Posted on 02/16/2011 6:17:43 PM PST by Seizethecarp
O'Reilly began a segment tonight by saying that he did not believe the recent poll that showed that 51% of likely GOP primary voters didn't believe that Obama was born in HI. He offered up a different poll showing that 58% of Americans believed Obama was born in HI.
Rove came on and after admitting that Obama could end the birth certificate controversy immediately by simply releasing his birth records, Rove said the controversy benefited Obama.
Then both O'Reilly and Rove equated "birthers" with "truthers" and Ron Paul supporters and said they were on the Tea Party and GOP fringe.
When Rove said he was satisfied that Obama was born in HI and started to refer to the newspaper birth announcements, O'Reilly butted in and said (IIRC) "You got that from me. We broke that here first. We investigated that."
Bill WHO??
Apparently they haven't entirely successful 72% of Republicans either don't believe Obama was born in the U.S. or have doubts about it.
This 72% are the people whose **parents** taught them to read and they get their information from the Internet. As Rush emphasized today on his show that the state run media doesn't have a monopoly anymore on the news.
I am curious to know how many registered Democrats believe he was “Made in America”?
How many are willing to vote for him a second time?
I would be interested to know as well.
I used to equate Rove with a Republican.
“I posted that on another thread but it fits here, too. BOR claimed he investigated the BC issue quite a while ago and has seen the original. The great and powerful OZ has spoken. (barf)
“
At the same time he has Rove on claiming that Obama “could release the documents tomorrow” but holds them back because it’s helping his presidency and reelection chances. So why does Obama still need to release anything if Rove and BOR have seen the birth cert and the origninal news postings?
Rove lives to gain that very last electoral college vote by winning that last county that will put the GOP over the top. He knows that the independent voters are not yet behind the Obama eligibility issue and so does O'Reilly.
Despite wimping out on the BC issue, to retain invites to WH parties and interviews, O’Reilly’s interview was so relatively aggressive that he was accused of being a racist by the left and of disrespecting Obama by Oprah. He repeatedly interrupted Obama and told him flat out that his deficit reduction efforts were crap. If O’Reilly hadn't been able to get into the WH for the interview, he wouldn't have been able to hammer Obama as much as he did (while doing a little kissing up to massage Obama’s ego and promote Fox).
Good point.
Rove didn't get the memo that O’Reilly has been telling his viewers for over a year that he has already "investigated" the "original" the Obama COLB.
Of course, O'Reilly is trying to pass off the 2007 COLB as an "original." I was surprised and very encouraged that Rove would go so far as to make that statement which clearly points to Abercrombie's admission that the original 1961 vital records have not yet even been found, much less released.
O’Reilly is correct. The birth certificate claims are misdirection, and largely irrelevent, sad, because Corsi’s book on Kerry focused on facts. Birthright citizenship is part of the nomenclature familiar to our framers when they compiled the Constitution. Natural born citizen meant the same thing. And every Senator, in April 2008, understood the term and signed Senate Resolution 511 confirming their understanding:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Discussions about missing documents are designed to redirect attention from the truth used in SR 511 to enable McCain to run as the opponent of an obviously ineligible candidate. Because McCain was not born on sovereign soil his problem is a technicality, but a real obstacle, which should be resolved by amendment, or possibly, a reinterpretation of the accepted interpretation. That interpretation, repeated a dozen times or more by our justices, about which there is no doubt, and is thus our common law. Here is just one such clear statement, this by Chief Justice Morrison Waite from his decision in Minor v. Happersett:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Ignore the rumors. They aren't necessary. Read the clear statement of Justice Waite. He explains “At common-law...” because almost all terms used in the Constitution are based upon definitions from our common law, “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.”
As every senator, including Obama resolved, and over a dozen Supreme Court Justices have repeated in dicta or their private legal writings, to be President requires birth to a citizen, because citizens possess sole allegiance to our republic, and born on our sovereign territory (the Canal Zone, Coco Solo Naval Base, was not sovereign territory until a year after McCain was born). Obama is patently not a Constitutional president. McCain's behavior in this crisis demonstrates why he too would have been a poor choice - he has put his feelings of entitlement above our foundation, our laws, the first nation built upon laws and not blood lines.
We need an amendment to make the foreign born children of Military citizens eligible, exactly the title of the bill Claire McCaskill and Obama tried to pass in February of 2008, SB2678 (it failed). But they didn't pose it as an amendment, so it could have had no effect. They showed, however, that they understood McCain's eligibility problem exactly, and would have controlled him had he somehow won the election.
Trust facts, not rumors. If Seizethecarp is not working for Obama, his misdirection is having the same affect. Birthers, if they understand Birthright Citizenship, understand Obama’s ineligibility. We know, because he told us, that Barack has little use for the Constitution because “it doesn't allow me to do the things I believe the nation needs.” We know his administration doesn't pay attention to federal court injunctions.
With two justices possessing a similar regard for the Constitution, it is clear the Supreme Court will continue to duck its head, in spite of precedence and the Constitution itself. which states that the court “shall have original jurisdiction,” because Obama is a public minister. This is an argument the Supreme Court can resolve, but evaded, in violation of their responsibility. We must make them accountable. Congress and Dick Cheney have failed their responsibility to validate the eligibility of our president before inauguration.
The Supreme Court failed to take the case, Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, charging Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, where they have appellate jurisdiction by Article II Section 2. Our leadership has been corrupted, but we still can, by knowing the allegiances of the representatives we elect, cleanse the legislature, the federal courts, the Supreme Court, and the military of those who clearly ignored our Constitution - and we must!
The two citizen parent NBC issue failed to gain traction in the courts, in legal academia or with the public before, during or after the 2008 election. I agree with you that if Obama was born a UK subject, he is not NBC by blood, but NBC by soil (territory is OK IMO) is also required, IMO. They both count, IMO. I do not believe it is logical to say that only soil or only blood matters. They both matter.
Obama has failed to submit to any court evidence of who his father is (pixels on factcheck don't count, vague references by HI officials don't count), yet you assume that his father is BHO Sr, and that Obama’s birth was governed by the 1948 BNA as claimed by liar Obama.
The 1948 BNA does not convey UK citizenship to illegitimate children, but you assume legitimacy despite clear evidence that Obama Sr. by his own admission in letters in archives was married to Kezia before, during and after alleged Dunham marriage. If the HI marriage was bigamous, Dunham was legally single and her illegitimate child would have unitary US citizenship if born in HI.
The only clear fact that I can attest to is that Obama is intentionally and suspiciously withholding his original 1961 HI vital records. I advocate maximum pressure to compel Obama to release his original HI vital records. What is contained in those records will only make possible the next level of forensic investigation into his eligibility.
My apology for doubting your sincerity Siezethecarp. I had not seen your comment about Jindal and Rubio. Your comment touches on the real issue, the issue about which there is no doubt. It shows that the Ruling Class understands birthright citizenship (natural born citizenship) but is probably afraid of the battle if they tell the truth. That we allow ourselves to be endangered, impoverished, our health and that of our families put at risk, when both party's Ruling Classes know, is a nightmare. That we don't dare run attractive candidates (Rubio for me) because we understand that he is ineligible, while not daring to point to our natural born British subject in the White House is travesty - perhaps treason.
They will plead civil disorder, riots if they raise the issue, but there will be riots when union members are finally jobless because our states have only IOU’s. There will be riots when the AFDC, food stamp programs, and other programs for the wards of the government our social programs created are busted. There will be riots (Wisconsin?) when public workers who retired at 45, now working at another cushy job while receiving disability pay, and entitled to retirement from two or more jobs are suddenly deprived of income. There will be riots when our Marxist EPA causes the deaths of larger numbers of citizens, either because they prevented us from generatiing power to heat homes, or because, as Obama promised, the prices have "necessarily skyrocketed" to the extent that more people die of cold, while Obama protects us from Global Warming, because citizens can't afford the fuel to heat their homes. There will be riots anyway. We must trust our founders, framers and Constitution.
“Traction” is not the issue. Just because the White House ignores Judge Vincent doesn't mean Obamacare is therefore constitutional. While we have free speech, it is critical that we use it to inform others of the truth. The state-run media, and a remarkable number of our ruling class, lied about what they knew of the circumstances in Egypt (and some were raped and beaten for their ignorance).
You have an “opinion” about eligibility, but why not learn and trust facts?
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Those are words from Congressman John Bingham, before the House as he explains his bill, the 14th Amendment prior to its passing. There has never been another interpretation; dozens of justices have substantiated the “never doubted” definition.
Here is founder, President of the States United, before the ratification, one of our first historians, explaining birthright citizenship, another name for natural born citizenship, in his Dissertation on ....Citizens of the U.S., Dr. David Ramsay in 1790:
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
These are the words of one of our founders, and thus the interpretation familiar to our framers - our common law. They didn't assume that children born on our soil, of parents who died before the revolution, were birthright citizens. That category, the most restrictive as to trust in allegiance, is only used for our president and vice president. The British wouldn't permit anyone not a natural born subject to be in Parliament. Naturalized citizens in our republic can hold any office but president and vice president.
There has never been another interpretation, nor has there ever been the assumption that only one condition constituted natural born citizenship. Think of what you are saying. A child, born on our soil, of non citizen parents was decided in Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. A child born to citizens on foreign soil is a Title 8 citizen, a citizen by statute, and not a natural born citizen.
No problem, and thanks for asking, since I have difficulty making myself clear on this issue, and partly because secretly, I think it would be great/funny if the birthers were right all along.
My main problem is with Conspiracy Theories. I have been interested in them for a long time, since I was a kid and actively believed in many of them (UFO's, etc). In the end, these theories end up being a bastion for losers, with people so entrenched in their thinking, that NO amount of contrary information or evidence will ever change their minds. The Truthers were an excellent example. I thought the liberals were really exposing their intellectual depravity with this issue.
So basically, I tend to reject such theories, and am a little embarassed when Conservatives use the same tactics as Liberals, because yes, I think we are better. It is something of a dirty trick.
But that said, I'm not saying that the birthers are absolutely wrong, its just a difference of opinion. I don't think the birthers are on the same level as truthers, however. Not all conspiracy theories are equally as absurd.
That is what I said in context. Spaulding, you are preaching to the choir on NBC by blood! I read Donofrio’s entire blog and I agree with his conclusions and everything that you have written on NBC by blood.
But your insistence that NBC by blood is the only thing that matters is illogical and is itself misdirection.
We have gone around on this before. Soil and blood both matter, IMO. Only a forensically authenticated BC, or open, verifiable birth facts and circumstances (transparency and access to witnesses for a home birth, for example) can establish either one.
What qualifies to you as a conspiracy theory? Are Al Qaeda’s terrorist plans a conspiracy theory? Or does it have to do with people who are superficially good or in the government being in on some evil plan - like the German government’s plot to kill Jews was a conspiracy theory? Does it make a difference if people have said they conspire to infiltrate the government, like the Cloward-Piven Plan to defeat America from within?
I know how you feel about the conspiracy theory revulsion. People of good conscience want to know that their beliefs are falsifiable - that there would be something that could convince them they were wrong if they really were wrong. It takes incredible evidence to support incredible claims. We all know the epistemology.
In the end, beliefs compete against each other.
It is possible to be so convinced that the government is corrupt that no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise. It is also possible to be so convinced that the government could never by this corrupt that it is impossible to convince you otherwise.
To believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen is a conspiracy theory. To believe that it did happen is, to some people, a conspiracy theory. In the end, you have to choose which conspiracy you believe. What distinguishes the flaky ideas from the solid ideas is whether or not the idea matches the available evidence.
When I try to decide which side is engaging in flaky ideas, I check to see how well the explanations match the available evidence, and whether the arguments used are based on evidence and reason, or based on emotional wishful thinking.
I think people shy away from the “birther” thing because the media frames it only in emotional terms even when citing evidence.
Take Obama’s online COLB. It changed in appearance over the course of 3 different postings, the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that it is a forgery, and Obama is claiming he can’t ask the HDOH to release any of his records because his records (that he supposedly made public already) are too private.
So you get “birthers” (the supposedly irrational, crazy ones) observing those and other facts. And you get Bill O’Reilly screaming on air about how stupid and racist anybody is if they question the genuineness of the proffered evidence.
Who has an evidence-based epistemology that tries to account for all the observable evidence, and who is trying to steer the conversation away from the evidence and into emotional sideshows?
I think Americans want things to be normal all the time. We would rather believe a comfortable lie than deal with an uncomfortable truth. Before 9-11 we had many indications that Al Qaeda was conspiring to hit us with terrorist acts. Hillary Clinton explained the semen on the blue dress as being a “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy” and people were comfortable with that because we can believe that politics is hell. What we didn’t want to believe is that there are real enemies who really want to destroy us. For some reason that fact - which our enemies have openly stated - is too “radical” an idea for us to really believe.
We so believe in the innate goodness of man that we fail to comprehend the Third Reich, Mao Tse Tung (or however you spell it), Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Al Qaeda, etc. We say it could never happen here.
Bill Ayers and his cohorts discussed among themselves how to exterminate 25 million people they expected to refuse to be “re-educated” once the communist revolution took over America. Cloward-Piven put forward a step-by-step plan to bring the nation to a financial and electoral crisis that would allow the communist coup. Two of the major planks of that plan were implemented by a Chicago lawyer in the only 2 legal processes he undertook as a lawyer: the Motor Voter Act and suing banks who didn’t make enough subprime loans. That lawyer is now in the White House being visited by Bill Ayers and being advised by allies of Cloward and Piven. The White House Christmas tree had ornaments of Mao Tse Tung, and Obama’s press coordinator gave a public speech saying Mao was her favorite political philosopher.
Is it a conspiracy theory to say that Obama is implementing Cloward-Piven? Do we decide that on the basis of evidence, or on the basis of what makes us feel like we’re normal, non-conspiratorial people?
Do you see what I’m saying?
My sister, when presented with some of the evidence regarding this issue, said, “Nellie, if I believed what you do I would have a really hard time living.” And that was that. She wasn’t willing to see facts that would make it hard for her to live.
She had a lot on her plate and I can understand what she was saying and why. But if everybody is too busy figuring out their next meal to be able to even think about that python threading its way around their neck.... you know the rest of the story.
And it’s the story of the world. The peace and stability we have had in America are the exception, not the rule. Tyranny and corruption are the norm in this world. When Bezmenov talks about the systematic communist process of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and “normalization” he is talking about a process that has worked many, many times all over the world. It is the norm. America is absolutely exceptional, and it isn’t just dumb luck that has made it so. It has taken the vigilance of every generation until now. If any one of those generations had so believed in the goodwill and honesty of politicians that they had willingly given up their means of accountability, America could be Iran today.
The quickest way for our enemies to defeat us is by convincing us that we don’t have any enemies, and even if we did they could never get within our government and infrastructure. No need to guard who lives in the White House, who gets the nuclear football; we don’t have any enemies who care enough to destroy us from within anyway...
We have two huge worldwide enemies who have said outright that they will destroy us from within: communism and Islamism. Obama and Soros are aligned with both.
I realize that what I’m saying is not comfortable. Winston Churchill was considered a lunatic until the Third Reich python was clearly around Britain’s neck. Then nobody wanted “comfortable”; they wanted something higher: truthful strength to defend they who had been too carefree, trusting, and get-along to see what was happening until it was too late.
There’s the details picture and the wide-angle view. We have to zoom in on factual detail to decide the small things like, “Where was Obama actually born, who were his parents, and is he a natural born citizen?” And we have to zoom out to see the big picture like, “Why won’t Obama’s DOJ let America protect her borders when Iran is sending Hezbollah operatives up from Venezuela through our open border? Why did the US president just convince Congress to give up our right to develop missile defense by saying the Russians would never try to claim that’s what the START treaty means? Why is Napolitano deciding what FOIA requests get answered on the basis of the requester’s political party?”
The Bible says that “He who is faithful in a little will be faithful in a lot.” The zoom in and zoom out viewing of a person’s life will be consistent.
If Obama is not faithful in something as seemingly trivial as whether or not he posts a forged birth record, he will not be faithful to America’s interests in the big things either. The unfaithfulness in the little thing is what enables him to be unfaithful in the big things. A person who will break the lock to enter your house is not somebody you want in your house.
If America is not faithful in safeguarding the seemingly little things (like who is allowed to be the Commander-in-Chief of our entire military and who is allowed to appoint the SCOTUS justices who will be deciding everything about the Constitution, who appoints the people who will regulate every detail of every person’s life, etc).... then what bigger things will America be faithful in?
If Bill O’Reilly won’t be faithful in checking whether the COLB and birth announcements he places all his trust in are actually genuine (they most likely aren’t, according to the factual evidence, some of which you can see at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com ), then why should we expect him to be faithful in anything?
Sorry this is so long. I hope something in this has something to do with the thought-feeling struggle you deal with as you think about the eligibility issue as a “conspiracy theory”.
Until clear indisbutable evidence is found, none of the above are known for sure. There is evidence that 0bama Sr was in the US much earlier than the accepted date, which would highly jeopardize the Kezia marriage, and other evidence as well - one point being that only Mark, Ruth's son, could prove that he was 0bama's son for inheritance purposes. There is more that clouds this as well. Also, the issue of how legal a tribal marriages was in the eyes of either Kenya under British rule or HI is unknown, and if he was actually married to Kezia, what if any formalties were used? Maybe it was merely shacking up, if it happened at all, which is not known until proved.
I would also posit that the reason the NBC issues has not gained traction with courts or Congress is not because it is not worthy of traction, but because so many judges and Congressmembers are either traitors or gutless disgusting cowards or otherwise complicit. It doesn't mean the NBC issue is not worthy of legal consideration.
Bravo!
There is a hearsay comment in just one newspaper article (1963 IIRC) reporting that BHO Sr. had not been in Kenya for 7 years. From what I have seen _all_ other sources show BHO Sr. arriving in HI from Kenya in 1959 and having been married to Kezia.
The comment about Mark's son being the only one to have been able to prove he was BHO’s son came from liar Obama’s book, Dreams, which was probably written by Ayers and may have been intended to provide cover to make Obama’s marriage to Dunham legitimate. Some attribute the Mark comment in Dreams to Obama, but IIRC it was actually Kezia’s daughter who said it to Obama in Dreams, but after Cashill's analysis I consider Dreams to be completely unreliable.
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.