A Question for the Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theorists
This week, a conservative activist spent thousands of dollars on full page ads in the Chicago Tribune questioning whether Barack Obama is actually a natural born U.S. citizen (and therefore eligible to be president). Numerous law suits have been filed across the country by various wingnuts and wingnut groups challenging Obama's eligibility to hold office.
Despite repeated efforts by media organizations and the state of Hawaii to debunk this claim, it just won't die. There is a core group of very dedicated and persistent people who are committed to this cause and instantly show up in the comment section of online news articles angrily objecting to various official claims and demanding to be presented with more "proof."
To these folks, I ask a simple question: what is your endgame? Suppose (purely for the sake of discussion) that you're right, and there is something technically deficient about Obama's claim to natural born citizenship. Maybe he was born overseas and his mother smuggled him into Hawaii just after birth. Maybe he floated into Pearl Harbor in a bassinet like Moses, from origins unknown. Maybe he descended from Krypton in an escape pod. Whatever the case, let's imagine that something like that happened and that you could somehow prove it. What then?
Obama was elected president by a large margin. He has approval ratings in the 70s. Most of his cabinet has been selected. The transition is well underway. And the country is in a very precarious state. Do you really think that a federal court is going to declare Obama ineligible to be president and plunge the country into chaos? Can you imagine the repercussions? Talk about "judicial activism." We would have a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. We would have riots in the streets.
Let me save you the suspense. That's not going to happen. Not in a million years. Even if you managed to get your hands on ironclad evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (which you won't), the courts will not entertain your claim. They will find some grounds (likely lack of standing) to dismiss your case. Trust me.
And don't lecture me about the need to uphold the Constitution though the heavens fall. Where were any of you during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?
And for that matter, where were you during the election when John McCain, a man born in the Panama Canal Zone, was running against Obama? There's a non-frivolous argument to be made that McCain is ineligible to be president by virtue of his place of birth, but that didn't seem to concern anyone.
More importantly, can we take a step back for a moment and consider the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement? The rationale behind the provision, presumably, is to prevent someone who has loyalties to another nation from becoming president. Even if Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement were somehow fraudulent (and there's no evidence of this), no one contests that he spent nearly all his childhood (except from age 6-10) in Hawaii. There's no dispute that Obama's mother was an American citizen and that she raised him from infancy in Hawaii. What possible reason would there be to bar him from serving as president? And what possible good could come from having Obama declared ineligible?
I really truly wonder what these folks imagine is the proper remedy for this supposed constitutional violation. What do they hope to accomplish? It's just so crazy.
Despite repeated efforts by media organizations and the state of Hawaii to debunk this claim, it just won't die. There is a core group of very dedicated and persistent people who are committed to this cause and instantly show up in the comment section of online news articles angrily objecting to various official claims and demanding to be presented with more "proof."
To these folks, I ask a simple question: what is your endgame? Suppose (purely for the sake of discussion) that you're right, and there is something technically deficient about Obama's claim to natural born citizenship. Maybe he was born overseas and his mother smuggled him into Hawaii just after birth. Maybe he floated into Pearl Harbor in a bassinet like Moses, from origins unknown. Maybe he descended from Krypton in an escape pod. Whatever the case, let's imagine that something like that happened and that you could somehow prove it. What then?
Obama was elected president by a large margin. He has approval ratings in the 70s. Most of his cabinet has been selected. The transition is well underway. And the country is in a very precarious state. Do you really think that a federal court is going to declare Obama ineligible to be president and plunge the country into chaos? Can you imagine the repercussions? Talk about "judicial activism." We would have a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. We would have riots in the streets.
Let me save you the suspense. That's not going to happen. Not in a million years. Even if you managed to get your hands on ironclad evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (which you won't), the courts will not entertain your claim. They will find some grounds (likely lack of standing) to dismiss your case. Trust me.
And don't lecture me about the need to uphold the Constitution though the heavens fall. Where were any of you during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?
And for that matter, where were you during the election when John McCain, a man born in the Panama Canal Zone, was running against Obama? There's a non-frivolous argument to be made that McCain is ineligible to be president by virtue of his place of birth, but that didn't seem to concern anyone.
More importantly, can we take a step back for a moment and consider the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement? The rationale behind the provision, presumably, is to prevent someone who has loyalties to another nation from becoming president. Even if Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement were somehow fraudulent (and there's no evidence of this), no one contests that he spent nearly all his childhood (except from age 6-10) in Hawaii. There's no dispute that Obama's mother was an American citizen and that she raised him from infancy in Hawaii. What possible reason would there be to bar him from serving as president? And what possible good could come from having Obama declared ineligible?
I really truly wonder what these folks imagine is the proper remedy for this supposed constitutional violation. What do they hope to accomplish? It's just so crazy.



92 Comments:
I'm fairly certain they are actually acting in the spirit of the natural born citizen requirement: they believe he has other loyalties and this is their proof. They believe he is a "manchurian candidate" and that him taking office is riskier than all the chaos you describe. It isn't about the means (preserving the Constitution) it's about the ends (keeping Obama out of office).
It's ridiculous, but it is consistent.
A.L., this wingnut nonsense isn't worth the energy you expended to type this post.
You are dealing with the same pathology that convinces people the moon landing actually took place on a Hollywood soundstage. These people are crazy, and engaging them in an argument is pointless.
You would make just as much progress trying to convince a delusional asylum patient that he is not Napoleon.
I am more bothered more by the journalists who, in reporting this story, present both sides as though each has a valid point. I wrote about it on my blog this morning.
The Chicago Tribune published a piece that contained the following sentence:
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Barack Obama does not "maintain" that he was born in Hawaii. He was born in Hawaii. Presenting this fact as though it is subject to debate is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. But this is exactly the sort of sloppy writing that encourages the nutcases who promote these conspiracy theories.
Obviously, this wingnut meme, like the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, will continue to bounce around the right blogosphere forever.
Bu one can only hope that after the Supreme Court slaps the lawsuit down tomorrow, we will finally stop hearing about it in mainstream news outlets
What I would like to know is what proof would be sufficient for the people pursuing these suits. Or rather what proof would be sufficient for the ones that actually believe the birth certificates copies that he posted on his website, etc. might be fraudulent. I've got the impression that the only thing that might be enough is if he produced the original document from 47 years ago (for each and every one of them), surrendered over to their personal care, and let them take it to the lab/expert of their choice to run God-only-knows-what tests, all the while trusting them to return it in good order so that the next crazy can be satisfied. The whole process shouldn't take more than 95 months. After that, his Administration can get down to the business of governing.
In short, I think that a good percentage of the people that pursuing this are living outside what reasonable people call "reality" and that most of the rest of them are worse: the people who are fully aware that the whole birth certificate "scandal" is BS and are pursuing it in a cynical attempt to undermine Obama's perceived legitimacy, thereby weakening his political position executing his agenda.
If there had been anything to this whole thing, Hillary Clinton's oppo research would have found the truth and outed him before Super Tuesday. If that hadn't happened McCain's people (or the Bush Administration) would found out "the truth" and made sure it came out before the General. McCain and his surrogates did everything short of explicitly calling him a terrorist, but they wouldn't touch his birth status with a ten-foot pole. It's because they knew the whole claim was bogus. Because, silly as it must have been, I'm sure that they put some resources into looking into this once the stories started circulating...just in case.
Your logic and reasoning aside, these people will never be satisfied. They still believe in their heart of hearts that Barack Obama has stolen something that rightfully belongs to John McCain and Sarah Palin.
In light of America's economic freefall, it is amazing that they would focus their energies on this.
It is a showcase for their continued misguided attempts to show their 'love' of America.
This whole birth certificate thing is utter rubbish. These clowns calling themselves conservatives are acting shamefully and I hope these suits get tossed. However, A.L., I think you overreached on some of this stuff.
Obama was elected president by a large margin.
So? What does that have to do with anything? The Constitution and federal law are clear on this matter.
Talk about "judicial activism." We would have a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. We would have riots in the streets.
How is it "judicial activism" if they follow the Constitution? Plus, I think sections of the 25th Amendment would apply, thus avoiding the constitutional crisis. As far as riots, we'd have to see. Remember, and I'm speaking hypothetically, if Obama fraudulently got into office, then it was his fault for committing the fraud, not the fault of the Courts for judging it a fraud. The rest of your points above what I highlighted are immaterial.
Even if you managed to get your hands on ironclad evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (which you won't), the courts will not entertain your claim. They will find some grounds (likely lack of standing) to dismiss your case. Trust me.
Since it's never come up before, you have no case law to back up that claim.
Where were any of you during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?
Bull. The administration won ACLU v. NSA, the definitive case on the terrorist surveillance program, because plaintiffs lacked standing. It was adjudicated properly (I've read Greenwald's arguments on this, so don't even bother to bring them up; he is just plain wrong, mostly because his reasoning was based on partisan politics). The administration lost Hamdi, showing that the system can work. The administration lost Hamdan, in part, because they didn't work with Congress in setting up the military tribunals, also showing that the system can work. The administration lost Boumediene because the liberals on the Supreme Court decided to give rights to people who had no business getting those rights (it is as bad a decision as Kelo), showing that the system can fail in very dangerous ways. So you can forget that whole whine about Bush violating the Constitution nonsense, especially if you use the "Obama won by a wide margin" argument, which is just silly (Justice Kennedy uses the consensus argument in a bunch of his more ridiculous rulings, most notably Roper v. Simmons). Besides, Congress, regardless of the majority party, has been giving away their powers to the executive branch, with the blessings of the courts, for decades.
Again, I hope these nuts get those lawsuits, and themselves, thrown out of court.
Peter Boyles, a popular talk radio host in Denver, is pushing this story every day. He invites the leading conspiracy theorists on, takes calls from outraged wingnut listeners, and generally tries to keep the myth alive. I would have thought the story would die, but it seems excite a certain segment of the population. I wouldn't be surprised if it lingers throughout Obama's presidency, like Whitewater did for the Clintons.
Actually, there is a rationale for all of this.
If they can demonstrate that the natural-birth requirement for the Presidency has been rendered obsolete by Obama's election, then Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes a viable candidate for the next election.
If they force the Democrats to pass legislation abolishing the requirement to make the issue go away, all the better for Arnold.
What I keep coming back to on this is why Obama does not just produce his original birth certificate to the Supreme Court. Let it be verified and be done with it. He is the only one who could squash this.
The wingnut objective is the same as when Clinton was President ... be as disruptive as possible by bringing one false allegation after another. When the right wingers are in power they either deliberately (or through incompetence) screw up everything they touch. When they are out of power they intentionally disrupt, distract, obstruct, and obfuscate through unending attacks of this sort. They never "put up" and they never "shut up."
What I keep coming back to on this is why Obama does not just produce his original birth certificate to the Supreme Court. Let it be verified and be done with it. He is the only one who could squash this.
I can think of about fifteen reasons off the top of my head. First, it's not his to produce. The state of Hawaii has it and they've declared it to be valid.
Second, there is no case before the supreme court to present the evidence to, and there won't be (the current petition will be denied).
Third, why legitimize frivolous lawsuits by producing evidence? No competent lawyer would do that. You just file motions to get the suits dismissed. If you humor litigeous idiots by treating their allegations seriously, you just encourage them to keep bringing new allegations and demanding that you refute them. It's like negotiating with terrorists. You don't do it.
Third, the Right's pursuit of this idiotic crusade is just making them look stupid and crazy. Why come to their rescue? If they're intent on marginalizing themselves, let them.
I could go on and on.
Wow, it's interesting to read these posts insisting this is "right wingnut" issue. Judging by what I read here, if you are looking for "winged" politcal enthusiasts, you should probably take a good look in the mirror. The truth is that at least one of the lawsuits about Obama's past was initiated by Mr. Berg, a former state attorney general and a high ranking member of the democratic party. At least he can see the importance of protecting the integrity of our constitution. Is this a point of minutia? Probably, but every minor point needs to be addressed when our constitution is involved. Yes, I know, it's just so much work to have to figure all this out and it would be so much easier if we just swept it all under the rug and forgot about that stupid native born clause. I mean really, who cares why the framers put that there anyway? Not.
Well, if you think this case will simply go away by itself you are very wrong. This matters a great deal to millions of Americans who understand the importance not only of honesty and integrity, but also that the constitution was written the way it was for a reason. So why has Obama spent almost $1 million preventing the release of even an image of his real birth certificate when it only costs $10 to do so? Why are there absolutely no doctors, nurses, or any witnesses at all who will attest to being in Hawaii when he was supposedly born there. The questions go on and on, because he refuses to release documents like medical records, college transcripts, birth records, etc. Every other candidate did this already a long time ago, knowing that it would inevitably become an issue. The mystery here is considerable. If you wonder why this issue won't go away, you should be looking to Obama. Just release the information. How hard can that be? The public has every right to know.
Perhaps they are the remnants of the Arnold Schwarzenegger conservative love-in groups and they still want him to run for Pres. This way the force a resolution to make it definitive.
I mean, one crazy theory post deserves another, right?
I think this topic is a perfect example of their craziness, and how utterly unreal it seems to those of us who live somewhere in the vicinity of Reality.
Note how many comments there are!
This topic has no relation to anything about Obama or his candidacy or his qualifications (after all, he IS a citizen, so it's just an inane tanget). It's all about how crazy people find stupid things to obsess about, like the guy I see on my way to work waving at the traffic every day. Only not as harmless because they spend money on it.
I believe John McCain actually was not born in the United States. Wasn't he born on a ship in Panama somewhere (legally considered U.S. overseas territory I guess)? In the world of shady legal arguments and speculation, we could have had another "questionable" president.
You go Rainmaker!
Keep on tilting at that windmill, I bet one day you'll win. Until then your antics will continue to amuse and entertain everyone.
I don't necessarily prefer to have McCain in office over Obama, so it isn't an Obama vs. McCain issue ... to me it all comes back to character. If Mr. Obama knew he wasn't eligible (i.e., not a natural born citizen), then he shouldn't have even tried to become president of the united states in the first place because he had no right to run ... and it was manipulative from the word "GO!" I don't like being manipulated. And by being silent on the issue, he is making things worse. By sealing all his personal background records, he raises more red flags. If he is eligible and becomes President of the United States, he owes it to the American people who pay his check to be as transparent as possible and hide nothing. Again, it is about character, and honesty, and dignity .... not democrat, republican, black or white.
to me it all comes back to character. If Mr. Obama knew he wasn't eligible (i.e., not a natural born citizen), then he shouldn't have even tried to become president of the united states in the first place because he had no right to run ... and it was manipulative from the word "GO!" I don't like being manipulated. And by being silent on the issue, he is making things worse.
Oh please. There is literally no evidence at all that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. This has been confirmed both by the state and by contemporaneous birth announcements. Have past presidents been asked to "prove" their birth story when there is no reason to question the official version? Was Bush asked to do that? Was Reagan? Was Clinton? Why should Obama be held to a higher standard?
Also, if I understand what these wingnuts are claiming, even if they're right (and they're not), what reason would there be to suspect that Obama has been in anyway complicit in any cover up? He was told his whole life that he was born in Hawaii. Why would he question that? Suppose his mother lied to the state about the real circumstances of his birth. Even if that happened, there's no reason Obama would know this or ever have suspected it. There's no reason he ever would have suspected that he would be ineligible to run for president.
Perhaps Tulsared and Rainmaker should get out their birth certificates and take a really close look at them and ask themselves if they could prove that these are genuine.
I couldn't prove mine is genuine in the face of the kind of skepticism being applied to Obama's. For whatever reason, my father gave demonstrably false information when he filled it in. Even a cursory investigation would turn this up and raise a storm of doubt.
Sure, the state I was born in would probably stand behind me, but it's one of those smallish states with primitive record-keeping. And as A.L. points out, I never thought to ask for proof when my mother and the doctor who delivered me could have provided it. The draft board never thought to question it either.
Sure, I could swear I remember opening my eyes and being surprised at being born where I was -- but it seems likely somebody would find my testimony less than convincing. And I can't prove that I wasn't born in Canada and spirited into the country while I was asleep.
Come to think of it, it's a bit comforting to think I might actually be Canadian, when I look at some of the citizens of my purported country.
i think it would be easier to prove that the moon landing happened on a sound stage in hollywood than to prove one's birth. the argument posed "that we cant find one person, doctor, nurse, etc. that remembers obama's birth in hawaii....", well, good luck. other than my own family i couldnt find anyone who could remember me being born either.
it would surprise me if any doctor or nurse in a hospital could remember every baby they helped into this world.
im glad you said something about it, al.
Oh, no! Riots in the streets!
Do we have a new form of government now? Rule by threatening to riot? Whoever can muster the biggest riot gets their way?
What would satisfy me as proof?
Obama could introduce his birth certificate as evidence in court, instead of having his lawyers argue that a mere voter doesn't have standing to see it.
Court has rules and accountability. There must be a witness who swears under oath, or a certified paper document with the official stamp of a record-keeper.
That's worlds apart from having somebody on a campaign copy a jpg file from the Daily Kos, that came from who knows where.
The case law on lack of standing, cited by Obama's lawyers in the Berg case, are all District and Circuit cases. There were no Supreme Court cases on voter standing in that brief.
If the O is inaugurated, and issues Executive Orders or military orders or signs Acts of Congress, anyone who is (arrested and) tried for failing to obey them can raise the defense that O wasn't properly in office, and that person will then have standing to subpoena the certificate from Hawaii Health.
What amazes me is that the crazy people who pursue this kind of garbage are still able to generally function in society. Most likely, they are able dress themselves, feed themselves, and maybe even hold down jobs. They probably even have friends and family and look remarkably normal when you pass them on the street. How is this possible? How can one invest so much mental energy in a veritable fantasy world and still manage to do everyday business in the real world? Baffling.
ALL OF YOU FOOLS STILL DON'T GET IT HAWAII THIS HAWAII THAT HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN BY BIRTH, THEREFORE NOT A "NATURAL-BORN" CITIZEN. UNLESS THE ORIGINAL LONG-FORM VAULT VERSION OF HIS BIRTH RECORD CONTRADICTS THE POPULAR FAMILY NARRATIVE AND OBAMA SR IS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER.
whoa. calm down there, buddy. the 'popular family narrative'? 'splain yourself, dude, because that last rant made zero sense.
I agree with UncommonSense - this is like the urban legend that Obama would not salute the flag, or that he is a Muslim, or that the Marine Corps would not salute Bill Clinton. It will be around for the duration of Obama's Presidency, and will have a long life thereafter.
Just refer all the wingnuts to Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
Otherwise, it is not worth our energy. Stop feeding the trolls.
If it's so obvious, if it's so simple, why doesn't he produce the vault copy as requested? Why not put it all to rest, instead of debating the meaning of the word "is"?
I believe that this is a tempest in a teapot, but I am curious: why is this still an issue? What possible reason can P-E Obama have for blocking access to the set of documents that can make this all go away?
If a person were born to an American citizen living abroad, wouldn't that person also be a "natural born" citizen by way of birthright citizenship and therefore eligible to become President?
I get that these people are unhinged, but if my conjecture is correct, then even if Obama had been born abroad (and he wasn't) it would not make a lick of difference.
In order to be a "natural-born" citizen, one must be born to two American citizens at the time of his birth ... Obama's father was a british citizen, therefore, he does not qualify as a natural-born citizen ... that is it in a nutshell. It is in the constitution ... that Obama wants to "change" ... now do you see why?
It's really amusing to see all these people posting as anonymous who want Obama to publish his personal records.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over even after it has been proven not to work.
So he released a copy of his birth certificate, and it didn't convince everybody. It is obvious that nothing will convince some of these people, in which case he'd have to be insane to repeat the effort.
I don't know how many ways i have to say it has nothing to do with his birth certificate ... HIS DADDY was a british citizen (Kenyan); his mother was a US citizen ... they BOTH needed to be American Citizens ... he is one short! If both parents aren't US citizens, he isn't qualified ... period! Is that clear enough?
Lol @ tulsared. Did you just make up that law (you can't be born a citizen unless both parents are citizens) all by yourself?
Following up what I just posted, laughing at tulsa, above, consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
Keep reading ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Yes, I see the article, tulsa. Point me to where it says that if someone is born in the US and one of their parents is not a citizen, they aren't a natural-born citizen.
Actually, scratch that, you could just edit the article. Instead, point me to where the US Constitution says that.
Unless you claim he wasn't born in the US, but above you said the birth certificate was irrelevant.
If both parents aren't US citizens, he isn't qualified ... period! Is that clear enough?
Very clear, but also very not true. Citizenship of parents is only relevant when someone is born outside of the U.S. If you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen. Period.
Tuslared, read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It clearly says that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Haven't you heard the uproar about "anchor babies," babies born to non-citizens here illegally, but still citizens by place of birth?
It is our Constitution and if he has the right to not follow it then the rest of us should not either. Which means chaos. This is just commen sense there are laws and rules for a reason.
A.L. said,
Citizenship of parents is only relevant when someone is born outside of the U.S. If you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen. Period.
I think these guys are arguing that there is a difference between being born a U.S. citizen and being a “natural born citizen”.
Since AFAIK, no where does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen actually is, they feel free to place additional constraints on what the requirements are to be a natural born citizen.
Hence the idea that having a father who was a citizen of another country negates Obama being a natural born citizen, despite the fact that he was a U.S. citizen at birth by virtue of being born in the United States.
While I’m willing to believe that these people are nuts, there are aspects of their story that are intriguing. It’s widely disseminated among these people that Obama’s paternal grandmother claimed that she was present at his birth in Kenya. That would be interesting, if true, but I’ve never heard anyone verify or dispute this assertion.
my maternal grandfather loved to brag about how large my penis was when i was born; but i can assure you that my penis is is not exceptional at all.
It’s widely disseminated among these people that Obama’s paternal grandmother claimed that she was present at his birth in Kenya. That would be interesting, if true, but I’ve never heard anyone verify or dispute this assertion.
This is not true. Read the Slate article by Dave Weigel. The claim is based on a translation error in a portion of an interview. His (step)grandmather made clear later in the interview that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The Court granted certiorari in two cases — al-Marri v. Pucciarelli (08-368) and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (08-441).
Does this mean that Donofrio v. Wells is dead?
The Slate.com article referenced by A.L. seems pretty good.
We should all get out our birth cetificates. Then it would be obvious that the abstract that Obama claimed as his birth cetificate doesn't contain all the information that an actual birth certificate has. This is actually a document issued for those born outside the United States or have returned after previously being a citizen elsewhere, and lacks much of what is normally on a birth certifcate.
Realistically, this is not a "right wing" argument. I don't think it's fair to discriminate here by saying everyone who is interested in this is politically motivated. Attorney Berg is a high ranking democrat actually. and is probably more concerned about the integrity of the Constitution than getting someone else elected.
Who knows, at the rate so many of you are trying to cover this up, this might be better than Watergate!
Rainmaker,
Please give a definitive citation for "all the information an actual birth certificate has".
"Realistically" this is not a realistic argument.
Philip J. Berg is a "high-ranking Democrat" -- really? Please give a citation as to his record in the Clinton or Carter administration, or the dates of his service in Congress.
We're not attempting to cover anything up. For myself, I'm just laughing at you and your "arguments."
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.
Yeah, hang your hat on this guy LOL.
The right intends to deligitimize Obama and his administration by any means possible. Berg and the rest know there is no case but it is important to them to keep the far right-wing crazy base world inflamed and engaged about SOMETHING because it will be easier to roll out the next charge and the next charge and the NEXT charge against Obama.
They have no leadership, no power and no ideas- so they have to resort to baseless charges.
Expect more of this kind of crap from the right.
- Bob
A.L said:
"Oh please. There is literally no evidence at all that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. This has been confirmed both by the state and by contemporaneous birth announcements. Have past presidents been asked to "prove" their birth story when there is no reason to question the official version? Was Bush asked to do that? Was Reagan? Was Clinton? Why should Obama be held to a higher standard?"
A.L I have this to say to you:
I have been surfing the web for a while about this subject. From what I have read is the Hawaii officials have carefully said that they have Obama's birth certificate in possession and verified that they have it. What officials have not said is that he is actually born in Hawaii! Obama is not being held to a higher standard.
It is Obama himself that disqualified his democratic opponents by removing them on technical rules in 1996 for IL senate race and runs himself for president disregarding the rules. All he has to do at least show that he was born in Hawaii.
What officials have not said is that he is actually born in Hawaii!
I was born in NY. Tell my why Texas would have my birth certificate?
Your job seems to be, make a claim and force the other side to prove it wrong. Then when they do, play word games and claim the proof isn't enough.
I think it's time you started providing the proof Anonymous. I'm no expert, but it seems to me if Obama weren't a naturalized citizen, then at some point he must have applied for citizenship, no? And if he needed to do that, there should be a record of it, no?
Where is it?
I thought i put my name in when issuing the above 8:27AM comment. I guess not.
Rainmaker:
Why are there absolutely no doctors, nurses, or any witnesses at all who will attest to being in Hawaii when he was supposedly born there.
Go find a nurse who was there when you were born. Ask her if she remembers you.
You're desperate.
You are a litigator and an officer of the court so I am sure that you understand that if Obama were to have been shown not to be a natural born citizen, then he would be impeached. The requirements to become president are bifold: (i) citizenship and (ii) natural-born. Thus, Gov. Schwartenegger cannot become President because although he is a citizen, he was born in Germany.
The Hawaiian certificate posted on-line is a secondary record based upon the initial document, which is typically referred to as the vault certificate setting forth the hospital/doctor and signed by the physician. By statute, Hawaii from 1911 to l972 permitting the obtaining of a birth certificate after the age of one year by submitting an affidavit of the parent(s) or even the individual. This statute was enacted because many individuals in the Hawaiian islands were not born at a hospital and found themselves without a birth certificate. Thus, it is possible that Obama's mother or grandmother obtained a birth certificate for Obama post-birth by affidavit. If this is true, then some credence has to be granted to the assertions of Obama's paternal grandmother that he was born in Kenya. Of course, all of this could be put to rest if Obama would just produce the "vault" certificate. However, in spite of numerous lawsuits, he has failed to produce it thereby fueling speculation. Politicians, by nature, are risk-takers: one only look at John edwards (affair and child); jim mcgreevy (homosexual) or elliott spitzer (prostitution) to see how it is not uncommon for candidates to go forward with their campaigns despite facts that, if know, would preclude their election. Of course, it seems somewhat improbable that Obama's mother traveled all the way to Kenya to give birth. However, it would be best for Obama to put an end to all the lawsuits and produce the "vault" certificate.
By the way, the statement by the Hawaiian department of health was very carefully couched: they verified that they had documentation, but, obviously did not address the contents or form of documentation. I have not addressed the other claims relating to Obama's birth status - i.e. British citizenship, adoption, relinquishment of citizenship etc., because, frankly, I am not sufficiently conversant with the arguments (and applicable law). However, the 1911-1972 statute is available on-line at the Department of Health for Hawaii website if you look for it. I think that, at the least, Obama should produce the "vault" certificate.
Anonymous said:
Blah blah blah. My proof is that you haven't proven the opposite blah blah blah. At least not to my right wing satisfaction blah blah blah. Someone may refute my point about Obama's grandmother, but i'll ignore that and repeat the same claim again and again blah blah blah. Just because Hawaii issued a secondary document based on the original document doesn't mean Hawaii has the original document blah blah blah. And the way i play word games with their statement is proof of that blah blah blah. And if you think i'm as whacked out as Berg is on this issue, then maybe he was born in Britain instead of Kenya, or maybe he relingquished his citizenship, or maybe he's really the son of Malcolm X. And for all we know, he may have been born in a forest and raised by lions - we just don't know because i can say anything i want blah blah blah.
Question:
I hope these same people demanded to see the birth certificate of Sarah Palin's youngest child.
Hmm. double standard, much, crazy right wingers?
Interesting article "A.L." (I apologize that I do not know your real name, but I am sure you can extend me this small oversight).
Not to side with any singular party here,... and I don't mean to offend,... but from what I can gather, there is a rather presumptuous (and certainly an ethical) flaw in your supposition.
I don't know if Obama or McCain were born here, there, on Krypton or in another dimension entirely,... however... when I read your post (and more specifically at the point where you said)...
--"Where were any of you (presumably talking to conservative types) during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power (which to be sure they did) that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?"--
...it seems to imply that your intended point is, basically...
"Conservatives didn't care about adherance to the constitution, so Liberals don't have to either."
I am very sorry old chap, but I simply can't get on board with a "two wrongs make a right" train of thought. You'll have to try better than that if you hope to win over any thinking person, regardless of what their stance is on Obama, McCain, the price of tea in China, or the latest gossip in the tabloids.
Instead, I would at least try arguing that there is a very valid, practical and compelling reason that Mr. Obama has chosen not to publicize his private documents of identification. To be sure, some paltry reasons come to mind. But none so inspiring, so as to outweigh the intrinsic need to satisfy the public's cry for openess, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,... especially on this particularly sensitive point to some, I would think.
The point of interest to the public in question (however boring it may seem to you and I) is, after all, a document,... which has now been sealed by the state in which it resides... -and again, I hate to point out your foibles here, but I would hardly characterize the act of sealing a document as... how did you put it...
"repeated efforts by (...) the state of Hawaii to debunk this claim".
Why even the dullest of children can see the obvious problem in it:
People want to know about things that are forbidden to them.
So sealing something of that sort is hardly what I would call a measure of openess and trust.
It's quite simple really,... though, why you attempted in your writing to force a square peg into a round hole for the sake of tossing together a crude, illogical, poorly conjugated argument, is beyond me.
Oh, and I might add,... that telling people that someone is supported and elected by an "overwhelming majority" isn't really a logical argument either.
Hitler was supported almost unanimously by his countrymen. So are most charismatic dictators who prove to be quite deleterious to their national interests after some time.
And really, this isn't kindergarten where popularity means a bunch of friends to share their toys with you. This is a country, with laws and rules and things of that sort,... which I would (up until now) have assumed that a grown up such as yourself would have known by now, before going off half-cocked and "writing" an ill-thought counter offensive to what would otherwise be thought of as pure conspiracy theory, mashed together by a few disgruntled blokes.
Have you ever considered that half of the coverage given to such "long shot" accusations comes in the form of improper and easily dismembered rebuttal from people such as yourself? I suggest that you take a cognitive break from your blogging for a bit and really congeal your thoughts before simply ascribing "would be validity" to them and publishing them as real "thinking" for the whole world to see. It is just a kind suggestion.
Very nicely written as an opinion column,... but as a compelling argument as to "why someone should not be asked to produce a simple form of ID,... such as a birth certificate",... it seems full of insubstantial, juvenile rubbish,... and comes across to people who read it, in just the same manner as many of the democratic ilk have come across thusly in the past few months, both in spoken word and in their various yet collectively sputtered internet posts of "would-be-fact" - and that is this...
"Why can't anyone see that it has been proven legitimate and no one is hiding anything? It is so obvious!" (perhaps it has been but more likely not)
...followed nicely with...
"Two wrongs make a right so now it's tit for tat." (which is tantamount to admission of fraud, but simply saying 'Hey, it's no big deal!')
...and...
"One musn't bother the most popular boy in his class, less someone find out he is a charleton. Goodness me! What a mess it would cause!" (whish is pure nonsense, no matter which way you cut it)
...and therefore...
"Everyone should simply 'chill' and just accept anything that comes along, because really, it's the only proper and 'decent' thing to do. We musn't, after all, upset anyone!"
Like I said. Rubbish. Pure juvenile think-speak from (apparently) a grown man who ought to know better. And an attorney no less! Well (sigh) I suppose one must give you a little leeway in consideration of that fact. You are (after all) trained to craft verbal arguments out of nothing ... and you should feel proud of your work because I've never seen such a valiant attempt in my life as I have in your post.
I rather think Obama is a natural born citizen, and perhaps there is some other detail of his birth that he'd rather not bear to the world or his family (which, to be fair, might be thought understandable and even noble),... but I also rather think (not to put too fine a point on it sir) that you should give up writing in any serious sort of way.
Sorry to point it out.
Giveit
A little condascending, are we? In the interests of the betterment of my fellow man, i hope i'm one of the few who've subjected themselves to your entire post.
You clearly miss the point. There is not one piece of evidence being provided by those making the claim. It's called "burden of proof". Nothing from a foreign country indicating Obama was born there, nothing showing he subsequently applied for citizenship, nothing. Obama, on the other hand, has provided documentation. Documentation from the state of Hawaii that specifically states he was born in Honolulu. You seem pretty smart, but i'll repeat that just in case. IT STATES HE WAS BORN IN HONOLULU.
I recently had to get a copy of my birth certificate because i lost my original. I received something that looks exactly like what Obama provided. And i didn't go to Kenya to get it. I didn't go to Britain. I had to go to where i was born to get it. So until something contradictory is provided by those that actually have the burden of proof, then what A.L. is saying is that they're doing nothing but trying to cause trouble. So yes, his points are valid.
What Obama provided is sufficient enough for the federal government - for any instance where he would need to prove identification of who he is. But it's not good enough for the yahoos who want to keep this going. With that, do you honestly think providing the actual original document that has yet been provided would shut them up?
--"Where were any of you (presumably talking to conservative types) during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power (which to be sure they did) that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?"--
...it seems to imply that your intended point is, basically...
"Conservatives didn't care about adherance to the constitution, so Liberals don't have to either."
...no, al is clearly saying that by pretending this is a just a constitutional concern rather than a vendetta or a smear the right is being very disengenious; the right had no problems ignoring the constitutional stomping the previous administration gave it, but now...well, we have to protect the constitution!
Giveit provides us with convincing evidence that American education is failing. It is vital that high-school English teachers make their students realize that quantity is no substitute for substance, as otherwise we are subjected to sophomoric treatises of upwards of a thousand words, in which nothing significant is said.
People keep stating that all Obama has to do is present the original of his birth certificate. Even if that was true, why should he? The burden of proof is on the accusers. I mean, he could go to the trouble of getting it released and for what? To pacify a few crazies who probably wouldn't believe it anyway?
Again, Obama doesn't have any obligation to prove diddily squat. If someone wants to prove he's not qualified to be President then they can hire their own private detectives to fly to Hawaii and Kenya and to the freaking moon to interview witnesses and find evidence. But that would be too much work, wouldn't it? It's so much easier to be lazy and whine that Obaama's not taking time out of his busy day to debunk their conspiracy theories.
At least 9/11 truthers have the decency to conduct their own investigations and not demand that the government give them proof that it didn't conduct the 9/11 attacks.
Or in other words, prove to me that you don't beat your wife. You could probably easily do so, but why should you give a jacksass like me the time of day? You'd want to make me work for it and discover that all my hard work was for nothing. Because there's nothing to find.
I don't know why this non-issue persists past the election. If its true (which I highly doubt) that just makes Obama ineligible to serve and Biden becomes president. No constitutional amendments or impeachment needed. But I suppose the conspiracy theorists have their own view of reality and time spent on this means time not spent on other issues.
Sigh.
This is just about undermining Obama's legitimacy, and about reinforcing tribal boundaries, keeping the wingnuts nuts. If it gets dismissed as baseless they'll use that as a basis for convincing their fellow mouthbreathers that there is a liberal conspiracy.
It's not worth writing about.
Just point, and laugh.
Just read on Google News that the Supreme Court do not think this case worthy to be argued at its level. Therefore, the earlier dismissal stands.
Come, wingnuts all, raise your whines, whinges and conspiracy theories to heaven ....
Rainmaker says " Why are there absolutely no doctors, nurses, or any witnesses at all who will attest to being in Hawaii when he was supposedly born there."
I can pretty much guarantee you that the OBGYN and nurses who witnessed my birth really won't remember me given the thousands of babies they will deliver in their career. Let's say the attending was 30 years old at the time, he'd now be retired or dead at 77. He was nothing special at all when he was born...just another multi-racial baby in state with a population full of multi-racial people.
Go take your conspiracy theories to the Elvis is alive forum.
I can't believe you asked the question. The end-game is to be above the likes of the Bush administration. If Obama is not entitled to be Prez, and I don't believe that he is, then, he should be allowed to hold the Office. I believe that he was born outside the US and that his mother and father took advantage of an odd law in HI to obtain a certificate that many accept as proof of citizenship, when in fact, it is merely proof of a birth. Obama could demonstrate to me and many others that he is entitled to hold the office by releasing his records. If I were running for or indeed, elected to the Office, I would permit anyone with $12 to view my birth record. Why deny it? Unless of course, there is something to hide. This will dog Obama for the next 8 years (if he's so lucky) and that's not change we can believe in... that's more of the same. By the way, I am a Democrat.
--Giveit sez:
"Where were any of you (presumably talking to conservative types) during the last eight years as the Bush administration made a mockery of the separation of powers that is the central feature of the Constitution, advancing theories of executive power (which to be sure they did) that surely caused every one of the signatories to that document to roll over in his grave?"--
...it seems to imply that your intended point is, basically...
"Conservatives didn't care about adherance to the constitution, so Liberals don't have to either."
--------------------
No, It says that most Conservatives were applauding while the Bush Administration basically took a crap on the Constitution. (That "Goddamn piece of paper" our "President" spoke so fondly of) They did this just to stick it to the "liberuls", and damn the consequences. Now while they are grasping at the teeniest interpretations of legal definitions of citizenship based on made up accusations, and when the facts aren't on your side, "Pound the table" demanding the supremacy of the Constitution as the law of the land.
In other words, you're being called out as hypocrites.
Cuz you are.
Just sayin'.
If there had been anything to this whole thing, Hillary Clinton's oppo research would have found the truth and outed him before Super Tuesday. If that hadn't happened McCain's people ... would found out "the truth"
It's interesting to go to sites such as texasdarlin that are obsessed with this story. They already have an answer for the question about why Hilary didn't uncover Obama's secret -- she's in on the scam as well.
I guess if you can easily assume (as these people seem to do) that the Chicago mob, the Communist Party and the entire US Supreme Court are in on the scam, you can accept that Hilary is too.
As for McCain, that's a little awkward. So they're saying that McCain has been "briefed". Sarah Palin has been "briefed". In other words, they know all about the scam and are keeping quiet now in the anticipation of stepping in when Obama's presidency is declared unconstitutional. How else to explain their silence?
It's an interesting look into the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Once you can believe one nutball idea, all ideas, no matter how outlandish, are believable.
Two Words:
President Biden.
This argument is so stupid. The case shouldn't even go to the Supreme court as Leo Donofrio, at least as far as I know, isn't even a US citizen!
I mean, i have yet to see the vault copy of his birth certificate, and he has not voluntarily produced one, so I have no reason to believe he in in fact a US citizen.
The real question is then why can a non-US citizen (e.g. Donofrio) abuse the supreme court?!?
(Note, the sarcasm is very strong in this comment)...
What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that in order for someone to believe that BHO was born somewhere other than in Hawaii, they would also have to believe that his parents, his grandparents, the customs and immigration people who processed him and his mother into Hawaii from Kenya or Krypton or wherever, the Hawaiian hospital officials who issued his birth certificate, the US State Department officials who issued his first US passport, and the State Department equivalent in Kenya (or Krypton) were all in on the scam and have managed to keep silent about it for 47 years.
There is a legal question in this matter because the issue has never had to be dealt with in this manner in the history of the USA. The life history of previous president elects have been known well enough and the candidates vetted well enough because the basic facts concerning the candidates life were not locked away from the common decency (some call it a right)of public discovery.
Sure everyone has a right to a certain degree of privacy, but Barak Obama is paranoid if you ask me. Why continue to hide who he is and what official records indicate about his past?
Lawyers who become politicians and who use legal tactics to defeat the opposition ought not to be trusted. They have shown that they will use the legal system to their advantage which means to me that they lack the common decency to allow other people to make informed decisions.
Barack Obama will likely act the same way as President. He will use the legal system to isolate himself from his decisions and then begin to use executive orders to attempt to usurp the powers given to the other branches of government, as well as the individual states themselves.
He has stated the consitution is lacking and in need of change.
I really wonder what those changes will be? To get us through the coming recession/depression I wouldn't be surprised to see him issue executive orders that effect federal policy that will superceed states rights. These federal policies will be forced upon state constitutions or the states will not receive the federal funding required to continue to operate.
This is called hardball politics. It is what he has known all of his political career. He will use the type of politics he has known very well himself for the past many years while a part Chigaco and the State of Illinois.
Constitutional Eligibility Became Moot on Election Day
The idea that WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereignty and supreme governing authority in the U.S. has escaped both pro and anti Obama camps.
The notion of Obama not being qualified to be president arose during the primaries and was rejected by the Democrats because they choose him to be the Democratic Nominee. The notion was again rejected by WE THE PEOPLE on election day when he became the undisputed President Elect.
At this point, only WE THE PEOPLE, collectively, can change the outcome of the recent presidential election. After the election, any argument concerning his eligibility, including his place of birth, is moot.
This is a highly significant point because I suspect in the very near future, a bogus birth certificate may originate from Kenya. But even if a Kenyan birth certificate were found to be real, it would not change the outcome of the presidential election. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken and WE chose Obama to be our 44th President.
'This country is owned by We the People. We created the Constitution to limit and shape the powers of government. We can, in point of fact, knowingly elect a felon to the House or Senate and prior US Supreme Court precedents like Powell v. McCormack uphold the inability of the House or Senate to remove the people's choice for any reason other than the qualifications clauses in the Constitution, which are minimal.
In turn, at least six US Senators and Representatives have served full terms even though elected when they were TOO young under the constitution.
Do We the People, the sovereign power of this country, have the power to resolve conflicting claims on a birth certificate where one side claims Kenyan birth and ratify that or assume the risks of that?
Puh-leeze. Of course We Can. And yeah, we can ignore discriminatory claims about kenyan birth that, even if true, just don't matter.
Can the Courts or Congress, on a basis completely independent of the will of the people, second-guess the election, tell us to "try again", or veto our choices?
No They Can't.
...the American people would never lose a struggle for democracy on their own country -- IF they understood it as such. So, of course, this direct attack (seeking to re-decide or overrule the election of Obama) is styled as "upholding the Constitution." In effect, our own national hunger for the restoration of justice, the rule of law and the Constitution is being harnessed -- in a twisted way -- so that the Constitution can start being enforced FIRST against Barack Obama. That's why it's important to see these lawsuits for what they are -- and go on offense against those who dislike democracy.
WE SHOULDN'T EVEN GO TO THE "MERITS" ON THESE CASES BECAUSE NOTHING IN THE NATURE OF WHAT THEY SPEAK OF JUSTIFIES A JUDICIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL OVERRIDE (OR RATIFICATION) OF THE PEOPLE'S DECISION.
We don't need their "help."'
http://tinyurl.com/5lbtsp
In other words, WE THE PEOPLE have decided that Barack Obama, American Citizen or not, will be our 44th president. Our decision cannot be overridden by Congress, the Supreme Court or even the Constitution.
WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereignty and hold supreme legal and legislative authority over the U.S. Our sovereignty supersedes the combined powers of our three branch federal government and the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the powers of our government. It was not written to limit the powers of WE THE PEOPLE.
WE THE PEOPLE can indeed elect anyone we want to be president, regardless of what the Constitution says, and there is nothing anyone or any law can do to stop us.
Barack Obama is indeed the President Elect.
END OF STORY!
KEVIN SCHMIDT
Everybody focuses so much on the birth certificate. How do they explain away the newspaper announcement in an Hawaiian paper that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? There's an awful lot of forgery going on here, I say sarcastically.
To those commenters who are wondering why Obama is acting like he has something to hide, I ask why are you acting like you have no brains?
Many people have verified the actual birth certificate, but that isn't enough. The conspiracy nuts want to see it with their own eyes. Then they'll want to have it forensically analyzed because just looking at it is unlikely to tell them anything unless they happen to be an expert at dating old documents. And once the results come back negative, they're going to want a second opinion by someone more 'credible'.
So, no, just letting people look at it isn't going to be the simple fix some think it is. More money and more time will be wasted, and again, why does Obama have to do more than what has already been done?
>>By statute, Hawaii from 1911 to l972 permitting the obtaining of a birth certificate after the age of one year by submitting an affidavit of the parent(s) or even the individual. This statute was enacted because many individuals in the Hawaiian islands were not born at a hospital and found themselves without a birth certificate.
This is not true. The statue you refer to was passed in 1982, so it does not apply to Obama.
In any case, Obama applied for a certificate of birth, just as any other citizen would do. He posted this certificate of birth, which showed he was born in Honolulu. Politfact.com, a mainstream organization, examined the certificate and then emailed the Dept. of Health in Hawaii. An official there said the document was valid.
Since Obama was born in Honolulu, he is a natural born citizen.
--Paul
Man, the wingers are literally out of their minds.To believe that Obama could get this far and not be a citizen would have to be a conspiracy of such a magnitude that he wuold have to be on the order of the ultimate anti- christ ,no?They produce the birth certificate and the birth announcement in the hawaii paper,but thats not enough?So the cia is in on it? National security?As if hillary clinton wouldnt have used that in a hot second if it were true.Are they just blogging from mental institutions?Can they vote?
I am a doctor and I can tell you, I can not remember all the babies who I delivered.
The comments such as all he needs to do is show his birth certificate are ridiculous. He HAS shown his birth certificate OVER AND OVER. The people who think this is a conspiracy will NEVER believe ANYTHING that is presented unless its a film of Obamas birth, with a shot of a window in the background showing a Hawaiian landmark, along with signed affidavits from all the staff present (and they better be Republican or they don't count), and blood DNA from the floor. Even with all of this, these nuts would STILL think its all faked.
It is simply a way to discredit Obama before he takes office and to rationalize treason against the US for those who refuses to accept his Presidency.
Karle said:
"They have shown that they will use the legal system to their advantage which means to me that they lack the common decency to allow other people to make informed decisions....He will use the legal system to isolate himself from his decisions and then begin to use executive orders to attempt to usurp the powers given to the other branches of government, as well as the individual states themselves."
I believe you are projecting. It's g. bush who didn't let us make informed decisions and gamed the legal system for power. He also used executive orders to usurp other branches of government. I know this hardly needs pointing out, because it's just so obvious, but sometimes I wonder what would happen if the republicans actually did some self reflection.
J**s*s Ch****, this used to be an interesting blog.
Who let this ludricious bunch of twots in here? Think back sixteen years and the same bunch of idiots were denying Clinton's right to be President.
I mean, that f**king moron Berg bringing one of the cases about Obama's birth is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, for God's dake. Enough said?
A.L., send this lot back to wingnuttia, and bring in some decent topics & comments. Exercise some stricter blog moderation, or I for one am off to more interesting places to read.
I've been censored and chopped by the moderator and then the moderated added his comments. Be thankful I don't call you on false witness charges. If I had given my full legal name would you ahve not done this? You could have had the decency to at least chop and then respond where people would know who said what. This is most unethical for a blog site. The words you added are not mine but your commentary. Is that what you warn people is goiong to happen? If not you are liable for mis- quotes and deception. Good Bye!
I've been censored and chopped by the moderator and then the moderated added his comments. Be thankful I don't call you on false witness charges. If I had given my full legal name would you ahve not done this? You could have had the decency to at least chop and then respond where people would know who said what. This is most unethical for a blog site. The words you added are not mine but your commentary.
Crazy and paranoid, I see. For the record, I've let every kooky comment publish on this thread, unedited. All comments on this blog go into moderation if a post is over 3 days old. But once I log on, I let all non-spam comments through. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
I can't believe conservatives are actually wasting their time (not to mention their precious money) trying to figure out ways to remove Obama as president. Face it folks, you're getting four years (at least) of this guy, whether you like it or not.
proof that conservatives do not care about "democracy". remember when clinton was president? they issued over 1000 subpeonas on stuff like whether or not clinton was politisizing his christmas cards. funny stuff. they spent more money investigating a blowjob than they spent on investigating 9/11. furthermore, the people elected obama (by 8 million votes!) and they want to defy that. not very democratic, eh?
Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Wikipedia: "Berg claims to be a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General, although any attorney admitted to the Bar of Pennsylvania that provides legal services for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General is given this title."
"In 2004, Berg filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit on behalf of a World Trade Center maintenance worker against President George W. Bush and others alleging that the Bush and certain government officials conspired to bring about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, which his complaint alleged were destroyed pursuant to the controlled demolition hypothesis put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement. The federal district court dismissed the suit."
*snort*
Such credibility.
Where were these folks when GW Bush claimed the election by unconstitutional means in 2000?
Actually, Barack Obama could be an alien who had a perfect forgery made of a Hawaii birth certificate and is planning to secure the planet for alien invasion and legalization of gay marriage. You guys should start looking for the evidence now because the invasion could happen at any time. The evidence would probably be in either Tehran or Riyadh. You would do best to wear a uniform with large US flags so people could differentiate evildoers from ordinary citizens.
This BC movement is all born out of hate. There IS no endgame. Freepers and their ilk are haters. They hare everything American. They hate everything non-AngloSaxon white. They don't care if the country burns as long as they get to kill blacks, Mexicans and praise Jeebus. They are the worst of humanity. And they are pretty goddamned dumb to boot.
This claim is beyond ridiculous. Even if Obama produced God to say he was born in Hawaii they would claim it was a fraud.
Conservatism is dying. The old, white, redneck male is going to be a minority. Don't expect them to go quietly into the night.
"Despite repeated efforts by media organizations and the state of Hawaii to debunk this claim, it just won't die. There is a core group of very dedicated and persistent people who are committed to this cause and instantly show up in the comment section of online news articles angrily objecting to various official claims and demanding to be presented with more "proof.""
How does this differ from the story you printed today about the Qatari? Why do you feel you need to accept something without question, but then something that is classified, sealed to you, that you believe the American Public should be shown?
Having lived under the Schwartzenegger regime, I would have to say I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea of a President Schwartzenegger.
I can't believe this. Some no name official in Hawaii says its official and everybody is willing to let it rest? How much do you think Obama offered him? Half a million, a million? There are serious questions to be asked and Obama has not answered any of them, except to banally repeat that he was born there. Well Mr. Obama, prove it.
The natural born citizen requirement applies only to persons who were born before the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Read the document, people!
There is simply no point to your entire argument. The paths have been chosen as you say and now it's a simple review of the history of congress and a timeline of when which parties were in power.
The U.S. and it's citizens are at base conservative, whether that be a conservative democrat (they exist just not as politicians but citizens) and conservative republicans.
After a Republican President led the country into war and is now supporting the bail outs, it reflects a change in power according to the historical trend. Next the opposition party comes to power (the dems) and according to trend, take full control of the executive and legislative. But now enter economic downturn and history says.... the dems have gained so much for their party and are eliminating opposition presence. With no opposition, the democrats will start to split into two- radicals and centrists. The two will be at odds and blame gets transferred from dems to republicans, to dems to dems. As history denotes, the conservative dems, feeling shunned from their party, team up with the newly reforming conservative republicans. This is where the two align with the majority of americans and presto chango you get... a ronald regan presidency, or a harry truman presidency, or a jefferson type government in power. I base this of the historical trends of congress, and your welcome to look it up for yourself.
After voting for "transparency" and "accountability" among other worthwhile qualities and personal convictions, after seeing our economy take a nosedive in recent months, after placing trust by our vote in President Obama, it would be a welcome reassurance to see him be as honest with us as we would have to be if we went to work for him. The pre-employment information for presidential staff and appointees is as rigorous as any I have seen in healthcare or the military! Or do We the People need to file Quo Warranto in DC Federal Court for resolution. Once and for all, show us why our fellow Americans need to move on.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home