ATLANTA – The Article II Political Action Committee (ArtIIPAC) received permission last week from the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings to provide live streaming video coverage of three cases that will be heard by Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi (r), the first cases to address whether President Barack Obama’s is constitutionally eligible to appear on the Georgia primary ballot.
Streaming video with gavel to gavel coverage of three cases will begin at 7 a.m. Arizona time (9 a.m. EST) on Thursday, Jan. 26 at www.art2superpac.com.
ArtIIPAC Director Helen Tansey described the event as “The hearing of the century for the (alleged) crime of the century,” referring to the “breathtaking implications” that an illegal president could be occupying the White House or appearing on the presidential ballot.
The three cases being heard will begin with Attorney Van Irion, representing plaintiff David Welden; then Attorney J. Mark Hatfield, representing plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell; and finally Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., representing plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas McClaren and Lauri Roth.
On Dec. 15, Obama’s Attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to dismiss all three of the challenges to Obama’s qualifications for office.
Jack, Tina, … I thought you disdained the Birthers … they being so very foolish … and racist.
Desperation condones desperation … I suppose.
The cause is lost … you know that.
This is crazy. The president publicly proved his citizenship back in 2008. He provided further proof last year. This proof is available on the Internet for all to see. Hawaiian officials, including the current governor, the former governor, and the head of the health department have all vouched for the authenticity of the documents.
Other judges have been smart enough to throw out similar cases on the grounds that they were frivolous. This judge in Georgia is apparently not so smart.
http://hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/press-releases/hawaii-health-department-grants-president-obamas-request-for-certified-copies-of-long-form-birth-certificate
“In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a short form birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
In 2001, the Hawaii State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.
Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.
The exception made in this case to provide President Obama with a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth was done according to the letter of the law, Attorney General David Louie said. Director Fuddy exercised her legal authority in a completely appropriate manner in this unique circumstance. We will continue to maintain the strict confidentiality requirements afforded to vital statistics records, such as birth certificates. These requirements help protect the integrity of the records, and keep us all safe from crimes, such as identity theft.
Governor Neil Abercrombie stated: Considering all of the investigations that have been done and the information that has been provided, no rational person can question the Presidents citizenship. We have found a way once again to confirm what we already knew: the President was born here in Hawaii. State officials of both parties have verified that President Obamas birth records show that he was born in Honolulu.
President Obamas mother and father were dear friends of mine, and we must respect their memory. It is an insult to the President, his parents and to the Office to suggest that he was not born in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has done everything within our legal ability to disabuse these conspiracy theorists. We granted the Presidents request for certified copies of his birth certificate so we can all move on from this unfortunate distraction and focus on the real issues affecting people today.”
Libby we have not taken a position on this, we’re simply bringing you what we hope will be interesting news stories on the subject and then let you make an informed decision. -Jack
So Quentin, you think there is some merit to the suspicions about Obama’s birth place and his qualifications to be president? -Jack
Quentin, I hope you’re being satirical. That is one of the lamer justifications for birtherism, and if you honestly think it’s compelling evidence of anything, you’ve been hitting the crackpipe.
Questions that should be addressed and answered fully, to everyones satisfaction, not just Obama supports.
Q starts with the African-American race description on the summited birth Certificate (BC), he is correct , most time lines show this not to used until 1968, Negro was the the accepted description in 1961.
Then I question the the used of the name Kenya, not a name used until 1963, when Kenya was formed I guess someone knew something back then, you think?
Also that same person of indescribable insight listed/used a name for the hospitals of Obama’s birthplace that did not exist until 1978 when two differently named hospitals merged into one using that name for the first time as the birth place.
even the Comment by Governor Neil Abercrombie of President Obamas mother and father were dear friends of mine, and we must respect their memory. It is an insult to the President, really smacks of Chicago type politics. all this adds up to the questions still being asked by concerned Americans, was the law of the land abused and broken by some creative paperwork coming from the office of the POTUS, and if so how about the other non released records being locked from the eyes of America.
I noticed the same thing and agree with Quentin. African is not a race but designates an area of origin or homeland. Negro or Negroid would have been the automatic entry of the time.
It will be interesting to see if something comes of this but at this point it will probably become a one of those factoids that make and board games challenging.
Harold you stated perfectly the reasons that people still question what’s going on. I know that supporters will easily dismiss anyone with even a mild interest in this as “crazy”…some might even suggest race as the motivator…but these are nevertheless questions that deserve definitive answers. They are not answered because the media is unwilling to dive into Obama garbage cans as they would if he were not a Democrat.
I am worried that the hearings will interfere with either a presidential vacation or a golf game, we cant have that!
Toby, don’t worry, if he can schedule a life and death rescue to coincide with a stupid speech, he can work his golf games and vacations in with no problem.
Wow, Harold, I am entirely convinced by the wealth of evidence you provided to back up your claims.
Oh, what’s that? You didn’t actually provide any evidence? For any of the claims you made? Oops.
According to Snopes, a very reliable website, every single one of your claims is false:
“All of these arguments are erroneous. The country now known as the East African republic of Kenya became a British protectorate referred to as Kenya in 1895, obtained colonial status in 1920, and gained full independence from Britain in 1963. The Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital was known by that name between 1931 and 1971 (after which its name was shortened to Kapi’olani Hospital). And although “Negro” was the typical demographic term used for American blacks in the early 1960s, “African” was commonly used for blacks who (like Barack Obama’s father) were actually native-born Africans.”
Harold: “even the Comment by Governor Neil Abercrombie of President Obamas mother and father were dear friends of mine, and we must respect their memory. It is an insult to the President, really smacks of Chicago type politics.”
Yep. No one does Chicago style politics like…Hawaii.
Tina, you need to start accepting that the “questions” birthers claim to have, have already been answered. Their doubts are based on faulty information and deliberate, willfull ignorance. Every time one of their claims is proven wrong, they just make up a new one. Remember, the original claim was that the COLB Obama released in 2008 wasn’t a “real” birth certificate. That was proven false, so now people have to make up a bunch of new lies.
Anyone who thinks this theory has any merit is either extremely gullible, or they are purposefully deluding themselves.
chris: “you need to start accepting that the “questions” birthers claim to have, have already been answered…”
And you need to calm down, get out of my face, and let the court do it’s work. As a citizen, and a mildly curious observer ONLY, it is my right to see what happens next…just as you are free to freak till you drop.
Tina, I am debating. Not “freaking.” Why don’t you respond to the actual points I made, instead of just getting offended that I dare challenge you?
Lately you and Jack have been acting as if I am somehow being unfair by pointing out facts to you. There’s an easy solution: stop making and supporting false claims!
I am hardly “getting in your face;” I have remained civil throughout, but I am angry at what I see as a pattern of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice on this site as of late. If you don’t like my comments you don’t have to publish them, but as long as I am allowed to post here I will not stop promoting the truth and I will not lower my expectations. If you publish false claims on this site, I will rebut them. If you make bad arguments or fail to support your claims, I will point that out to you. That’s how debate works.
“Wow, Harold, I am entirely convinced by the wealth of evidence you provided to back up your claims”.
Thanks Chris, it is good to see you opening up to the possibilities this problematic administration has burdened America with.
Snopes is a interesting helpful site on matters other than Politics, especially if it serves their ideals, So I hope you won’t mind if I do not put much credence into their political postings, especially since it was pointed out once how heavily they lean in their liberal views.
I have doubts and will about Obamas naturalization, What even interest me more is the fact that EVEN if not born on our soils ,yet someone might have a U.S. citizen parent, they have 6 months to establish their rights of citizenship, (much like McCain’s daughter) so why this dog and pony show and why hide this birth certificate from the American public from the beginning?
Even though the Supreme court has weighted in on this once, I think the Judge in Georgia is doing what he feels best for his State, if it affects Politics in a negative manner, so be it and it might prevent this from accruing in the future.
My questions and comments only express my thinking currently, if proven unfounded, then I learn that much more. This is a open forum of opinions, if it were not, you and a couple of others won’t even be posted. I, like Tina, am very curious to see how this plays out in Georgia and then if it makes it back to the Supreme court for another visitation. Until this happens my doubts and opinions will remain fixed. I know you will as well!
“Libby we have not taken a position on this, ….”
Oh, fer heaven’s sake. You took a position when you posted it. This blog’s reputation for non-partisanship is non-existent.
Libby, au contre’…we have on a number of occassions presented left of center issues for consideration.
Harold Ey,
I have seen Snopes accused of liberal bias before, but I’ve never seen anyone present evidence for this charge. You once again decided not to present evidence of your own claims.
But you’re right about one thing. If you’re really interested in this topic than you shouldn’t just take the word of Snopes without doing any further research. There are plenty of sources out there on the Internet which confirm the fact that Kenya was referred to by that name long before President Obama was born.
I don’t have time right now to look into whether Snopes is correct about the hospital’s name or whether the term “African” was in usage around the 1960s. But given that they are definitely right about the name of Kenya, and birthers are definitely wrong, it stands to reason that Snopes is most likely right about the other facts as well.
Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely explanation. You want me to believe that the two birth certificates presented are not only forgeries, but OBVIOUS forgeries. But just think about it. This is the President of the United States, the most connected man in the world! If he was going to forge documents like this, you probably wouldn’t be able to tell.
The most likely explanation is that you simply have your facts wrong. You are undoubtedly wrong about at least one fact, when Kenya was named. According to Snopes, you are wrong about the others. They are most likely correct.
“I have doubts and will about Obamas naturalization,”
What “naturalization?” He was born here.
“What even interest me more is the fact that EVEN if not born on our soils ,yet someone might have a U.S. citizen parent, they have 6 months to establish their rights of citizenship, (much like McCain’s daughter)”
This sentence is nearly incomprehensible, but it almost sounds like you’re saying that a child of an American citizen has to have their rights of citizenship established within six months of their birth?
If that’s what you’re trying to say, then I have no idea where you’ve gotten this idea from. It would be nice if you’d provide links for the claims you’re making here, but so far, you haven’t done that once. This claim is absurdly false–any child of an American citizen, no matter where they are born, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
But this just goes to show how misinformed birthers are!
“so why this dog and pony show and why hide this birth certificate from the American public from the beginning?”
Again, I am at a loss as to what you’re trying to say. What do you consider “the beginning?” President Obama released a legal birth certificate to the public during the 2008 campaign. I would say that’s pretty close to the beginning. Do you disagree?
“My questions and comments only express my thinking currently, if proven unfounded, then I learn that much more. This is a open forum of opinions, if it were not, you and a couple of others won’t even be posted. I, like Tina, am very curious to see how this plays out in Georgia and then if it makes it back to the Supreme court for another visitation. Until this happens my doubts and opinions will remain fixed. I know you will as well!”
But Harold, why should your default position on someone’s birthplace be skepticism? Especially when that person has already revealed two legal birth certificates, and all other available evidence points to his being born in the United States? I understand having a healthy sense of skepticism, but this goes beyond that. There’s no valid reason to believe President Obama was born anywhere else than the place listed on his birth certificates. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that does not mean your opinion is based on reason.
“You’re entitled to your opinion, but that does not mean your opinion is based on reason.” Chris
It’s based on reason and evidence!
Chris if there was no question whatsoever about the birth certificate why would so many, perhaps millions of people, and even many officials in several state legislatures, be concerned and say there are still some questions to be answered about his birth?
Why would intelligent, educated people, including lawyers, believe there are questions to be answered that have never been cleared up? Why would there be a lawsuit in GA over it, if there was no question whatsoever?
Some people are not afraid to seek the truth, even though they are held up to constant criticism and ridicule by liberal democrats and others who mock them so snidely, so arrogantly. There are many suspicious things about this situation that are far, far from cut and dry. You would do well to not take any firm position or criticize anyone until all the facts and answers are out here and I submit they are most certainly NOT! -Jack
Jack: “It’s based on reason and evidence!”
If that is so, Jack, then why has no actual evidence for the birther theory been provided so far in this comment thread? Harold Ey made some claims, but cited no sources to back them up. Making a claim does not equal evidence; you have to actually back up your claim with something, and Harold did not. Snopes refuted his claims, as do several sites about Kenya. Harold then claimed that Snopes was unreliable, but still did not offer any evidence to back up his claims about the birth certificate.
Then Harold revealed a stunning amount of ignorance over citizenship by claiming that a child of a U.S. citizen must have citizenship rights established within six months. (At least, I am pretty sure that’s what Harold was arguing; it was very poorly written and unclear.) This is not true in American law, and never has been.
You didn’t provide any evidence for the birther position in your reply, either, Jack, and the whole comment was simply an appeal to authority. And it wasn’t even a good appeal to authority. Are you really saying that lawyers and people in state legislatures can’t be unintelligent or unreasonable? That frivolous lawsuits do not exist? Because those would be some very surprising position for you of all people to take.
As for “intelligent people…” Keep in mind that the person responsible for the lawsuit in GA is Orly Taitz. If you want to put yourself in the position of calling her an intelligent person, then be my guest.
You and Tina claim you are only interested in “seeking the truth.” But if that’s the case, why do you fail to acknowledge the incredible amount of misinformation spread by birthers such as Harold Ey? He just revealed that he has no idea how citizenship is conferred in this country. His claim about the children of American citizens is deeply ignorant, but he is the not the only birther I’ve seen make this claim. Snopes points out his other misconceptions.
And there are a mountain of other lies birthers have used to promote their cause. The first that I can recall was that Obama’s short-form birth certificate wasn’t legal proof of anything. That was proven false by a quick look at the State Department website, which tells you exactly what constitutes legal proof of citizenship, and the Hawaiian COLB contained all of it. But when I pointed this out to you months ago, Jack, I don’t recall you acknowledging the error and admitting that birthers had their facts wrong. A truth-seeker would have done that.
A truth-seeker knows that when you are involved in an argument, you need to provide evidence. And they understand how to tell the difference between a credible source of information and a non-credible one.
Truth-seeking doesn’t mean, “I’ll believe the absolute worst of my political opponents, even if there is no evidence supporting my beliefs, until they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am wrong.”
Truth-seeking doesn’t mean that you believe anything as long as it confirms your biases.
Birthers and their enablers are not interested in the truth. If they were, they’d no longer be birthers.
Chris has it occurred to you that you are the only person around here that is fanatical about this subject.
You keep talking about what we “believe”. I have yet to read where anyone has said they definitively “believe” anything. Not in the “birther” cause, the evidence that will be exhibited in court, or even whether Obama is a citizen.
We have expressed interest and curiosity and we have expressed doubt due to a suprising lack of information about Obama’s past.
Take a breath. You are basically arguing with yourself.
Libby you need to take a look at the video I posted about education featuring Juan Williams and Rahm Emanuel. Neither of these two gentlemen are conservative.
The one smart thing Obama endorses is school vouchers.
The kids that are fortunate enough to get into these Charter Schools are showing us the wave of the future in education…and it’s about time! Isn’t that something we could agree is “nonpartisan”?
Chris, don’t get me wrong I appreciate evidence, but you must remember this is a blog and people come here to make comments about how they feel. It is not a court of law. If they cite facts to back up their feelings, thats a plus, but not a requirement. I’ll be back later with some “evidence” to mull over.
Okay Chris, go back and read this it was published here last year…
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/04/debunking-so-called-facts.html
You may disagree with the findings and thats fine, but it’s not a clear cut case to be dismissed. There are still some lingering problems and questions to be answered.
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
There is also countering evidence at . . .
factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Here’s some more evidence to mull over…the case as presented in court:
Read about the court hearing here:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/results-obama-eligibility-hearing-georgia/
See video of the hearing here:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-video-of-georgia-obama-eligibility-hearing/
There are questions about the birth certificate, his social security numbers, his fathers lack of US citizenship and whether that makes Obama ineligible based on the Constitution and previous court rulings.
Neither Obama nor his attorney were present. Judge was compelled to make a summary judgement but agreed to let the evidence be heard and recorded in court.
Next up, the judges final determination.
Take Obama out of the equation. This is an interesting historical event and the decision that could have consequences.
I for one would like to know why one of the President’s SS#s is the same as a dead guy from the 1800’s and the state of Connecticut, a state where Obama never lived…at least by any known account.
More reading:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/
Tina: “I for one would like to know why one of the President’s SS#s is the same as a dead guy from the 1800’s and the state of Connecticut”
It isn’t.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/social-security-number/
Chris you’ve made it quite clear what Snopes has found is true in this case, including an explanation of clerical error regarding his SS#.
I want to know what the court finds…if that’s alright with you.
Same as always, just imagine if Obama were a republican. The thing is if he were a republican we would have demanded his head long before now. For you sniveling liberals, that was a figure of speech.
There’s an old lady on the stump (she hit the Commonwealth Club recently), Diane Ravitz, who worked in H.W’s Dept of Education and who heavily promoted the whole charter school, standardized tesing model of public education. Alas, the statistics are in. She, anyway, is willing to face up, and is now abroad in the world with the conclusion: we tried it; it’s not working.
It’s more “law of unintended consequences.” And it’s also more evidence of the shameless degree to which “entrepreneurs” are really parasites on the public exchequer.
Get this: Charter schools get to pick and choose, right? So, you fill your charter school to qualify for government funding per pupil, and then, halfway through the term you boot out all the children who are going to bring down your test scores. That is, you’ve collected public monies to educate the hyperactive, under-nourished and generally impoverished children, but you don’t actually have to do it. Is that slimy, or what?
“Chris if there was no question whatsoever about the birth certificate why would so many, perhaps millions of people, ….”
I’m sorry. It’s plain as day to the rest of us. There are, probably, sadly, millions of people in this country to whom the idea of a brown boy in the white house is just intolerable.
They can’t openly fault him for his race, his humble beginnings: raised in an apartment in Hawaii by his secretary Granny.
We are, seemingly, spared the Second Great Depression. He’s been damned lucky on the foreign policy side.
This birth certificate thing is all they’ve got … and they will not let it go.
And that you have stooped so low as lend support to this by posting it is more evidence that you’re not having any fun.
“his fathers lack of US citizenship and whether that makes Obama ineligible based on the Constitution and previous court rulings.”
Tina,
There are no previous court rulings, nor is there anything in the Constitution, which suggests that having a non-citizen for a parent makes one ineligible for the presidency.
This is yet another comment that demonstrates the wide variety of misinformation that has been promoted in order to justify the birther conspiracy theory.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are basically perpetual motion machines. Or perhaps a more apt metaphor would be the Hydra: cut one head off, two more grow in its place. It’s not enough to base a conspiracy theory off of one or two false claims; there have to be dozens, even hundreds, so that every time one of them is proven false, the conspiracy theorist can retort “Oh, yeah? Well, what about this…” and move on to the next false claim. It doesn’t matter how many of them are proven wrong, because they can just make another one up, and pay no attention to the fact that everything else they have just said has been proven wrong.
The birther conspiracy theory has clearly followed this trend. The original claim was that the COLB released by Obama in 2008 wasn’t a “real” birth certificate, and wasn’t enough to prove natural-born citizenship. This was proven false, but hundreds of other false claims just spun off of that original one.
A few questions for those who still think the birther conspiracy theory is based off of “legitimate questions/concerns.” If this is true, then why do believers in this theory have to make so much stuff up? Why are they intentionally confusing people about citizenship issues? Why do they make such easily disprovable assertions, such as Harold’s about the history and etymology of Kenya, or the social security number claim? If they give dozens and dozens of reasons for not believing Obama is a citizen, and each one of those is proven false one after the other, what makes you think the next one is going to be true? Doesn’t there come a point where you must say to yourself: “OK, given all the lies these people have told so far, clearly the most rational explanation is that they are just liars, and that President Obama most likely is a natural-born citizen?”
Chris: “There are no previous court rulings, nor is there anything in the Constitution, which suggests that having a non-citizen for a parent makes one ineligible for the presidency.”
AS A MATTER OF INTEREST!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens.[11]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[12] (snip)
An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens,” was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]
Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, no person, except a native-born citizen; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase native-born citizen is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, native citizen should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[20] (snip)
According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[22] Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, however, believes under the current law not all persons born outside of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are eligible to serve under the natural born citizen clause.[23][24] (snip)
Several courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot.[33]
Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the president-elect of the United States to take office may be challenged in Congress.[34]
Some legal scholars assert that, even if eligibility challenges are nonjusticiable in federal courts, and are not undertaken in Congress, there are other avenues for adjudication, such as an action in state court in regard to ballot access.[35]
As I said it is of interest to me how the court rules in this case.
“The thing about conspiracy theories…”
To be perfectly clear: WE ARE NOT ASSERTING CONSPIRACY!
“…make so much stuff up…”
Obviously you are under the illusion (delusion) that everyone always agrees. Legal scholars of high standing have been known to hold differing opinions…perhaps including this. It matters to me because it is about the meaning of words in the Constitution. It matters to me becasue IF the court decided Obama was not eligable I’m curiou about wonder what would happen next.
“…dozens and dozens of reasons for not believing Obama is a citizen…”
The question(s) of interest is his eligibility to (run for ) be president. His birth place concerns that question only.
“Blah blah balh liars…”
You seem at least as obsessed about those you call liars. What is your excuse?
Tina, all your pasted inches boil down to this … in this great land of ours, you can file civil suit against anybody for anything. That don’t lend no validity to the suit.
Tina, thank you for confirming that anyone born in the U.S. is indeed considered a natural-born citizen.
“To be perfectly clear: WE ARE NOT ASSERTING CONSPIRACY!”
I don’t understand. How are you not asserting conspiracy? If Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, that means that both his long-form and short-form birth certificates are forgeries. It means that the Hawaiian health director, the governor, the former governor, and possible many others have all conspired to uphold the validity of the documents even though they are invalid.
So, yes, the birthers certainly are asserting conspiracy. I understand that you do not identify as a birther, but you have said that they have legitimate questions; that means that you consider their conspiracy theory valid, even if you don’t accept it as absolute truth.
“You seem at least as obsessed about those you call liars. What is your excuse?”
I don’t understand what this means, but it seems like another attempt to characterize my desire for truth and contempt for lies as some kind of irrational “obsession.” That characterization is not doing your own argument any favors.
Chris: ” How are you not asserting conspiracy?”
This is a discussion forum. We post about and discuss items in the news. This is in the news. You figure it out.
“you have said that they have legitimate questions”
The questions have been answered to your satisfaction. Not to mine. Not to the courts or the legal people bringing this to the court. So? Is it OK with you that people disagree or, as I suspect, must they see things as you do and bend to your will?
“I don’t understand what this means…”
That is the crux of the problem with your obsession.
Tina,
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that those who truly believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen ARE asserting that a conspiracy exists? Even if you do not technically assert the same claim, you do seem to believe that the likelihood of it being true is high enough to give those people the benefit of the doubt.
The problem I have with this, Tina, is that the idea that such a conspiracy exists is extremely unlikely; so unlikely, in fact, that it strikes me as simply irresponsible to treat such conspiracy theories as if they have any merit at all. And it strikes me as intellectual cowardice to simply say, “Well, I’ll just wait and see what the courts decides,” when the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that the lawsuits are nothing other than frivolous.
You interpret this problem I have as an “obsession,” but I think it is perfectly healthy to have concerns about the deleterious effect such conspiracy theories have on our national discourse, and our public’s right to accurate information.
It would be fair to say that is a possibility. It is equally fair to say that since the President was not adequately vetted by the press, but instead ushered into office by their cheerleading, curious or intersted individuals began digging into his past and, having come up against brick wall after brick wall, vowed to uncover the truth about his past. Then, having discovered documents, like the one where he was enrolled in grammar school in Indonesia as a Muslim, felt compelled to continue in their research. Given the high level of importance, the costitutional question, they believe it necessary and right to resolve the matter. As with any endeavor of this nature nuts and flakes attach themselves to the “cause”. (OWS is full of them)
All I’m saying is I want to know how it plays out.
When In look at the activist groups that support the President I do think there is a possibility that he was picked and promoted by any means necessary. Not necessarily a conspiracy but certainly a campaign that began long before Obama became a household name and certinly including less than honorable methods and tactics. That’s politics but some are more unscrupulous than others. We see it in varying degrees. I think his candidacy scraped the bottom of the barrel and it worked; he won.
“…I think it is perfectly healthy to have concerns about the deleterious effect such conspiracy theories have on our national discourse, and our public’s right to accurate information.”
Must I remind you again that, except for your introducing the subject to PS we most likely would not be posting about it. I was willing to be a casual observer as it played out. You brought it up and it generated interest. We responded to the interest and will now follow it to the ultimate outcome.
I think there are other legal concerns that will prove to be more compelling in the coming year. Fast and Furious being one of them and the Presidents wild spending on companies whose owners were big contributors of his is another.
“I think there are other legal concerns that will prove to be more compelling in the coming year.”
You hope. However, though, it is a fact that in this great land of ours, you can file civil suit against anybody for anything, but that don’t necessarily lend no validity to the suit.
If there were anything to it, beyond birther fantasy, it would have come to light by now.
But don’t you let reason thwart you … not now, not ever!
Tina: “Then, having discovered documents, like the one where he was enrolled in grammar school in Indonesia as a Muslim”
*sigh* This is getting exhausting. What you describe here never happened–no such documents exist.
Can you not see how you’re following the EXACT pattern I outlined above? One falsehood proven wrong–oh well, time to move on to the next! That is how conspiracy theories work. They are never-ending.
MY advice? Quit giving it so much of your attention.
I haven’t given it enough time to be aware of the updates Jack posted…mostly because it’s flying so low on my radar. It is little more than a curiosity and only then when SOMEONE brings it to my attention.
Tina, I have some advice for you as well: if you don’t have enough time to verify the truth of what you’re saying, then don’t say it at all. “Well, it’s just too low on my radar screen for me to get the facts right” is not a valid excuse for posting false information, nor is it an adequate substitute for admitting you were wrong.
Chris: “if you don’t have enough time to verify the truth of what you’re saying, then don’t say it at all.”
If you’re going to be this petty as you run about acting like the blog cop then you should at least get your facts straight about what I said.
I did not offer that last bit of information as truth about Obamas record but as an example of something that could have compelled people seeking information into Obamas past to continue to look deeper.
“…is not a valid excuse for posting false information, nor is it an adequate substitute for admitting you were wrong.”
I wasn’t making excuses and being right (or wrong) doesn’t figure into something for which I have not taken a position.
Tina: “If you’re going to be this petty as you run about acting like the blog cop then you should at least get your facts straight about what I said.
I did not offer that last bit of information as truth about Obamas record but as an example of something that could have compelled people seeking information into Obamas past to continue to look deeper.”
No, Tina, it is you who seems not to have the facts straight about what you yourself wrote. You wrote that the documents were “discovered.”
You: “Then, having discovered documents, like the one where he was enrolled in grammar school in Indonesia as a Muslim, felt compelled to continue in their research.”
No one could reasonably interpret this sentence as anything other than you saying that such documents actually exist.
But these documents do not exist. After I pointed that out to you, you didn’t challenge this fact, nor did you admit that you were wrong to claim that they existed. Instead, you chose to compound the dishonesty and attempt a cowardly escape route, akin to John Kyl’s now-infamous “It was not intended as a factual statement.”
You can’t just write false information and then weasel out of it by saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean it as the truth! Stop being a petty blog cop!” That shows exceptionally poor debating skills.
If you had said, “Some people were compelled to look further because others claimed that there were documents that showed Obama going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, but it turned out that these documents didn’t actually exist,” then that would have been an accurate statement, and it would have been closer to what you are now attempting to claim you said.
But that’s not what you said. You made a statement in which you alleged the existence of these documents. Now you have two logical options: try to argue that they do in fact exist, or admit that you were wrong when you wrote that they existed.
You shouldn’t need a magical third option. An honest person would just pick one or the other.
I understand you want to plead neutrality on the birther issue as a whole, and that’s fine by me. But you can’t say you haven’t taken a stand on statements that you, yourself, have made. You can’t write false information and then claim you never wrote it. It’s right there for all the Internet to see.
I am getting pretty tired of having to recap entire conversations because of your rhetorical sloppiness. The arguments you and Jack have been making lately have been ridiculous; you’ve both tried to claim multiple times that you didn’t actually say what you clearly said, and then you try to paint me as the unreasonable one for calling you out on it. This is a waste of my time. I know you are both better debaters than this; either step up your game or I may need to bow out of this blog. I’m taking up too much time repeating myself.
Chris: “But these documents do not exist. After I pointed that out to you, you didn’t challenge this fact, nor did you admit that you were wrong to claim that they existed.”
Chris I’m beginning to think you are a raving lunatic. I made the remark as if I were in their shoes in an earlier time…NOT looking back. I was expressing understanding about what might have compelled the people who continue to pursue these points. I don’t believe they think it is all settled. I have no way of knowing what is real and what is not real for certain. I do not have access to any documents, files or information other than what gets posted on the internet. I have no way of knowing for absolute certain what is true and what is not. There are many things in history that people thought were true that later turned out not to be true. The stuff you posted and the information Jack posted are both very interesting. I accept that information. The fact that the court wants to hear this case is also interesting. What comes out of it could have constitutional implications. It certainly has become a part of history.
“I am getting pretty tired of having to recap entire conversations…”
Get over yourself. You don’t have to respond or comment on anything I have said. Nobody is forcing you to read anything I say. Your own comments should be sufficient for anyone reading to make his own determination about what is true or not true about Obama’s past.
“…and then you try to paint me as the unreasonable one…”
You don’t need my help on that one; you do a great job of that all by yourself.
“either step up your game or I may need to bow out of this blog.”
Do what you want Chris…it’s still a free country, at least for a little while.
“I have no way of knowing what is real and what is not real for certain.”
And I’m the lunatic?
You did have the ability to verify whether those documents existed before you wrote that. Just like you had the ability to verify the truth about the fake Social Security number theory, and hundreds of other false claims you’ve put forward here about Obama. You CHOSE not to look into these things further because you wanted to make the president look bad, while having a cop-out in your pocket.
I won’t argue this any further; your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice on this issue is quite clear, and you’ve made it clear you’re not ever going to change.
Chris: “You did have the ability to verify whether those documents existed before you wrote that.”
I didn’t “write that” to “varify” anything. I included it as an example of a stepping stone on the journey that these people have taken in an effort to express understanding about how the case unfolded.
“I won’t argue this any further…”