Born Again: Why the "birther" myth refuses to die.

Slate ^ | April 21, 2010 | Christopher Beam

[Plutarch]

Born Again
Why the "birther" myth refuses to die.

By Christopher Beam
Posted Wednesday, April 21, 2010, at 7:08 PM ET

President Barack ObamaThe "birther" myth is the political equivalent of a horror-movie villain: Not only does it refuse to die, but every time someone tries to kill it, it only comes back stronger.

The latest incarnation: a bill approved 31-22 by the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday that would require 2012 presidential candidates to offer proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has little chance of becoming law. For that to happen, the state Senate would have to pass it and the governor would have to sign it. But it's still the closest birtherism has come to being codified.

Democrats have dutifully condemned the bill. One Phoenix legislator said it's turning Arizona into "the laughing stock of the nation." White House spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the measure and others like it on CNN as "fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories." Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wrote, "The fact that fringe lunacy is being taken seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican thought that's gone stark raving mad." Even some Republicans are rushing to distance themselves from the bill, particularly senatorial candidate J. D. Hayworth, whom John McCain has tried to tie to the fringiest elements of the Tea Party movement....

[excerpt]

[butterdezillion]

The COLB he released is a forgery. The DOH has indirectly confirmed that in 2 different ways now. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

If Obama had to produce a legitimate COLB he would be caught because his is amended. As long as the person doing the certifying in AZ knew that an amended BC isn’t prima facie evidence and thus can’t be used for the required “proof”, Obama could not get away with showing even the genuine Hawaii COLB right now.

He for SURE wouldn’t get away with posting a print-out of a computer graphic with a seal that doesn’t bend when the page it’s on is folded.

[butterdezillion]

What he released was a forgery. The HDOH has indirectly confirmed that fact in 2 different ways. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

His real COLB probably looks exactly like what he posted though, with 2 changes: There is a note saying that an item from the medical portion of the BC was amended in 2006. And there is a certificate number that starts with 151-2006-xxxxxx.

And that is why he posted a forgery instead of the genuine COLB. Because that amendment shows that his birth certificate was not complete until 2006 and couldn’t be completed in 1961 because neither Obama nor his mother were in Hawaii within the first 30 days after the birth to be seen by a Hawaii doctor who could complete the BC for them.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, why couldn’t he be seen by a Hawaii doctor in the first 30 days after the birth? My sister has had 5 of her 7 children at home and has had a doctor sign the birth certificate upon examining the baby shortly after the birth. Why didn’t Ann do that if she was in Hawaii?

[BP2]

> That's amazing that proving constitutional citizenship to be President is mocked as “birtherism”.

Yep, it's part of their attack plan to try to dissuade the Public from asking questions, and to keep us from banding together against them.

It's similar to the tactics the Left attempts to use against the Tea Party, particularly rules #5, #10, #11 & #13.

Knowledge is power; so is FAITH.
Only with both can we defeat this threat trying to undo our very Constitution.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

*5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

*10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

*11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

*13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

[butterdezillion]

Whatever Obama pulls out has to match a very narrow set of clues that the HDOH has already given regarding what’s on the BC and what supporting documents he has, as well as when the documents came into existence.

It has to be amended with a major administrative amendment, which disqualifies it from being prima facie evidence - which is why he won’t present what he’s got. It’s also why he spends mega-bucks and mega political capital (such as rescinding military orders) in order to evade the issue rather than showing a fake in a legal proceeding. He knows that we have the documentation to prove any “clean” BC he presents as a fake.

He’s backed into a corner. All he can do is lash out at us and try to get us to back off.

[TigersEye]

The government of Hawaii confirmed that Obama’s long form original matched the information on the birth certificate.

Not true.

Conspicuously, Hawaiian officials refuse to confirm that the information on the "original" certificate conforms to what has appeared on the "Certification of Live Birth" produced in 2007 that has so far been passed off as original by the Obama "Fight the Smears" site (here) and the Annenberg-backed site FactCheck.org (here). The latter dedicated a photoshoot to examining in pornographic detail a computer-generated facsimile that may bear no relation to the original document that the State of Hawaii now admits holding.

Then, Polarik slipped in the the following question. He asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."

He said that, according to Polarik.townhall, he called Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), and asked various technical questions relating to the COLB document, like borders, pixels, seals, etc., Polarik “asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied: “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”

[Polybius]

You put way too much trust in the label “Republican”. The president can’t just order an FBI investigation into somebody because he’s running for president.

It's called a "background check".

I had to have one before I was deemed eligible to be commissioned as a mere Ensign in the U.S. Navy.

[TigersEye]

Has the SCOTUS ever provided a precise “natural born citizen” definition that specifically requires both parents to be citizens? I don’t know of one.

Natural Born Citizen

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett

Minor v. Happersett

Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

"'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 [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."

Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.

[butterdezillion]

I conversed with a guy once who had a maximum security clearance because he worked with nukes. He said a Senator came into the facility and asked some dumb question about, “What’s behind that door?” and they had to show him even though he has never had ANY kind of security clearance.

When I called my secretary of state he said that the election process is the security clearance. How do you like that? We’re supposed to do a security/background check on the POTUS and we can’t even see ANY documentation on him.

My SOS also said that the system works and can be trusted because the media would never let somebody get away with a whopper like that. I gagged when he said that. Unbelievable.

There’s a story that will come out (hopefully soon) about the media’s role in deceiving the public and people should be incensed when they hear it.

We already know that the folks at Factcheck helped Obama put his forged COLB together. They put the “seal” on it after photographing a non-certified COLB. That seal remains perfectly round even when the fold that dissects it bends forward. Not only did the Factcheck people know it was a forgery - they helped create the forgery.

That’s just a start on how the media has screwed us. This story really isn’t about Obama at all. It’s about the crooks who have been able to screw this country because they have positions where we’re SUPPOSED to be able to trust them.

The fox guarding the henhouse. And until we realize that’s the case, it won’t matter how many locks or laws we pass. Unless and until we are able to keep our government bureaucrats, media, and law enforcement honest they will eat us up one by one, just as surely as the fox who controls who goes in and out of the henhouse.

[Polybius]

I conversed with a guy once who had a maximum security clearance because he worked with nukes. He said a Senator came into the facility and asked some dumb question about, “What’s behind that door?” and they had to show him even though he has never had ANY kind of security clearance.

That's Bravo Sierra or just plain stupid.

If someone, anyone, asks to see “What’s behind that door?” and they do not have the proper security clearance, the correct answer is, "I'm sorry, Sir, but, with all due respect, without the proper security clearance, you are not authorized to have that information."

The End.

If he or his command did otherwise, they violated U.S. law and could have been court-martialed.

[anchorclankor]

And the #1 reason that Barak Obama will not produce his birth certificate. (Drum Roll) He doesn’t have one!

[edge919]

It’s not intuitive, but that is the way it is. Elected federal officials don’t have background checks or security clearances. In essence, they control the agencies that conduct these investigations, so you would have no assurance of integrity anyway.

[butterdezillion]

His claim was that just by virtue of being a US Senator that person was considered as though they had a security clearance even though they had never had a background check.

What’s going to happen. Obama becomes a Senator and then they find out that he’s been hanging out with domestic terrorists who are aligned with worldwide communists... so they overturn the election? They disinvite him from any private Senate sessions/hearings where security issues are discussed? They put him on latrine duty?

If the voters of this country vote in a guy who would be deemed by even the most rudimentary background check to be an enemy of the nation, who does the background check and what ever would become of it?

Tell me how that would work. When did Obama receive a security clearance and by whom? What would they have done if they had had a problem with him hanging out with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, etc? And what good would a security check be if they DIDN’T have a problem with the guy holding the nuclear football being thick with anti-American communist terrorists?

[El Gato]

Essentially, they're going to leave it to a court to decide what's sufficient and what isn't. That won't end well.

That's where we stand now, but plenty of people would have "standing" to get the issue to those courts.

Of course it could all be settled by the military courts, and the Supreme Court, well before 2012. At least the "meaning" issue.

[bushpilot1]

John Paul Jones

[little jeremiah]

BTTT for a GREAT comment.

[edge919]

There’s a story that will come out (hopefully soon) about the media’s role in deceiving the public and people should be incensed when they hear it.

Are we talking about Dan Nakaso's story that declared Obama's alleged COLB to be real on the basis of Fukino's public statement(s)?? I think the AP picked up that piece of garbage masquerading as journalism.

[butterdezillion]

No, there’s something bigger coming. The people involved are figuring out they’re in trouble so they’re getting slippery, but it’s just a matter of time.

[Polybius]

His claim was that just by virtue of being a US Senator that person was considered as though they had a security clearance even though they had never had a background check.

Legally, a "claim" and a dollar won't buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's if you include tax.

Legally, when you are in the military, it is your duty to obey the law even if it means to tell a Senator that is full of himself that, "This isn't Burger King and you can't have it your way."

What’s going to happen. Obama becomes a Senator and then they find out that he’s been hanging out with domestic terrorists who are aligned with worldwide communists... so they overturn the election?

Legally, as long as a candidate is a natural born citizen, being a Communist is totally irrelevant to a Presidential election. If the American voters are stupid enough to elect a Communist President, that is their constitutional right.

Tell me how that would work. When did Obama receive a security clearance and by whom?

When Geerge W. Bush was President of the United States, I am quite certain that Obama's constitutional qualifications for being elected President were investigated to the satisfaction of the law.

It is illegal to run for President if you are not a natural born citizen.

It is NOT illegal, and the facts are protected by privacy laws, to hide the fact that you were born out of wedlock and that your given name at birth was Steven Dunham.

[El Gato]

. Has the SCOTUS ever provided a precise “natural born citizen” definition that specifically requires both parents to be citizens? I don’t know of one.

Yes they have, but only in dicta. For it not to be dicta, Natural Born citizenship would need to be a factor in the case. That can only happen with respect to eligibility for the office of President. For all other offices and purposes, citizenship is what is required, plus in some cases residency in the US, such as for US representative and Senator. But only eligibility for the Office of President (and VP) require one to be a Natural Born citizen.

For example, MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents

Note, the second "class" is "citizens, while the first class, all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, are "natives, or natural-born citizens".

BTW, this tracks with Vattel's "Law of Nations" definition (using the French "naturels" , and with the early practice of equating the terms "natives" and "natural born" in contrast to the modern usage of "native-born", meaning born in the country. A change of usage that The One takes advantage of, by referring to himself, or having his minions describe him, as "native born", which he might be.

[edge919]

When Geerge W. Bush was President of the United States, I am quite certain that Obama's constitutional qualifications for being elected President were investigated to the satisfaction of the law.

With all due respect, I think you're making an extremely naive assumption. Thanks to the 2006 election, Bush lost whatever political capital he had. He was a lame duck with no real Congressional support after the Democrats took back the majority. There's no way he was investigating anyone's qualifications. Let's not forget how tight the HI DOH has been with Obama's vital records. There's nothing to indicate the president could have gotten access. Second, Obama didn't release his alleged COLB until AFTER Hillary conceded, so no one knew he was going to commit fraud or had anything to hide. IOW, there was no motivation to go after him and even if they did, the Democrats would have squashed it. Politicians aren't that brave to go after each other unless they have some power behind them.