Posted on 08/24/2009 8:21:43 AM PDT by Vincent Jappi
... Coulter committed what many see as the unpardonable sin of attacking "birthers" – those "nuts" and "fruitloops" like me who actually want to see Barack Obama release his birth certificate and other documents he is so clearly hiding from the American public – documents crucial to knowing who our president really is and whether he is constitutionally eligible to hold office.
... to suggest that anyone has investigated this story more thoroughly than WND demonstrates real ignorance. Our senior staff reporter, Jerome Corsi, wrote the No. 1 New York Times best-seller last fall based largely on his WND investigations of Obama past. His investigative work took him from Chicago to Hawaii to Kenya, where he was famously detained by authorities. His work was complemented at WND by reporting from six other full-time staffers over the last 11 months.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In addition there are many Americans like Freepers Beckwith and Polarik, who have done excellent work in untangling the mess and informing the public.
WND is only one of many.
WND is not something to be taken on its own. It is like the National Enquirer writing for sensation, occasionally right but often not.
Farah is unfairly misrepresenting what the Coulter column said. This smacks of desperation on his part.
My only question on this subject: What’s so hard about releasing a genuine document?
“WND is not something to be taken on its own. It is like the National Enquirer writing for sensation, occasionally right but often not.”
Ding ding ding-Winner!
Coulter didn't want to go after this story, herself.
I don't understand why she did not just say, “I am not sure of the facts and I think Obama is the only person who can put this crazy story to rest” -— if that is what she thinks.
I am not sure why Ann had to attack the “birthers”.
Anyway, let Ann be Ann.
We do NOT have to agree on everything.
Yours is a variation of my thoughts.
Suppose I am totally new to the debate. I listen to the Obamatrons vs the “Birthers” make their points, arguments, counterarguments. When they are all done I am convinced by neither side and ask the simple question, “So, why not just show the Certificate of Live Birth?”
To libtards I am then labeled a crazy whack job, birther. For asking a simple, logical question.
Indeed! Much like Newsmax.
I think Ann thinks this whole thing is a distraction, and it allows the left to portray Obama’s opponents as wing-nuts.
I’m not convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii or is Constitutionally elible, but I don’t think it can ever be proven. A more effective use of my time is killing Obamacare.
That being said, let’s see a birth certificate.
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
All other Presidents have provided these types of personal documents, why is 0bama not held to the same standard?
Cuz he’s black. If you question him, you’re a racist.
Do you ever get the feeling that no one is listening to you?
You’ve posted this a gazillion times...You would think that this represents the basic minimum we ask of the man leading us.
I mean, how can a researcher or biographer write anything accurate about this guy if he doesn’t have the basics?
So we re-post, knowing that it boring for many on the board but, would be of interest to others who may not have thought about it.
It raises the census of awareness.
Keep posting it.
The key issue in my mind is whether he was traveling on an Indonesian passport after he became an adult. That would negate his qualification for POTUS.
Will do.
Its really a simple question.
Where’s the birth certificate? and what citizenship did you claim in college?
Its not that hard. He could answer it easily if he could. The fact that he prefers to stone-wall it speaks volumes. He does not answer it because he dares not answer it.
You’d think some young aspiring journalist would take that list and try and write a thesis on why a biograper would have difficulty writing about our president’s life.
Actually I have posted it about five times.
Yes, one would think so. But I don’t think there are any journalists any more. Just pundits and propagandists.
It is of no benefit to BHO to release this information at the behest of adversaries who just want to pick it apart and look for things to complain about. So why should he release anything that just might cause him later grief? Because an adversary wants him to?
As for further down the line, a sympathetic biographer with the right connections will probably be given a wealth of information when BHO wants to go there.
You know something? I think the most incriminating infor about him are probably his college and law school transcripts and course work. His writings etc. The BC may show something embarrassing, but I would hold that less against him, if for example there is no father listed on the BC.
This is the most unbelieveable thing that a presidential candidate doesn’t have to come up with a modicum of information.
Also, what about his truth website that was set up dispel rumors, half truths etc. There’s a rumor out there that he has a dozen SS numbers, and that he took college courses by extreme left wing teachers...
I have said this many times... once his poll numbers hit -13 and below the MSM will go after him, because they will have the insulation of doint so.
already they’re hitting Bahgdah Bob Gibbs hard...and BTW he ranks up there as probably the worst press sec in my lifetime...probably even worse than that POS bush had for while there.
I don’t mean you shouldn’t post it, I think it should be posted on every lamp post in the country...
OK, I saw that from your subsequent posts. Sorry that I mistook your intent. Making a flier out of it and posting it everywhere isn’t a bad idea at all. Pass them out at town hall meetings.
Yet...Those who are pointing out Obama’s inexplicable actions and asking the polite question, “Why doesn't he just release this info?”, Ann INSULTS these people by calling them “cranks”! She even used the example of the KKK to make her point that “birthers” were few in number when then are not. The **KKK**, Ann?
Ann has jumped the shark.
And,...No, paying attention's to Obama’s **BIZZARO** behavior regarding his vital records is NOT a distraction. Those who defend the Constitution can easily multi-task.
It is indeed despairing to see her deny the obvious.
But he speaks of much more than that.
An honest, straightforward, and upright citizen would be **HONORED** to prove they were natural born.
That Obama fought this all the way to the Supreme Court, ( even making a **personal** visit there ) is BIZARE, irrational, and inexplicable! It also suggests that he is dishonorable, dishonest, and has something criminal to hide.
How can it be to anyone's benefit ( especially a president) to have the cloud of dishonor, criminality, irrationality, and dishonesty hanging over them?
What was considered ‘natural born’ in the 18C is irrelevant because there was specific language defining what the US in 1961 considered ‘natural born’.
The point I was trying to make is that the country is not going to “unseat” him over those kind of technicalities when his mother was clearly a (too-young) American citizen. If he had rejected the inherited US citizenship by being an adult citizen of Indonesia, that would be quite a different matter, but I have seen no reasonable case that this was so.
“An honest, straightforward, and upright citizen would be **HONORED** to prove they were natural born.”
Absolutely. But BHO is not an honest, straightforward and upright citizen.
I can only argue that not releasing this information is more beneficial to him politically than releasing this information. Perhaps that will change, but at the moment, it seems to be the case.
And until Hussein coughs up an ORIGINAL Birth Certificate,
I couldn't care less what names AC or anyone else calls me.
I and fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Marines NEED TO KNOW that Hussein is eligible to be CIC & POTUS and whether AC or anyone else approves is irrelevant.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Sorry Joe, but it really is okay for conservatives to disagree. Some of us think this is a distraction and easily goofified. And since it is being used as a way to sew discord between all the people who want Obama gone, it’s proving effective.
Keep posting that list. It raises the general level of awareness of Obama's hidden past in our community.
This controversy is about much more than just the release of his long form bc.
Thank you. Absolutely! The breadth and depth of hidden information, basic information, about 0who’sthisguy is astounding. We know more about Kim JongIl than we do about 0bama.
He could call it He could write it as a fiction “Ghost Story” with Nancy Drew and the Hardy boys as the crack team that uncovers a strangers past.
The whole point with a Constitution is not to change rules whimsically. This makes the 18th century meaning relevant as “original intent”.
And the Gray Communist is currently showing how prescient the Framers were in demanding that the President of the United States have no foreign allegiance.
If the U.S. survive the Usurpation, those academics and politicians who claim that the clause is obsolete will have been discredited.
Here you have her interview with Israel National Radio on March 1, 2009: http://rapidshare.com/files/271040465/Taitz_Israel_1_March_2009.mp3.html
If conservatives agreed with each other on every issue we’d be called democrats.
Could you give a citation or link to the 1961 ‘natural born’ definition revision, and by whom and how the revison was made to the Constitution?
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?
Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child. When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
These are known as the eligibility requirements for the office. They are set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, where it is specifically stated that, among the three requirements one is that a person must be a "natural born citizen" in order to be eligible to be President.
Obviously, if the Framers had wanted to only require that a person be a "citizen" they would have done so but that is not the word or words that they chose. They specifically required that one must be not only a "citizen" the person must be a "natural born" citizen.
The Constitution, which officeholders such as Soetoro a/k/a Obama swear to uphold and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic, is what is at issue here, not a statute. There are not that many specific requirements such as this in the Constitution and this one is not flexible.
Are you really trying to say that a statute may override the Constitution's specific language? If so what authority do you rely upon for such a proposition? --
Actually the Certificate of Live Birth is shown all the time by the lefties. That is the Hawaiian form that can be given to anyone (regardless of where they were born) and does not list the place of birth or attending physician. A real official birth certificate lists the hospital, the jurisdiction and the physician who assisted in the birthing process among other things. Why a Certificate of Live Birth (which can be obtained by people who might even be born outside of the State) is used as a surrogate for an official birth certificate is the question that leads so many of us to be skeptical.
If you read what I posted in #44 more carefully, you will see the phrase:"....were US citizens at birth". IOW, ....were natural-born citizens.
Statutory prescriptions that you refer to set out the two paths to becoming a citizen: either one is born a citizen or one becomes a citizen by naturalization. Either is a course to citizenship not to being a "natural born citizen" within the requirement of Artile II, Section I, Clause 5. If that were the case a court by now, given all the cases, would have said so. None has. Why do you think that that is?
I know that. Thanks for totally missing the point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.