Trump Attacked for Demanding Obama Birth Docs

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 25 Mar 2011 05:01 PM | Dan Weil

[Red Steel]

Donald Trump’s calls this week for President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate prompted negative reactions from pundits who would like to turn the tables on Trump and say, “You’re fired.”

However, Trump’s comments, made most recently in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, also garnered support from those who wonder why Obama has not supplied documentation of where he was born.

Trump rekindled the longtime controversy Wednesday on ABC’s “The View” when he said Obama was “probably” born in the United States, but he wants the president to prove it with a birth certificate.

As for the critics, Brian Lowry of Variety got personal. “More than anything, Trump looks like a buffoon — an egomaniac hopelessly addicted to the spotlight, floating the prospect of a presidential run to a gullible media to boost interest in himself and ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’" Lowry wrote on the magazine’s website.

“Moreover, he seems in complete denial about the fact that his NBC show crested some time ago. Seriously, 8 million viewers or so is ‘through the roof?’ Only if the ceiling is about three inches above your head.”

David Weigel of Slate magazine took up Trump’s challenge to show him a photo of Obama as a child. “I've seen 14-year-old,” Trump said. “I've seen 13-year-old. I haven't seen early pictures." Weigel’s column includes a photo of Obama as a child that appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 2008.

-snip-

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.

But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.

[EDINVA]

When you are talking about the Constitution or Constitutional Amendments, intent in the view of most Justices, i.e., strict constructionists, is very important. In this case, the quotation is part of the discussion of a Constitutional Amendment by its author. His intent is clear.

[TigersEye]

You're ignoring the fact that you didn't show any proof that the jpeg Gibbs posted on the internet has ever been examined and deemed valid by any "experts" which is what you claimed.

Deflection is a sign that you know you lost the argument.

Here's a SCOTUS case that gives you the law you say does not exist.

Chief Justice Waite:

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [Footnote 3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several states that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [Footnote 4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. [Footnote 5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]”

and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization...

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...

The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”...

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#T4

[Red Steel]

Here's the deal WinOne4Obama, you don't recognize that your position is delusional by being idiotically incorrect.

we can try this again after your latest ideas have been blown out of the water?

No, we can try this again when you are not drowning in total nonsense.

[TigersEye]

My story has never changed. Now you’re lying.

[Red Steel]

When this book hits the streets, WinOne4Obama and the rest of the After-Birthers are going to coronary.

- - - - -

"ObamaRelease YourRecords said...[Reply]

From what Corsi's stated on the Boyles show the "natural born Citizen" issue is covered extensively in his book.

March 27, 2011 4:57 PM"

- - - - -

The stock in popcorn should be rising. :-)

[TigersEye]

The book ought to sell very well now that Trump has raised the issue to an open debate on the LameStreamMedia. ;-)

[Texas Fossil]

You are being inconsistent.

First you suggest that Trump is not a NBC, because him mother was born abroad. (but you did not state that she was naturalized 10 years before he was born).

But you suggest it is OK if Obozo who does not qualify because his father was never a U.S. Citizen.

Your own argument defeats your logic.

[Plutarch]

IOW, I post a link to those who have verified the COLB...

The COLB is not dubious. It has been verified by reputable sources...

I think I can help you here 'Gip.

This is the seal of the Royal Society, the oldest continuously operating scientific society. Note the motto.

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

This motto derives from Horace's Epistles, the quote: Nullius addictus judicare in verba magestri which means "Not compelled to swear to any master's words."

This makes sense, does it not? Objective findings not say so.

You ask us to believe reputable sources, and the unnamed those who, who Obama personally chose.

Factcheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate [sic]. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

So the Factcheck staffers are your reputable sources? And you think we should take their word for it, don't you? And even if that COLB is genuine Hawaii DOH issue, we are still taking their word for it, because the anonymous bureaucrat who generated it may have had inducement, or it may have been DOH policy to issue a COLB to those foreign born.

Neither the Royal Society founders nor Freepers accept authority on someone's word. We demand the original source document (which res ipsa loquitur) so they nullius in verba.

So, please tell us how you are going to prove Obama's qualification for office without relying on any person's authority.

[patlin]

When you are talking about the Constitution or Constitutional Amendments, intent in the view of most Justices, i.e., strict constructionists, is very important. In this case, the quotation is part of the discussion of a Constitutional Amendment by its author. His intent is clear

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation (1833)

§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.

IOW, consult the Congressional committee & debate archives for speeches made by the writers/authors of the Constitution & its Amendments

[bushpilot1]

http://plan-international.org/

[Red Steel]

The book ought to sell very well now that Trump has raised the issue to an open debate on the LameStreamMedia. ;-)

It will be the number one seller on the best seller's list, if it is not already because of the pre-release sales.

[GGMac]

Yes - and that directive was likely given Hillary by Soros when he pulled his support from her and gave it to Barry.

Now, however, Soros isn’t all that thrilled with his wonder boy, is he? And Hillary is chomping at the bit - and answering those 3 AM calls instead of Barry.

[TigersEye]

Okubo Refuses To Authenticate COLB

PolitiFact.com actually has Okubo on the record denying that the electronic COLB image provided by the Obama campaign can be authenticated by her or by anyone at DHOH!  But that was only in a follow-up to their initial story where Okubo said the COLB was a valid Hawaiian birth certificate.

 

PolitiFact.com describes the controversy that erupted from their initial story:

      

"When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it.  Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real."

      

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

    

"Then the firestorm started."

       

After the "firestorm," Politifact apparently conducted a follow-up interview with Okubo which shows that what Okubo meant was that the Obama COLB only appeared to be be a valid Hawaiian BC, but she could not and did not "verify" that it was a valid Hawaiian COLB BC.

       

Politifact: "Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

 

"And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification?  'When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.'"

 

"Still, she acknowledges: 'I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.'"

 

Okubo had to back off her original claim.  And a good thing ... she originally said Obama’s alleged COLB was real because it looked like her own.  In other words, she used no formal technique to verify its accuracy.  She relied on no official record to verify its accuracy.  She just thought it looked like hers.  At best, she follows up with a second-hand anecdote, "... our registrar ... thought he could see pieces of the embossed image ..."

[patlin]

It will be the number one seller on the best seller's list, if it is not already because of the pre-release sales

I have my autographed copy on order

[TheCipher]

So the Factcheck staffers are your reputable sources? And you think we should take their word for it, don't you?

Background of these experts

Joe Miller - who has a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy

Jess Henig - who has an M.A. in English Literature.

They have NO QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL to examine a document and determine its authenticity, let alone be called experts.

[jamese777]

Hey OBot, I’ve told you many times about your illogical and disingenuous arguments. Tsk Tsk....

---

Hey birtherbot, and I should care what you tell anyone, why?

[Red Steel]

Hey birtherbot, and I should care what you tell anyone, why?

One day twit you will be gone.

[jamese777]

That’s nothing but your opinion. I think you’re wrong.

---

Has there been a ruling by a court or by Congress that I missed which says that the current President of the United States is not a natural born citizen?

If so, what court or what act of Congress made that ruling.

[jamese777]

One day twit you will be gone.

---

That’s true. But not today.

[Tex-Con-Man]

One day twit you will be gone.

Perhaps you should abandon your brilliant name-calling strategy and try a new tactic...