The Birther Conspiracy Thread (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

Tim....Bush vs. Gore had nothing to do with states rights. Florida has every right to define their election process. The only thing the feds required is the election be decided by the laws in place at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court was an absolute joke, time after time trying to make new rules. It was not 5 justices who shot them down, but all 9 the first time and 7 the second time. The five coservative justices wrote the final end to the saga, but there were 7 justices who agreed the Florida Supremes were out of line.

Last I checked the Florida Supreme Court has the right (and duty) to interpret how Florida's laws are to be carried out. That's a function of state government. When you overrule that function, for whatever the reason, you are interfering in states' rights, are you not?Mind you, I'm not necessarily against what the US Supreme Court did in that instance. I'm only pointing out that they did overrule a state's judiciary, and I believe that is interference in states' rights, which is something Scalia on almost every other occassion seems to be against. Curious that he would take an opposite position here...

A state's judiciary cannot overrule the state's citizens' Constitutional rights. The issue in Bush v. Gore was ultimately an issue of Equal Protection. SCOTUS decided that the statewide election was not governed by statewide rules--each county had its own standards that were applied to the recount. Since the state was not treating its citizens equally in a statewide election, the Court found that it violated the Equal Protection clause.

 

[timschochet]

Tim....Bush vs. Gore had nothing to do with states rights. Florida has every right to define their election process. The only thing the feds required is the election be decided by the laws in place at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court was an absolute joke, time after time trying to make new rules. It was not 5 justices who shot them down, but all 9 the first time and 7 the second time. The five coservative justices wrote the final end to the saga, but there were 7 justices who agreed the Florida Supremes were out of line.

Last I checked the Florida Supreme Court has the right (and duty) to interpret how Florida's laws are to be carried out. That's a function of state government. When you overrule that function, for whatever the reason, you are interfering in states' rights, are you not?Mind you, I'm not necessarily against what the US Supreme Court did in that instance. I'm only pointing out that they did overrule a state's judiciary, and I believe that is interference in states' rights, which is something Scalia on almost every other occassion seems to be against. Curious that he would take an opposite position here...

A state's judiciary cannot overrule the state's citizens' Constitutional rights. The issue in Bush v. Gore was ultimately an issue of Equal Protection. SCOTUS decided that the statewide election was not governed by statewide rules--each county had its own standards that were applied to the recount. Since the state was not treating its citizens equally in a statewide election, the Court found that it violated the Equal Protection clause.

And hence the irony. Because Scalia and his buddies had never before been in favor of applying the Equal Protection Clause to overruling a state decision. Per legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone:No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Sarnoff]

Tim....Bush vs. Gore had nothing to do with states rights. Florida has every right to define their election process. The only thing the feds required is the election be decided by the laws in place at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court was an absolute joke, time after time trying to make new rules. It was not 5 justices who shot them down, but all 9 the first time and 7 the second time. The five coservative justices wrote the final end to the saga, but there were 7 justices who agreed the Florida Supremes were out of line.

Last I checked the Florida Supreme Court has the right (and duty) to interpret how Florida's laws are to be carried out. That's a function of state government. When you overrule that function, for whatever the reason, you are interfering in states' rights, are you not?Mind you, I'm not necessarily against what the US Supreme Court did in that instance. I'm only pointing out that they did overrule a state's judiciary, and I believe that is interference in states' rights, which is something Scalia on almost every other occassion seems to be against. Curious that he would take an opposite position here...

A state's judiciary cannot overrule the state's citizens' Constitutional rights. The issue in Bush v. Gore was ultimately an issue of Equal Protection. SCOTUS decided that the statewide election was not governed by statewide rules--each county had its own standards that were applied to the recount. Since the state was not treating its citizens equally in a statewide election, the Court found that it violated the Equal Protection clause.

And hence the irony. Because Scalia and his buddies had never before been in favor of applying the Equal Protection Clause to overruling a state decision. Per legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone:No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.

Scalia and his buddies had always been in favor of allowing states to violate the Constitution?

 

[timschochet]

Tim....Bush vs. Gore had nothing to do with states rights. Florida has every right to define their election process. The only thing the feds required is the election be decided by the laws in place at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court was an absolute joke, time after time trying to make new rules. It was not 5 justices who shot them down, but all 9 the first time and 7 the second time. The five coservative justices wrote the final end to the saga, but there were 7 justices who agreed the Florida Supremes were out of line.

Last I checked the Florida Supreme Court has the right (and duty) to interpret how Florida's laws are to be carried out. That's a function of state government. When you overrule that function, for whatever the reason, you are interfering in states' rights, are you not?Mind you, I'm not necessarily against what the US Supreme Court did in that instance. I'm only pointing out that they did overrule a state's judiciary, and I believe that is interference in states' rights, which is something Scalia on almost every other occassion seems to be against. Curious that he would take an opposite position here...

A state's judiciary cannot overrule the state's citizens' Constitutional rights. The issue in Bush v. Gore was ultimately an issue of Equal Protection. SCOTUS decided that the statewide election was not governed by statewide rules--each county had its own standards that were applied to the recount. Since the state was not treating its citizens equally in a statewide election, the Court found that it violated the Equal Protection clause.

And hence the irony. Because Scalia and his buddies had never before been in favor of applying the Equal Protection Clause to overruling a state decision. Per legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone:No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.

Scalia and his buddies had always been in favor of allowing states to violate the Constitution?

This depends on who you are and what your interpretation is. I'm pretty sure if you asked this question of Stephen Breyer, or Alan Dershowitz, or Geoffrey Stone, their answers would be a uniform "yes."

 

[jon_mx]

I was not happy that equal protection was the argument that carried the second decision. I thought the rationale in the first was sufficient to say again sorry fellas you just can't can't make up new rules to decide elections.

 

[jon_mx]

Extrapolating that the rules to decide who is eligible to become President is one of the most ridiculous expansions of states rights I have ever heard of. Of course that is a federal issue. Otherwise some state could just declare Qaedaffi a natural born citizen and the rest of the country would have to agree because of states rights. That is crazy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Extrapolating that the rules to decide who is eligible to become President is one of the most ridiculous expansions of states rights I have ever heard of. Of course that is a federal issue. Otherwise some state could just declare Qaedaffi a natural born citizen and the rest of the country would have to agree because of states rights. That is crazy.

You would need at least another dozen or so (haven't seen the post census new electoral map) states to go along.

 

[jon_mx]

Extrapolating that the rules to decide who is eligible to become President is one of the most ridiculous expansions of states rights I have ever heard of. Of course that is a federal issue. Otherwise some state could just declare Qaedaffi a natural born citizen and the rest of the country would have to agree because of states rights. That is crazy.

You would need at least another dozen or so (haven't seen the post census new electoral map) states to go along.

Why? If you are going to make the absurd case that this is a states rights issue, then the other states are obligated to go along with the state of Hawaii's determination that Qaddafi is a natural born Hawaiian and thus a natural born US citizen. In the case of Obama, we are not given any insight into how Obama went about qualifying for such status in the presence of some pretty relaxed laws in giving out birth certificates.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Extrapolating that the rules to decide who is eligible to become President is one of the most ridiculous expansions of states rights I have ever heard of. Of course that is a federal issue. Otherwise some state could just declare Qaedaffi a natural born citizen and the rest of the country would have to agree because of states rights. That is crazy.

You would need at least another dozen or so (haven't seen the post census new electoral map) states to go along.

Why? If you are going to make the absurd case that this is a states rights issue, then the other states are obligated to go along with the state of Hawaii's determination that Qaddafi is a natural born Hawaiian and thus a natural born US citizen. In the case of Obama, we are not given any insight into how Obama went about qualifying for such status in the presence of some pretty relaxed laws in giving out birth certificates.

The other 49 states have their own criteria on whether or not they will put Qaddafi on their state's ballots. And they have their own laws on how their electors will eventually cast their votes (remember how the Florida legislature was threatening to thwart the Florida Supreme Court in 2000?). In order for one state to determine Qaddafi is a natural born Hawaiian in such a way that Qaddafi could president at least enough states to get him to 270 electoral votes need to agree.ETA: And who is saying that one state can define "natural born citizen"?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Pin. This. Thread.

Seriously...it still delivers after all this time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Pin. This. Thread.

Seriously...it still delivers after all this time.

Too bad I lost my bet with Dodds about which thread would have more posts: this one, or the one about lawn care tips.

 

[Orange Crush]

The issue really isn't if the state of Hawaii legally recognizes Obama as being born in Hawaii, I think it is quite apparent they do. But does that mean he is a natural born citizen in accordance with the requirements to become President of the United States? They are two different things. Hawaiian rules are very lax and there are documents which can be filed such that the state does legally acknowledge someone being born in their state without it being so. I have never questioned the word of Hawaiian state officials or the authenticity of any of the documents. My only question has always been what document was filed to establish Obama was born there. Oddly, there seems to be no one alive who can recount the blessed date. No baby pictures. No friends who recall. No doctors or nurses who recall. Nothing, outside of this unseen document which establishes this fact. There is nothing whacky about insisting on seeing the actual proof. As citizens it is in fact our civic duty to verify it as it is the duty of Congress when they certify the election. All we have are second hand accounts by state officials who are legally obligated not to disclose specific facts. The COLB which the campaign produced is probably 100% accurate on what it portrays as the official Hawaiian position.

Snopes.com, quoting a story in the Buffalo News dated Jan. 20, 2009 by Paula Voell, titled "Teacher from Kenmore Recalls Obama Was a Focused Student."

When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

"I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone," said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here's the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: "So, tell me something interesting that happened this week," she recalls.

His response: "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about."

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

"I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it," said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the "Stanley" connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby's father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby's name.

"I remember Dr. West saying 'Barack Hussein Obama, now that's a musical name,'" said Nelson.

Ten years after that memorable birth announcement, Nelson would hear the Obama name again. This time, the father, now a Kenyan government official, was coming to speak at the Punahou School in Honolulu where Nelson was teaching and where his 10-year-old son was a newly enrolled fifth-grader.

http://www.pearlharb...=767&page=story

Then, after practicing on the Big Island of Hawaii for a year, he returned to Honolulu and joined the Obstetrics and Gynecological department of the Straub Clinic. In December of l956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies - and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine.

name any big sporting event and you will always find more people claiming to have been there than physically possible

Interesting. Especially since this bio says he didn't retire until 1975, when he was 65 years old. So your article says that he retired at the age of 44, after delivering over 5000 babies in 7 years. The bio I found in a 5 second google search had the 5K delivery stat as well, but over the course of his entire career, not just the first 7 years of his post-WW II career.

apparently he became a Medical Director -- which is mentioned in your own link

Yes. In my link it says "Nearing the end of his practice, Dr. West took on the role of medical director, Straub Clinic’s first, before retiring at 65 years of age in December of 1975."So you're saying that "nearing the end of his practice" equates to 21 years before he retires, also known as "7 years into his practice."

Whatever. I yield to your superior citation. After all, an anonymous webpage that reads like it was done as a high school social studies project obviously trumps Dr. West's own autobiographical blurb that he wrote for his book.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'd just like to state for the record that there is even more conclusive evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii than the evidence in support of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

 

[Jewell]

Pin. This. Thread.

Seriously...it still delivers after all this time.

Too bad I lost my bet with Dodds about which thread would have more posts: this one, or the one about lawn care tips.

Lawns will be around forever. Obama will only be around for six more years. I sense a comeback in the long run.

 

[General Malaise]

I've never seen this place before. Anyone care to give me a recap?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I've never seen this place before. Anyone care to give me a recap?

Just another thread where Timmy exposes the dangers to America caused by political "progressives".

 

[timschochet]

I've never seen this place before. Anyone care to give me a recap?

Just another thread where Timmy exposes the dangers to America caused by political "progressives".

 

[matuski]

this birther thing is Political brilliance by the Obama campaign. It hands a megaphone to all of the crackpots and enables them to identify themselves as crazies that they are.

Brilliance is opening Obama up to questions about what he is hiding? These questions have gone well beyond crackpots in well into the mainstream. There's a lot of Americans questioning this guy's past. If Trump's team of investigators turn over some stones and find some less than desirable evidence, it's going to blow up in his face. If he had the long form, he could have short-circuited the whole thing.That doesn't look like brilliance to me. To you it probably does, though.

Is that a megaphone in your hand?

 

[Sammy3469]

Pin. This. Thread.

Seriously...it still delivers after all this time.

Too bad I lost my bet with Dodds about which thread would have more posts: this one, or the one about lawn care tips.

Lawns will be around forever. Obama will only be around for six more years. I sense a comeback in the long run.

Otis is movingto the suburbs

 

[Leroy Hoard]

this birther thing is Political brilliance by the Obama campaign. It hands a megaphone to all of the crackpots and enables them to identify themselves as crazies that they are.

Yes.

It might be the best thing for him since it deflects attention from the negative things with more substance.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And still the debate rages on. The Left is in disbelief they still have to defend this. the Right gets excited because it's a fairy tale scenario where they can get Obama ousted out of office or shine him in a terrible light as many would like to label him a fundamental Islamic terrorist and it helps them sleep better at night.

Again, for the 20% of us that don't belong to either party, it makes great reading material.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

And still the debate rages on. The Left is in disbelief they still have to defend this. the Right gets excited because it's a fairy tale scenario where they can get Obama ousted out of office or shine him in a terrible light as many would like to label him a fundamental Islamic terrorist and it helps them sleep better at night. Again, for the 20% of us that don't belong to either party, it makes great reading material.

If there was something to this fairy tale, I would think Hillary becomes the immediate front-runnerI think Hillary might be a stronger candidate than Obama in 2012....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I've never seen this place before. Anyone care to give me a recap?

Just another thread where Timmy exposes the dangers to America caused by political "progressives".

We know.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The issue really isn't if the state of Hawaii legally recognizes Obama as being born in Hawaii, I think it is quite apparent they do. But does that mean he is a natural born citizen in accordance with the requirements to become President of the United States? They are two different things. Hawaiian rules are very lax and there are documents which can be filed such that the state does legally acknowledge someone being born in their state without it being so. I have never questioned the word of Hawaiian state officials or the authenticity of any of the documents. My only question has always been what document was filed to establish Obama was born there. Oddly, there seems to be no one alive who can recount the blessed date. No baby pictures. No friends who recall. No doctors or nurses who recall. Nothing, outside of this unseen document which establishes this fact. There is nothing whacky about insisting on seeing the actual proof. As citizens it is in fact our civic duty to verify it as it is the duty of Congress when they certify the election. All we have are second hand accounts by state officials who are legally obligated not to disclose specific facts. The COLB which the campaign produced is probably 100% accurate on what it portrays as the official Hawaiian position.

Snopes.com, quoting a story in the Buffalo News dated Jan. 20, 2009 by Paula Voell, titled "Teacher from Kenmore Recalls Obama Was a Focused Student."

When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

"I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone," said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here's the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: "So, tell me something interesting that happened this week," she recalls.

His response: "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about."

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

"I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it," said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the "Stanley" connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby's father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby's name.

"I remember Dr. West saying 'Barack Hussein Obama, now that's a musical name,'" said Nelson.

Ten years after that memorable birth announcement, Nelson would hear the Obama name again. This time, the father, now a Kenyan government official, was coming to speak at the Punahou School in Honolulu where Nelson was teaching and where his 10-year-old son was a newly enrolled fifth-grader.

http://www.pearlharb...=767&page=story

Then, after practicing on the Big Island of Hawaii for a year, he returned to Honolulu and joined the Obstetrics and Gynecological department of the Straub Clinic. In December of l956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies - and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine.

name any big sporting event and you will always find more people claiming to have been there than physically possible

Interesting. Especially since this bio says he didn't retire until 1975, when he was 65 years old. So your article says that he retired at the age of 44, after delivering over 5000 babies in 7 years. The bio I found in a 5 second google search had the 5K delivery stat as well, but over the course of his entire career, not just the first 7 years of his post-WW II career.

apparently he became a Medical Director -- which is mentioned in your own link

Yes. In my link it says "Nearing the end of his practice, Dr. West took on the role of medical director, Straub Clinic’s first, before retiring at 65 years of age in December of 1975."So you're saying that "nearing the end of his practice" equates to 21 years before he retires, also known as "7 years into his practice."

Whatever. I yield to your superior citation. After all, an anonymous webpage that reads like it was done as a high school social studies project obviously trumps Dr. West's own autobiographical blurb that he wrote for his book.

If Obama would just release the document, then we wouldn't have to go digging thru all of this crap like a note claimed to have been written on a napkin four and half decades ago by the friend of a relative of a recently deceased doctor or citations from websites about the guy's career that are incomplete.

 

[mad sweeney]

...even though we've already had a President who was born in Paris (iirc). ...

What?I know there were claims concerning Chester Author, but who was born in Paris?

I thought early in the thread there was a President that wasn't born in the US. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, but that's what I thought I read in here.

I believe there was born in Canada, but of natural born US citizens, thus he was natural born. McCain fits into the same category as our early Presidents. They weren't born in the US either, technically, because the US was 13 British colonies at the time.

That depends. According to my interpretation, yes. However, there are a large number of these Birthers who seem to believe that being born in America is a requirement.

 

[mad sweeney]

Tim....Bush vs. Gore had nothing to do with states rights. Florida has every right to define their election process. The only thing the feds required is the election be decided by the laws in place at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court was an absolute joke, time after time trying to make new rules. It was not 5 justices who shot them down, but all 9 the first time and 7 the second time. The five coservative justices wrote the final end to the saga, but there were 7 justices who agreed the Florida Supremes were out of line.

Last I checked the Florida Supreme Court has the right (and duty) to interpret how Florida's laws are to be carried out. That's a function of state government. When you overrule that function, for whatever the reason, you are interfering in states' rights, are you not?Mind you, I'm not necessarily against what the US Supreme Court did in that instance. I'm only pointing out that they did overrule a state's judiciary, and I believe that is interference in states' rights, which is something Scalia on almost every other occassion seems to be against. Curious that he would take an opposite position here...

Tim...you are not arguing from fact, you are arguing from MSNBC spin. The fact is the Supreme Court ##### slapped the Florida Supreme Court 9-0. It was not the case of the Florida Supreme Court interpreting anything. They were actively re-writing campaign law on the fly in a way which happened to greatly favor Al Gore. Such a re-writing violated federal campaign laws. The states are given great leeway in how they decide elections, but creating new rules after the election was forbidden.

God I love it when you toss up juicy softballs like this. The irony is killing me. Wrong_mx telling someone else that they're not arguing from fact?! That they're arguing spin?! Delicious! Perhaps to be more factual he should use the and say "probably" a little more since that's in your "fact repertoire"!

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've never seen this place before. Anyone care to give me a recap?

As with many things in life, you get out of it what you put into it.You can opt for a quick drive-by, and you'll get a good chuckle or two. For example, on this very page we have posters playing "gotcha" regarding the retirement date of the obstetrician that delivered Obama many decades ago (or did he????) with apparently zero awareness of how preposterous their conversation sounds. But if you really spend some time with it, scroll though the pages, get a feel for the varying levels of absurdity and delusion- the rewards are far greater. There's just so much crazy in here to be savored.

 

[mad sweeney]

Extrapolating that the rules to decide who is eligible to become President is one of the most ridiculous expansions of states rights I have ever heard of. Of course that is a federal issue. Otherwise some state could just declare Qaedaffi a natural born citizen and the rest of the country would have to agree because of states rights. That is crazy.

Do you actually try to come up with the worst possible analogies or does it just come easy to you? That's one of the dumbest ones you've ever come up with.

 

[Orange Crush]

... on this very page we have posters playing "gotcha" regarding the retirement date of the obstetrician that delivered Obama many decades ago (or did he????) with apparently zero awareness of how preposterous their conversation sounds.

You sure about that?

 

[TobiasFunke]

... on this very page we have posters playing "gotcha" regarding the retirement date of the obstetrician that delivered Obama many decades ago (or did he????) with apparently zero awareness of how preposterous their conversation sounds.

You sure about that?

I assume at least one side of the argument is unaware of how preposterous it sounds, otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There's just so much crazy in here to be savored.

FBGs sure does seem to have an an entire gaggle of Oreilly Taitz.

 

[mad sweeney]

And still the debate rages on. The Left is in disbelief they still have to defend this. the Right gets excited because it's a fairy tale scenario where they can get Obama ousted out of office or shine him in a terrible light as many would like to label him a fundamental Islamic terrorist and it helps them sleep better at night.

Again, for the 20% of us that don't belong to either party, it makes great reading material.

Yeah, except leading Rs not only don't actively pursue this issue, they didn't pursue it during the elections and they accepted him as their President without raising a fuss. None of which makes a lick of sense if the heads of the party consider O to be some commie, Muslim antichrist. Seems to me, they're satisfied with his credentials and that's waaaay more than enough to become a _MX Fact.

 

[Bronco Billy]

this birther thing is Political brilliance by the Obama campaign. It hands a megaphone to all of the crackpots and enables them to identify themselves as crazies that they are.

Brilliance is opening Obama up to questions about what he is hiding? These questions have gone well beyond crackpots in well into the mainstream. There's a lot of Americans questioning this guy's past. If Trump's team of investigators turn over some stones and find some less than desirable evidence, it's going to blow up in his face. If he had the long form, he could have short-circuited the whole thing.That doesn't look like brilliance to me. To you it probably does, though.

Is that a megaphone in your hand?

No, I'm just happy to see you.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

The issue really isn't if the state of Hawaii legally recognizes Obama as being born in Hawaii, I think it is quite apparent they do. But does that mean he is a natural born citizen in accordance with the requirements to become President of the United States? They are two different things. Hawaiian rules are very lax and there are documents which can be filed such that the state does legally acknowledge someone being born in their state without it being so. I have never questioned the word of Hawaiian state officials or the authenticity of any of the documents. My only question has always been what document was filed to establish Obama was born there. Oddly, there seems to be no one alive who can recount the blessed date. No baby pictures. No friends who recall. No doctors or nurses who recall. Nothing, outside of this unseen document which establishes this fact. There is nothing whacky about insisting on seeing the actual proof. As citizens it is in fact our civic duty to verify it as it is the duty of Congress when they certify the election. All we have are second hand accounts by state officials who are legally obligated not to disclose specific facts. The COLB which the campaign produced is probably 100% accurate on what it portrays as the official Hawaiian position.

Snopes.com, quoting a story in the Buffalo News dated Jan. 20, 2009 by Paula Voell, titled "Teacher from Kenmore Recalls Obama Was a Focused Student."

When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

"I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone," said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here's the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: "So, tell me something interesting that happened this week," she recalls.

His response: "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about."

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

"I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it," said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the "Stanley" connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby's father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby's name.

"I remember Dr. West saying 'Barack Hussein Obama, now that's a musical name,'" said Nelson.

Ten years after that memorable birth announcement, Nelson would hear the Obama name again. This time, the father, now a Kenyan government official, was coming to speak at the Punahou School in Honolulu where Nelson was teaching and where his 10-year-old son was a newly enrolled fifth-grader.

http://www.pearlharb...=767&page=story

Then, after practicing on the Big Island of Hawaii for a year, he returned to Honolulu and joined the Obstetrics and Gynecological department of the Straub Clinic. In December of l956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies - and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine.

name any big sporting event and you will always find more people claiming to have been there than physically possible

Interesting. Especially since this bio says he didn't retire until 1975, when he was 65 years old. So your article says that he retired at the age of 44, after delivering over 5000 babies in 7 years. The bio I found in a 5 second google search had the 5K delivery stat as well, but over the course of his entire career, not just the first 7 years of his post-WW II career.

apparently he became a Medical Director -- which is mentioned in your own link

Yes. In my link it says "Nearing the end of his practice, Dr. West took on the role of medical director, Straub Clinic’s first, before retiring at 65 years of age in December of 1975."So you're saying that "nearing the end of his practice" equates to 21 years before he retires, also known as "7 years into his practice."

Whatever. I yield to your superior citation. After all, an anonymous webpage that reads like it was done as a high school social studies project obviously trumps Dr. West's own autobiographical blurb that he wrote for his book.

If Obama would just release the document, then we wouldn't have to go digging thru all of this crap like a note claimed to have been written on a napkin four and half decades ago by the friend of a relative of a recently deceased doctor or citations from websites about the guy's career that are incomplete.

Thanks for the sig.

 

[Jewell]

Yeah, except leading Rs not only don't actively pursue this issue, they didn't pursue it during the elections and they accepted him as their President without raising a fuss. None of which makes a lick of sense if the heads of the party consider O to be some commie, Muslim antichrist. Seems to me, they're satisfied with his credentials and that's waaaay more than enough to become a _MX Fact.

Maybe.Or maybe they think there's bigger fish to fry. Maybe they don't want to alienate some constituents. Maybe they don't want to suffer the media ridicule. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their reputation should they be wrong.

Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, except leading Rs not only don't actively pursue this issue, they didn't pursue it during the elections and they accepted him as their President without raising a fuss. None of which makes a lick of sense if the heads of the party consider O to be some commie, Muslim antichrist. Seems to me, they're satisfied with his credentials and that's waaaay more than enough to become a _MX Fact.

Maybe.Or maybe they think there's bigger fish to fry. Maybe they don't want to alienate some constituents. Maybe they don't want to suffer the media ridicule. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their reputation should they be wrong.

Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

Maybe they're all from another planet and are part of some intergalactic conspiracy to take over earth, and Obama winning the U.S. presidency is just the start of some master plan that is just starting to come into focus.Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

 

[Jewell]

Yeah, except leading Rs not only don't actively pursue this issue, they didn't pursue it during the elections and they accepted him as their President without raising a fuss. None of which makes a lick of sense if the heads of the party consider O to be some commie, Muslim antichrist. Seems to me, they're satisfied with his credentials and that's waaaay more than enough to become a _MX Fact.

Maybe.Or maybe they think there's bigger fish to fry. Maybe they don't want to alienate some constituents. Maybe they don't want to suffer the media ridicule. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their reputation should they be wrong.

Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

Maybe they're all from another planet and are part of some intergalactic conspiracy to take over earth, and Obama winning the U.S. presidency is just the start of some master plan that is just starting to come into focus.Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

Not your finest work Tobias. All I'm saying is that polls reflect a high number of people who vote Republican question Obama's birth. So why would the Republicans themselves not also fall under those numbers?

But, apparently, I'm wrong, and you guys know exactly how all the top Republican brass are thinking on the issue. Shoot me a PM when you do the IPO for your mind reading business -- I want in!

 

[Sam Quentin]

...There's no excuse for letting this go so far if he does have proper documentation.

link
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

Who do you keep bringing this up? The question is not about his citizenship (proof of which needs to be presented to receive a passport), but whether he is a natural born citizen. These standards of proof are as different.I do have a question though, looking at the short form. There is no signature of the attending physician or even one of the parents that I can see. Is this information on the back side? I am somewhat uncomfortable with unsigned documents being proof, if that is the case.

I don't see how you can defend Obama is this issue anyway. Here is a man that ran on a platform of Change, of government transparency, yet he has been anything but, in his own past, or in governance. He is already proven to me that he is a political phony. It wouldn't surprise me if other things about him as equally phony.

I do believe that the solution going forward is for the FEC to issue better standards of proof for eligibility to run for that office.

Really? What are the standards of proof? What's the actual definition of NBC? I thought you considered that the real issue in theis debate? To me, being an NBC means that at birth you were an American, whether you were born in Kenya, Djibouti, China or on a space shuttle. Honestly, until that issue is actually resolved, and I can't see any way that it can be taken as "born in the US" then half the birther arguments are moot.

Not all citizens are natural born. Some are naturalized. Any citizen, natural born or naturalized, can get a US passport. Only natural born citizens can run for President. The Constitution does not address the definition of natural born, but does allow Congress to create clarifying legislation. According to www.usconstitution.net, the applicable law is Title 8 of the U.S. Code:
[*]Anyone born inside the United States and subject to its laws (i.e. not the child of a diplomat)

[*]Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

[*]Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

[*]Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

[*]Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

[*]Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

[*]Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

[*]A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

I'm pretty sure that Obama fulfills the bolded definition. The question is whether the FEC has sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that only natural born citizens can run for POTUS. It does not appear that they do, and they should.

I'm pretty sure that Obama fulfills the first definition as well. Which, incidentally, makes all of the others moot.

It would, if we had a standard as to what constitutes evidence of the same. That is where there is a regulatory gap that needs fixing.

but don't even suggest trying to fix it...it makes you a crazy racist fringe violent nut

 

[Phil Elliott]

Wouldn't most people be concerned if no-one could find a long form birth certificate for them?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, except leading Rs not only don't actively pursue this issue, they didn't pursue it during the elections and they accepted him as their President without raising a fuss. None of which makes a lick of sense if the heads of the party consider O to be some commie, Muslim antichrist. Seems to me, they're satisfied with his credentials and that's waaaay more than enough to become a _MX Fact.

Maybe.Or maybe they think there's bigger fish to fry. Maybe they don't want to alienate some constituents. Maybe they don't want to suffer the media ridicule. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their reputation should they be wrong.

Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

Maybe they're all from another planet and are part of some intergalactic conspiracy to take over earth, and Obama winning the U.S. presidency is just the start of some master plan that is just starting to come into focus.Accepting Obama's credentials is probably the most likely scenario, but you can't say for sure.

Not your finest work Tobias. All I'm saying is that polls reflect a high number of people who vote Republican question Obama's birth. So why would the Republicans themselves not also fall under those numbers?

But, apparently, I'm wrong, and you guys know exactly how all the top Republican brass are thinking on the issue. Shoot me a PM when you do the IPO for your mind reading business -- I want in!

Because most Republicans who are smart enough to hold political office are also smart enough to understand how preposterous it is to question the circumstances of a man's birth when there is a certificate of live birth along with a mountain of other secondary evidence, including a newspaper clipping, that make it perfectly clear that a man satisfies the requirements for the presidency. As a secondary matter, they are also intelligent enough to know that suddenly raising these concerns when we have a black president with a funny name after not raising the same concerns regarding the dozens of other people who have sought the presidency in recent years makes them look like hypocrites with questionable motives.I would think that is pretty obvious. And as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to alternate theories explaining why otherwise intelligent people would suddenly align themselves with total crackpots, one ridiculous rationale is as good as the next.

 

[Sam Quentin]

As a secondary matter, they are also intelligent enough to know that suddenly raising these concerns when we have a black president with a funny name after not raising the same concerns regarding the dozens of other people who have sought the presidency in recent years makes them look like hypocrites with questionable motives.

Hillary's supporters started itjust sayin'....

 

[David Dodds]

Almost 2,000 posts. Impressive. Maybe we can get Bat Boy to weigh in as a mediator here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As a secondary matter, they are also intelligent enough to know that suddenly raising these concerns when we have a black president with a funny name after not raising the same concerns regarding the dozens of other people who have sought the presidency in recent years makes them look like hypocrites with questionable motives.

Hillary's supporters started itjust sayin'....

They were crazy enough ... but there's a difference between starting it and continuing it years after it was first raised, after volumes of evidence have come out to support one side and none has come out to support any alternate theory. The latter is a whole new level of crazy. And Republican elected officials, with a few notable exceptions, are smart enough to dismiss something that crazy and to avoid aligning themselves with those who fail to do so.

 

[Bronco Billy]

So is the objective here to get this resolved so he can't serve a 2nd term, or are you all planning on throwing him out of office ASAP?

I always thought the objective was to get to the truth.But I'd agree the last thing this country needs right now is a Constitutional convention, especially given who would be running that circus.

 

[David Dodds]

So is the objective here to get this resolved so he can't serve a 2nd term, or are you all planning on throwing him out of office ASAP?

The Birthers have already proven he is a Terrorist Muslim from the future. I don't think they are going to be satisfied without a military tribunal and subsequent beheading.

 

[timschochet]

OK, so I have a serious question here: why do the polls suggest that so many Republicans believe in this? 40% don't believe he was born in the USA. Another 20% are unsure. Another 20% believe he was PROBABLY born here, but have expressed concerns. That is 80% of all Republicans who have at least some level of doubt!

I admit to being stunned by these numbers. Here in California I know plenty of Republicans, and not one of them who I've mentioned this too take this issue seriously at all. But apparently millions do. Anyone want to theorize why this is so?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I always thought the objective was to get to the truth.

That's rich.The objective is to attack that muslim, kenyan, indonesian, communist, socialist, anti-christ, world excuse tour headliner, terrorist-fist-bumping, american hating, white hating... on anything at all.

 

[Bronco Billy]

So is the objective here to get this resolved so he can't serve a 2nd term, or are you all planning on throwing him out of office ASAP?

The Birthers have already proven he is a Terrorist Muslim from the future. I don't think they are going to be satisfied without a military tribunal and subsequent beheading.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

So is the objective here to get this resolved so he can't serve a 2nd term, or are you all planning on throwing him out of office ASAP?

The Birthers have already proven he is a Terrorist Muslim from the future. I don't think they are going to be satisfied without a military tribunal and subsequent beheading.

Is your signature a quote from Obama or just something you made up?