[Scanian]

Jack, I appreciate all your work on the eligibility issue and Obama's background but PLEASE stop using that rotten term "birther."

Call yourself a doubter, a documenter, or whatever but please don't fall into the trap of letting leftists define us!

[bigoil]

3 U.S.C. 19 [Presidential Succession Act of 1947]:

‘(a)(1)If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice-President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as a Representative in Congress, act as President.’

John Boehner would become the Acting President NOT the President. His resignation from Congress would suffice to assume that ‘office’; No Presidential Oath is given.

This is IMPORTANT...Don’t screw it up.

[DeaconRed]

I am NOT a birther.
I do however expect the President of US to have the necessary requirements to hold the position.
Excuse me for being so naive, but I thought you had to show proof before your name was ever placed on the ballot.
Knowing the ruthless KLINTONS, I figured that if there was anything to this BC they would have brought it out during the primary. HITLERY really wanted the job and she thought it was hers. Maybe Bill didn't want her to have it, and maybe that is why he didn't use the BC.
No matter what now it is up to ZERO to produce the BC, or resign.

[NTHockey]

>>Call yourself a doubter, a documenter, or whatever but please don’t fall into the trap of letting leftists define us!<<

We, on the right, do this all the time. LIBs define us with some derogatory term and it sticks until we are using it ourselves. Birthers, pro-choice, Muslim, Islam, etc. are all wrong.

Use the correct form - doubters, murderers, Mohammedan, Mohammedism, etc. RATs are the party of death - babies (abortion), seniors (DeathCare), freedom (Socialism), America (open borders), etc.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I understand your disdain for the term “Birther”...as it was foisted upon those who have doubts about Obama’s “Inaccurate Conception”, a term used by the Obama Supporters (MSNBC and FoxNews).

I use the term Birther as it is easier to write...I guess I am not as offended with the term.

I am more offended by the so-called “conservatives” who have supported and aided Obama by attacking Birthers and those who ask for the truth.....I am referring to people like Ann Coulter, Andrew Brokeback, Glenn Beck, and a few others.

Those who attack the people asking the questions about Obama’s Inaccurate Conception are just helping Obama for 2012. Just think, without the attacks....we may never have had ObamaCare passed....a Democrat minority in both House and Senate....State governments gone even more conservative....as Obama would have been politically crippled by now.

Those phony conservatives who attack those asking about Obama’s background have been the biggest boost to the Democrat party.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

bfl

[reefdiver]

I do not believe zer0 will ever resign, But the damage He has created to His own party and followers over this (down 63) is cause for some celebration. In 21 mo’s it's a do over, The control of the Senate will swing, and zer0 could be out. Nancy ain't coming back as Speaker. Ever!

Despite the leftest best attempts to trivialize the issue and the people behind it, it only grows. This is a CANCER on the Democrat party. Cancer kills.

[trustandobey]

Call me a constitutionalist and yes I demand to see his long term birth certificate along with everything else he has suppressed. He will not be President in my eyes until he has produced them.

[Red Badger]

“Birther” is okay with me.
What better term to throw in their faces when the truth finally comes out?
They love “abortion” which is the opposite of “Birth”.
The word “birth” is exquisite in it’s meaning: “beginning of life outside the womb”.
I proudly and emphatically love the term “birther”.............

[iontheball]

I posted this comment over on Jack's article on the AT this morning and it bears repeating here:

So many focus on the MSM for not doing its job. While they certainly are one of the main culprits, the real question is why is our Government complicit in this outrageous cover-up? The only way to logically answer that question is that there is a soft coup underway. The organizers know that a frontal approach would never work with an armed populace. The two questions that remain for the American people is why and who is behind it?

[Fractal Trader]

ping

[Hotlanta Mike]

“Even if Obama does eventually produce a birth certificate that squares with his origins story, critics can credibly ask why did he not produce it years earlier.

That is, if he can produce a birth certificate that squares with his origins story.”

[urtax$@work]

Most birthers simply want to know where and when their president was born, a not unreasonable aspiration. ....

where is only part of the issue, forcing the issue of his non-citizen parent is the main thrust. maybe a BC showing a non cit parent would help highlight it.

**** Proud Birther since 2008 ***

[Danae]

To all those objecting to the term birther, hold your head high. You were right. Forget the mockery, forget the birth certificate. There are far bigger issues it hides, and it is far past time to deal with them. Listen to this very carefully. The issue is NOT where the man was born or not born. The REAL issue is who his father is. Obama Sr. is a British Subject. The children of such a man are born under the British Nationality Act, in Obama's case, the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama Jr. admits this openly on FactCheck.com. Let's back up a bit, the founders relied on several reference works in writing the Constitution. In part America was called “The Great Experiment”; because they deliberately decided to take the best every government and society in history had come up with, and incorporate it into one singular deliberate government. Of these tomes, one of the most important, and perhaps the most heavily relied upon was “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel. This tome was not singularly a historical treatise. It was in fact a description of International Law as well as an in-depth description of the most successful principles of governments the world over, and through history. Also a significant development the founders decided to create a Republic, as opposed to a monarchy. This meant we would have citizens instead of subjects. In the process of defining what a citizen was, and in the process of determining the qualifications for POTUS, the founders relied upon specific well known definitions for these terms. There were citizens, naturalized citizens, and Natural Born Citizens. The term Natural Born Citizen appears once in the Constitution, In the qualification for POTUS. This term, in the framework provided by the founders, and the definitions they used to create them means: A person born to two parents who were citizens at the instant of Birth, and was born on the soil of the Nation. There are NO exceptions, there are no other definitions despite the protestations of many who erroneously believe that Natural Born means born in the country. No, that is a citizen; it is not a natural born citizen. A Natural Born Citizen has singular and sole loyalty to only One Nation, that of his (her) parents, and the place of his (her) birth. No other Nation can even begin to make a claim upon such a person, and that was the founders best means of determining that the Commander in Chief of the Armies would be completely, and singularly loyal ONLY to the United States. Obama was born to a British Father under the British Nationality Act of 1948. BY DEFINITION, Obama was never, could never have been, nor will he ever be a Natural Born Citizen - something determined ONLY at the instant of birth, and cannot be retroactively attained. From the instant the cretin was conceived, he could never have been a Natural Born Citizen. He has hidden this in four ways. 1) He is counting on the ignorance of the American Public with regard to the definition of the term Natural Born Citizen, and a lack of SCOTUS decisions which specifically define the term. 2) He has openly published the conditions of his birth “Born under the British Nationality Act of 1948” to audaciously hide the truth in the glaring open. Talk about the audacity of hope... damn... He is relying on an assumption made by the general public, that if something was out in the open, willingly published, then it must be ok, or he would have hidden it... right? Ummm hum. No, sometimes the best place to hide something is right out in the open. 3) He has successfully created a smoke screen with all the documents he is hiding. His Long Form Birth Certificate, his college paperwork, State senate records, Senate records, and on and on and on. 4) Obama and his minions/employees/bloggers have successfully engaged in a deliberate campaign of Mockery and derision. The term 'birther' is the means they used, and they successfully managed to paint anyone asking what the heck was going on as a fool, a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist along the lines of Don Quixote. The combination of these 4 tactics has thus far protected the cretin from discovery. The proof of his guilt is in the open, it is KNOWN and it is public. Those of us who have suffered the mockery and labels... wear it with pride. Not only have you earned that pride... but YOU WERE RIGHT. These are the issues, and we all know them now. Now, knowing all this... are we going to ALLOW a Usurper to continue to rule here? The answer is important because as long as he is present in the seat of power, the constitution has no meaning. The constitution cannot protect us when the man who took the oath to protect and uphold the constitution BROKE the constitution by taking that very same oath! Are we going to continue to suffer this usurpation? At what point is enough, enough? At what point do we take the example of Egypt and demand JUSTICE?

[Kenny Bunk]

What Jack is pointing out is that we do not know the truth. We know that which we have been told cannot be true.

That means, IOW, we have nothing to go on.

[FreeAtlanta]

I have take to calling anyone who doesn’t want Obama to release his Birth Certificate, “birthers”. They obviously suspect that Obama isn’t eligible.

That has really frustrated the few people I know who still cover for the Chicago/Hawaii/Kenyan/Indonesian dirt bag.

[bluecat6]

Finally a very well written article that articulates the different between an

1. Conspiracy of execution

and

2. Conspiracy of concealment

These two branches of conspiracies are rarely separated as done in this article.

And the article correct points out. #1 is rare, #2 is much more common.

I am disappointed that the article does not reference the greatest American conspiracy of all - The Watergate break-in cover-up.

And they forget that even men would likely be considered ‘good’ men and not involved with conspiracy chose to disregard direct, credible information when it was brought to them. Few remember Richard Kleindienst. After 5 days on the job and taking over from his former boss (who was part of the conspiracy) he was approached by Gordin Liddy and DIRECTLY TOLD - THE BURGLARS WERE FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO REELECT THE PRESIDENT (i.e. CREEP). Liddy wanted him to release the burglars and sweep the whole thing under the rug. Mr. Kleindienst did not do that and for that he seems to be one of the ‘good guys’ in the Watergate era. But he also DID NOT REPORT THAT LIDDY TOLD HIM DIRECTLY THAT THE BURGLARS WERE TIED TO THE WHITE HOUSE. Had he done that - we like would never had heard of Woodward or Bernstein and Nixon would have been forced from office a year or more earlier.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwatergate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kleindienst

So ask this - How many Kleindiensts are there in the Obama administration? Or in Hawaii?

Look at the Okubo and Fukino statements. “The records show...” or “The records indicate....”. Active conspirators or Kleindienst-like actors. Look at the lack of standard eligibility language in Hawaii O-CON submitted by Brian Schatz. Is he an active conspirator or another Kleindienst-like player here who avoided making a sworn statement that he knew was not true?

In 1972 the AG of the United States of America was told directly of the White House involvement with Watergate by a credible source. And yet it still took 2 years for this shameful period to come out.

How many parallels exist between now and 1974?