to be an official, legitimate, authenticated “birth certificate” and posted on a website is NOT a birth certificate and is legal proof of NOTHING. If your employer paid you your salary by posting an image of a paycheck on a website, would you consider that fair and legal settlement of what’s owed to you?
Releasing the original birth certificate would put the “conspiracy” to rest. The conspiracy would be that his original birth certificate does not say what the online COLB says. IF, as they claim, it does support what the online COLB says, then why not release it? That’s the conspiracy that would be put to rest, if he’d only put it to rest.
It’s up to the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” So far, they haven’t. All we have are opinions, learned or otherwise.
Except that we do have that Senate resolution and testimony from people like Chertoff stating that a person born to two US CITIZENS is a natural born citizen. Sort of leaves somebody out, doesn’t it?
And before you tell me, I do know that Senate resolutions mean diddly squat. They cannot trump the Constitution. Even a LAW passed by Congress can’t trump the Constitution.
I am not arguing mutually exclusive issues. The issues are complex. And they all depend upon the FACTS, which we do NOT know with regard to Obama’s birth and citizenship at birth.
Phil:
Rest assured, that except for “constitutional literalists” (which is more of an oxymoron than an ad hominem) I am more than happy to use them when appropriate. “Fringe” is already a very useful part of my lexicon.
HistorianDude,
I really do wish you would go about castigating those of us who question this President’s eligibility correctly by making sure that you add “right-wing extremists,” “fringe,” “living in a fantasy” and “constitutional literalists” to your diatribe of ad hominems.
In fact, I’d recommend throwing together a text file so you could simply cut-and-paste all of the pejoratives together at once into every comment.
Interesting idea — maybe I should make that a requirement for your continued comment postings on my site; I’ll have to think about that one.
-Phil
MGB:
Except, of course, for the existence of a State issued and certified birth certificate from Hawaii.
MGB:
You must not read many of the comments here, MGB. Vicious personal attacks by Phil’s loyal followers (to include actual attempts at intimidation) against the Obot “messengers” are all the rage here. What you will not find is Obot’s whining about it.
Your offense is noted. But Birthers are never going to get past the earned image of being fringe conspiracy theorists until they can stop behaving like… well, like fringe conspiracy theorists. This requires at least the following:
1. Get some actual evidence that your otherwise wacky ideas have a reason to be taken seriously. To this point, Birthers have been unable to deliver a single piece of evidence that (for example) Obama was born anywhere on the planet other than Honolulu, Hawaii.
2. Stop glomming onto every idiotic and easily refutable lie that supports your position. How many times must it be proven that Pakistan has never been on a US State Department “no travel” list, and specifically was not on one in 1981? How many times must it be proven that a COLB is, by law and regulation, absolute legal proof of citizenship? How many times must it be proven that the “de Vattel” definition of natural born citizenship did not even exist when Article II of the Constitution was written?
As long as Birther keep repeating proven lies, they will be characterized by reasonable people as repeated liars.
3. Get better mouthpieces. The Birther movement is not well served by being led by people of the cartoon incompetence of Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo. Is there not one competent lawyer among the 200,000 or so hard-core Birthers in this country? Is there not one Birther leader who can stand up in front of a microphone and not end up getting labeled “the lost Gabor sister?”
I know it is uncomfortable and makes you unhappy, MGB. But it cannot for a second be a surprise to you that when the issue finally broke in the MSM the story would not be the one you wished for. The story that is being covered is not “Obama’s eligibility,” it is “those crazy Birthers.”
Let me take this moment to get serious, and perhaps just a little angry at you. Take an hour, and go through RSoL… just this one Birther blog. Read what Birthers here repeatedly and with great relish call the elected President of the United States. Make a little list of the names he is called. Make another of the “crimes” he accused of. List the attacks on his wife. Count the calls for his arrest or his deportation.
Spend one hour doing that and then come back to me and try to make with a straight face the claim that this Congressperson was “treated abysmally” or is “owed an apology.”
Grow up, MGB. Be a mensch. Get a thicker skin. If Birthers have a public relations problem it has been sown, and fertilized, and nurtured by the Birthers themselves.
The crop is just now coming in.
ch,
Roland Martin claimed yesterday to Lou Dobbs that Obama doesn’t have time to respond. He has a whole staff working round the clock for him and what is requested requires very little effort.
Phil:
You probably already have this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWFlHSOqA9o
features Mr. Martin, Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) and Lou Dobbs discussing BC issue and legislation.
Mr. S. Martin is livid!
AnotherReader:
There is at least one other possibility, probably more.
3) The story is not true, and the Birthers get wide spread exposure and become the new conspiracy theory punchline that finally replaces “JFK conspiracy theorists” as comic shorthand for “crazy people.”
Flav
This is just another fake Birther factoid. There is no evidence that Obama has spent any significant amount of money fighting these lawsuits.
Actually, no. Obama was never even served the Keyes lawsuit because Orly refused to follow the rules even though the Judge ordered her to do so several times. Orly filed for a default judgment claiming falsely (as you do here) that Obama ignored it. The judged ruled against that claim, and the suit was reset to zero. Orly was ordered to start over from scratch.
We are all still waiting to see if Orly makes the same mistake again.
Of not (i.e. if she follows the Judges order this time and figures out how to properly serve the defendants) then the first of the “merits” that will be heard is whether or not Keyes has standing to even proceed. Keyes v. Obama will be dismissed at that point for the usual reasons.
Roderick:
And nobody has ever argued otherwise.
Roland Martin needs to look at the facts. There are THREE different versions of the COLB on-line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKVr-Evn6Z0
The State of Hawaii has stated they DID NOT issue an Obama COLB in 2007 or 2008. Therefore who did? And how are there three versions of a document that Hawaii never issued?
Face the facts, they are forgeries.
The following is what I just sent out to the following media people….please do your part and do the same…..we must pound these people with the truth and the correct talking points so that they are not misleading the American people….we can not wait until 2012 when they require a birth certificate…..we want this crime taken care of NOW….not tomorrow!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Dobbs, Hannity, O’Reilly, Greta, Rush….someone in the media….PLEASE…..Mr. Dobbs….I caught your segment tonight on the issue of Obama being a “natural born” citizen…..the birth certificate is just a side bar….he could be a citizen….but to be President you must be a “natural born” citizen…..there lies the difference!!! Below are your talking points with the RACIST man Roland Martin…..he and his kind are avoiding the issue and they are trying to make it about RACE instead of the illegal FRAUD we have sitting in our White House…..we Patriots could care less what color Obama’s skin is!!!! Please be Patriots and get the truth out in the open…..Martin is a Liar…..Have Gary Kreep, Mario Apuzzo or Dr. Taitz on your show if you want the TRUTH and all the facts these people have been investigating this crime for over a year now!! You are doing a disservice to the citizens of this country by putting out false information……..Mr. Roland Martin is biased and without a doubt a LIAR!!!! I bet you are not even aware of half of the facts listed below that are true and being withheld from the American people….study them and get someone knowledgeable on this issue to rebut these MORONS!!! I could do a better job!!!!
Jacqlyn K. Smith
Henderson, NV
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following information is from Gary Kreep….. Executive Director United States Justice Foundation
According to published reports, Barack Obama’s legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
Passport files
University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
Harvard Law Review articles
Harvard Law School records
Columbia University records
Columbia University senior thesis, “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register — but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
Illinois State Bar Association records
Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980’s, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship — and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn’t want anyone to see those records. He’s STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released.
WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn’t he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President — especially his actual birth certificate?
I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate, and put an end to the controversy over his status as a “natural born” citizen once and for all. And now he’s coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) — the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago — with a vengeance!
Why? Because we dare to seek the TRUTH!
And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama’s attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence.
That’s why USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers… claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States. As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa.
Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa — not Hawaii as he claims — and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.
First, Mr. Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?
Second, the contention by Barack Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later. And, most recently, Barack Hussein Obama has contradicted himself, in writing, regarding the name of the hospital where he claims to have been born.
Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama’s grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.
Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.
Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama’s step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth… in what is now called Kenya!
Sixth, the “birth certificate” posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten … unlike the laser printed “copy” purported to be genuine.
The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!
It’s TRUE. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a “natural born” citizen, his high-priced LA-based “dream team” of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they’re loading both barrels!
So, unless you help me and my team here at USJF to stand our ground in court, Mr. Obama’s hired guns could blow a financial hole in USJF’s ability to be the proverbial thorn in Mr. Obama’s side!
Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real birth certificate — producing only a phony one posted on his website — as well as fighting us tooth and nail as we seek access to his college records… records which we believe may prove that he was foreign born!
USJF served that subpoena upon Occidental College to gain access to Mr. Obama’s college records, and we are fighting to get at the truth on many other fronts, as well, including:
1. Appealing a case filed by USJF in California, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, calling into question Mr. Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen;
2. Funding and assisting local attorneys and Plaintiffs, in similar lawsuits, in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi — AND we’ll soon be filing more lawsuits; and
3. We have initiated a campaign demanding that every State Attorney General in the country take action now to force Mr. Obama to just show us the TRUTH.
You see, when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a “pretender to the throne.” According to the Constitution, only a “natural born citizen” can occupy the presidency.
Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a “natural born citizen.”
What’s more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President… and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility.
Quite frankly, this crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW!
And that’s just what we’re fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution… and your liberty.
Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States?
We will not be intimidated.
Our country is on the fast track to disaster…but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I’ll hear from you today.
P.S. This is the biggest political cover-up in American history! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE Obama is a natural-born citizen… IF THEY HAD THE DOCUMENTS!
Roland Martin has to resort to the tactics of the desparately dangerous, by name-calling his opposition in an effort to control them, instead of calmly debating facts. The first sign of losing is name-calling. Another Alinsky tactic, demean to defeat. Sorry, Roland, you really are too transparent.
If Roland is so naïve as to trust an electronic document attested to by an organization mostly unknown to the general public, who made their verification statements outside a court of law, not under oath, have no legal standing to make these document verifications for an election, and to this day no legal documents have been reviewed by any US court, then indeed, Roland Martin seems himself a racist, sadly, for a racist would support a person simply because of skin color, rather than his legal qualifications.
Roland is at a loss to explain reasonably why the President of the United States is sealing birth records, college records, passport records and Senate records, and why Obama was living in a house in Chicago provided by Rezko, now in federal prison, and why Obama has more than 100 social security numbers, and the one most used was for a 119-year-old man. Our “president.” Sorry, he is not mine, until proven qualified.
If Congress refuses to follow its own rules to qualify the President when his status is questioned by so many voters, then the law says that the power rests in We the People. It is now up to us to protect our Constitution.
Roland is obviously not happy with the Constitution. He prefers mob rule.
Roland is supporting the unsupportable, so name-calling has become his expertise. But as soon as he starts name-calling, he has lost his battle. Those who are losing a debate always name call, since the facts will not back them up.
If a person wants documentation and proof, they are whackos, nut jobs, loonies, losers, mentally ill. Oh, really??
Sounds like actually a good crowd to run with, if the “whackos” are the law-abiding citizens asking for reasonable proof and documentation. Over 100 social security numbers….and we are the ones who are “whacko”??
It makes me wonder how many social security numbers Roland has, if this seems normal to him.
Roland needs to upgrade his vocabulary and look deeper…there are many incredibly wonderful black men who would have no problem showing anybody who asks a birth certificate or any of their records. They respect their fellow citizens. Let’s get them into the discussion. Like Alan Keyes.
It looks like the TRO that Orly filed for Major Cook was thrown out….As usual Orly outstanding legal filing skills were on display…
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jul/23/petition-reservist-who-questions-obama-citizenship/news-breaking/
“TAMPA – A federal judge this morning denied a request to order the rehiring of a Lutz Army reservist who claims he was fired from his job after fighting his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds President Barack Obama is not an American citizen.”
“U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara wrote in a brief order that Stefan Frederick Cook’s petition for a restraining order did not comply with local court rules because it was not accompanied by a complaint. The judge dismissed Cook’s motion “without prejudice,” meaning he may file it again if it follows court rules.”
First year law student stuff. Think about it, 150 page document and forgetting to file the actual complaint. I guess Major Cook should look into getting a lawyer to be his lawyer instead of a dentist pretending to be one.
MGB says:
Pete Williams and NBC News have it right. Here’s how Akhil Reed Amar explains the term to a lay audience:
The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date. http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Amar is Sterling Professor of Law at Yale, and currently a visiting professor at Harvard law. He teaches Constitutional Law and has been cited in over 30 U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
The birthers need excruciating donofriotic arguments just to convince themselves of their two-citizen-parent theory. They have no articles from peer-reviewed legal journals, no noted constitutional scholars on their side.
Again, NBC news has the facts correct:
“The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.”
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
And here’s Obama’s: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If a birth certificate that proves what Obama has always said would put the matter to rest, why did you argue that being born in the U.S. is not sufficient to be a natural born citizen? Birthers are on the record that they would go right on arguing that Obama is ineligible even given the hospital document to back up the COLB, yet they claim Obama could end the controversy by producing it. They simultaneously argue two contradictory positions.
Very much off topic, but for all you Star Wars/Hammer fans:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198188.php
Kenneth,
You wrote, “Did not the Framers of the Constitution introduce the “natural born” status requirement to prevent an elected President from having allegiange to another foreign government (Britain at the time)? If this was not the reason, then why did the Framers include a “grand father’s clause” to permit themselves to be considered for the Presidency by exccusing Americans, who were alive at the time of the acceptance of the U.S. Constitution to sit as Presidents?”
The answer is yes, but it insure that these original citizens would have proven loyalty to the United States of America, they also introduced the 14 year residency clause into Article II, Section 1.
George Washington the first President was sworn in on April 30, 1789. If we subtract 14 years from that date, we arrive at April 30, 1775. I am sure HistoryDud will say he couldn’t be a citizen then since America wasn’t born until July 4, 1776. He would be wrong, America started its war of Independence from Britain on April 19, 1775. That is 14 years and 11 days before George Washington took the oath of office.
I was common knowledge that the 14 years residency was a test of loyalty to being an American. This is also born out in the Journal of the Senate 1798 where Mr Goodhue, proposed the, “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by the said constitution,) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of the United States, nor shall any person be a Senator or Representative in the Congress of the United States, except a natural born citizen, or unless he shall have been a resident in the United States at the time of the declaration of independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same or to be employed in its service from that period to the time of his election.”
You must remember in 1798 there was a lot of conflict in Europe and people did see that there was a space of 6 years for original citizens to have arrived from the end of hostilities in 1783 and when the constitution was ratified in 1789 that risked nothing in establishing this Nation. Their sentiments or “qualifications” for these original office holders was loyalty, Loyalty and LOYALTY. Luckily, for us this was voted down, or we would have ceased to have a government around the middle of the 19th century. However, even then there was politicians who ran around like beheaded chickens at perceived crisis’s and dangers, doesn’t that stall sound like the same politicians we have today?
While the original citizen clause grandfathered them in, the 14 year clause guaranteed that only those who proved their loyalty to the united States of America could be our first Presidents until 1797. There can be no greater test of loyalty for a cause then risking your life for it. Any soldier caught by the British could be shot or hanged as a traitor as could any civilian giving aid and comfort to our first freedom fighters. Just being in America was dangerous from 1775 to 1783, one must remember the British used Native Americans to conduct raids on American farms and villages during this time. Those who wanted safety fled to Canada.
Still of course there was that 6 year window, one can ask why they left it. I would imagine that the Founding Fathers knew when they wrote that the articles of Confederation were in effect, and anyone “naturalized” by the 13 original states was a citizen of those states. These Founding Fathers were also adamant about preventing ex post facto laws (which the prohibition of is in our Constitution), and they were not going to make one ex-post facto law, even if it meant that having a 6 year window for a someone who did not prove himself to be President.
Also, during this time, dual citizenship was not allowed, it was not allowed by the states and it was not allowed by the laws of naturalization passed by the first Congress.
Ken your on the right thought, don’t let the foolish people in the peanut gallery distract you from learning your heritage.
Sincerely,
Tèo Bear `,:-) at theBirthers.org
OK I am going to say this one more time for those of you who didn’t hear it the first time. Just because you are a US Citizen doesn’t make you Constitutionally eligible to run for President of the United States of America. There are immigrants who were born in Turkey for example who take the United States of America citizenship oath and thusly become citizens of the United States of America. Those particular citizens of the United States are not constitutionally eligible to run for the President of the United States of America. This is a starting point for Kerchner v. Obama. The Supreme Court of the United States of America needs to further determine the eligibility clause. Thank you all for tuning in and I will further clarify this issue in an upcoming post.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
July 23, 2009 at 2:00 am
Roland Martin is in the same class as Jeremiah Wright….He is a white racists….not to mention a MORON!!!
I didn’t see Roland Martin stating that George Bush was not responsible for 9/11 (or other conspiracy theories). He is a racists and he peddles his nonsense in the same way others do. I don’t like it when everytime you say something about Obama, who is so far away from middle America in his stances on just about everything, the first thing is 1) If you’re an African American, you’re Clarence Thomas and 2) If you’re not, you’re a racist. Unbelievable…!!!! Roland believes that the Professor was racially profiled, notwithstanding the Professor’s actions toward the Police. I’ll bet if a robbery actually occurred and the neighbor did not report it the argument would be that the only reason she didn’t is because He was Black!!!