How Crazy are those Birthers?

Right Side News ^ | 14 October 2009 | JB Williams

[sometime lurker]

From what I have read so far, the basis of the suspicion is that American citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan at that time. Therefore, if Obama traveled there and if it is true that he traveled there directly, the question is how?

I also do not know if it was the Pakistani government or the US government that barred Americans from traveling to Pakistan. In either case it creates suspicion and raises a legitmately asked question that would be fair game to ask any American.

This is incorrect, but was frequently repeated and not everyone has seen the correction. There was no travel ban. There was travel advisory No. 81-33A

“Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa. Tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha.”

As you see, no ban involved. US citizens had to obtain the proper visa in advance if they planned to stay more than 30 days or were crossing at the Indian border, otherwise a visa was available at Pakistani airports.

I also would like to know about when he obtained his first passport - would he have to had one to travel to Indonesia at the age of 6? Could he have traveled on his mother's passport? Was his first passport really the diplomatic one? Is that information publicly available? Any freepers who know about this please jump in.

[Seizethecarp]

“Yes, I am that disgusted with Rush, Beck, Hannity, OReilly, Coulter, Malkin, Levine, Boortz, Medved, Ingram, and the entire stable of Fox News beauties.”

Yet look what Beck in particular has achieved in hacking away at the Marxist appointments of Obama and all of the others have achieved in undermining Obama in the polls on the issues.

The FCC can kill Murdock so he and others have to be careful. Note that O’Reilly sneaked in the “Big Bird” Tonight Show “Obama is a big fat liar” clip and Coulter entitled her latest column “Natural Born Loser” knowing exactly how that would be taken as a double meaning. Just look at the title of Malkin’s book and you can see that they are killing Obama on the issues with demonstrable facts, not legalistic wrangling over the NBC issue on which SCOTUS has never ruled in circumstances that the founders never contemplated.

Obama’s protective “cloaking” by the MSM is falling away, as can be seen by the SNL skit.

It is entirely likely that the far left is going to start looking for Obama’s BC in Kenya after Obama orders the 40,000 troop increase for Af/Pak.

[mlo]

"Apparently, citizens have “no standing” to question the emperor."

There are long-standing rules about "standing". They aren't some new invention. Without them, there could be 100 million lawsuits being heard about everything the government did.

"Fidel Castro could be nominated, placed on ballots."

In some jurisdictions I suppose he could. But since he is well known to be an alien and ineligible, I suspect he wouldn't get on many. But it's curious, you guys keep raising this spectre of some outrageous character getting on the ballot. They still have to win! There's not much chance of that.

"Citizens could elect Fidel Castro...The Electoral College could vote for Fidel Castro for U.S. President."

Well, yeah, they COULD. Not actually very likely is it? And if it were, you'd have a pretty serious problem with the people of this country, no matter who was running, wouldn't you?

"Somehow, I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind."

What the founding fathers had in mind was that a natural born citizen be President, and that a particular procedure be followed in selecting him. On both counts, that has happened. There is no legitimate issue here.

[BP2]

Statements that DO NOT illicit a response from the FR Eligibility Troll:

Obama is a corrupt liar - no response

Pelosi is a corrupt liar - no response

Reid is a corrupt liar - no response

Obama, Pelosi & Reid are trying to Socialize the US - no response

The MSM are corrupt liars - no response

The MSM backs Obama and his agenda - no response

ALL of them are CORRUPT and WOULD DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to keep Obama & the Democrats in power - no response

But ... mention that Obama is not a natural born citizen and Pelosi, Reid and the MSM did NOT vet Obama's eligibility before the election ... and the TROLLs come alive:

the 14th Amendment says ...

in Wong Kim Ark ...

Black's Law Dictionary defines “citizen” as ...

Orly is nuts ...

Vattel was not a founding father ...

THAT reporter was WRONG ...

I voted for McCain ...

You're racist ...

"Obama supporters have consistently shown
irrational passion to defend Obama from what
they claim are ridiculous charges."

[mlo]

"Obama is a corrupt liar - no response"...etc...etc.

Did you ever stop to think that it's because I AGREE? I don't need to chime in with a "me too" every time someone says something I agree with.

Get this through your head. You don't have to be a birther to be a conservative. If you want to argue on birther threads, do so. But argue the issues, not the posters.

[stockpirate]

Check out this article from 2004:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

[trumandogz]

From what I have read so far, the basis of the suspicion is that American citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan at that time.

That is a complete fabrication.

[trumandogz]

And with the tendency of the current Court to cite the 14th Amendment and expand rights based on the Equal Protection Clause, I have am positive the Justices would vote include all people born in the United States to not only be citizens but natural born citizens.

[trumandogz]

Did John Bingham run out of ink when penning the 14th and if not, why did he ‘fail’ to include that explanation in the text of the amendment?

[Lundy_s Lane II]

The so called conservative commentators need to at least address the issue fairly and define the issues for the public.

That needs to include a discussion of who is a Natural Born Citizen with the different viewpoints.

They need to show the many ways of obtaining a Hawaii COLB at the time and the possibility of foul play.

At some point when do we say we made you and we can break you by tuning out their complicity.

[John Valentine]

If the justices truly understand the 14th, they could never reach such a conclusion.

[trumandogz]

Perhaps, but they expand rights each and every time they review a case that cites the Equal Protection Clause.

And I doubt that this Court would ever rule that we have two if not three classes of citizens.

[trumandogz]

Perhaps, but they expand rights each and every time they review a case that cites the Equal Protection Clause.

And I doubt that this Court would ever rule that we have two if not three classes of citizens.

[John Valentine]

Bingham had al the brains he needed, and used just exactly the amount of ink he needed.

However, certain judges since, and here I refer to at least one of the majority and probably all of them in the Kim Wong Ark case, seem to have checked their brains at the courthouse door the day they decided that case.

Even so, and as wrongly decided as hat case was, what has been done in the name of that ruling since ought to have resulted in the responsible judges and legislators swinging from gibbets. They took a Constitutional amendment which ought to have made it impossible for citizenship to devolve in the children of illegal aliens, and stood it on its head. I call that treason.

[John Valentine]

We have and have ALWAYS had far more than two or three classifications of citizen. Not a problem at all.

[John Valentine]

!. This is not about something that the “government” did. This is about something that was done to the government - and to the American people by fraud.

2 and 3. I raise the specter that some outrageous character DID get on the ballot, and what’s more despite the Constitutional prohibition of folks like him serving as President, he was ostensibly elected, and sworn in in spite of that Constitution he is sworn to defend. What a joke. If it weren’t so serious, I might be able to laugh about it.

4. The American people to not have the power, or the authority to elect a non natural born citizen to the Presidency, regardless of his popularity, charisma, transformativeness, or party affiliation. We have this little thing called the “Constitution”. Obama may not like it, but he ought not be free to ignore it.

This had better be fixed in the Courts, because the American People have an absolute right to demand that one way or the other this unqualified usurper be removed. If the courts can’t do it, the people will - and that will be very messy, painful, bloody and traumatic. It will be much better if the courts man up to their responsibility and deal with it bloodlessly.

[Smokin' Joe]

Agreed!

[mlo]

"!. This is not about something that the “government” did. This is about something that was done to the government - and to the American people by fraud."

The point was about the legal issue of "standing", which still stands. Anyway, the government did do it. The Electors and the Congress voted and certified the result, making Obama the President.

"2 and 3. I raise the specter that some outrageous character DID get on the ballot, and what’s more despite the Constitutional prohibition of folks like him serving as President, he was ostensibly elected, and sworn in in spite of that Constitution he is sworn to defend. What a joke. If it weren’t so serious, I might be able to laugh about it."

But is't not a fact that he is ineligible. He is not constitutionally prohibited from serving. He is just a horrible choice.

"4. The American people to not have the power, or the authority to elect a non natural born citizen to the Presidency, regardless of his popularity, charisma, transformativeness, or party affiliation. We have this little thing called the “Constitution”. Obama may not like it, but he ought not be free to ignore it."

The American people excercise their power through our republican form of government. Obama is a natural born citizen so it's not an issue.

"This had better be fixed in the Courts,..."

The courts cannot address this. They do not have the constitutioal power. You can't seek to uphold the constitution by asking that it be defied.

"...because the American People have an absolute right to demand that one way or the other this unqualified usurper be removed."

He is in fact eligible. Once again, you don't defend the constitution by destroying it.

America is a republic. We do have power, but only through our republican institutions. We don't excercise it directly. Through the Constitution and the laws we designate certain bodies to handle certain issues and disputes.

This one is no different. The procedure for selecting, validating and approving a President is set out in the Constitution, and it has been followed. There is no other legal power to do something than what is in that document.

The Electors and the Congress had the final authority to see that a qualified person was elected. They made their decision. It is done. Even if they were wrong about his eligibility, which they weren't, there is no other authority that can intervene.

If the people come to regret their choice and want to remove Obama, we can also excercise that power through our legally designated republican bodies. The Congress also has the sole power of impeachment, and can excercise it at will.

There is no other constitutional answer. If we really respect the constitution, and it's not just that we want Obama gone, the we can't advocate unconstitutional means of removing him.

[John Valentine]

I’d agree with everything you say if Obama were in fact a natural born citizen, but as a matter of fact and law, he is not. You say he is, with whatever logic, I do not know, I say he is not: We disagree.

The courts have an OBLIGATION to fix this, as they must uphold the Constitution if the Constitution is to mean anything at all.

If the courts determine that any damn thing born in a catbox is, therefore, a cat, so be it. I cannot imagine they would rule so.

[mlo]

He is a natural born citizen because being born in the United States makes him so.