LA Times: Ron Paul is stamped 'not a birther' by Chris Matthews

[KramerDSP]

Ron Paul is stamped 'not a birther' by Chris Matthews (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-is-not-a-birther.html)

In Andrew Malcolm's spot no less (That dude drove me batty with his writing back in 2008).


Ron Paul found himself being questioned by "Hardball" host Chris Matthews on Tuesday about an issue that a certain New York billionaire loves to talk about: President Obama's much talked about birth certificate.

"Is there something to it, based on what you have heard?" Matthews fished. "Is there any question that our president isn’t legitimate?"

"From my viewpoint, obviously not, because I never bring it up," Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas replied. "So I'm going to leave it to talk show hosts and to Donald Trump, and let you guys argue it out."

Strangely that answer wasn't clear, or good enough for the veteran newsman. "No, no, but, no, be a -- no, be a little more -- no, this [answer] is a dodge," Matthews said. "Is there anything to it?"

"Not that I know of," Paul said.

Finally Matthews conceded: "You're not a birther, sir. Thank you. We have given you the stamp of approval. You're not a birther."

[Indy Vidual]

OK, Ron has enough going on anyway.

[specsaregood]

hmmm:


Matthews fished. "Is there any question that our president isn’t legitimate?"

Is that really exactly how Matthews said it?

[smartguy911]

Well if he said he is a birther, i might say Ron is not serious about Running but his answer shows he is serious

[sailingaway]

Sigh.....

I wish they would let this crap drop....

[eduardo89]

Aren't there more important issues to discuss?

[Indy Vidual]

Well if he said he is a birther, i might say Ron is not serious about Running but his answer shows he is serious

Hannity, 'asked to see the cert' (or something similar), and some polls show over 50% of R's believe O is ineligible. The issue is actually being taken seriously now.

[sailingaway]

hmmm:

Is that really exactly how Matthews said it?

LOL! Don't go there. It's too easy, and meaningless.

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul is stamped 'not a birther' by Chris Matthews

phew?

[Indy Vidual]

LOL! Don't go there...

I'm undecided, but what if Obama really is an (undercover) Muslim?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/BaracKOsamaAP_468x789.jpg

Hannity, 'asked to see the cert' (or something similar), and some polls show over 50% of R's believe O is ineligible. The issue is actually being taken seriously now.

[smartguy911]

Hannity, 'asked to see the cert' (or something similar), and some polls show over 50% of R's believe O is ineligible. The issue is actually being taken seriously now.

Well someone on this forum said Obama might wait it out and show the proof right before election. It will make every birther look stupid and a huge FAIL.

[specsaregood]

LOL! Don't go there. It's too easy, and meaningless.

okok, but you are with me right? that sounds like a double negative type way of phrasing the question, implying the president is not legit.

[low preference guy]

Well someone on this forum said Obama might wait it out and show the proof right before election. It will make every birther look stupid and a huge FAIL.

I disagree. It will make people wonder: why did he take so long to put it to rest? McCain showed his BC immediately!

[sailingaway]

I disagree. It will make people wonder: why did he take so long to put it to rest? McCain showed his BC immediately!

And still had to go to court because he was born on a base in Panama.

[TNforPaul45]

Lets do a thought experiment: Lets say that Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. Even if this were openly researched, proven, then tried before congress, then goes to the Supreme Court (Because this would be a constitutional crisis, there's no protocol for handling a violation of a constitional provision ex post facto when it comes to presidential ineligibility, the founders thought putting it in black and white would be enough to prevent something like this from even happening)..and then is decided that he is illegitimate and THEN they try to nullify his signed legislation (that would have to go to the courts too, then back to congress, etc) then signed or veto'ed by Biden, etc.

After all this, at least 2-4 years have passed. Paul's ultimate point is that it's kinda pointless to discuss it at this point, even if he is illegitimate, which will not be proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt for decades at least (until the people holding the proof dies, as with JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, etc.). So Paul is saying, ultimately, that we should focus on removing Obama because of his ideas and values, and do so in 18 months, rather than waste time on something that may not even be an issue.

And do we have another 2-4 years to let the nation's ideas and direction stagnate as we focus on this? No not really.

So unfortunately, this issue doesn't even matter. If he is not a citizen, then, well dang, pile that criminal act of getting him elected invalidly on top of the already huge pile of the other illegal things that politicians have done in Washington, DC. Reversing anything he's done is not going to make much of a dent.

We need to reverse the damage caused by both parties by changing the society that supports them.

[eduardo89]

And still had to go to court because he was born on a base in Panama.

Yup, he might not have been eligible.

Does anyone born to US troops overseas not usually count as a natural born citizen? Or was that cleared up with McCain or in his case was the Panama Canal Zone countes as a special case? For example, if a US soldier stationed in South Korea gives birth on a US base, is the child not a natural born citizen, thus ineligible to run for POTUS?

[Indy Vidual]

...
So unfortunately, this issue doesn't even matter....

Another worthless circus for people who watch TV to focus on?
Good post, but I'm still undecided.
He took office only 2+ years ago, so if he's not a U.S. Citizen, then the issue does matter.

[eduardo89]

So Paul is saying, ultimately, that we should focus on removing Obama because of his ideas and values, and do so in 18 months, rather than waste time on something that may not even be an issue.

+1

[specsaregood]

//

[TNforPaul45]

Another worthless circus for people who watch TV to focus on?
Good post, but I'm still undecided.
He took office only 2+ years ago, so if he's not a U.S. Citizen, then the issue does matter.

Indy, you are right, I used bad wording. The issues DOES indeed matter, I do not doubt that. It matters for this president and all future ones to come. But though it matters, there is nothing practical that we can do about it, and that's what I was trying to explain in my post, but did so in a bad way :)

Because there is nothing I can really do about it (except get Ron Paul elected next go around), that doesn't mean that, like you, I can like the fact that there is a legitimately strong possibility that Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen. I can accept it but doesn't mean I have to like it.

Since education and vetting of the candidate were the issues that has possibly led to this point, then education and vetting is the solution for the next go around.

One possible avenue that I didnt think of is that if it's proven to a reasonable level in people's minds that he is not natural born, then people can just vote him out of office in 18 months for that reason too. :)

[Indy Vidual]

according to the state department, such children are ineligible. and thus mccain is not either.

Weren't mccain's parents both Americans?
I think that makes him eligible, but don't know for sure.

[Indy Vidual]

Indy, you are right, I used bad wording. The issues DOES indeed matter, I do not doubt that....

OK :)
I think it's interesting, but have no way to know if Obama was really born in Hawaii.

[sailingaway]

Weren't mccain's parents both Americans?
I think that makes him eligible, but don't know for sure.

sigh...

The supreme court hasn't decided it is the precise situation. There is old SCOTUS language suggesting that 'natural born' wasn't the same as 'citizen at birth' but meant born here, but it was in dicta. Although, I understand that if Obama wasn't born here, his mom wasn't old enough to transfer citizenship at birth, in his case. McCain's parents certainly did transfer citizenship at birth because they were BOTH American citizens. The fact situations are tried as they came up. Goldwater had to go to court because he was born in what was a territory at the time of his birth (Arizona) which later became a state, SCOTUS said that counted. A lower court said McCain was fine, I forget the rationale, and it didn't go higher, but he didn't fight turning over info. Obama's fighting turning over info is weird and I think he either doesn't have it (but maybe it was lost in the files since hawaii was a relatively new state at the time) or it has something embarrassing such as his father's religion or something he just doesn't want out.

Do I think the people have a right to know? Yes. Do I think it will politically profit anyone to hie down this rabbit hole? No.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd maybe be more inclined to jump on the "birther" bandwagon, if Obama had, in fact, done anything really radical or damaging or over the top in his term.

The fact of the matter is CoG has rolled on seamlessly, what he is doing is not very far off what Bush was doing or Clinton was doing before him or Bush I before him.

Which is, of course, extremely damaging but won't be stopped by changing the godhead of government.

[specsaregood]

//

[Indy Vidual]

...Goldwater had to go to court because he was born in what was a territory...

Arizona became a U.S. state on February 14, 1912
Barry Morris Goldwater (January 2, 1909

Wow, thanks.

[sailingaway]

all i recall is that is not the case according to our state department.

http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html

specsaregood, they don't acquire citizenship by reason of birth, they acquire it by parentage. That just means a German woman who has her baby, unrelated to an American, on a US army base in Germany, doesn't have an American baby. Two Americans who have their baby in the Vatican will still produce an American citizen baby, by parentage. The child of a single American citizen, born abroad, has more requirements to satisfy.

However, the old scotus language would have indicated that citizenship by parentage is NOT natural born citizenship, that you require being born in the US. I believe Goldwater's case specifically addressed that the place he was born was part of the US when he ran for President. However, I don't know if it NEEDED that rationale to turn out the way it did. A candidate not born in the US has not yet been addressed by the SCOTUS.

[Indy Vidual]

...

However, the old scotus language would have indicated that citizenship by parentage is NOT natural birth, that you require being born in the US. I believe Goldwater's case specifically addressed that the place he was born was part of the US when he ran for President. However, I don't know if it NEEDED that rationale to turn out the way it did. A candidate not born in the US has not yet been addressed by the SCOTUS.

I didn't know there was so much uncertainty, thanks.


mccain = Who cares, IMO.
Obama = Our first (undercover) Muslim President :confused:

[eduardo89]

This is what wikipedia says about McCain:


McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, if elected would have become the first president who was born outside the current 50 states. This raised a potential legal issue, since the United States Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. A bipartisan legal review and a unanimous but non-binding Senate resolution both concluded that he is a natural-born citizen.


I'm guessing because it was a US Territory (like Arizona in Goldwater's case) that they count him as a natural born citizen, whereas US bases and embassies are no legally US territories, they are legally part of the host nation.

However, the Canal Zone was never an incorporated territory, meaning that it was controlled by the government of the United States but not part of the United States proper. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. The Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States. However, Congress later passed a law stating that children born to at least one US parent in the Canal Zone were natural born citizens.

Another example is Puerto Rico, which until 1917 was not incorporated into the US, meaning that until then Puerto Ricans did not gain US citizenship by birth on the island.

[sailingaway]

This is what wikipedia says about McCain:




I'm guessing because it was a US Territory (like Arizona in Goldwater's case) that they count him as a natural born citizen, whereas US bases and embassies are no legally US territories, they are legally part of the host nation.

It just flashed through my mind that that nonbinding unanimous resolution was probably a lot like that 'passed without objection Libya resolution' but that is apropos of nothing, I suppose. I did track it at the time, though, since McCain was not on my list of favorite people, ever.


I didn't know there was so much uncertainty, thanks.


mccain = Who cares, IMO.
Obama = Our first (undercover) Muslim President :confused:

Well, Muslim is a whole separate thing, his birth would be irrelevant to that. Personally I think he is agnostic and goes to church for his family, but that is just because he acts so secular. We don't have a religious test for president, anyhow, although asking people if they believe in evolution at presidential debates sure seems to come close to the line...:p

[eduardo89]

It just flashed through my mind that that nonbinding unanimous resolution was probably a lot like that 'passed without objection Libya resolution' but that is apropos of nothing, I suppose. I did track it at the time, though, since McCain was not on my list of favorite people, ever.


It probably did. What's also interesting is that the law that changed the citizenship status of people born in the Canal Zone was actually passed one year after McCain's birth. So his citizenship was retroactively changed to that of natural born status. At the time of his birth he would have just been a US national, not citizen, later gaining full citizenship because of his American parents, and a year later with the new law passed by Congress a natural born citizen.



With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens. This no man's land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency.

[sailingaway]

This is what wikipedia says about McCain:




I'm guessing because it was a US Territory (like Arizona in Goldwater's case) that they count him as a natural born citizen, whereas US bases and embassies are no legally US territories, they are legally part of the host nation.

However, the Canal Zone was never an incorporated territory, meaning that it was controlled by the government of the United States but not part of the United States proper. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. The Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States. However, Congress later passed a law stating that children born to at least one US parent in the Canal Zone were natural born citizens.

Another example is Puerto Rico, which until 1917 was not incorporated into the US, meaning that until then Puerto Ricans did not gain US citizenship by birth on the island.

And if it had gone to the SCOTUS they would have had to decide if a retroactive statute could create ex post natural birth citizenship. And they might well have decided it could, I couldn't say, because it didn't get there. In a way it seems silly you could do that ex post, but there would have been major policy reasons to want to find that American citizens having a baby on an American base while a parent was in the armed forces could be 'natural born'. I mean, that wouldn't exactly be the kid whose patriotism you'd question first.

OR they might have decided it couldn't but might have thrown out the old dicta and said that if you are a citizen born, through parents OR born here, that it is natural born citizen. But we just don't have that ruling, so it just isn't settled law.

[eduardo89]

Yeah its a tough argument.

Does a child born to US citizens, on a US base, and born there because his parents have been sent there by the US government and work for the US government, get excluded from having the chance to run for President?

In my opinion it's stupid that they are excluded. I'd question more the patriotism of a US born person whose lived abroad his entire life (and is still eligible to run for President), than that of a person born to members of the Armed Forces stationed abroad and whose lived the rest of his life in the states, but is ineligible to be President...


In Canada the law is a bit different, and children born to Canadian citizens oversees are natural born citizens with the same rights as Canadian-born citizens if their parents are stationed overseas, either because they are in the armed forces or are working for the federal or provincial governments overseas. (The only practical difference of natural born vs foreign born is the ability to grand citizenship by descent to foreign born children)

[sailingaway]

Yeah its a tough argument.

Does a child born to US citizens, on a US base, and born there because his parents have been sent there by the US government and work for the US government, get excluded from having the chance to run for President?

Exactly. Even with McCain, I didn't like that outcome.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I'd maybe be more inclined to jump on the "birther" bandwagon, if Obama had, in fact, done anything really radical or damaging or over the top in his term.

I've always maintained it won't matter one goddamn iota if he comes out tomorrow and says he's a Kenyan citizen by birth. The SCOTUS is full of spineless sonsabitches that wouldn't overturn a single goddamn bill the asshole signed into law anyway. He could get on national television wearing a hijab, swinging a scimitar while screaming Ala'hu'Akbar and perform fellatio on his personal secretary and it won't matter. Its all a distraction to me anyway as I consider the son-of-a-bitch to be a goddamn walking clusterfuck.

[sailingaway]

I agree it isn't worth pushing. And he has birth announcements in papers etc. I do think he was born there, and that nothing has shown he WASN'T to combat the proof that exists, it isn't my issue. I found the law of it interesting, though, and the fighting it by making the topic unspeakable is nasty, as far as I'm concerned, and contrary to governmental transparency. They could just say the state was a new state, their records weren't carefully kept and they are going on the short form plus secondary proof. Nothing says what PROOF is sufficient to show you are natural born, they didn't even have birth certificates when the Constitution was ratified. So it is a non issue, at this point.

I just think it is no way to decide legitimate questions -- by demonizing those asking the questions.

[low preference guy]

I agree it isn't worth pushing. And he has birth announcements in papers etc.

I actually don't know where he was born and don't care much about the issue, but the birth announcement in the paper from my point of view makes it more likely that he wasn't born in Hawaii. A parent would want little Obama to get the benefits of being a U.S. citizen, and if you don't have an original BC, an announcement in the paper is a good substitute.

[specsaregood]

I actually don't know where he was born and don't care much about the issue, but the birth announcement in the paper from my point of view makes it more likely that he wasn't born in Hawaii. A parent would want little Obama to get the benefits of being a U.S. citizen, and if you don't have an original BC, an announcement in the paper is a good substitute.
I thought the same thing until recently when I heard it discussed on the radio and evidently the birth announcement in question was placed by the hospital itself, not the parents/relatives. I guess all the hospitals in Hawaii did that at the time and maybe still do.

[sailingaway]

I actually don't know where he was born and don't care much about the issue, but the birth announcement in the paper from my point of view makes it more likely that he wasn't born in Hawaii. A parent would want little Obama to get the benefits of being a U.S. citizen, and if you don't have an original BC, an announcement in the paper is a good substitute.

But on a burden of proof issue, usually you only have to make a prima facie case and then the burden shifts and the other side has to bring some evidence to suggest you are lying. That is what is missing, to my mind -- evidence that this ISN'T where he was born. I agree she could have faked it, but X evidence of his birth in Hawaii exists, and nothing credible that I know of suggests his birth anywhere else. What people are saying is that he has to conclusively prove it, and if he wanted native rights (for Islanders) in Hawaii, he in fact would be in trouble with that documentation. However, there is no Constitutional statement of what documentation is required to prove you are natural born.

[eduardo89]

I'm curious, when was the birth announcement run in the newspapers? Was it on the day (or week) of his birth? Or was it done months after?

[MikeStanart]

Well someone on this forum said Obama might wait it out and show the proof right before election. It will make every birther look stupid and a huge FAIL.

I call official credit on this theory. Citizen or not, "Proof" can easily be faked. Do people honestly think the US President with all his resources, can't get a birth certificate forged?

This also explains why Trump would be pushing the "birther" issue so much, considering he is more than likely a Democrat in Republican clothing, likely a puppet of the democrat party seeking to eliminate chances of a Republican President.

I know this is all off in the deep end, but I think it's plausible. I mean, if you were Obama and wanted to stay in office, it's a damn good strategy to push forward.

[sailingaway]

I'm curious, when was the birth announcement run in the newspapers? Was it on the day (or week) of his birth? Or was it done months after?

I don't remember, but it doesn't really matter. If it WAS faked, Grandma could have done it while they were still overseas. The problem is that you can come up with these scenarios but there isn't any evidence they occurred. (Grandma faking it, I mean.)

What they don't seem to credit is the huge gap in legitimacy this guy's administration has, then they try to push social contract changing law on a slender majority....speaking of Obamacare....

That is just stupid from a sociological point of view. They need buy in by citizens.

[BucksforPaul]

I'm undecided, but what if Obama really is an (undercover) Muslim?




What if Obama really is an undercover Jew? Considering that he is killing Muslims at the same rate as the "Christian" Bush, there is more of a chance of him being Jewish rather than Muslim.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/prayer_500.jpg

Would the Birthers exist if McCain would have been elected who also was not born in the US? I love it how the birthers, all of a sudden, discovered the Constitution because of this issue, while completely ignoring basic constitutional principles such as not going to war without a declaration, not printing money out of thin air, and a billion other absurdities. The Constitution be damned when government tortures people. They are absent when government gradually takes away the 2nd amendment. Where is the love for the constitution when young American children get raped at the airports? In fact, almost complete silence on all of these blatant violations of the constitution and I am willing to bet that some even cheer on the government. We are currently facing a major economic collapse caused by the stupid policies of government over many decades, but instead let us focus on the current puppet's legitimacy. Am I the only one who finds this issue humorous?

[sailingaway]

As we were discussing above, McCAin DID have to go to court and produce all the documentation and got at least a lower court ruling. And Goldwater had to go to court. But these questions have never been considered off limits before, that is what is disturbing, that they are shouted down with the racism crap. They should just say they are using different proof because records were lost or whatever, if that is the case.

[eduardo89]

And I think Mitt Romney's Dad did, too...I have a vague memory of reading that, somehow...Did he run for President?

I JUST realized Romney's dad was named "George W. Romney"...I wish he had named Mitt after himself...Then it'd truly be another term for George W.

Romney's dad was born in Mexico, because his grandparents were polygamists and fled the States to a polygamous Mormon colony in the north of Mexico.

[sailingaway]

I JUST realized Romney's dad was named "George W. Romney"...I wish he had named Mitt after himself...Then it'd truly be another term for George W.

Romney's dad was born in Mexico, because his grandparents were polygamists and fled the States to a polygamous Mormon colony in the north of Mexico.

Yeah, but I just looked it up briefly, and it doesn't look like he went to court, he was just prepared to argue that since both his parents were American citizens he was naturally born. As I said earlier, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that, yet. But it explains his statement that since Obama's mom was American it didn't matter -- and the theories would have been the same if she had been old enough to pass citizenship by herself when Obama was born, but she wasn't (you have to have lived here a certain number of years after a certain age if only one parent is a citizen, to pass citizenship if the child is born abroad.) So it does matter where Obama was born. But he has stuff showing he was born in Hawaii, and I don't know of anything contradicting that, it all comes back to that.


And no, obviously, only the person who DOESN'T like the candidate is going to challenge the candidate. But the first birthers were Hillary supporters, not GOP.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sailingaway]

You know, I don't get all that corporation stuff, I've seen that mentioned but never tracked it. But if it WERE a corporation I'd sure argue the Constitution was its bylaws.

LOL!!

In fact, if it were a corporation, a bunch of the crap our government is pulling would be considered a breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders....LOL!

I don't want to go there, it is depressing.

[BucksforPaul]

It is clear what the Constitution says however...

If the United States is a federal corporation...
Whereas there is no federal common law...
Does the Constitution apply?

Lol, How dare you speak the truth?

[MaxPower]

I don't remember, but it doesn't really matter. If it WAS faked, Grandma could have done it while they were still overseas. The problem is that you can come up with these scenarios but there isn't any evidence they occurred. (Grandma faking it, I mean.)

But what would be the point? The only reason they would have needed to fake his birth record would have been if they actually anticipated, over 45 years in advance, that he would one day run for president- which, particularly given that they were poor, obscure, and not a political dynasty, just seems absurdly implausible. Contemporary newspaper records declare he was born in Hawaii, he grew up in Hawaii, and he has displayed a "certificate of live birth" which indicates he was born in Hawaii. I see no clear, valid reason not to accept the evidence Obama has provided already that he was born in the United States. Now, I think there are plenty of actual constitutional violations on Obama's part which would justify throwing him out of office, but this entire "birther" conspiracy business comes across to me as utter nonsense.

[MaxPower]

What if Obama really is an undercover Jew? Considering that he is killing Muslims at the same rate as the "Christian" Bush, there is more of a chance of him being Jewish rather than Muslim.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/prayer_500.jpg

Would the Birthers exist if McCain would have been elected who also was not born in the US? I love it how the birthers, all of a sudden, discovered the Constitution because of this issue, while completely ignoring basic constitutional principles such as not going to war without a declaration, not printing money out of thin air, and a billion other absurdities. The Constitution be damned when government tortures people. They are absent when government gradually takes away the 2nd amendment. Where is the love for the constitution when young American children get raped at the airports? In fact, almost complete silence on all of these blatant violations of the constitution and I am willing to bet that some even cheer on the government. We are currently facing a major economic collapse caused by the stupid policies of government over many decades, but instead let us focus on the current puppet's legitimacy. Am I the only one who finds this issue humorous?
Simultaneously humorous and exasperating, yes.

[sailingaway]

But what would be the point? The only reason they would have needed to fake his birth record would have been if they actually anticipated, over 45 years in advance, that he would one day run for president- which, particularly given that they were poor, obscure, and not a political dynasty, just seems absurdly implausible. Contemporary newspaper records declare he was born in Hawaii, he grew up in Hawaii, and he has displayed a "certificate of live birth" which indicates he was born in Hawaii. I see no clear, valid reason not to accept the evidence Obama has provided already that he was born in the United States. Now, I think there are plenty of actual constitutional violations on Obama's part which would justify throwing him out of office, but this entire "birther" conspiracy business comes across to me as utter nonsense.

No, there have always been benefits to citizenship. For example, somewhere Obama said they were on food stamps for a while. You had to be a citizen for that. And anyone who was American coming back here would want their kid to have a birth certificate. I don't find that argument too persuasive.

However, I also have no reason to think Obama wasn't born here, and based on what I've seen, he's shown decent evidence that he was. I think someone has to give us reason to disbelieve that evidence.

[dean.engelhardt]

Aren't there more important issues to discuss?

Considering we are in 3 open wars and the USD is on the verge of collapse because of fiscal mismangement, I wonder why so much of the media time is being spent on birthers.

If this is the biggest problem folks have with Obama, he'd be stupid to produce the long form.

[qh4dotcom]

"But if it's true, it should be pursued. We should know the truth and we should follow the rule, we should follow the law, we should follow what the
Constitution says about who is qualified to be President. So, I am very open-minded about looking at all of that."
- Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ3kO9xzcs#t=1m30s

By the way, he said it should be pursued TWICE in that video....no ifs the second time.

[sailingaway]

Ron is very open minded about other people pursuing what they want. I feel the same way. I don't need to worry about it myself, but I'm not going to demonize people for having questions. The government should be transparent. And no matter WHAT the facts are, Obama has dealt with this in a very odd way. Maybe just bad advice, but....sheesh....

[Don Lapre]

However, I also have no reason to think Obama wasn't born here, and based on what I've seen, he's shown decent evidence that he was. I think someone has to give us reason to disbelieve that evidence.

It's always a fascinating take.

Personally, I don't consider any of the evidence shown to be decent.
The document that was posted on the internet by R. Gibbs was a complete joke, and only three people have claimed to have actually handled that document that was posted.
Two folks at FactCheck (who posted 2 images of that said document on their site - one showing it with a seal and the other withOUT a seal - lol, wtf?) and R. Gibbs.

Decent isn't good enough, anyway.


WE the PEOPLE are the president's employer.

We deserve conclusive evidence that he is eligible to hold that office.


The BC is just one issue with Barry.
It's a matter of time until he's eyeball deep in shit, imo.

[sailingaway]

The amount of proof required isn't stated in the law anywhere, though, so each person might require a different level of proof to be personally convinced. I don't know about the two seals. I do know the clerk of records in Hawaii signed an affidavit saying that according to the records of the state of Hawaii he appeared to have been born in Hawaii, and to be honest, courts accept that sort of evidence all the time, even if it isn't conclusive, just because human error exists, and sometimes records just AREN'T conclusive. At this point, for me, I'd have to see some evidence going the other way. But I do agree (my Dad having lived in Hawaii) that there are purposes the state would not accept the short form certificate to prove. I don't know if they have any back up means of proof if there is a record error or something.

But the question of whether he is natural born is separate from the question of what level of proof do you require that he is natural born.

[Praetorius]

Hey eduardo - back during the run-up to 2008 election, there were some good threads posted on this over at the Daily Paul. The big issue was figuring out what the law specified as far as children of US citizens being born overseas, and with the digging I did, Mccain appears to have actually NOT been eligible - the act of Congress his team always referred to in defense of his eligiblity had actually been repealed by congress shortly afterward.

The thread I originally posted on this, with links to the congressional records from the late 1700s is at http://dailypaul.com/36712/citizen-mccains-panama-problem and the comments also have information from some of the other members. Effectively a non-issue at this point, but it looks like the republicans nominated someone who technically was not eligible. Has been a long time since I've looked into any of this, but if anyone's got anything showing where I've missed something on this, I'd still appreciate seeing it sometime.

Thanks.

[sailingaway]

Hey eduardo - back during the run-up to 2008 election, there were some good threads posted on this over at the Daily Paul. The big issue was figuring out what the law specified as far as children of US citizens being born overseas, and with the digging I did, Mccain appears to have actually NOT been eligible - the act of Congress his team always referred to in defense of his eligiblity had actually been repealed by congress shortly afterward.

The thread I originally posted on this, with links to the congressional records from the late 1700s is at http://dailypaul.com/36712/citizen-mccains-panama-problem and the comments also have information from some of the other members. Effectively a non-issue at this point, but it looks like the republicans nominated someone who technically was not eligible. Has been a long time since I've looked into any of this, but if anyone's got anything showing where I've missed something on this, I'd still appreciate seeing it sometime.

Thanks.

I don't remember my exact reasoning but I do remember thinking it was still a gray area whether McCain qualified or not. The lower court said he did, but the Senate's unanimous resolution was because no one was really sure how a court would find, imho. I figured if he won it would likely go to the Supreme Court, but seeing what had happened with Obama, maybe not.... I do agree that citizens should have recourse to get a court's determination of the situation, to put it to rest, though. And with McCain, I'd outright have been ok with a finding that for these purposes, if a parent would have still been here but for being under military orders from the US government putting them on one of our army bases, that counts. I just balk at the idea of service kids not being naturally born when their US citizen parents are serving overseas on our bases.

[qh4dotcom]

Well someone on this forum said Obama might wait it out and show the proof right before election. It will make every birther look stupid and a huge FAIL.

Obama will look like more of a fool if that happens...he's going to have a lot of explaining to do as to why it took him 4 years to release it and why he released a COLB instead of the real thing back in 2008.

[qh4dotcom]

Tom Woods is talking about this birth certificate issue now as the guest host of the Peter Schiff book...he just said a poll of 48% of Iowa Republicans don't think Obama was born in the US, maybe it is an issue.

[Don Lapre]

I don't know about the two seals.


http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

Blow this pic up if you want.
Enhance it.
Do what you will with it.
It has NO seal.



Here are two other pics Factcheck posted of the supposed same document.
The seal is clearly visible

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/image/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Birth%20Certificate/seal.jpg

http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/birth_certificate_2resized1.jpg?w=468&h=624




Why factCheck, supposedly supporting the case for the prez having a legit BC would post something so blatantly ridiculous and detrimental to the case - is for a given person to decide.

[qh4dotcom]

Blow this pic up if you want.
Enhance it.
Do what you will with it.
It has NO seal.


Yep, no seal

[sofia]

That "Certificate of Live Birth" is clearly a fraud. Note that it lists his father's race as "African"......In those days, the black race was catagorized as "Negro"....African is a continent....not a race.

[Krugerrand]

No matter ... I think it's good for RP that CM gave him the stamp. Now, in future interviews, if CM brings it up, RP can ask why he's bringing up an issue that CM closed himself. RP is better off distancing himself from the Obama citizenship issue for now. If the future proves otherwise, RP can just as easily switch sides with no political damage.

[Don Lapre]

What was posted on the internet was a fraud, no doubt.

Doesn't necessarily mean that Barry doesn't have a real long form BC - it just means that what was posted on the intenet as proof of his citizenship was a fraud.

lol

[sailingaway]

about the seal, when you get a certified birth certificate, they print up a new one on current paper. Some places require seals, some don't. (In fact I had a border officer say to me once they were looking forward to the new US passport requirement because how could he, a Canadian, know what a Mississippi birth certificate was supposed to look like?) They might have changed the requirement somewhere along the way and he might have had one with and one without the seal. The seal usually certifies that it is a true 'certified' copy. It isn't the original in any event and that is the only document where it matters. So I don't know if the seal is an issue or not.

[Matt Collins]

"But if it's true, it should be pursued. We should know the truth and we should follow the rule, we should follow the law, we should follow what the
Constitution says about who is qualified to be President. So, I am very open-minded about looking at all of that."
- Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ3kO9xzcs#t=1m30s

By the way, he said it should be pursued TWICE in that video....no ifs the second time.
When was that recorded? :confused:

[Don Lapre]

about the seal, when you get a certified birth certificate, they print up a new one on current paper. Some places require seals, some don't. (In fact I had a border officer say to me once they were looking forward to the new US passport requirement because how could he, a Canadian, know what a Mississippi birth certificate was supposed to look like?) They might have changed the requirement somewhere along the way and he might have had one with and one without the seal. The seal usually certifies that it is a true 'certified' copy. It isn't the original in any event and that is the only document where it matters. So I don't know if the seal is an issue or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Here is what FactCheck said about what they posted.


In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.


They only indicated that they were showing pics of ONE document.
Nowhere did they say anything about pictures of two different documents.

[Krugerrand]

When was that recorded? :confused:

headline on the video: 110308

[sailingaway]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Here is what FactCheck said about what they posted.


In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.


They only indicated that they were showing pics of ONE document.
Nowhere did they say anything about pictures of two different documents.

Yeah, but that just proves that 'Factcheck' is bogus, and I already knew that.

[sailingaway]

headline on the video: 110308

That might have been before the clerk gave an affidavit that Hawaii records indicated he was born in Hawaii. And it was before he took office and was 'certified' or whatever you call it by delegates. Those two occurrences make a difference, and the latter has big political, if not factual, significance, since now he has been president for over two years.

[Johnnymac]

yea thats the fakest looking birth certificate ive ever seen, my birth cert is not typed and i was born after this baffoon, and Ron Paul does not play hard ball with Chris Matthews, Chris Matthew plays hardball with Ron Paul :D

[qh4dotcom]

No matter ... I think it's good for RP that CM gave him the stamp. Now, in future interviews, if CM brings it up, RP can ask why he's bringing up an issue that CM closed himself. RP is better off distancing himself from the Obama citizenship issue for now. If the future proves otherwise, RP can just as easily switch sides with no political damage.

A caller on the Peter Schiff show just said that while he thinks Obama is a foreigner, it's better if the grassroots deal with this issue instead of getting Ron Paul involved.

[Krugerrand]

A caller on the Peter Schiff show just said that while he thinks Obama is a foreigner, it's better if the grassroots deal with this issue instead of getting Ron Paul involved.

I have no problem w/ grassroots hitting the issue. I don't even mind Sir Trump going at it. I agree with the caller mentioned that it's better to keep RP clean on this one. It's especially dangerous territory for somebody who will need to pull in independents and anti-war democrats in a general election.

[MaxPower]

No, there have always been benefits to citizenship. For example, somewhere Obama said they were on food stamps for a while. You had to be a citizen for that. And anyone who was American coming back here would want their kid to have a birth certificate. I don't find that argument too persuasive.

However, I also have no reason to think Obama wasn't born here, and based on what I've seen, he's shown decent evidence that he was. I think someone has to give us reason to disbelieve that evidence.
Yes, but citizenship can be procured without having to create a fraudulent record indicating that the kid was born in the United States. Citizens born abroad can do pretty well everything- up to and including top-tier federal office-holding- that those born in the US can do; I don't see a compelling reason to fake something like this unless you have some psychic knowledge your child will, through an incredibly-improbable series of circumstances, wind up running for president several decades down the road. Surely, it is drastically more plausible that the newspaper accounts say he was born in Hawaii because he was born in Hawaii.

[sailingaway]

Except that since his mom was too young to pass citizenship on, it would have been the easiest way for her, since Hawaii at that time did provide short form birth records just if the parent was a resident shortly after the child's birth. It had just become a state and had unusual paperwork.

Whatever. I'm not pushing the issue, I think he was born there. If you start with the 'would he benefit', though, yeah, we've always had illegal immigrants, because there are benefits.

[belian78]

I've always maintained it won't matter one goddamn iota if he comes out tomorrow and says he's a Kenyan citizen by birth. The SCOTUS is full of spineless sonsabitches that wouldn't overturn a single goddamn bill the asshole signed into law anyway. He could get on national television wearing a hijab, swinging a scimitar while screaming Ala'hu'Akbar and perform fellatio on his personal secretary and it won't matter. Its all a distraction to me anyway as I consider the son-of-a-bitch to be a goddamn walking clusterfuck.

Thank you for giving me a genuine belly laugh at work. Funniest thing I've read all day, and I completely agree.

[libertyjam]

Yup, he might not have been eligible.

Does anyone born to US troops overseas not usually count as a natural born citizen? Or was that cleared up with McCain or in his case was the Panama Canal Zone countes as a special case? For example, if a US soldier stationed in South Korea gives birth on a US base, is the child not a natural born citizen, thus ineligible to run for POTUS?


Sometimes (not always) Snopes does have a very good answer for the question
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

[Don Lapre]

Yeah, but that just proves that 'Factcheck' is bogus, and I already knew that.

Yes, and that's just fine if it's just FactCheck being full of shit, as they certainly are.

But the things is, I've watched COUNTLESS news reports on the BC issue, almost universally attempting to dismiss it, where they have cited FactCheck and said something to the effect of, "FactCheck has debunked the birthers, etc."

Extreme facepalm.

Just like O'Reilly dismissing Barry's bogus Connecticut social security number one day by making the COMPLETELY outrageous statment of "fact" that his father lived in Connecticut, and that is how Barry got that SS#.

Another extreme facepalm.

Barry's dad never lived there, nor did ANYONE in Barry's family, or Barry himself.
Total crock of shit.

Or when Robert Gibbs was asked by a reporter pointblank in a press conference - "Why is the president using a Connecticut SS#?"

Gibbs mocked him, told him he wasn't interested in speaking about the ridiculous birth certificate issue - and walked out of the room.

The reporter wasn't asking about the BC.

LOL

And so it goes.


The SS# is as much of an issue as the BC, imo.
The obvious implication here is that Barry was not a citizen, but needed a SS# as a teen (the card was issued between '77 and '79), so someone cooked this up for him.


The media is shitting all over themselves over this issue and I'm VERY pleased to see Trump hammering on it.
There WILL come a point where stonewalling (and blatatnly LYING) on the issue will no longer be possible.

[steve005]

Aren't there more important issues to discuss?

sorry but your either a troll or just dumb