Advertisement
I never was a Birther. I’ve always said Obama was a natural born citizen. My most popular post ever was poking fun at the birthers in the same way we poked fun at the TANG issue that people built their lives on trying to crush Bush.
I was under the assumption that something on his certificate was hinky, like his father or mother weren’t who they said he were or that a birth certificate proved he wasn’t really the product of an immaculate conception. I couldn’t really imagine what it would be, but I figured something was embarrassing to the One.
Turns out to be nothing at all. Stupid of him to a) hold it for so long and b) release it at a time when there’s no real political gain. He could have played up the birthers for the chumps they were for a lot longer and killed the whole thing right before elections or something.
Like Tam says at her link, the hardcore birthers aren’t going to be swayed by such silly things like ‘proof’. Just like Bush Derangement Syndrome, hatred can twist your mind so strong that nothing can sway you from your opinion, even facts. There will be claims of “Photoshopping” or “Fire cannot melt ink” or some crap like that.
Personally, I’m more concerned with Obama’s ability to run the office than his eligibility. And that, to me, is beyond proven to be next to nil.
Incoming Fire
full of sound and fury | walls of the city
on 4/27/2011 6:53 PM
Comments
DirtCrashr
says:
I agree too - and as an Adobe Illustrator guy just because there are all kinds of weird artifacts in the .pdf file, including a compound mask that changes the date and stuff it means nothing, nothing, nothing!
DirtCrashr says:
on 4/27/2011 5:19:12 PM
I agree too - and as an Adobe Illustrator guy just because there are all kinds of weird artifacts in the .pdf file, including a compound mask that changes the date and stuff it means nothing, nothing, nothing!
Yes, it looks as if he hired the low bidder on this shop job.
Sad, sad, sad...
on 4/27/2011 5:19:12 PM
I agree too - and as an Adobe Illustrator guy just because there are all kinds of weird artifacts in the .pdf file, including a compound mask that changes the date and stuff it means nothing, nothing, nothing!
Yes, it looks as if he hired the low bidder on this shop job.
Sad, sad, sad...
Tam
says:
Yes, it looks as if he hired the low bidder on this shop job.
*facepalm*
Please stay off my side.
"Your problem then is this - what if he really isn't US born. You really think that would matter?"
Yes, it would matter in the 2012 election if it were true, because then he could not be legally elected to the office. "IF IT WERE TRUE" is the crux of the matter.
This document is a "COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFIED COPY" according to the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, who produced it. Thus, it is not a verbatim copy of a document made commensurate with his birth, and it COULD say whatever she decided to make it say, after which she certified it as Head Cheeze What's In Charge Of Such Things.
Can you say "credibility"?
I don't claim to know whether what it shows is true or not. To me, it raises as many questions as it answers. It is a remarkably sloppy way to try to put this issue to rest.
Yes, it would matter in the 2012 election if it were true, because then he could not be legally elected to the office. "IF IT WERE TRUE" is the crux of the matter.
This document is a "COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFIED COPY" according to the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, who produced it. Thus, it is not a verbatim copy of a document made commensurate with his birth, and it COULD say whatever she decided to make it say, after which she certified it as Head Cheeze What's In Charge Of Such Things.
Can you say "credibility"?
I don't claim to know whether what it shows is true or not. To me, it raises as many questions as it answers. It is a remarkably sloppy way to try to put this issue to rest.
McThag
says:
With all the damn debate about this, I just want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
This president should be the last where there was even a shadow of doubt for conspiracy theorists to latch on to.
This president should be the last where there was even a shadow of doubt for conspiracy theorists to latch on to.
Tam
says:
+1 to everything Rob just said.
The whole birth certificate thing is just the flip side to the Magical Thinking coin that got us into this mess in the first place.
The whole birth certificate thing is just the flip side to the Magical Thinking coin that got us into this mess in the first place.
Let's just pretend for a second that it was fake. Let's say he comes on the news and says "I was forged in the bowels of Mt. Doom, Peanut Butter Motherfucker. What you gonna do about it?" What do you think most Americans would do? They would bitch that the press conference took to long and play with thier iThingy. NOBODY with the ability to do so wants this applecart upset, so they will do thier best to keep it upright and rolling in the same direction. Change is hard, as we've been witness to.
Jake
says:
This president should be the last where there was even a shadow of doubt for conspiracy theorists to latch on to.
This.
Personally, I never seriously thought that he wasn't a natural born citizen - but that was simply an assumption of a certain level of self-interest on the part of the Democrat party. But we do need to make certain that this issue doesn't come up again in the future.
And ANY copy you will ever receive will be nothing more than that as well.
Hell, the copy of my own and my children's birth certificates that I have locked up in my own safe is a "COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFIED COPY". So even if I (or they) were to hold onto them for 50 years until they grow up to be POTUS one day, the physical copy that could be released is still a "COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFIED COPY".
Robb, I agree with you that the focus ought to be on defeating him and his idols by methods and issues that have nothing to do with his birth. We need him out of office, and we need to focus on what is most likely to get him there. This issue should not distract the voters from that, but it could.
Again, I don't claim to know the truth of this matter, but you can bet that Obamateur does. He could end this controversy in a heartbeat by releasing an original birth certificate for inspection and copying. Why doesn't he do so?
He either gains politically from the controversy (although I don't see how), or he doesn't have an original birth certificate in his possession (which is quite possible), or he dare not release it (speculation about which is feeding the flames).
This issue will not go away, and I find it interesting. At present, what goes through my mind, over and over, is the mantra we heard so often from the left: "Fake, but accurate." I confess that I want to see the bastard squirm about it. This burr under his saddle is evidently biting him, and I'm enjoying it.
Again, I don't claim to know the truth of this matter, but you can bet that Obamateur does. He could end this controversy in a heartbeat by releasing an original birth certificate for inspection and copying. Why doesn't he do so?
He either gains politically from the controversy (although I don't see how), or he doesn't have an original birth certificate in his possession (which is quite possible), or he dare not release it (speculation about which is feeding the flames).
This issue will not go away, and I find it interesting. At present, what goes through my mind, over and over, is the mantra we heard so often from the left: "Fake, but accurate." I confess that I want to see the bastard squirm about it. This burr under his saddle is evidently biting him, and I'm enjoying it.
DirtCrashr
says:
The real problem is his supporters, not him. It's the economically illiterate Manchurian Voters (like Manchuria, Wisconsin), who voted for Free-Stuff (from Manchuria ironically, where our stuff now gets made) and the hell with what results, not the Man-Candidate.
And it's the Mandrins of Industry aligned towards the magnetic north of Favoritism, the Crony Capitalist Media Friends on Facebook.
Like other Marxisty stuff he's just a Proxy for their ultimate Lotus-Land desires - power, control, and easy-apparatchik livin' down at the Dacha on the riva' with 18-holes scheduled in the afternoon.
And it's the Mandrins of Industry aligned towards the magnetic north of Favoritism, the Crony Capitalist Media Friends on Facebook.
Like other Marxisty stuff he's just a Proxy for their ultimate Lotus-Land desires - power, control, and easy-apparatchik livin' down at the Dacha on the riva' with 18-holes scheduled in the afternoon.
Where Obama was born doesn't matter. To be a natural born citizen of any country, you need to be born in that country, to TWO parents who were, at the time, citizens of that same country. Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA at the time of his birth. The purpose the founders had in requiring this of the President was to make sure that the President would have no divided loyalties. But where did the phrase "natural born citizen" come from?
Prior to the "discovery" of the "new world", most non-nobles in Europe lived their entire life within 10 miles of their place of birth. Then people started moving around (in particular, to the western hemisphere, but other places as well). An Italian diplomat (whose name escapes me at the moment) in 1751 wrote a treatise about what to do about the resulting citizenship issues caused by widespread immigration.
"Natural born citizen" was a phrase he coined (albeit, probably in Italian) to refer to a baby born in the same country that both his parents were citizens of. The idea was that when Joe and Sally, both legal citizens of, say, England, had a baby born in England, it was "natural" that the baby would be automatically considered a citizen of England. He contended that no reasonable person would claim that Joe and Sally's baby should be a citizen of some other country. He then went on to propose solutions to the other possibilities, which even he admitted would require treaties between nations. So if Joe is a citizen of Canada, Sally is a citizen of Mexico, and Sally is on vacation in France (without Joe) when she gives birth and intends to return to Australia where she and Joe are permanent resident aliens, what nationality should the baby have? Damned if I know, but that question has to be answered when the situation arises, and that's what his treatise was about.
This is the meaning of the phrase at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The framers were aware of this usage. To take the Constitution's words as something that change over time is to make the document worthless in the long run, so the original intent must be used. But for some reason, these days the requirement about the parents for presidential eligibility is largely forgotten.
Prior to the "discovery" of the "new world", most non-nobles in Europe lived their entire life within 10 miles of their place of birth. Then people started moving around (in particular, to the western hemisphere, but other places as well). An Italian diplomat (whose name escapes me at the moment) in 1751 wrote a treatise about what to do about the resulting citizenship issues caused by widespread immigration.
"Natural born citizen" was a phrase he coined (albeit, probably in Italian) to refer to a baby born in the same country that both his parents were citizens of. The idea was that when Joe and Sally, both legal citizens of, say, England, had a baby born in England, it was "natural" that the baby would be automatically considered a citizen of England. He contended that no reasonable person would claim that Joe and Sally's baby should be a citizen of some other country. He then went on to propose solutions to the other possibilities, which even he admitted would require treaties between nations. So if Joe is a citizen of Canada, Sally is a citizen of Mexico, and Sally is on vacation in France (without Joe) when she gives birth and intends to return to Australia where she and Joe are permanent resident aliens, what nationality should the baby have? Damned if I know, but that question has to be answered when the situation arises, and that's what his treatise was about.
This is the meaning of the phrase at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The framers were aware of this usage. To take the Constitution's words as something that change over time is to make the document worthless in the long run, so the original intent must be used. But for some reason, these days the requirement about the parents for presidential eligibility is largely forgotten.
"Forgotten"? How about "undocumented".
You saying that's how we should read it or how it may or may not have been understood in Europe prior to ratification isn't authoritative.
The Connie says, natural born citizen. The accepted usage of that term in actual use in the US since Washington hasn't put "both parents of a country in that country" into US law in any official form.
There are no references that I'm aware of in the Federalist Papers nor in the records of the Convention. Nor have I seen anyone motivated to "prove" the issue come up with a concurrent definition of "natural born" in any of the state Constitutions extant prior to or at ratification. If they could have I would presume a sophisticated and intelligent birther (or Hillary Clinton) would have.
Given that those pieces of evidence are how we determine "original intent" as best we can in this country (see Heller) and they are nonexistent, the only dispositive meaning the term can have is what the Congress has put into law and the Courts have confirmed since ratification.
His mom was a US citizen and he was born on US soil; that's enough for me and most of sane America. To pursue the issue marginalizes yourself and, like pulling a Godwin, robs credibility from all your other arguments amongst the undecided.
Far better to, I don't know, make a rational case to the American people as to why they should reject his wrong-headed policies and substantively unConstitutional actions and vote him out in 2012.
You saying that's how we should read it or how it may or may not have been understood in Europe prior to ratification isn't authoritative.
The Connie says, natural born citizen. The accepted usage of that term in actual use in the US since Washington hasn't put "both parents of a country in that country" into US law in any official form.
There are no references that I'm aware of in the Federalist Papers nor in the records of the Convention. Nor have I seen anyone motivated to "prove" the issue come up with a concurrent definition of "natural born" in any of the state Constitutions extant prior to or at ratification. If they could have I would presume a sophisticated and intelligent birther (or Hillary Clinton) would have.
Given that those pieces of evidence are how we determine "original intent" as best we can in this country (see Heller) and they are nonexistent, the only dispositive meaning the term can have is what the Congress has put into law and the Courts have confirmed since ratification.
His mom was a US citizen and he was born on US soil; that's enough for me and most of sane America. To pursue the issue marginalizes yourself and, like pulling a Godwin, robs credibility from all your other arguments amongst the undecided.
Far better to, I don't know, make a rational case to the American people as to why they should reject his wrong-headed policies and substantively unConstitutional actions and vote him out in 2012.
Doesn't matter if he was born in HI or not. Obama could kill a puppy onstage and be applauded for his out of the box thinking regarding domestic animal population control. Face it, he'll be here until 2016 - 'cause free shit is cool.
Until America comes to a crashing demise....which I'm hoping will come sooner than later just so I can yell 'neener neener...told ya so!'
Until America comes to a crashing demise....which I'm hoping will come sooner than later just so I can yell 'neener neener...told ya so!'
MPH,
1) SCOTUS disagrees with you. It ruled back in the 1800s that a person born in the US even if both parents are foreign citizens is still a "natural born citizen" of the US.
2) Obama is not the first POTUS to be born with Dual Citizenship. That distinction belongs to Chester A. Arthur.
1) SCOTUS disagrees with you. It ruled back in the 1800s that a person born in the US even if both parents are foreign citizens is still a "natural born citizen" of the US.
2) Obama is not the first POTUS to be born with Dual Citizenship. That distinction belongs to Chester A. Arthur.
I have never used Adobe Illustrator, and wondered why certain parts of the .pdf file released appear as they do. This explanation makes sense to me. Apparently it's not a fake, regardless of its appearance.
Okay, ladies and gents. My curiousity is satisfied.
Okay, ladies and gents. My curiousity is satisfied.
SPQR
says:
MPH, your claim about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is simply not one that the USSCt would use after the Fourteenth Amendment. Your assertion is simply false.
I've had decades of experience building bitmapped image files for use in the software I wrote. Mostly I built these by hand using everything from Microsoft Paint to Paint Shop Pro, but I've had very little experience scanning documents. What professional experience I had (fasten your seat belt) was in the late 1980's with an HP gray-scale scanner connected to a PC running Windows 2.x. Really. The company I worked for did LOTS of image scanning, then and now, but I wasn't the one who did it. To date, I have never used OCR software; I never needed it.
So, it comes as a great surprise to me that a file put out as a .pdf image of a birth certificate would be other than a raw bitmapped image of the original document. If the goal was to put to rest the speculation that such a document didn't exist, then damned if I would have contaminated that scanned image in any way.
It's when we don't know what we don't know that we get surprised. I learn something new every day.
So, it comes as a great surprise to me that a file put out as a .pdf image of a birth certificate would be other than a raw bitmapped image of the original document. If the goal was to put to rest the speculation that such a document didn't exist, then damned if I would have contaminated that scanned image in any way.
It's when we don't know what we don't know that we get surprised. I learn something new every day.
Tam
says:
But why is the flag blowing when there's no wind on the moon? Huh? Answer me that, you gullible sheeple! Wake up, America!
Tam, you're onto something, but overlooked the most obvious detail. When did the USA ever have a black and white flag?
To SPQR and Yu-Ain Gonnano, the Canada Free Press agrees with me: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35948
Indeed, they list 5 SCUTUS cases running from 1814 to 1968 that support this view.
Indeed, they list 5 SCUTUS cases running from 1814 to 1968 that support this view.
Comments have been closed on this topic.
I agree, but first one, then the other...