Posted on 05/06/2011 7:06:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The good news: It’s a heavy blow to the Trump boomlet. The bad news: … none that I can think of, really.
Actually, the bad news is that I lose a vein of easy content to blog. Help me, viral videos, you’re my only hope.
More crosstabs from WaPo. The “Honolulu/Hawaii” column is the big one, obviously:
This poll was conducted before Obama’s announcement of the Bin Laden killing, in case you’re inclined to attribute the huge bounce to goodwill rather than evidence. Needless to say, the key lines are the ones for Republicans and Conservative Republicans; in both groups, the number of Birthers was cut by more than half after the birth certificate revelation. (In fact, it was likely deeper than that. Birtherism had been spiking in the last few weeks since Trump mainstreamed the issue, so it was probably higher than the April 2010 numbers shown here.) I argued a few weeks ago that, contrary to big media’s received wisdom, Birthers aren’t a homogeneous group but rather a mix of hardcore and softcore believers, the latter of which were simply misinformed because they weren’t following the issue closely. These numbers bear that out. Which, for Chris Matthews, means … what? Republicans are racist, but maybe not quite as racist as he thought? What happens to the narrative?
Some people were hassling me in Headlines over this poll because I suggested yesterday in the post about the Bin Laden photos that evidence doesn’t convince skeptics anymore. Fair enough; at the very least, I should have qualified that by specifying that I meant skeptics with an agenda. But give the Birther issue time. I’ll be mighty keen to see if the numbers still look like this in six months — which, theoretically, they should — or if they start to creep back up as discontent with Obama’s policies rises and/or hardcore Birthers regroup and start challenging the long-form birth certificate. Trump had better hope so. Somehow, I don’t see the “trade war with China” platform carrying him to the nomination.
When I matched the album cover to "Cuban Fire" by Stan Kenton, the website with the Album information said "Released Jan. 1, 1960. (Which I later found to be untrue.)
1960 is a very good guess and is supported by other information which I haven't shown yet.
This date is critical to making sense of this information.
Why would you say that?
:)
It’s not Obama I’m watching for..but our troops deserve this honor....and for them I will watch...it’s their moment and the place where it can be rightfully celebrates...they accomplished their mission ....I’m with them on that.
In 1956 Stanley Ann would have been 13 years old.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/10/infidel-babe-of-week-obama-yomamma.html
The Album cover on the side table is;
Stan Kenton 1956?
Afro-cuban music
Cuban Fire!
Quote from subsequent link:
‘One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.’
not so fast... they could always run a billboard asking “We’re Still Waiting!”
I see you're getting ahead of me. If the Date of that picture is 1959 or earlier, then there is nothing further to discuss. If the date of that photograph is indeed 1960, it is the key to explaining a great deal.
We're not talking about "Sophistry." We're not talking about "false information." As someone who was adopted, you certainly should know that there is a distinct and very real difference between a biological parent versus a legal parent, adoptive parent, and/or a legal guardian. Each has a distinct and real world meaning and differing set of rights and responsibilities in any society, even setting aside the legal fine points and legal doctrines.
Cultures long ago decided the determination of the biological father may be unknowable in various circumstances. Accordingly, these societies decided to establish customs and laws to cope with the reality that they may not be able to make a reliable determination of who the biological father may be or the biological father's identity is irrelevant to the question of whom the child owes allegiance in the family in any event. The real world response was to disregard the identity of the biological father for certain purposes and make the determinaton of rights and duties of the child the responsibility of the legal father, who usually also happened to be the biological father. These realities are reflected in the laws regarding parental rights and citizenship laws and customs. See the Hawaiian statutes:
§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:
(1) The alleged father is:
(A) The husband of the mother; or
(B) The acknowledged father of the child; or
(2) The father and child relationship has been established under chapter 584. Data pertaining to the alleged father acknowledging paternity of the child is admissible as evidence of paternity in any family court proceeding, including proceedings under chapter 584. [L 1949, c 327, §16; RL 1955, §57-15; HRS §338-12; am L 1975, c 66, §2(2); am L 1994, c 23, §1]
§338-21 Children born to parents not married to each other.
(a) All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another,
(1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgments of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or
(3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child. The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated. The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth. As used in this section "name" includes the first name, middle name, or last name.
(b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.
(c) If the child's natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child's name, the child's name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23.
[L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 6, §2; HRS §338-21; am L 1975, c 66, §2(4); am L 1980, c 153, §5; am L 1983, c 65, §2; am L 1986, c 287, §1; am L 1987, c 100, §2; am L 1988, c 141, §27; am L 1993, c 131, §3]
Regardless of whether or not anyone wants to believe the released birth certicates or certifications are reporting accurate information, the divorce records and other evidence are rather overwhelming in establishing that the father for legal purposes and the divorce proceeding as barack Hussein Obama I.
The statutes are rather unequivocal and final about insisting upon a court decision and a court order being required to alter this legal parental relationship. Everyone is free to speculate about the biological parentage. The legal parentage, however, is rather indisputable and well documented.
I agree!!
I don’t have a TV so never watch anything... just read.
Aren’t you lucky there are courageous men and women to go there on your behalf? Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.
All of that to explain why the legal system accepts false information on a “birth” document?
As I mentioned, I prefer my reality to be REAL. (Objective reality.)
“I see you’re getting ahead of me. If the Date of that picture is 1959 or earlier, then there is nothing further to discuss. If the date of that photograph is indeed 1960, it is the key to explaining a great deal.”
Looks like there is another album in that first photo. Nat King Cole?
Don Quixote had courage - but he was also a delusional fool who did nobody any good.
The birthers have led a grand parade (without any danger other than to their reputation and the electoral prospects of the GOP) that led nowhere - and now want congratulations on their “courage”?
Laughably inept fools leading the credulous to the brink of electoral doom without any risk to themselves isn't what I call courage - and it “protected” exactly no one.
I was trying to identify it, but a back cover is a lot harder to figure out than a front cover. I don't find much with a google search for back covers.
Also, if you look at the picture called "nudeholidayobama23706720081022130549.jpg" you will notice another album on the end table. It might be the back side of "Cuban Fire" or it might be another album. I can see a a person and a palm tree on it.
At this point, I might as well post another picture. 
Thank you for your prior service.
Nat King Cole - Love Is The Thing - 1957
See the Album cover here:
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Thing-Nat-King-Cole/dp/B000005JIG
I gave little - and received much - such that all in all I was very glad to be of service to our nation and our Constitution - though I would have been even if called upon to give my last full measure.
I’m not big on fan dances...
I’ll check back later to see if you’ve posted an organized, coherent hypothesis.
See the Album cover here:
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Thing-Nat-King-Cole/dp/B000005JIG
Dude! Thanks! I assumed it was a back cover!
Then the possibility of looking foolish in the eyes of those who don’t want the truth to come out shouldn’t be much of a deterrent.
No puh102, there are two classes of citizens, natural and naturalized. As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, (paraphrasing) a provision of the Constitution cannot not affect another provision incidentally. The 14th Amendment cannot alter Article II Section 1. Article II Section 1 told us that the President must be naturally born a citizen. The 14th Amendment made someone born on our soil a “citizen,” or, in the unfortunately chosen term, “native-born citizen of the US.” They are not the same. Words mean things.
The interpretation you allude to would make anchor babies eligible to the Presidency. They would make the child of Osama bin Laden born to a US Citizen, raised and educated in Peshawar until college, educated at Harvard (accompanied by a $20 million donation and a lavish Department of Islamic Studies) eligible to be President.
For our framers the issue was the children of Royalists, whose parents could have plotted from birth to keep their bond to the Crown secret. Jus sanguinis also affected right to inheritance of property in England, the subject of many Supreme Court cases, cases in which many of our framers were involved after the Declaration and before The Ratification.
There are dozens of citations of our common-law definition of natural born citizenship, through at least 1939 in Perkins v. Elg. And there is Senate Res 511 showing that every US senator understood natural born Citizenship in April of 2008. So now they've all forgotten?
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Minor v. Happersett (1784):
“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.”
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.