I am sorry, but you BOTH are making an assumption. That is, if it didn’t happen on the Internet, then it didn’t happen.
Well all you can prove is from what you can see on the net today, and thats problematic given the fact that HUGE volumes of information have been scrubbed from the net. We run into that all the time.
That’s a big problem, right there.
Second problem is that you do not have access to private conversations. I know for dead certain I was talking to my mother in law about it all in the summer of 08 because we got into quite a rif over it, and part of my argument was that we didn’t know who this guy was, and whats a man with a Kenyan father doing running for POTUS. Can I prove that, no. Can you DISprove that, no.
Even in that discussion, I didn’t put that much weight on that, because I had not done enough research on it at that point.
Now... What the HELL is the point of nitpicking this? It brings me to my third point. No matter what anyone said in the summer and fall of 08, NOTHING was stopping the Obama campaign, not even an ASTOUNDING move by the press to NOT report on the Rev. Wright scandal. A man sits in a pew listening to the guy who married him to his wife... for 20 years, spewing anti-American hate, death to America, reparation for slaves and all sorts of other simply racist ideological rants, and the press gave Obama a pass on it! It should have DESTROYED OholyO’s campaign! It should have destroyed ANY campaign! And rightly so!
No, if that didn’t stop Obama nothing would.
Be that as it may, fourth point, Obama did his best to OBFUSCATE the issue until it was far past too late. They posted his documented birth “was governed by the BRITISH Nationality Act of 1948” in order to make it appear that this was OK. After all, they published it willingly before anyone could ask about it. They knew that most people are sheep, and if someone publishes a fact like that, then it must be irrelevant, or OK, or something to that effect. Otherwise they would have hidden it. It’s called reverse psychology, or hiding the truth in the open. And it worked brilliantly. No where near enough people caught onto the fact that no, its NOT OK, or legal! that fact makes Obama ineligible for POTUS. He isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. he got away with it, and got elected anyway, with the truth out in the open. Disguised as “OK” the public sucked it up under the mistaken belief that it would not have been published if it wasn’t OK!
All he needed to do was to defer the question long enough to get elected, and the electoral college vote certified. After that, it would be impossible to stop, and he was right.
So what is your point here? Are you trying to illustrate how this act fooled so many people, by hiding the truth right out in the open?
There wasn’t enough time to make it a BIG enough issue to cause any hampering of the massive momentum propelling him into the Oval Office. Not even close. ONLY if the press had picked it up and broadcast it 24/7 would have made a difference, and they STILL had the race card to fall back on if that failed. They didn’t pick up Rev. Wright, they would not pick up on this either.
Beyond that, Obama had a lot of others also working to make sure that the eligibility issue didn’t bar him from POTUS. the biggest of which was Nancy Pelosi, who took care of the loose ends when Hawaii refused to certify him. Obama himself did everything he could to make certain that Hawaii didn’t let the cat out of the bag, including last minute trips to Hawaii - supposedly to see toots as she lay dying... I mean damn, who is gonna question that right?
Now WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Nothing that was done, said discovered in the entire 2 year long campaign did a damn thing to stop Obama, Obviously. It’s water under the bridge at this point.
The question you and LorenC SHOULD be asking, is this: Now we know for CERTAIN he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is Ineligible for the office he has usurped. Are we just gonna lie down and let that go on? We KNOW a crime is being committed at the highest level. Are we going to let it just go on? NO!
Thats the crux of the issue. We know he is ineligible. We MUST do what we can to push this issue to the forefront of American conscious and the media. The barrier now comes from those who think it is too big a massive headache to declare him officially an Usurper and remove him, and redo all the liberal crap that has been foisted on us during that illegal government, or do we take on that massive dirty job?
The RIGHT thing to do is to take on that massive dirty job and just GET IT DONE, because otherwise it will only happen again, and those in the circle of power will KNOW for certain that the constitution is broken and that the American People will NOT fight to defend it and keep it whole.
Now, which side of the damn fence are you on?
From what I can tell, you are with those who think we should just leave Obama alone to finish out his illegal Presidency. Because all you are doing is literally picking a nits - from the past! To NO POINT WHATSOEVER. The make wrong game is for children. This is no kiddie game, this is a massive issue, and it is happening right NOW, and you and lorenc are picking apart events from two years ago you cannot prove or disprove??? WTF?
As far as I am concerned, if THIS is what you and LorenC are all about, the make wrong game, then you are a part of the problem and no where near the solution. This might even make you an enemy of the constitution and an enemy of the state.
Now again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Why are you living in the past when our present contains the largest threat to the United States of America since the Civil War?
Ping to post.
It’s time to call curiosity and LorenC onto the carpet.
Okay, so all we can say is that it wasn't happening within the public domain. Our basic point still stands.
If it really were a common opinion that a person born in the USA needed two citizen parents to be considered natural born, lots of pundits would have been making that argument in public before the election.
But they weren't. That's a pretty good indication that someone just decided to make it once it became clear that the born-in-Kenya story wasn't gaining any traction.
Well all you can prove is from what you can see on the net today, and thats problematic given the fact that HUGE volumes of information have been scrubbed from the net.
First of all, FreeRepublic hasn't been scrubbed, and every birther argument that gains any traction at all on the blogosphere gets posted here within minutes. So if it wasn't posted here, it's pretty darned unlikely it was anywhwere in the public domain.
Plus, if you suspect it was posted somewhere else and then scrubbed, that's what a wayback machine is for.
I know for dead certain I was talking to my mother in law about it all in the summer of 08 because we got into quite a rif over it, and part of my argument was that we didn’t know who this guy was, and whats a man with a Kenyan father doing running for POTUS.
So why weren't you making the argument in public? Why weren't you on the birther threads pointing out that it didn't matter where he was born? It's pretty hard to believe that you would be getting into passionate arguments in private about it but for some reason not making the same argument here.
What the HELL is the point of nitpicking this?
The point is that we have a legal system based on precedent. If you want to interpret the Constitution a certain way, you need to show that intepretation has some history, that you didn't make it up out of whole cloth.
The fact that NO ONE in public was interpreting "natural born citizen" to absolutely require both birth in the USA AND citizen parents before Nov. 2008 suggets it is a false interpretation that was made up by someone around that time.
Outstanding comment! You do our Constitution proud.
Please don't expect me to be surprised that having failed to produce any actual examples of 'two-citizen-parent' discussions pre-November 2008, that you're falling back on supposed memories of telephone conversations from two and a half years ago. I've been through this before: Birther says I'm wrong, I ask for evidence, Birther produces something that doesn't show I'm wrong, I ask again, Birther produces something else irrelevant, I ask again, Birther falls back on 'secret' evidence that he can't or won't produce.
Look, I don't have anything to gain from pinpointing Donofrio's suit as what kicked off interest in the 'two-citizen-parent' stuff. That's just the conclusion my research points to. If it's earlier, then show me. I'm not emotionally invested either way. You seem to be taking this a lot more personally than I am.
Still, since you claim to have been personally talking up the 'two-citizen-parent' thing in summer 2008, I perused some of your posts from between August and November. You had a lot of posts about Obama's natural born citizenship. You expressed a lot of concern about where he was born, and even more concern over whether he was adopted.
And yet, in none of those posts did you ever suggest that he was never a natural born citizen to begin with because of his father's citizenship. To wit:
Danae: No matter how you look at it, Obama is NOT able to run for President. He is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. Either because he was Born in Kenya to a mother that by law could not bestow citizenship upon him because of her age, or because he because a citizen of Indonesia when he was adopted and or acknowledged by his Step-father in order to go to school there. "See? His father's citizenship being an automatic disqualifier doesn't seem to have been on your mind at all. And that's from mid-October 2008.