Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » What’s With the Birthers?

What’s With the Birthers?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

According to a 2 August "breaking news" item from WorldNetDaily, a purported copy of President Obama's 1961 Kenyan birth certificate, certified by a Kenyan official in February 1964, has been found. The linked article reproduces a copy. As the article properly notes, a few weeks ago a different Kenyan "birth certificate" had been discovered by someone else and attempted to be marketed on eBay; it was determined to be a fraud. It seems likely that this one may also be a fraud; it has been so claimed, and the some of the claims at first glance make some sense. On 4 August, an article published in Australasia seemed to claim that the Kenyan "birth certificate" was a forgery based on an Australian birth certificate issued to an Australian. Oh well. Maybe the Birthers are just as nuts as the Truthers, an apparently more reputable bunch who believe that 9-11 was a put-up job by President Bush. Then there are those who think that President Obama's policies are increasing the national debt. How could seventy-one percent of the voters believe in such heresy? Still, "88% of Republicans blame the president’s policies, compared to 52% of Democrats. But 79% of voters not affiliated with either party agree." Tsk Tsk!  And, as all good people know, those who oppose President Obama's magnificent health care reforms are part of a wicked Republican cabal, mendaciously spreading falsehoods. President Obama and his friends have told us so. We're going to get Obamacare, like it or not; we need it! We had better like it.

I have absolutely no idea where President Obama was born. However, in view of the recurrent discussion about birth certificates, it seems worthwhile to suspend disbelief briefly and to explore what could likely happen were a bona fide Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama to appear. Such an appearance would raise the important constitutional and practical question of — "So What?"

As most everyone is by now well aware, Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It seems clear on the face of things that if President Obama was born in Kenya, he is not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States and is therefore constitutionally unqualified to be the President. The practical and legal problems revolve around the fact that he was elected to the office, sworn in as president, and in the intervening more than six months has signed into law several major pieces of legislation.

The only constitutional process for removing a sitting president is impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate under Article II, Section 4 for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Under Article III, Section 3, treason

against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Anything may be possible, but it would be a big stretch to characterize presidential lack of constitutional qualification as "treason" as defined in the Constitution. No element of bribery has thus far surfaced, and it seems unlikely that any will. That leaves "high crimes and misdemeanors," the meanings of which are more ambiguous.

If President Obama took office knowing that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States, that might possibly constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. However, this is unclear because there generally must be a law prohibiting specific conduct to make it a crime. There is no federal statute making it a crime to become the president knowing that one does not possess the requisite constitutional qualifications. There probably should be, but there isn't. Until recently, there had been no apparent need for one.

If these hurdles could be got over, there would be others. What is meant by "knowing?" No one actually has personal knowledge as to when or where he was born. I "know" that I was born in Washington, D.C. on 17 June 1941, not only because my parents later told me and I trust them, but also because I have seen the original of my birth certificate, which so states. But I have no first hand, personal, knowledge. Even had I been fully aware of my immediate surroundings at the moment of birth, a state of awareness which no other infant has ever experienced, there is no way that I could then have differentiated between a maternity hospital room in Washington, D.C. and one in Kenya. Despite my lack of actual personal knowledge, I have many times claimed to have been born on that date and at that place, in official documents executed subject to penalties for perjury.

If Obama falsely and knowingly swore in an official document that he was born in Hawaii, he could perhaps be impeached and convicted on the basis of perjury. There is no evidence of which I am aware of his having taken an oath to that effect; if such evidence exists, and should it be proved that he was not born in Hawaii, perjury would probably be an impeachable offense.

In any event, for impeachment and conviction of "high crimes and misdemeanors," on the basis of perjury or (improbably) without a criminal statute, it would be necessary for President Obama to have had some clear knowledge that he was not a "natural born Citizen" when he assumed office. Where might evidence of such knowledge be found?

If Candidate Obama actually believed that he had not been born in the United States, but knowingly claimed falsely that he had been, evidence of that would certainly be relevant to his state of mind. Proving what someone "believes" is never an easy task, unless the believer has written or spoken of his beliefs. President Obama has probably never expressed, publicly at least, a belief that he is not a "natural born" citizen. It has been claimed (probably correctly) that President Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is not probative of his birth in Hawaii, even though copies of it were posted on his campaign web site. It seems reasonable to presume that Candidate Obama was aware of the posting. Whether he believed that the Hawaiian birth certificate was spurious is a different question, and a big one.

If President Obama, as a youth, traveled on a passport issued by a foreign country, that could be probative that he was then a citizen of another country. There are two possibilities here:

1. Obama was a United States citizen but obtained and used a foreign passport. If he did not thereby intend to renounce United States citizenship, then he did not forfeit it.

2. Obama was not then in fact a United States citizen, and therefore used a foreign passport. This would be very good evidence that he knew that he was not constitutionally qualified as "natural born" when he sought and accepted the presidency.

There are many questions and few answers. In any event, it seems very unlikely that the present House of Representatives would impeach President Obama even if a newly discovered and clearly valid Kenyan birth certificate proved beyond question that he was born in Kenya; it also seems unlikely that the present Senate would convict. In practice, an impeachable offense boils down to what the House and the Senate say is it is. Former President Ford said substantially the same thing. Currently, the Democrats control both houses of the Congress, and President Obama seems to control the Democrats — if not completely, then still sufficiently to ward off a successful impeachment. The very first impeachment and conviction in United States history of a (Democratic) president seem so unlikely to occur while there is a Democratic Party majority that the subject may not even be worth discussing.

Impeached and convicted or not, the constitutional crisis would be draconian in the extreme. One possible solution would be for President Obama to resign in order to spare the country lots of turmoil. Then, or if President Obama were removed by the impeachment process, Vice President Biden would become the president, making Speaker Pelosi next in line. This might well be even worse than having President Obama remain in office. Alternatively, President Obama might simply remain in office, a much weakened "lame duck" president, quite probably facing an opposition Congress following the 2010 elections. That might well be the best possible outcome.

There is at least one other possibility, although it holds at best modest facial appeal. All of the laws enacted since 20 January might be attacked as invalid, because signed by a spurious president. Aside from the fact that these attacks would take a long time to make their tortured ways through the courts, they would, if successful, cause a big mess. What about appropriations bills? The Government needs funding. We may joke that it would be neat if the Government simply stopped, but realistically that would have some pretty undesirable consequences: the military needs to pay troops and even to feed and arm some of them. Could troops remain active in Iraq and elsewhere? Could they even be brought home? Perhaps they could hitchhike. Like it or not, the Government needs to function, and this requires such mundane things as electricity, salaries, aircraft fuel, and lots more, all of which costs money.

No matter what happens, President Obama will most likely remain in office at least until 20 January 2013. There is a useful teaching point in all of this, however. The "fourth estate," the press, let the country down very badly during the primaries and general election campaigns. Rather than pursue even tepidly the question of Candidate Obama's constitutional qualifications, the press grossly disparaged anyone who raised such questions and made sick jokes of the whole thing. That spectacle continues. If a valid Kenyan birth certificate were to surface, it might wake up the press; if that were not to do so, then nothing would.

There are a few things which might be done to avoid similar crises in the future. The states could require proof of constitutional qualification before any candidacy is certified. There are constitutional qualifications for all federal elected officials, and the constitutions of many states likely also specify qualifications for office. There is a move afoot to push for a federal law so providing. The political parties could impose requirements that prior to primaries, candidates make reasonable showings, under oath, of their constitutional qualifications. The Congress might some day pass legislation criminalizing the assumption of the presidency knowing that one is not constitutionally qualified. Maybe some day, another president might sign such legislation, making it the law of the land. Until now, these have been pipe dreams. Now, in the probably unlikely event that a valid Kenyan birth surfaces, there may be sufficient impetus.

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Even if President Obama was born in Kenya, it’s too late to do much about it.

    We could stuff him back in the womb and try again…

    But seriously, the entire “birther” controversy is basically manufactured by the media and the political left based on a few hardcore crazy people who they find it amusing to promote. No one on the serious political right takes clowns like Orly Taitz seriously.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There were the nuts from the Right in the first place: and the Left just took advantage of it, but it did not “manufacture it.”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    The “fourth estate,” the press, let the country down very badly during the primaries and general election campaigns. Rather than pursue even tepidly the question of Candidate Obama’s constitutional qualifications, the press grossly disparaged anyone who raised such questions and made sick jokes of the whole thing. That spectacle continues. If a valid Kenyan birth certificate were to surface, it might wake up the press; if that were not to do so, then nothing would.

    It strikes me that the lines above could just as easily be applied to the both of you as to the salaried shmos who did all they could to suppress this story before last November in their paganistic bowing at the Obama idol in Washington.

    And the lines still apply. If this certificate is indeed an honest one, as I believe it to be, then both of you refuse to wake up. At least someone with serious legal knoledge has attempted to investigate the possible outcomes of having a fraud, a spurious president, in the White House.

    People who buy their heads in the sand and leave their derierres sticking up in the air with big round signs saying “kick me” deserve the hardest and nastiest kick that History and Reality can give them.

    You have that coming to you gentlemen; you and all who agree with you. It will be richly deserved.

    I repeat my prediction. This issue will grow, as did Watergate, and it weill be the issue that causes Obama to abandon the façade of democracy you have now and declare a dictatorship. He has already shown how much respect he has for truth in his behavior with respect to Honduras. He will trash your constitution and give you what you deserve for being stupid enough to nominate and elect him.

    There is such a thing a criminal stupidity – and the two of you in your comments, Roger and Dave, are committing it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    The line should read “People who bury their heads in the sand and leave their derierres sticking up in the air with big round signs saying “kick me” deserve the hardest and nastiest kick that History and Reality can give them.”

    And it’s worth repeating because neither History nor Reality are very forgiving.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    It’s pretty shocking that an intelligent person like Mr. Miller would take birther claims seriously enough to write this [quite utterly useless] 4-page what-if.

    This silliness has been debunked thoroughly enough for most people who possess brains. The 1961 newspaper clippings, the reassurances from Hawaii’s state government [including the Republican governor] about the certificate itself are convincing.

    Dave says voices on the left want to keep the ‘controversy’ alive. I think it’s mostly cable-news opinion-heads who find it adds spice to their programs.

    But for most of us:
    Enough already.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Who gives a shit, Handy? If they insist on making fools of themselves, let ‘em.

  • http://www.eurocriticsmagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy,

    Are you going to tell us why you think it is okay for you to comment on US matters whilst simultaneously thinking that nobody outside Israel can comment on events there? Not that anybody is paying attention to that, but it seems inconsistent…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I happen to agree, Handy. Much ado about nothing. Perhaps the best that could be said for this article, it spares us a torturous reasoning process in the event some of the dimwits ever consider to escalate this, what I still regard as non-issue, to the level of impeachment.

    As to the blame that’s being affixed here on “the Fourth Estate,” I think it’s wrongheaded too. If anything, the Republican campaign ought to have raised a stink if Obama’s “technical” qualification for the office of the president were seriously questioned. But it didn’t, in no small measure, perhaps, because there were similar questions about McCain himself. And so, for all intents and purposes, it’s a moot point by now – a live issue only for the die-hards.

    Needless to say, the lunatic Republican contingent would be silent on the matter if Obama was more acceptable in their eyes. But enough said.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    If this certificate is indeed an honest one, as I believe it to be….

    Apparently, I was punked on this document. But that does not mean that I do not think that Obama was born in Kenya. WorldNetDaily, which broke the news in the first place, has reported this certificate to be false.

    Apparently, Kenya retained the status of a dominion for some months befor scrapping the governor-general and putting Jomo Kenyatta in as president. So, it was not a republic, which this document alleges.

  • doug

    Yeah. Why let facts get in the way of your beliefs

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So let’s impeach him then and have Joe Biden serve the remainder of the term – although Hillary would be my first choice.

    I have no problem with that.

  • Baronius

    This whole thing is ridiculous. Obama is a native-born American with documentation to prove it.

    That being said, Roger, the first I ever heard of this was out of the Clinton and Paul camps. And Miller’s speculation on the legal fallout is interesting. And Ruvy, I love ya, but you really could have earned some increased credibility around here by staying clear of the birther bandwagon.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I don’t doubt it about the Clinton camp as she was in a dogfight with Obama. But she couldn’t press the issue as a Democrat. If anything, the McCain camp ought to have done it if they thought it might stop Obama.

    But since they didn’t, it is a moot point. And yes, Miller did run up the gamut.

  • Baronius

    Obama is a Hawaiian. Roger, we don’t often agree, so let’s take a moment to bask in the harmony.

    — sigh –

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I am all for it, Baronius.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Roger sez:
    Since they [the McCain campaign] didn’t [make use of the birth certificate ‘issue’], it is a moot point.

    No, it was never a ‘point’ at all, Roger. Don’t even give it that much cred. Pleez. It was always a tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theory bit of wackiness.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t, Handy. Just saying it’s a moot point so I don’t see why you keep on resurrecting it.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I count 7 comments by you on this thread, vs. 3 by me, including this one. How am I ‘resurrecting’ the issue? I commented mostly on how totally unnecessary Dan’s article is.

  • Bliffle

    To the numerous ‘birthers’ I count among my friends and relatives, it is moot whether BHOs HI birth certificate is valid or not, since Hawaii is NOT actually a state!

    That’s right, any way you cut it BHO is NOT legally president of the USA!

    It turns out, according to my sources, that this whole idea of Hawaiian statehood is a hoax created 60 years ago by a sinister character named “Steve Garret” who tricked a bunch of congressmen by having some Hula dancers wave their skirts in front of them. They say they have documents, proof positive, that this is true.

    Once the truth is out it will blow the lid off this whole “Obama” conspiracy!

    (BTW, I give no credit at all to the theory advanced by certain leftie fag commie limp-wrist pinko acquaintances of mine that Hawaiian statehood is moot since they have “incontrovertible proof” that Kenya IS a USA state! They dared me to prove it isn’t true and I couldn’t! Can you?)

  • Clavos

    No one has mentioned Dan(Miller)’s central and most important point about the whole thing:

    So what?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #18

    My comments were no different in import.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s an awful long way to get around to saying that.

  • Clavos

    Well, compared to your Hemingwayesque prose, yes.

  • WTF?

    Humor from Bliffle?

    WTF?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m working on it, Clav. Not there yet.

  • Clavos

    Humor from Bliffle?

    Not yet, but maybe some day…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Silly or not, the birthplace of President Obama has generated substantial public controversy; the refusal thus far of President Obama to permit the release of any “long form” Hawaiian birth certificate and other pertinent documents has stimulated and perpetuated the controversy.

    The thrust of the article was that even if President Obama was born in Kenya, there is very little that can be done about it now that he is the president. In other words, So What? I consider this important, because the time and energy being devoted to this apparent phantom are a gross distraction from subjects of greater practical significance. At this point, it does not matter whether President Obama was hatched in a tree in Iraq or delivered by a stork from somewhere in China. The focus should be on such things as “Obamacare,” foreign policy, the economy and other ways in which he is flushing the country down the toilet.

    Now, legislation is being proposed in Hawaii which would force the public disclosure of all of President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including . . .[his] long-form original birth certificate. It would make such records of all persons born in Hawaii subject to such disclosure. The bill will be offered by State Senator Espero, a Democrat, who stated,“My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions.”

    Senator Espero stated that he believes President Obama to have been born in Hawaii, and that My motivation is strictly to promote transparency, he said. When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, Why wouldn’t they be available to the public? One might wonder when this thought occurred to him.

    Transparency indeed. Candidate Obama promised transparency, and the only transparency thus far shown has been that of his promises.

    I think Senator Espero has a very good idea and that he should proceed with it. It just might put an end to the controversy one way or another.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Bliffle

    Dan says:

    “I think Senator Espero has a very good idea and that he should proceed with it. It just might put an end to the controversy one way or another.”

    Well that’s not good enough for me!

    I want to see fingerprints of the neonate “Obama” compared against certified fingerprints of the current edition of “Obama”. Sworn to by affidavits from FBI experts.

    Furthermore, it is my understanding that in a few cases out of 10,000 that mistakes can occur in fingerprinting and yield FALSE POSITIVES! Therefore, I demand that DNA tests be conducted between the fingerprints of the Obama birth certificate and the current “Obama”.

    But to forclose the possibility of forgeries performed by the CIA (we all know how powerful and unscrupulous THEY are!) all documents have to be witnessed and sworn to by at least two witnesses who were alive at the time that the original fingerprints were taken and who were of sufficient expertise to testify to the authenticity of those fingerprints.

    Harumph! I have spoken!

  • Clavos

    Still no humor…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    If Dan’s #27 is intended to be humorous/satirical/ironic, it flew right past me. If it is not so intended, he just wasted a couple hundred more words failing to say anything meaningful about anything significant.

  • http://joannehuspek.wordpress.com Joanne Huspek

    Dan’s article points out the obvious; even if the president slid in on the sly, what difference does it make? The Congress is controlled by Democrats so nothing will happen. Besides, to have a Biden-Pelosi presidency would cause me serious pause.

    Roger Hemingwayesque? I’m thinking more Mickey Spillane.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos was being his usual sarcastic self, Joanne.

  • Bliffle

    “What’s with the birthers?”

    Well, let me try to imagine.

    I think to myself “imagine I’m a racist, angry that Obama is President”. This is pretty easy for me to do since I was raised as a racist by my nice middle-class genteel racist family, in a racist society in a racist country. Maybe the whole world was (is?) racist. Among us, The Superior Race, the word “n*gger” appeared in conversation as easily as the word “rat” or “parasite” or “welfare queen”.

    So the question is: what would racist bliffle do? Gritting my teeth at the notion of a mere n*gger being president of MY United States? Why he’s nothing more than a Halfrican-American, certified just by liberal-guilt. He’s only Halfrican-American, and that half is Hawaiian, and Hawaii isn’t a REAL state anyhow, it’s just a sortof half-state on probation. How can it be a real state if it’s 5000 miles away? Why, you might as well claim that Kenya is a US state!

    Besides, someone told me that there’s doubt about the validity of his birth certificate!

    All these doubts, all these half measures. It sounds like Hussein Obama isn’t a US citizen at all! Maybe he’s the Manchurian Candidate!

    So I’d be doing my Patriotic Duty to tear that guy down and drive him from office. Someday the nation will recognize us for unmasking this impostor and saving the nation from heathen muslim socialistic ruin at the hands of a n*gger!

    So now I can get back to the joyous pleasure of n*gger-bashing, free from PC constraints of the pinko left that would lead us down the path of socialism and diversity to ruin.

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, is that why all liberals assume that other people are racists? Guilt about a creepy childhood? Maybe that’s why I assume that no one is racist. I had two religious, New England progressive parents.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “…all liberals assume that other people are racists”

    I’m a liberal, and I assume someone is a racist when they do or say racist things.

    That said, whether there is a racial component to the angriest of the anti-Obama voices is something we can debate at least.

    At McCain rallies last fall, in the ‘tea parties’ that began in April, and now among many of the town-hall yellers, there is an element of hot, blind anger.

    You can hear it in the voices [the lady who insisted to McCain that Obama was an Arab] and see it in the signs and slogans [“Hitler made good speeches too”]. These people are pissed off. And they are often not very articulate about why [as well as not being very well informed about facts].

    So one wonders if the very idea of having a liberal, a Democrat, a black man in the White House is deeply disturbing to them. And they know it’s socially unacceptable to express racism openly. So this anger comes out.

    They often say that their freedom is being taken away or the Constitution is threatened. But these fears are not about specific things that have really already happened to them. Instead, they fear the future, and these horrible things the government is about to do to them.

    To me it seems pretty thoroughly nutty. And inexpressible racial fear seems like one explanation that fits in some or many cases.

  • Clavos

    I don’t care one whit about his being a black man, I would vote to put Thomas Sowell in the white house in a heartbeat. I would lead the charge to elect Condi Rice the first female president, but “the very idea of having a liberal, a Democrat…in the White House is deeply disturbing” to me for sure.

    Probably as disturbing as having RR in the white house was to most lefties.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But you shouldn’t compare yourself, Clavos, to any of these people. You’re a thinking person. Average American is not.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Yes, I was certainly not referring to you, Clavos, or indeed to most non-supporters of the president. Just the folks who indulge in this angry fringe rhetoric that has gotten a lot of attention. Dave says this is 20% of the population; I doubt it.

  • http://www.whalertly.com/wordpress Robert M. Barga

    they need to learn that he is a citizen.
    if you want to help fight the birthers, join us

  • Cannonshop

    #33 Bliffle, let me try and make this so you can understand it..

    The only people who CARE about Obama’s “Race” (as in coloration) are his SUPPORTERS.

    The folks that don’t like him, don’t like him because he’s the resurrection of Jimmy Carter’s failed policies-put on a turbocharger, with rolled up sleeves, that he’s a Crooked Chicago Politician, a Socialist, and a Narcissist.

    Flat out, the things the majority of we-who-don’t-care-for-the-Messiah don’t like about him have NOTHING to do with who his daddy was.

    the Birthers are just a lunatic fringe of the political spectrum, one that grabs headlines because they’re ‘freaky’ and useful for discrediting serious opposition using guilt-by-association tactics.

    I rather suspect the only reason there’s ANY coverage of these loons, is that they work as a straw man for covering our Narcissist in chief’s ass.

  • Franco

    36 – Clavos
    “I would vote to put Thomas Sowell in the white house in a heartbeat.”

    You would find me in line either right in front or behind you, depending on whose heartbeats faster.

    40 – Cannonshop
    “The folks that don’t like him, don’t like him because he’s the resurrection of Jimmy Carter’s failed policies-put on a turbocharger, with rolled up sleeves, that he’s a Crooked Chicago Politician, a Socialist, and a Narcissist.

    Flat out, the things the majority of we-who-don’t-care-for-the-Messiah don’t like about him have NOTHING to do with who his daddy was.”

    Thank you Cannonshop

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I assume that no one is racist.

    Everyone or no one? Guess that leaves out reality.

  • Bliffle

    “Bliffle, is that why all liberals assume that other people are racists?”

    Do they? “all liberals”?

    How do you know these things? Are you just guessing, or is it just part of political exhortation?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Besides, I don’t think Bliffle had a creepy childhood. Not the way he gets around around Europe and France in particular.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    they need to learn that he is a citizen.
    if you want to help fight the birthers, join us

    [Gratuitous rudeness deleted]

    I stand by my word. One of these days, the real birth certificate will pop up, the one proving that Obama’s American citizenship is as real as a three dollar bill, like a Pop-Tart stinking like a ripe fart. And when it does, the internet blockers will go into place and the various thugs loyal to Obama will start to silence those of you who oppose him.

    Bye bye liberty, bye bye constitution, bye bye freedom. Obama has already proved he is willing to send in thugs to enforce his will. Americans will get the government they deserve….

    Like I said elsewhere, Robert. Have fun on the way down….

  • Bliffle

    IMO most of this “birther” stuff is displaced racism. Maybe some sincere birth doubters started it, but IMO they provoked a lot of poorly sublimated racism to rise to the surface.

    We are not that far away in time and space from rampant racism. When I was a lad racism was as common as the air we breath. And I still see little eruptions of it today, even in civilized northern cities and right here on the left-coast.

  • Cannonshop

    46 Bliffle, that’s because the places where “Race is important” tend to have more racists. Left-dominated statist environments attract the kind of mental laziness that is the basis of race obsession. Racists are racist because, fundamentally, they refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. This same refusal to accept their own responsibility for their own life is very much in keeping with a tendency to Statist politics.

  • Bliffle

    That’s just a stupid attempt to invert an old argument.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t know what it is, Bliffle. It looks to me rather that some are beginning to lose their marbles. It makes no rhyme or reason. It’s just better to disengage.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    There are several voices on here, and Cannon is one, who repeat right-wing cliche doublespeak like that at the drop of a hat.

    They must all take an online course in it or something. It’s irritating, but not valid in the least.

    Yes, Virginia, there really were and are racists in the world. They are not a ‘construct of the left.’ If someone is falsely accused, then that’s terrible and we should call the accusers on it. But don’t pretend racism is a political fantasy.

    That in itself is a political fantasy.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “the very idea of having a liberal, a Democrat…in the White House is deeply disturbing”

    If you find someone incompetent and a liar, then Rice in the White House should be just as disturbing.

  • zingzing

    you people (you people) all (all) know (really) that you (you) have no idea (none) about what you’re talking about, right (right?)?

  • Baronius

    Zing, half the people are saying birthers are racist, and the other half are saying they’re not. You’ve got to figure that someone’s right. For my money, Cannonshop’s comment #40 is dead-on.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #40, perhaps, but #47 is insanity.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Zing, half the people are saying birthers are racist, and the other half are saying they’re not.”

    well, some of the birthers are racists, some are not.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Which makes it interesting that Cannon would take it upon himself to speak for all the birthers. Go figure!

  • Baronius

    I don’t know whether birthers are racist or not. The two BC regulars who are most sympathetic to the birthers are Dan(M) and Ruvy, and neither one is anti-black. Then again, by generalization from those two, all birthers are expats.

    There is nothing inherently racist in the birther stance. There is a pattern on the left of accusing opponents of racism. So hearing defenders of the president accusing birthers of racism doesn’t tell me anything.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Some birthers are true-believer conspiracists aka “nuts.” This group may well include Ruvy.

    Some birthers don’t really believe this wacky ‘theory’ at all. They just like to tweak Obama and irritate liberals. This group possibly includes Dan (Miller).

  • zingzing

    “There is a pattern on the left of accusing opponents of racism.”

    apparently, that’s true of the right as well…

    “neither one is anti-black”

    it doesn’t have to be about blackness. could be about his name.
    the straight fact is that some of these people are racist. some are not. it’s true of all people.

  • Clavos

    This group possibly includes Dan (Miller).

    Dan(Miller) summed up his take on the birther thing in two words in the article:

    “So what?”

    I concur. I don’t care where he was born; his being an american citizen doesn’t make him any less unpalatable to me.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    I don’t mind “tweaking” President Obama or irritating “liberals.” However, both have made it so ridiculously easy that it’s hardly worth even the minimal effort required. If I am going to have fun, I should have to work at least a little bit for it.

    The best argument the Birthers have thus far offered is that despite the controversy, President Obama has thus far declined to allow the public release of his long form Hawaiian birth certificate, if there is one. Maybe that would clear up any confusion; maybe it would just add to it. Perhaps President Obama likes it the way it is, since it encourages application of the racism label to anyone who has the strange notion that the U.S. Constitution is more important than he is.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Baronius

    Zing, I said that neither one is anti-black to avoid a debate about Ruvy and the children of Abraham. I think it’s fair to say that most racism directed against Obama has nothing to do with his Welsh bloodline. When people accuse birthers of racism, they mean anti-black racism.

    When people say that some birthers are racist, they’re making an implication about the nature of birthers. It’s not equivalent to saying that some Kroger shoppers are racist and some aren’t. The statement is deliberately provocative. If I were to say that some birthers have a mixture of cynicism and gullibility, I’d be addressing something fundamental about the nature of the movement. I wouldn’t feel the need to backpedal and say that that’s true of all people.

    And just for the record, I am saying that about cynicism and gullibility. No if’s. It’s inherent in the movement. But is the movement inherently racist? Not as far as I know. I’d go so far as to wager that most of the very few people who would call Obama a n***** would have been calling President Hillary Clinton a c*** without any misogyny.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    This just in! Fifty percent of the people in a recent telephone survey are racists and only thirteen percent are not.

    A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.
    Fifty-two percent (52%) believe such a system would lead to a lower quality of care while 13% believe care would improve. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think that the quality of care would remain about the same.

    Sadly, eighty-seven percent of Republicans fall into the racist category.

    Alas, the country is in sad shape.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    And 100% of them should know, as Dan no doubt does, that no single-payer plan is currently under consideration in Congress. But it’s nice of them to let us know their opinions about it.

  • Clavos

    handy avers,

    “But it’s nice of them to let us know their opinions about it.”

    Um, weren’t they responding to a poll?

    Not everyone hangs up on pollsters, as I do.

  • Baronius

    That’d be great if you could explain to a pollster why his question is wrong. Like, “well, factually I don’t know where Barack Obama was born, because I didn’t witness his birth, but I personally don’t believe that there is anything suspicious about his eligibility for the presidency.” Or, “I imagine that a single-payer plan could improve or worsen the quality of health care, depending on the proposal.” How about this one: “You can’t generalize about any country moving in the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ direction.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And 100% of them should know, as Dan no doubt does, that no single-payer plan is currently under consideration in Congress. But it’s nice of them to let us know their opinions about it.

    Which once again raises the question of why the hell you or anyone else on the left is supporting the garbage plan being considered in Congress which will leave 10 million people still uninsured by the authors own estimate, and does nothing to provide for real reform or cost reductions.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    So who pissed in your kawffee? As we say in New Yawk.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I, for one, think the reforms don’t go far enough. But then again, I don’t think I represent “the Left.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Not everyone hangs up on pollsters, as I do.

    I bet you that at least half the time after you hang up the poll worker marks you down as a ‘don’t know’.

    Damnit, Clav, I’m sick of your indecisiveness. ;-)

  • Clavos

    Doc,

    I used to pretend to be an academic and give them the old “On the one hand…but on the other hand” gambit, but then they hung up on me.

    So, I finally decided to simplify.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Until “academic” wasn’t cool

  • Clavos

    It’s never been cool.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Especially in US, where the intellectuals have always been in disrepute. But it’s the age-old conflict between the scribes and other “classes.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    I just can’t make up my mind about indecisiveness. On the one hand, President Obama may have some good ideas, since so many intefectuals seem to believe that he does. However, those ideas may not be very good, because so many of the “other classes” don’t like them.

    I just don’t know what to think or do. Therefore, I shall remain decisively and adamantly indecisive.

    At least that is my position at the moment. Or maybe I should be decisively decisive, except that that might be deemed divisive.

    Sob, what should I do? I just don’t know.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Consult an oracle.

  • Mark

    Like my father before me, I lie to pollsters. The farce is strong with my family.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How are you doing, stranger?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    An oracle? Which one? There are so many! Surely, there must be some sort of a PC litmus test, acceptable to intefectuals but also to the great unwashed! But even then I probably couldn’t decide.

    Alas and alack, woe is me.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Mark

    I’m doing well. How about you, Rog?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Same ole!

    Have you read anything by Umberto Eco. What I have in mind is a piece, “Language, Power, Force” article – an explication of Foucault’s concept of power (Power & Knowledge essays). Powerful stuff.

    Was talking to Cindy about it. We should all reread it and have a discussion.

    Check with her, BTW. Do you have her email?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry, Dan! I don’t speak for the Ivory Tower.

  • Baronius

    Don’t worry, Dan. Secretary Sebelius says that the details don’t matter.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Can Secretary Sebelius (that’s Latin, isn’t it?) take shorthand? Does she know a good oracle?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Baronius

    “(that’s Latin, isn’t it?)”

    It’s gotta be Finnish. The national composer of Finland was named Sibelius, and he was taught by a man named Wegelius.

  • Clavos

    Would that be glossy finish or satin finish?

  • zingzing

    google “white death”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Things are so terribly confused these days. No wonder I can’t make up my mind. Does that mean I’m an intefectual? Damn! I hope not. On the other hand . . .

    Dan(Miller)

  • Bliffle

    Dan(Miller), in the article, makes this astounding statement:

    “I have absolutely no idea where President Obama was born.”

    Really? NO IDEA? ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA?

    To say that you must throw out the rebuttals of the false Kenyan birth certificates and the REAL EVIDENCE brought forward to certify the Hawaiian birth certificate by HI officials, including the governor (a republican) and the testimony of 3rd parties who have seen and handled the Obama birth certificate.

    To maintain, in the face of evidence, that you have NO idea, reveals that you are a partisan. A partisan ready to assume the worst about Obama.

    Thus Dan(Miller) rips off his mask of impartiality.

  • Dan

    “Silly or not, the birthplace of President Obama has generated substantial public controversy; the refusal thus far of President Obama to permit the release of any “long form” Hawaiian birth certificate and other pertinent documents has stimulated and perpetuated the controversy.”—Dan (Miller)

    That’s pretty much the heart of the matter. So much for transparency.

    If information about a black president is now a racist enterprise, then the racists have a point: It is the anti-racist zealots who aren’t ready for a black president.

  • Clavos

    Um bliffle, are you deliberately obtuse or is it congenital?

    Did you not see Dan(Miller)’s careful analysis of the fact he doesn’t KNOW (for sure, beyond all doubt) where HE was born? That he has only his parents’ and the DC authorities’ word for it?

    Thus bliffle rips off his mask of intelligent discourse.

  • Bliffle

    Clavos asks:

    “Did you not see Dan(Miller)’s careful analysis of the fact he doesn’t KNOW (for sure, beyond all doubt)…”

    No. I ran thru all the fragmented pages of Dans article and could not find the phrase you ascribe to him :”…doesn’t KNOW (for sure, beyond all doubt)” anywhere.

    Are you putting words in Dan(Miller)s mouth? Are you defending Dan by misrepresenting his words? How strange.

    What he said was “I have absolutely no idea where President Obama was born.” at the beginning of the second paragraph.

    I think that is disingenuous. With all that’s been published and said on this topic how could a sentient person not have an opinion, an idea.

    Are all propositions to be considered equal in probity? Is some mystery person who claims BHO was born in Timbuktu to have equal credibility with the governor of Hawaii? If I claimed that BHO was born on Mars would you assign equal quality to my assertion?

    If you had to put your money down on a birthplace, where would it be?

  • Clavos

    No. I ran thru all the fragmented pages of Dans article and could not find the phrase you ascribe to him :”…doesn’t KNOW (for sure, beyond all doubt)” anywhere.

    That’s because I didn’t ascribe THAT phrase to him, bliffle — there are no quotation marks around it in my comment; apparently you didn’t notice that.

    Are you putting words in Dan(Miller)s mouth? Are you defending Dan by misrepresenting his words? How strange.

    No, I’m not, though I am (accurately) paraphrasing and summarizing the following:

    If these hurdles could be got over, there would be others. What is meant by “knowing?” No one actually has personal knowledge as to when or where he was born. I “know” that I was born in Washington, D.C. on 17 June 1941, not only because my parents later told me and I trust them, but also because I have seen the original of my birth certificate, which so states. But I have no first hand, personal, knowledge. Even had I been fully aware of my immediate surroundings at the moment of birth, a state of awareness which no other infant has ever experienced, there is no way that I could then have differentiated between a maternity hospital room in Washington, D.C. and one in Kenya. Despite my lack of actual personal knowledge, I have many times claimed to have been born on that date and at that place, in official documents executed subject to penalties for perjury.

    You’re bloviating again, bliffle, and talking through your hat.

  • Pablo

    Well said Clavos

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Dan(Miller)…doesn’t KNOW (for sure, beyond all doubt) where HE was born? …he has only his parents’ and the DC authorities’ word for it?

    Poor Dan(Miller). I suppose when you are a lawyer, even your own parents’ word isn’t good enough.

    Who are all these masked men?

  • Mark

    Aspiring ‘fair witnesses’ and other assorted hair splitters.

    (hi Cindy)

  • Mark

    Parenthetical Dan, here’s a little exercise to help to deal with those indecisive moments.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    (hiya farrier guy)

    :-)

  • Rufus Brown

    Da fact of da matter is, it all comes down to racism. All dem republican whiteys are just racist, and dey can’t stand to see a black man with power in dis country. That’s why dey fabrikate all dis bullshit about him not bein a us citicen.

  • Rufus Brown

    its all racist. da fact of da matter is dat all da whitey repuglicans (lol) cant stand to see a black man in da highest position of power in dis country. so dey fabrificate all dis bullshit about him being born in kenya and not havin a real birf certificate.

    Fight the powa Obama, stay strong son!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I tend to agree, Rufus. The whites had a century of practice of having to learn to hide their racial prejudices – at least those who regard themselves sophisticated. There have been numerous violations and tramping on our freedoms during the Bush administration. The Patriot Act is one example. But the white horde kept quiet because they’ve been kept in submission by politics of fear. Now that a black man is in the White House, the gloves are off. The white trash, and that’s what most of the anti-Obama crowd is, apparently can’t take it by “being screwed” by a black. And the cat is out of the bag, at last.

  • Bliffle

    This comment from another thread may explain why many people think the ‘birthers’ are racists:

    “#2 – Jane
    Aug 07, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    God bless these patriots protesting Obamacare. He has never produced a birth certificate and most evidence shows he was born in Kenya. How can a man who is not even legally President shove socialized medicine on us. We need one of our OWN KIND in the White house. Vote Republican as if your life depended on it because it probably does!”

    Our OWN KIND.

    Their OWN KIND.

    ‘They’ prefer their OWN KIND. Just as we prefer our OWN KIND.

    Then she fingers the putative savior: “Vote Republican as if your life depended on it because it probably does!”

  • Irene Wagner

    Yep, yep. If I wanted to make people think birthers were racists, I’d get me a screen name of “Jane” and…

    Lame-o-rola.

  • Irene Wagner

    The whole political scene these days has turned into a masquerade party.

    People at Town Hall meetings staging obnoxious protests of things they don’t really protest in order to defame the people protesting in sincerity…It’s so “junior high.”

    Rufus Brown, though. He’s good. He manages to parody at the same time a certain type of birther, and a certain type of anti-birther.

    I think I hear the death rattle of a horse nearby.

  • Irene Wagner

    That wasn’t a reference to anyone’s pet, by the way. It was topical.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Irene,

    My thinking is – you are in conflict, and your posts of late tend to reflect that. We’ll talk about it later.

  • Irene Wagner

    No, Roger, we won’t talk about it later. We’re talking horse rigor mortis, now, not just death rattles. It’s still a news story, and it probably will be a news story for awhile, but I’m hoping to make this comment the last thing *I* ever say about it.

    There are many whites, still, who’d be unhappy about having a black move into their neighborhood, let alone the White House. That bigotry is regrettable.

    Another regrettable thing, and it of course follows from the existence of that regrettable bigotry, is the way the charge of “Racist!” has been mucking up discussions about anything having to do with Obama, and not just his birth certificate. It’s a real barrier to profitable dialogue, one of many.

    Frankly Roger, it would take much more than Obama’s producing a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii to elicit from me a relieved “All is well in the USA.”

    I’m sure there are a few right-thinking liberals and leftist rightists who feel the same way.

  • Clavos

    Another regrettable thing, and it of course follows from the existence of that regrettable bigotry, is the way the charge of “Racist!” has been mucking up discussions about anything having to do with Obama, and not just his birth certificate. It’s a real barrier to profitable dialogue, one of many.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Clav, neither Roger nor I disagree with this. But people who charge racism when it’s irrelevant are different from people who worry that the extreme rhetoric getting too much attention may be [at least in part] racist in nature.

  • Irene Wagner

    That’s more than a worry. It’s a given, for the next four years at least. So, what to do?

    What if a position pertaining to an important issue is supported by watertight and fact-based arguments, and just happens to be held by racists as well as reasonable people? (This hypothetical event has nothing to do with birth certificates.)

    Does one dismiss the argument, or the point of view, because it’s one that some racists also happen to hold?

    Or does one wrest the valid point of view and the arguments backing it up from the control of the bigots, rinse away the racist rhetoric, couch it in more reasonable and convincing language?

    That takes a lot of courage, though.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re missing the point, Irene. I wasn’t referring just to the birther issue but general tenor of your remarks of late.

    For example:

    “It makes me sad–and I think it annoys you, too– to see so many here discouraged about the future just because they can’t shame or intimidate enough people into becoming liberals, or “the proper” brand of Christian, or atheists, or conservatives, or to make aliyah just the way have” (comment #201, the “thugs” thread, addressed to Silas).

    Not, it should be clear from what transpired above your response, not to mention all other comments, that neither Silas nor I would ever be motivated by “shaming or intimidating enough people into becoming” whatever . . . So who are you really addressing by this diatribe? The very fact that you even raise the possibility is a curious thing indeed.

    But as you said, we don’t need to talk about it. I just thought I’ll bring it up for you to examine.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Now, it should be clear . . .”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    From way back at comment #20: Clavos wrote

    No one has mentioned Dan(Miller)’s central and most important point about the whole thing:

    So what?

    Dan Miller pointed out correctly that legally, there was not much to be done if a Kenyan birth certificate, or some other proof or legal argument demonstrating that Obama was not a citizen were accepted by a court. One would need a Republican dominated Congress to get “being a fraud” interpreted as “high crimes and misdemeanours”, and such an animal presently does not exist.

    But a fraud would lose his authority, in reality, if not in law. Why should you obey the orders of a faker occupying the White House? Especially if you know he is a faker? If he hasn’t the decency to respect the law by stepping down, why should you even pay any heed to him?

    If Obama was indeed shown to be the fraud I believe him to be, he would be forced to declare martial law, and pray that those generals he delegated to enforce his declaration would obey him. Remember, they too would know he is a fraud. The legal ramifications are not the issue here, because legally, the answer is “so what?”

    But the basic loss of authority due to the loss of legitimacy would cut the United States down in so many ways, that either Obama would have to seize power like a Kenyan dictator, or step down to allow an idiot like Joe Biden to accede to the presidency.

    The issue here is not “the birthers”. The issue here is “why doesn’t Barack Hussein Obama II simply cough up a long form Hawaiian birth certificate?” So long as he acts like a crook trying to hide something, he stinks like a crook trying to hide something.

    And that is the bottom line. FULL STOP.

  • Bliffle

    The question is, does Dan(Miller) have NO IDEA where he himself was born? Seemingly, he has no better evidence than Obama for his birth. Neither do I. Gee, maybe I’m an impostor, too!

    Here’s my conclusions: the birthers are nuts, grasping at straws. Some of them are racists, glad to have a semi-legit reason to let loose with a bunch of abuse under cover of that semi-legit argument. Some of them are rabid rightists, embarked on a scorched earth policy against liberals who will use ANYTHING. Some are insidious sappers who will use doubt and nurture the doubt to tarnish Obamas presidency. Frankly, I put Dan(Miller) in that last category based on his pusillanimous article.

  • Irene Wagner

    re: #111 Silas and I had a conversation a few weeks back in which we both expressed frustration with the increasing polarization of America. If Silas read the comment to which you refer, Roger (my #201, followed by Roger’s 204) he probably remembered that conversation, and that was why he did not take offense when none was intended.

    (Sorry for the interruption, Ruvy and Bliffle. Carry on.)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Here’s my conclusions:

    Dottsa nice, perfesser. You have conclusions. Mazel tov!! May you have many more!! Let’s put these points simply enough that even a professor will be able to understand them.

    I know where I was born. It’s on my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I know what my daddy did for a living at the time: It’s on my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I know where he was born: It’s on my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I know where my mother was born: It’s on my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And unlike a certain president of yours, I do not have the need to hide my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Now if a certain president of yours released a LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, people like me would not call him for the fraud he is. But he doesn’t. So, in addition to being a fraud, he is a great example for America’s young people – lie to get where you are and lie some more to stay there. What’s the next step? Buying a phoney doctorate to get a cushy job? Hey, I could help with that! I know of a whole bunch of people who do that for a living!

    Yup!! And you call birthers nuts?

    A man who acts like a crook stinks like a crook. You got the perfume to make him stink better? Each day Obama refuses to come clean, he stinks more and more. He should pay you a fortune for your perfume to make him stink better. You’d be a rich man – as long as your dollar didn’t depreciate into bubbles….

  • pablo

    Excellent post Ruvy!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I stand corrected then, Irene, since the remark pertained to another conversation.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I’ve got pretty thick skin. And no offense has been taken. I respect Irene’s point of view along with most other BC folks. I think what’s really needed is stepping back and listening to the perspective of others. Regardless of how polarized some of us may be, I do maintain that there is a basic commonality from which we can all forge ahead. Even in our differences we must find that which binds us and make that our common purpose.

    God, that’s so deep, isn’t it?

  • Clavos

    Even in our differences we must find that which binds us…

    Didn’t know you’re into bondage, Silas…

    [Ducks and runs for cover] :>)

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Don’t run too fast, Clav, I got a lasso with your name on it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, Silas. Figure on ten percent with whom you’ll find common ground, and that’s tops. The rest will fall by the wayside.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Is that “THE” ten percent you’re referring to? Actually, Roger, even in my cynicism I think there’s more than just 10%. Rather than debate the differences, perhaps we should discuss the common ground. Perhaps in that common ground we can find a way to bridge the gap. If that doesn’t work, I may be into bondage — provided, of course, that I’m the dominator.

  • Irene Wagner

    LOL Clavos and Silas and even ROGER, you make me smile.

    Roger, it didn’t register until a few minutes ago. I HAD requested at the end of the comment in question to be “kicked” if I showed up in BC again before November. “Kick” has been gratefully acknowledged and processed. Weird sense of humor, very weird sense of humor. But I “got” it. :)

    PS to Ruvy. Your article about violence in your area probably deserves more comments. I’d make one, but…

    * goes away and does “’til November” stuff*

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Silas. Just look at the BC community and no further. But take solace. Ten percent is enough.

    BTW, that’s more like the Irene I know: your wit is your greatest asset.

  • Bliffle

    What the hell is a LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    I don’t have one. All I have is a green thing similar to Obamas. I used to have a photocopy of the original hand-written piece of paper, which was even shorter than the green thing. But it’s disappeared, altho I MAY have a computer scan.

    Does Hawaii even have a long form?

  • Clavos

    Thanks for bringing up that point, bliff. I’m wondering myself.

    I had a birth certificate years ago (which, of course, was in Spanish), can’t find it anymore, but all it gave was the date, my parents’ names and where I was born. Oh, it also had the book and folio #s from the registrar’s office where it was filed.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I bet 99% of ‘birthers’ [and pretend-birthers] never heard of a ‘long-form’ birth certificate before this nonsense came up.

    And has anyone ever ‘demanded’ that a president show his birth certificate before? And then when he did, said, aw, fake, that’s not good enough. It’s beyond ludicrous.

  • Bliffle

    My original BC doesn’t even have my name on it, just “baby bliffle”. It’s all pretty lame. My best record is my Dads diary (I have them all going back to WW1) for that date which notes that a baby boy was born, beef was $0.49/lb., and gas was 12 cents a gallon and he filled up with 12 gallons of regular. A memorable day.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Let’s all do de Obama shuffle and jive:

    I bet 99% of ‘birthers’ [and pretend-birthers] never heard of a ‘long-form’ birth certificate before this nonsense came up

    My original BC doesn’t even have my name on it, just “baby bliffle”.

    What the hell is a LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    If you all pretend that what is being demanded from Obama doesn’t even exist, maybe you can call those who demand it crazy. Uh huh. Go ahead and shuffle and jive, shuffle and jive. You’re not fooling anybody.

    The difference between all your remarks and the little Kenyan “wonder boy” is that none of you joes has spent over a million dollars to prevent the release of your birth certificate from your “home state”. The difference between Barack Hussein Obama II and you is that none of you has the reason to spend over a million dollars to prevent the release of the original document.

    The slimy Chicago thief knows exactly what is at stake – his ligitimacy as president. The slimy Chicago thief knows exactly what will happen if someone gets hold of the real documentation he is spending so much money to hide: nobody will regard anything he says as worth paying attention to or doing! His signature will be worth nothing but garbage, and his name will be as bad as rancid oil!

    The “Blessed of Hussein” can afford a long drawn out legal shuffle and jive that makes a mockery of your constitution, your legal system – and of you.

    Maybe you old-timers don’t know what a LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE is. But I sure as hell do. I had to produce one to prove that I was a citizen of the United States when I wanted to make aliyah. And I did. I wanted out of a country where the leaders are so arrogant that they go to court to sue to prevent people from knowing where they were born – when it is the public’s business to know!

    Yup! Birthers are crazy, all right – clutching at “straws” by stating the obvious. Anyone who spends millions of dollars to prevent the release of documents that may establish his citizenship knows that his “citizenship” is defective.

    Meanwhile, you guys just shuffle and jive, shuffle and jive….

    Play de music louder, Henry! Make these boys DANCE!!

  • zingzing

    uh, on the good foot. good gawd. ruvy nuts. uh. get it down now. ow! that’s the uh. ah.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Yes, only Ruvy knows the Real Truth — perhaps G*d told him personally — and the rest of us are idiots. Thank you so much for sharing.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    …Ruvy knows the Real Truth… and the rest of us are idiots

    If the shoe fits, handyguy….

    The only real truth worth knowing here is that when someone pays millions to lock he public vault of data to the public, as opposed to $150 (that’s exaggerating the cost) of providing a bona-fide birth certificate, he has something to hide. That’s the only real truth I’ve got to know.

    A guy spending that much monmey to cover up the truth has something to hide – a really smelly skeleton in the closet. A guy who acts like a thief stinks like a thief – and the “Blessed of Hussein” stinks all the way over here in Samaria.

  • Bliffle

    It’s Dan(Miller) who bothers me, not the overwrought Ruvy who has become a comic figure here.

    I think Dan(Miller) is being disingenuous. By saying he has NO IDEA where Obama was born, he lends credibility to the notion of Obamas illegitimate birth certificate.

    Dan(Mller) purports to be a lawyer, and he has pontificated here about judgely requirements, preserving the law, following precedent, etc. But would you want this Dan(Miller) to be a judge? Would you want this Dan(Miller) to be sitting in judgement on your divorce, your tax court defense, your action against another businessman who has cheated you?

    If he is unable to weigh the evidences that have been presented pro and con Obamas birthplace, and have SOME IDEA, one way or the other, then he’d be a hopeless judge.

    And that’s the situation judges are mostly working within. They don’t have superhuman powers to KNOW absolutely what went on. They don’t know who, for dead sure certain, is wrong and who is right. They have to weigh the evidence, after filtering out what is clearly precluded by laws of evidence, and, especially in Civil cases of property, decide based on the preponderance of evidence.

    In the US system (unlike, for example, some European courts) the judge does not command an investigative unit, nor does he have investigative powers, except insofar as enabled or demanded by court presentations.

    So, the judge really has to decide. Maybe his decision will prove wrong. Maybe his decision will be reversed on appeal. Maybe new evidence will come to light. But he must make the best decision he can.

    So it seems to me, IMO, that Dan(Miller) is not being honest with us. He’s not giving us his best judgement. Possibly, he doesn’t approve politically of that judgement. By doing that he puts his thumb on the scales of justice.

  • Baronius

    Bliff, I don’t think that Dan’s wrong on this one due to political motivations; he’s just wrong.

    Ruvy, kindly knock off the “Blessed of Hussein” thing. It’s nonsense. You wouldn’t call physicist Asher Peres the “Blessed of Peres”.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m glad you’ve spoken. It is getting tiresome, just like the “boys and girls” form of address.

  • Clavos

    As is usually the case, bliffle, in #134, totally misses (Miller)’s point.

    Not surprising, since understanding the piece requires the ability to think in the abstract. Or at least, to think.

  • Baronius

    I’m a moron, trying to make a dramatic point to Ruvy early Friday evening.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Not surprising, since understanding the piece requires the ability to think in the abstract. Or at least, to think.”

    your condescending nastiness is getting less attractive by the day. i think you fully understand the point that bliffle is trying to make, but since you either can’t or won’t attack the idea, you attack the person. and that’s been your m.o. for some time now. bliffle knows how to think (even in the abstract) and you know it, so why do you constantly belittle people?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    For emotional reasons, zing.

  • Clavos

    your condescending nastiness is getting less attractive by the day.

    Music to my ears.

    For emotional reasons, zing.

    Yeah, I’m a bundle of neurotic emotionalism.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No you’re not, but you’re under understandable pressure.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Music to my ears.”

    how emo of you.

  • Bliffle

    Perhaps Clavos would be good enough to explain the abstractions in Dan(Miller)s article.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I was kind of wondering about that, too. I suppose the answer would be that he did run a gamut.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I think Dan(Miller) is being disingenuous. By saying he has NO IDEA where Obama was born, he lends credibility to the notion of Obamas illegitimate birth certificate.

    Bothersome, eh, Bliffle. When you are an attorney, you have to be suspicious. A man who spends millions of dollars blocking public knowledge of such an elementary point as an original birth certificate is acting suspicious.

    You can’t get around that point, no matter how much you try to dismiss it, perfesser. The fraud farting up the White House acts like a crook with something to hide, and you can call criticism of that “comic” if you want. But the joke is on you.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    You, Bliffle, Handyguy, et. alia, are the stupid Americans getting screwed over – not me.

  • zingzing

    yay! i love getting screwed! oh, it feels so good. ram it in there, obama! uh! alright, damn. ok, just try it… no, look, it’s not supposed to… there ya go… oh my g-d… yes! yes! we can!

  • Baronius

    Now it’s millions of dollars?

  • Bliffle

    Let’s face it: probably no one here can prove he’s a US citizen, beyond all doubt. It doesn’t matter what kind of birth certificate you have, there’s no sure way to connect you, the person, to that BC.

    Until the day comes when a bit of DNA is encapsulated with the BC and counterfeiting is successfully thwarted, anyone’s citizenship is subject to great doubt.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, my BC has baby footprints on it which can be matched to my current foot/finger prints.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    I have not been very active on BC lately for several reasons. Here are two articles, of many, about the most significant whys and wherefores. These articles are in English; there have been many others in the Panamanian newspapers, as well as stuff on TV and on the radio. Even the President of Panama just got involved. Here is a link to an article I wrote elsewhere before this mess came to a head.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Bliffle

    Fingerprint and footprint IDs are challengeable because they are unscientific and ambiguous. Considerable judgement, and Black Art, is required to make matches.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave, IIRC you were born outside the US, so the documentation may have been different in your case. But if your footprint birth certificate is like the ones I see in my job every day, what you describe would be the unofficial souvenir BC given to your parents at the hospital, and does not constitute legal proof of citizenship.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Nowhere in the US Constitution does it define the actual meaning of natural-born citizen. Most people take it to mean a US Citizen at birth, which means Obama qualifies even if he was born in another galaxy because his mother was a US Citizen. My understanding is that he automatically inherits her citizenship.

    However, all the available evidence – even statements from Linda Lingle, the Republican governor – points to his being born in Hawaii, which last time I looked despite it still having a British flag from pre-annexation days is the 50th state of the union.

    The extract copy – the State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth – is what Hawaii now gives out when evidence of birth is requested and Obama has produced it. Hawaii’s director of health services has also confirmed the veracity of that certificate.

    It’s the same here … if I want a birth certificate, I’m given an extract, which is a legal document, but it’s not the full certificate. Welcome to the computer age.

    Hawaii DOES allow legal residents or citizens not born in Hawaii to get a certificate like that produced by Obama. However, if you weren’t born in the US, it very clearly spells that out.

    If you were born in Australia, it will list Australia as your place of birth. If you were born in Kenya, it will list Kenya as the place of birth.

    On the OBVIOUSLY FAKE “Republic of Kenya” birth certificate:

    The form looks exactly like that posted for a geneology project of David Bomford’s State of South Australia certificate, right down to the name of the registrar. (Bomford, for the record, is a civil servant who apart from living quietly down there in Adelaide, is rather bemused by the whole affair).

    Whoever did it must have mistakenly presumed that all British Commonwealth birth certificates are the same. But even in Australia, they vary from state to state while elsewhere in the Commonwealth, they are generally all quite different … it’s not one single form. The UK certificate, for instance, is totally different to the Australian certificates.

    There’s one other glaring, error, however.

    The fake Obama certificate carries an official “Republic of Kenya” stamp.

    Problem is, it’s signed and dated February, 1964.

    Kenya didn’t become a Republic until 10 months later – in DECEMBER 1964.

    Whoops!

    Kenya became independent at midnight on February 11, 1963 – but as a Dominion (like Canada, Australia, NZ etc), NOT as republic.

    That fact is spelled out very clearly on the official Kenyan parliament website (clink on my URL link above for the full story).

    It only decided to become a republic a year later, at midnight on December 11, 1964.

    So the forger in this case buggered up the dates really badly – especially since the old British empire was very good at highly accurate record keeping – indeed renowned for it.

    No British commonwealth administration would be calling itself a republic on its official documents a year before it actually became one.

    Not a chance in hell of that. The Crown wouldn’t allow it for starters.

    That’s why I knew it was a fake straight away.

    Americans who mightn’t know the history of the British empire/commonwealth possibly wouldn’t spot that mistake, but plainly, for those in the know, it’s just wrong.

    If nothing else, it’s a great illustration of why doing research on the internet can be a trap for fools.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    You worked in a neat plug for your blog there, Stan – I’ve just left you an (utterly unhelpful) comment on it! :-)

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Thanks Doc. Of course I worked in a neat plug (your changing use of the language BTW is starting to indicate to me that you’ve been in Fresno too long).

    If any Yanks who don’t know any better – which sadly in this case seems to be a fair proportion – want to get the right info about what’s going on in their own country and the right take on their own constitution (14th amendment spells out the meaning of citizenship very clearly, and nowhere in the entire document does it say a POTUS has to be born on US soil), they’re better off going to an Australian blog.

    If the anti-Obama mob spent less time as opponents worrying about what is clearly a load of old bollocks and more time attacking Obama’s policies, they’d be on the right track.

  • pablo

    STM 155:

    “The extract copy – the State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth – is what Hawaii now gives out when evidence of birth is requested and Obama has produced it. Hawaii’s director of health services has also confirmed the veracity of that certificate.”

    This is the crux of the issue that most of you naysayers are so fond of overlooking. The issue is and has always been the long form certificate. You are wrong STM in your assertion that:

    “Hawaii DOES allow legal residents or citizens not born in Hawaii to get a certificate like that produced by Obama. However, if you weren’t born in the US, it very clearly spells that out.”

    That is simply not the case. All a parent needed to do at the time was sign an affidavit that the child was born in Hawaii.

    As for the fake Kenyan birth certificate. So what? Its a fake, this issue has been simmering and now boiling for months and months. Now suddenly because some bozo made a fake certificate from Kenya has no bearing on the issue at hand.

    Long form, long form, long form. Thats all us sheople are asking fer. But nooooooooooo, all the simpletons wanna keep on whining that he produced the certificate. BULLSHIT, he has done nothing of the sort, as per the above reference to the the abstract short form, which means nada.

    Ruvy you are so right on on this issue. When I see Handguy, Bliffle, and Nalle agree on a subject such as this, I KNOW somethin is rotten in Denmark.

    As to STM’s comments on the law in the us of a, he is a bit out of his league, particularly with reference to what constitutes a natural born citizen. He may do better trying to interpret the Crown’s law, which incidentally has become the most insidious, tyrannical, nanny state on Goddesses green earth of late. And thats saying alot, as Amerika is right behind her. God save the Queen. HAHAHAHA

  • Ruvy

    Stan, Pablo is right about interpreting American law in this case. It is case law and common law of the era (i.e. circa 1780) that determines the meaning of “natural born citizen”, and unless you are familiar with both, you are swimming out of your depths. As for the fake birth certificate, it was a red herring, a joke. There is no arguing with the obvious.

    But I wish to hark back to Dan Miller’s original point in this article. There is nothing that can be legally done to the fraud farting up the White House if he is indeed shown to be the fraud he is. But, the point that Dan Miller did not approach, what will happen to Obamas’s authority, is the real issue if he is shown to be an illegitimate president. His authority will be gone – nobody will willingly obey a fraud. Even the sheeple who laugh at me at this comment site. That will force Obama to toss the constitution in the trash can – openly – or walk, leaving Joe (the stupid idiot) Biden as president. I’m betting he will do the former rather than the latter.

    Thanks for the kind word, Pablo….

  • pablo

    152 Dan Miller

    I read the articles about your situation down in Panama. I wish you the best in resolving it to your satisfaction. Although I have never been to Panama, and my advice is not being solicited, I would try to sort it out from another vantage point other than your own property. I know what it can be like to be a foreigner because I have spent a great deal of time abroad. Be careful Dan.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Pablo: “That is simply not the case. All a parent needed to do at the time was sign an affidavit that the child was born in Hawaii.”

    Not true, Pablo. It’s a myth. I personally checked it out the old way, while researching the story, by speaking to people on the phone. To get a Hawaiian extract, the state needs to know either that the original certificate is on file, or it needs to see, for instance, your Aussie birth certificate, Kenyan birth certificate, etc, before it will issue a Hawaiian extract (which will say you were NOT born in the US). Some other evidence needs to presented, in other words, beyond an affidavit (although authorities in Hawaii suggest that might be required too in some cases). They need to be able to track back and follow the trail.

    The reason overseas-born residents or “new” US citizens, or even Americans who’ve moved to Hawaii from the mainland, get these Hawaiian extracts is so they can get things like a Hawaiian driver’s licence without problems.

    As for US law, I’ll reiterate: nowhere in the constitution of the US does it a) say what constitutes a natural-born citizen or b) because of that very fact does it say anywhere in the constitution that a US president must be born on US soil (jus soli) to be eligible for office if he/she is verifiably a US citizen at birth (jus sanguinis).

    As for the “Crown” law, Pablo, you are showing your ignorance by not understanding that Australia is a totally different country to the UK, has many different laws to the UK that came about after white colonisation (since the late 18th century), has its own constitution totally separate to that of the UK whilst using, like the US, British laws in effect prior to independent statehood, and regards the Queen as the Queen of Australia, not of Great Britain – and isn’t the nanny state the UK has become (although we need to keep a watch on that).

    But it’s nominally still “the Crown”. For once, Pablo, admit it, on that particular stuff, you just don’t know.

    Ruvy: I get much of my info on US law from an American lawyer now practising in Australia after moving here 10 years ago. He specialised in Constitutional Law. He also assures me that the meaning of natural-born citizen STILL hasn’t been interpreted by the courts, and cruicially not by the Supreme Court. We have had many discussions about it. This stuff is well documented.

    Meanwhile, interpretations are made all the more difficult by Congress deciding in the late 1700s that natural-born status could apply to citizens born outside the United States who were American Citizens at birth (jus sanguinis), ie, whose parents were verifiably American citizens living outside the US.

    But the question remains: Is the constitution talking only about jus soli, or did the framers (as might be indicated by the decision of Congress) also mean to include jus sanguinis – beyond the instruction pertaining to those born outside the US prior but who moved to the American colonies prior to the revolution but became citizens of the US at the time of the declaration of independence?

    There are also problems just as serious in trying to understand and unravel the issues around the concept of jus soli only as it pertains to this.

    Here’s a hypothesis (based on fact): One of my mates was born in the US to Australian parents and because of that is a citizen of the US (jus soli). He has lived most of his life in Australia, however, and carries legal dual citizenship iof both nations but regards himself an Australian, not an American in terms of how he feels about life and status, if you like.

    I have another friend here who is a US citizen born in Australia to US-born US citizen parents. He acquired US citizenship jus sanguinis, but also carries legal dual citizenship of Australia (jus soli) despite never having taken an oath to the Crown.

    Let’s say they both met the eligibility requirement for time spent in the US and decided to run for office.

    Which is the REAL American? The one who was born in Australia to two US parents, of course, not the one born to two Aussie parents who just happened to be living and working for an extended period in the US. However, according to the birthers, the US-born Aussie would get the nod.

    Yet in truth, both are not really American. Obama, however, DOES have evidence of being born in Hawaii. Not only that, he’s lived in the US all his life. That’s why I think this whole birther issue is a crock.

    Unfortunately, that is the kind of problem you are looking at here.

    No decision on this has ever been made, and the constitution doesn’t clearly spell it out. It will take a decision of the Supreme Court to decide once and for all.

    In the meantime, many birthers who think they have all the answers – and clearly don’t – are barking up the wrong tree … because the law in the US is simply not clear on the jus soli/jus sanguinis issue.

    They may have an idea of what they THINK should be right in regards to what constitutes “natural-born”, but it doesn’t mean it is.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Dan, foreign journos calling Panama for “a story” about it might help. It’s interesting stuff. That’s usually a good way to get things happening … eyes of the world looking askance, and all that.

    I’d make sure that US officials in Panama know exactly what is happening, too, from day to day.

    Obviously, something not quite right is going on. I’m with Pablo on this: Stand up for your rights, but tread carefully mate.

  • pablo

    STM 161

    “Not true, Pablo. It’s a myth. I personally checked it out the old way, while researching the story, by speaking to people on the phone. To get a Hawaiian extract, the state needs to know either that the original certificate is on file, or it needs to see, for instance, your Aussie birth certificate, Kenyan birth certificate, etc, before it will issue a Hawaiian extract (which will say you were NOT born in the US). Some other evidence needs to presented, in other words, beyond an affidavit (although authorities in Hawaii suggest that might be required too in some cases). They need to be able to track back and follow the trail.”

    That wasn’t the case back in 1961.

  • Ruvy

    Dan, foreign journos calling Panama for “a story” about it might help. It’s interesting stuff. That’s usually a good way to get things happening … eyes of the world looking askance, and all that.

    Aren’t you just that, Stan? A foreign journo?

    Hint, hint….

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    “That wasn’t the case back in 1961.”

    Clearly, that’s a key issue here, but that is not what they told me. They said the law was even stricter back then in terms of who could be issued with a certificate.

    It also required the verification of the attending doctor/doctors/midwife etc. I don’t think anyone has a leg to stand on regarding the birthers issue because all the evidence points to him being a legitimate US citizen jus soli. Even if that’s not true, and there’s no GENUINE evidence of that, then the jus sanguinis issue comes into play because of his mother’s citizenship.

    At this point, that’s not happened.

    Hawaii insists the original document exists, but won’t release it because it can’t legally, and Hawaiian officials including the Republican governor insist Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I mean, you just can’t walk into the US and never have been able to and pretend that you were born in the US and have those documents on file to back that up.

    Some crims have been able to take advantage of the system, but they are generally found out pretty quickly.

    People who claim fake Aussie citizenship and who fraudulenty obtain passports and the like through that avenue usually get busted pretty quick. I’m sure the US is just as on top of those issues as we are here.

    And seriously, ask yourself, do you think a man running for President who is not a genuine citizen is going to put himself at risk on this issue?

    I think not. Also, it just couldn’t be a conspiracy of this magnitude, involving many thousands of people, without someone coming up with GENUINE evidence to the contrary at some point.

    This is where the argument falls down.

    I’ll also bet London to a brick on one thing here: if this ever did find it’s way to the Supreme Court on any serious level, at some point the court would be looking at the available evidence and would have to throw the case out.

  • pablo

    STM

    Ok Stan, then how do you reconcile the legal requirement in Indonesia of not allowing duel citizenship? There are clearly official school records that show Obama as being an Indonesian citizen. This fact too has led to a lot of the current speculation regarding his place of birth.

    Incidentally I am fairly convinced that Obama’s mom worked for the agency. It is well known that she was financed for years by the Ford Foundation, one of the biggest illuminati fronts out there. “Sorry I had to insert a coinspiracist rant, as I just can’t help myself.

  • Ruvy

    The point, Stan, is that there are a too many unanswered questions; the Indonesian citizenship records, the COLB, the refusal of the State of Hawaii to issue a long form BC, the closing (at Obama’s instance) of his school records. This is suspicious behavior, Stan and it surprises me that you, a journo, are willing to suspend that suspicion here. I know you wouldn’t give any pol in Oz the kind of leeway you give this thief and faker Obama.

    When a man acts like he has something to hide, he usually does. This can be as comic as a Jew hiding the chicken bones in his pocket during the Yom Kippur fast (a Scholem Aleichem story)- or as serious as a man spending millions to control the knowledge of his birth place, when it ought to public record, like Obama is doing.

    Why are you not giving all this the fish-eye, Stan? Of all people, you ought to be.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Lol on the rant bit. I’d be disappointed if you didn’t.

    There are dual Indo/Aussie citizens. It’s not uncommon in this part of the world, given that many Aussies now live in Bali especially and will have partners and children up there.

    Indonesian authorities, however, may revoke Indonesian citizenship IF they find out you are still a citizen of another country.

    The thing with US citizenship is it’s the US that decides whether you have it or not, not a foreign country.

    You can renounce it by taking foreign citizenship, and now you actually have to declare to the US either that you’ve renounced it – or that you haven’t renounced it.

    (The US seems to accept dual citizenship with SOME countries, not others, and doesn’t encourage the practise of wholesale dual citizenship).

    However, on Indo: because Indonesia is so close to Australia, there are kids born there who might have, say, one indonesian parent and one Aussie.

    Indonesian law doesn’t recognise dual citizenship, except that: different rules apply where a child has one Aussie parent (or let’s say a US parent) and one Indonesian.

    Australia, however, may give them citizenship, and they will be regarded as Australian citizens whether Indonesia accepts it or not. It’s controversial at this time but there is some legal ground where it’s a bit different).

    In Australia, too, it’s slightly different to the American position in that like the British: only the British government can take away your citizenship.

    You can’t do it – renounce it – just by accepting citizenship of another nation. You actually have to declare that you’ve renounced it.

    Ultimately, however, in the case of the US, the US government decides who is and who isn’t. It may be that people who still hold Indonesian citizenship are also valid citizens of the US.

    Sorry, but I don’t think anyone is taking the Indonesian angle to this seriously any more.

    It’s come down to fake Kenyan birth certificates.

    All the other stuff has been debunked to the point where it’s patently regarded as false.

    Times have changed but not that much. Also, it’s well known that most things were possible in Indonesia. It could also depend on who you know, rather than what.

    “What” helped, but “who” could be better.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Ruvy, it’s because I don’t believe it.

    Pure and simple, that’s my rationale.

    There are some things you weigh up and it smells fishy (or perhaps, like chicken bones in Samaria at the wrong time).

    But to me, his doesn’t.

    BTW, the myth that he travelled to Pakistan on an Indo passport has been debunked too. There was no travel ban to Pakistan at the time. US Citizens only needed a visa.

  • Ruvy

    I’m not a “birther”, Stan. I don’t really care where this scum was born. In my opinion, he is still scum and he deserves to die – just not yet.

    But I don’t dig into all the itty bitty details to prove this man a fake – I want him in the White House as a target marker, so Israelis know who to eliminate when the time comes. I’ve explained this before.

    IT BENEFITS ME FOR THIS BASTARD TO BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

    The “birthers” can dance and sing all they want. It’s not them I listen to. What has my attention is Obama’s behavior. What I do not comprehend is why Obama is acting so supiciously. Why is he blocking all the data? Why is he spending all that money to stop folks from getting a simple factoid about his life, when no more $150 gets him a long form birth certificate dug up from the Hawaiian archives from 1961? That settles it all and shuts everybody up – including me.

    But Obama refuses to do this. That gets me very suspicious. He refuses to do the simple thing, the honest thing. That smells. Bad.

    Real bad.

    Get yer smeller checked out, Stan.

  • Clavos

    (your changing use of the language BTW is starting to indicate to me that you’ve been in Fresno too long).

    From Doc’s past remarks about the area, it would appear he passed that milestone shortly after arriving there. Say, 48 hours.

  • Clavos

    Ok Stan, then how do you reconcile the legal requirement in Indonesia of not allowing duel citizenship?

    Easily, Pablo. When I was born in Mexico, it too, didn’t allow dual citizenship, so my parents simply ignored my Mexican citizen status (by virtue of being born there) and applied for (and received) a US passport for me (by virtue of both of them being Americans).

    I didn’t become a Mexican citizen in the eyes of the Mexican government until 1998, when they realized there were millions of Mexicans with American passports living in the US, and they wanted all those votes, so they rescinded the law prohibiting dual citizenship

    The US, as long as I’ve been alive, has never prohibited dual citizenship, with some restrictions, and I’m older than Obama, so he, like me, has always been a US citizen, regardless of where he was born.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Great message from Meaghan McCain on the state of the GOP. The birthers are an insignificant part of the GOP and their contention that Obama was not legitimate as President is fraught with inaccuracies. Can’t expect any more from them as they have no singular intelligence instead being mesmerized by Far Right pundits and FOX. Spent $2 on WSJ this morning. Flipped through it in 15 minutes and decided that a newspaper I once loved has become yet another Murdoch trash rag.

  • Ruvy

    You spent $2 on the WSJ, Silas? No newspaper is worth $2, especially if you could pick it up on-line for free….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    your changing use of the language BTW is starting to indicate to me that you’ve been in Fresno too long

    Because of the phrase ‘a neat plug’, Stan? C’m on. British radio DJs have been ‘plugging’ songs since the sixties. I grew up with that word. ‘Neat’? Well, I’ll give you that one. It’s a horrible word.

    But I have been here too long. I mean I use the word ‘chonies’ for underpants now, for crying out loud. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #171,

    Fresno does seem to have that effect, no reflection on Dreadful.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #175,

    Then you had better change venue. We don’t want to lose the crispness of your expression.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Only parts of WSJ are available online.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Working on it, Roger…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just don’t leave for the mother-country yet. We need English-speaking people in the USA.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    From what I see even the “English” speaking people don’t speak the Queen’s English any longer. That’s another of my pet peeves. I haven’t any problem with immigrants coming into the United States but there MUST be a common language, period. I know this invokes a lot of reactions but in ONE country there should be ONE language. If it’s not to be English, then let it be Latin.

  • Bliffle

    I can see Fresno from the top of the mountain! It looks like a big ball of dust.

    I’ll wave to you DD.

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Chonies?? Fair dinkum Doc, what’s going on? Then again, if you lived here you’d be using classics like “Reg Grundys” -obviously in Australia shortened to “Reg’s” or “grundies”.

    I’m sure you heard that on yer travels Down Under, along with a million other things that only make sense when you understand the context.

    The man I feel most sorry for is the great jocket Edgar Britt.

    But Chonies?? Where’s that come from?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Bliff:

    If I could see further than a quarter of a mile I’d wave back!

    Stan:

    ‘Chonies’ is Mexican slang, I believe.

  • STM

    Silas: From what I see even the “English” speaking people don’t speak the Queen’s English any longer.

    Ah, Silas, a man after me own ‘eart. It’s OK to have regional dialects and slang – the mother tongue has a million in England alone – but we do need to use it properly in a formal setting.

    I’m with you. I know what’s happening in the US and it’s not much different here. In Australia, because of our migrant population, even driving tests can be conducted in a language other than English, say, Chinese, Korean or Arabic.

    How does that help a new Chinese or Lebanese migrant to read an English-language road sign?

    It doesn’t, it’s a nonsense.

    I say to those coming here for a new life: if you want to come and live here and live the good life, you’ll be welcomed with open arms. We love the diversity of many cultures that make this place such fun and so interesting.

    Just do us the courtesy of learning the language and the customs of the country, while accepting that we are an anglo-celtic society with our roots and our laws and our way of life based on British/Irish/European/north American culture. We don’t have to fit in with you, although we do try and we will make the effort because we want you to be as happy here as we are.

    But sharing’s no good if it’s a one-way street – you also need to make EVERY effort to fit in with us.

    And please, take the driving test in English (and do about three times as many hours on the road learning as everyone else if you spend a lot of time in Chinatown and come from a certain country to the north of us that’s fond of using chopsticks, just so you get to understand that changing lanes without indicating and driving slowly in the right-hand lane during peak hour is a no-no :)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Fuck the Queen and her English! She doesn’t even know how to wave properly! ;-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I am making plans to be a very cool old lady. I am gonna show my grand-nieces and nephews how to do great graffiti. The hell with old ladies who wave backward. If I were the Queen, I’d lead everybody in the Macarena. (even if I couldn’t remember exactly how to do it.)

  • STM

    And here’s just one little reason why folks are banging down the door to get in, and why I wouldn’t live anywhere but Sydney. Bear in mind on looking at this that it’s still winter down here.

    Don’t get jealous, now, Doc. The door’s still open for you. Plus, to make you feel at home, we have a Union Jack on our flag (then again, so does Hawaii) and some nice stars on a blue background to make Yanks feel at home too.

  • STM

    Cindy: “If I were the Queen, I’d lead everybody in the Macarena.”

    She’s pretty Savvy. She ordered the Guards band to play The Star Spangled Banner at the Changing of the Guard at Buck House in the week after 9/11.

    I can already guess your feelings on this, but it was a nice gesture anyway at a time of America’s pain, especially since you told them to bugger off 200 years ago and – far worse – got into bed with those bouffant-headed, perfumed nancy-boy troublemakers across the channel in order to achieve that goal.

    You might have been better off sticking it out with the rest of us.

  • Clavos

    She ordered the Guards band to play The Star Spangled Banner at the Changing of the Guard at Buck House in the week after 9/11.

    Didn’t know that.

    The lady is a gentlewoman in the very best sense of the word.

  • STM

    You could probably find that on Youtube Clav.

    American tourists doing the London thing and going to the palace to watch the changing of the guard were in tears.

    They also flew the Stars and Stripes over London that Thanksgiving Day in 2001 from the roof of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, the war veterans’ hospital. No other flag apart from the Union Flag or the royal standard (on the occasion of royal visitors) has ever been flown there in its 300-plus-year history (founded 1682).

    The Queen also broke with tradition to sing the US national anthem – the royals as I understand it have never sung another nation’s national anthem before – at the 9/11 remembrance service in St Paul’s Cathedral the day after breaking with tradition at Buckingham Palace for the anthem there played by the Guards.

    I guess they don’t readily forget who their friends are (neither do we, although sometimes it feels like getting poked in the eye with a burnt stick:). Got to admire them for that, and they don’t just back up words with hot air, unlike some of America’s other “friends”.

    Whatever brand of politics you believe in, at that time, that was a pretty significant gesture.

    Not bad when you consider that Franis Scott Key’s poem was written aboard a British warship about a British bombardment of Baltimore, a short time after the British had burned every public building in Washington to the ground, including the White House.

    Who needs enemies when we’re all friends :)

  • Bliffle

    And, of course, the tune was cribbed from an old drinking song from the Anacreonic Society of London. Popular on both sides of the Atlantic because it provided another excuse for drinking.

  • STM

    Well, that’s something we’ve all inherited Bliff :)

    We’re carrying on the tradition down here too.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Fuck the Queen and her English! She doesn’t even know how to wave properly! ;-)

    WHICH Queen, Cindy? ‘Cause I’ve done many.

    The lady is a gentlewoman in the very best sense of the word.

    I agree. She has been the source of wise counsel for a half century to Prime Ministers. Her role,, while largely ceremonial, is pivotal in the U.K. Elizabeth II may be royalty but she remains the ‘property’ of the English people. She is keenly aware of her role, its’ evolution, and the solemn pact she maintains with her subjects.

    Just do us the courtesy of learning the language and the customs of the country, while accepting that we are an anglo-celtic society with our roots and our laws and our way of life based on British/Irish/European/north American culture. We don’t have to fit in with you, although we do try and we will make the effort because we want you to be as happy here as we are.

    Just what is ‘American’ culture? We’re a young country and a melting pot of cultures, traditions and Puritanical double-speak. That being said, there has to be a common language to all who live within our borders. If people coming to the States want to make their lives here they should be required to be proficient in speaking AND writing the language, period. If not, hop on a plane, space shuttle or raft go go back from where you came.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Plus, to make you feel at home, we have a Union Jack on our flag (then again, so does Hawaii) and some nice stars on a blue background to make Yanks feel at home too.

    It’s definitely an option, mate.

    First time we went Down Under we did a stopover in the islands. Hawaiian Airlines had just started their Honolulu-Sydney service so we got a great deal on the flights.

    Plus on the way back, thanks to flight schedules and the International Date Line, we got to stand on two of the world’s most famous beaches – Bondi and Waikiki – on the same morning!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    WHICH Queen, Cindy? ‘Cause I’ve done many.

    [Dread wipes coffee off screen and looks around for a new employee to blame it on]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    What would Sr. Ronald do, Dread?

  • doug m

    You Americans should watch The Queen with Helen Mirren to get a better sense of her Majesty’s role

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    LOVED it! Helen Mirren is one of the greatest actors of our time. As far as I’m concerned I would heartily support the colonies returning to the Crown. At least then we would not have a Head of State who is tainted by the political system. God Save the Queen — each and every one of them!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    What would Sr. Ronald do, Dread?

    I’m having trouble supplying an answer, because ‘What would Sister Mary Ignatius do?’ keeps superimposing itself on my mental processes…

    And I’m not even Catholic! ;-)

    BTW, have you heard back from the esteemed Sister yet?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Yes, Dread, I mentioned it on another thread and thanked you in particular for giving me the inspiration. It was a lovely reply. She’s on the road and upon her return home she would like to maintain a dialog. She remembered my family well and was touched by my letter. I will keep you informed.

    If Sr Mary Ignatius were here, she’d just shoot me.

  • STM

    Silas: “As far as I’m concerned I would heartily support the colonies returning to the Crown”.

    I’ve been agitating for this now for some years :)

    Happy family, all back together again with the successful prodigal son returning to the table.

    All jokes aside, you are right though about the Queen’s executive role: it’s the same as that of the US President, but without that near-unlimited power and the party politics involved. She’s bound by convention to do as the Government wishes, within reason (which is also good).

    While she’s head of state, she’s not head of government (the PM is) and has no real role in the running of the country beyond the ties of what are best described as tradition. Plus, she doesn’t have an unelected cabinet. Most senior government ministers – there have been exceptions – are drawn from the House of Commons, not the House of Lords.

    In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all cabinet ministers are elected members of parliament, either from the upper or lower houses, except in NZ which is unicameral. However, the Queen or her representaive remains head of state and fulfils the same executive role as in the UK.

    I prefer the system to that of the US, as it seems to have more checks and balances. Elections can be held between terms too in time of parliamentary crisis, in the event of bills not being passed etc, which throws the whole thing back to the people.

    I have struggled to explain the process to many Americans, who seem to misunderstand the notion of British-style constitutional monarchy in a stable, modern, liberal democracy and always come back with: “Ain’t you still under the Queen” (Andy, take a bow:)

    But I say to the Republican movement in Australia: this system has lasted more than 300 years without interruption and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    There is a tongue-in-cheek monarchists’ movement in the Sunshine State (yours, in Florida, not ours in Queensland) to reisntate the British Dominion of West Florida.

    Their site is a hoot.

  • STM

    Dan, haven’t heard from you for a few days. Is everything cool regarding that business with the fruit-juice mob??