Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
“Again, this man’s past is shadow and smoke and you buy it.”
No, I dont, that is a bogus strawman. I have not taken Obama’s word on anything, including where he was born, and looked at independent evidence for that. I shared the 7 evidence points that validate Obama was born in Honolulu. You have a sister saying he was born in Honolulu and you are imagining that somehow that undermines his being born in Honolulu. WTF?!?
You want to argue about the holes in the rest of his biography, fine. But the one thing that is not a hole is where he was born - it was Honolulu, and we have more proof for that than we do for anything else about him, and more proof than we have for most other things that are going on.
“Why? There have NEVER been these kinds of questions about a President. Never.”
Well, maybe they are bogus questions then. some of the questions are based on people bound and determined to not accept plain facts and try to seed doubts.
” We even knew who Clinton was. Obama is a mystery.”
No, that is BS. He has bios and you know his life story from start to finish.
” And that’s the point. No records released at all. None. Just Colbs to leftist sites.”
Then its ‘no records’. jeeez. I get the point about college records, but that doesnt impact where he was born.
Obama’s birth announcement is the only newspaper birth announcement for a US president that I’ve seen...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
“did McCain release his BC through FR?” It wouldnt have mattered; I dont know who he released it to. We know a heck of a lot more about Obama’s birth than any other Presidents birth, thanks to digging for information on the topic.
“Because ‘birthers’ is a leftist term meant to belittle. Constitutionalist would be more accurate.”
I knew someone would bring that up. Constitutionalist isn’t a very descriptive word. It isn’t a belief in free speech, the regulation of interstate commerce, or a guarantee of a republican form of government that’s bringing this particular set of people together. It’s the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be president, which in turn is dependent upon the conditions of his birth. Birthers should be happy their nickname is as accurate as it is.
The thing about nicknames is they’re pretty much all belittling. Even if the person named likes it, thinks it’s cute, it’s never dignified. Are you arguing against the use of nicknames pure and simple? I think that’s uncalled for.
“I want to see the long-form BC, and his school records, passport info, etc., because Obama doesn’t want me to see any of these things.”
So do I, but wanting this info doesnt mean Obama was born outside Hawaii. That’s been one of my points.
“And we actually want to see all his records.”
The movement was built around the birth certificate. Which is only natural, because none of the rest of the documents would prove him ineligible. Actually, if you could find a document that proverd he renounced his citizenship, that would too. But nevermind.
Remove the birth ceritificate demand, and the movement disappears. Those who care about the remaining documents join the rest of us who are generally concerned about Obama’s early life, and who have plenty of reasons to demand he be more open, but who lack any legal reason to do so. We also lack clear motivation on this front for paper documents, at least those that don’t go toward unveiling some scandal.
Seriously, a senior thesis? Who cares? If Obama advocated man-boy love and canabalism, it may grab a headline. But all he’d have to do is say, “I was young and inexperienced. I’ve grown.” I can hear the lefties now, “Canabalism? Big deal. Everybody lies on their papers.”
Oh, I forgot. There is one solid reason for scanning his college literature. And that is his reputation as a genius writer. If the papers are as a pedestrian as I figure they are, it could cast doubt as to whether he wrote “Dreams from My Father” at all. We’d want to know how he developed his craft, rising from just another Harvard drone to celebrated author without producing anything of high rank inbetween.
=======================================
You've been here over 8 years and apparently you have learned nothing if you are taking the side of the MSM, calling something a fact when in fact all in facts are not even in yet until Obama releases his records, let alone promoting a RINO on a conservative website.
“I wonder why the birther’s never put forth Seattle as a possible birthplace?”
Because then there wouldn’t be an issue, and therefore there wouldn’t be any Birthers, nor anybody else demanding he release his BC.
You would do well to follow the words that inspired your FR screen name. The entire birther controversy is not singly defined by the idea that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. A great many birthers stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. citizen, but is not a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.
The issue regarding Obama's eligibility cannot be solved by the production of a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii or a statement affirming his natural-born citizenship from an official in Hawaii who has no Constitutional authority to designate anyone as a natural-born citizen.
Start here. Then do the hard work of thinking through it.
It didn't take much to get a BC in Hawaii. You can't even accept that truth.
Of course not. And where's the fun in not insulting someone that you disagree with?
Birthers is not accurate. I want to see all his records and I don't care WHERE he was born. His father was Kenyan.
“Obama never “released” his COLB. He caused an image to be posted here and there.”
It’s more than an image, its an actual document that was shared and photographed by factcheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
The above is not just an ‘image’.
Of course, its not the only evidence for Obama’s birth in Honolulu, we have it corroborated by:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
“Because he has resisted letting me see them, I surmise that their release would be fatal to Obama’s political career.”
- he certainly wont get removed from office over this; that’s a pipe dream. Minor embarrassment might be sufficient reason to avoid sharing this info.
Thankfully.
“No. You are buying Obama’s story.”
That strawman again. What ‘story’ are you talking about?
The only thing I am buying about Obama is that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. If you dont buy that, where is your evidence for birth anywhere *else*?
“The only “proof” that you have comes from the left.”
Again with the ad hominem. Is the Honolulu Advertiser a left-wing plot? Get real!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
“You are incorrect”
No, he’s not. Everyone knows the Wong Kim Ark decision was about citizenship at birth, not specifically presidential eligibility. But since there is nothing in the law or common sense that says to be a natural born citizen means anything but to be a citizen by right of birth, it follows that Wong Kim Ark solidified a reading of the 14th amendment whereby children born on U.S. territory are natural born citizens.
The problem with looking to people like Vattel is that he says things like the following, which is completely at odds with U.S. law at least since the passage of the 14th amendment:
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Except we all know very well that children born in the U.S., and under it’s jurisdiction, are natives and are citizens. It is their country, too. It’s not just that to Vattel only the children of citizens are natural born citizens. It is that only the children of citizens are citizens. This is not our system.
“The entire birther controversy is not singly defined by the idea that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. A great many birthers stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii”
Really. Let’s here them pipe up then and agree with my points on this. I make this basic point and I’m attacked as an O-bot by birthers.
“The issue regarding Obama’s eligibility cannot be solved by the production of a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii”
- That’s the opposite of what many say.
Link to grandma and aunt stating he was born in Kenya, please?
Wrong again. McCain released his to the press immediately. Long form. It's been posted on FR.
“- There are no classes of citizenship in the US. Check your 14th amendment.”
To be fair, there are in fact two classes of citizenship: born and naturalized. The 14th amendment speaks to both. They are equivalent in all respects save one: naturalized can never be president.
“I don’t care WHERE he was born.”
Then why do you argue so vehemently against the clear and obvious evidence of Obama being born in Honolulu. If you dont care, why make a big deal of it?
Remember the thread is about Obama’s birthplace, not the other holes in Obama’s bio.
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.