Palin Mainstreaming The Birthers? I Don’t Think So

Loading

The left and the more liberal conservatives amongst us, such as Rick Moran, are saying that Sarah Palin’s statement on the Obama birth certificate is giving legitimacy to the birthers.

“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked (around 9 minutes into the video above).

“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.

“Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” Humphries persisted.

“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”

She followed up on Facebook:

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

And I, myself, have tried to keep the birther argument off of Flopping Aces because I believe it does the conservative cause no good. But the argument she is making is right on target. There ARE many people who want an answer to this question. Something Obama could do very quickly if he wished. She follows this up with:

Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son — ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.”

The left went crazy over the Trig conspiracy and Sarah answered the critics, producing the proof. Obama didn’t. So the electorate wants answers and they deserve it….that’s her argument. Ace argues that there is hypocrisy going on here by her critics:

Here is my problem with beating up on Palin for this: A lot of the people who will beat up on her are the same sort of people who say the Republican Party needs to be open to moderates, and toss moderates a rhetorical bone here and there, and stuff like that.

Which I agree with, actually.

But the deeper point they are making is that politics is not about Simon Pure purity on questions. They are advancing the idea that politics is about coalition-building, doing what is necessary to attract 51% to your flag, and that those they consider too hardcore about conservative principles are doing the party a disservice by elevating philosophical integrity and ideological coherence above the vagueries and punts often necessary to negotiate a rough consensus.

Which, again, I agree with.

So what did Palin do? Well, what she did here was toss a rhetorical bone to the 25-30% of the country which is very much interested in this birth certificate question, while not nearly embracing the theory itself. She offered, in other words, a sort of vague stab at consensus — let’s agree that these questions are fair game and punt on the more divisive question of whether the theory has any merit — which is what what people like David Frum are always urging when it comes to appeasing moderates.

Well, look: The exact same principle applies to both moderates and conservatives. If we’re supposed to overlook the frequent leftward deviations of, say, Lindsey Graham, as necessary (it is asserted) for winning an election and building a coalition, can it really be honestly contended that we must suddenly become Simon Pure on other issues?

Because that’s what I think is animating this. There is a desire by some that Sarah Palin firmly reject the birth certificate theory — and not just the theory, but deem all inquiries or suspicions as de facto illegitimate — and thus demonstrate her philosophical integrity and ideological coherence.

Hey, she’s a politician. She’s supposed to avoid making strong statements that alienate one wing of the party or the other. Guys like David Frum make their rent by beating up on other Republicans for not being open to a bit of ideological fudging and philosophical slack on some issues.

But now we’re going to demand that everyone in the party adhere strongly to one side of this issue?

You mean: There’s a litmus test for Republicans now? Really? Gee, every time I hear about litmus tests people like Frum freak out about an attempt to “purge” the party. But now we’re suddenly in favor of them?

Convenient, isn’t it, that some will resist litmus tests except when they stumble across a litmus test that’s personally important to themselves.

Ace ends with a sentiment a lot of us could agree with:

Am I morally outraged? Intellectually outraged? Well, let me see: the left has given soft-to-middling support for the theory that George W. Bush and his cabal of Ruthless Jews bombed the United States of America for either an oil pipeline in the Caspian or to give Israel the room to murder Palestinians. The media now routinely “vets” private citizens for voicing an opinion contrary to Obama’s. Sarah Palin was savaged by a bloodthirsty liberal media, which did not mind at all that one conspiracy theory — Trig Trutherism — persisted in many salons on the left.

In other words: No. No outrage here. Sorry, fellers, I’m all tapped out.

But that’s not going to stop those with Palin Derangement Syndrome from expressing their utter outrage that she even utters the word “birth certificate.” How dare she say if the electorate want him to produce a birth certificate then he should. What does she think he is? A politician answerable to the American people?

Puhlease…..he’s Obama. He answers to no one.

Hell, he won’t even produce his college and law school transcripts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sly girl, backhanded slap — LOL.

Let’s go one step further…..

He (that being TMCPPOTUS — or The Man Currently Playing the President of the Unites States) won’t even divulge the TOPIC or TITLE of his Columbia Senior Thesis, much less allow anyone to read the thing (assuming he wrote one, which was required).

So, we aren’t allowed to read his writing (he has very few so they are rare gems indeed) or to even know what he wrote ABOUT.

Shocking that this doesn’t matter to (some) people.

He gives Teflon a new name. Its name is Obama. Problem (for him) is, it’s only PAM, and it washes off. Not a moment too soon.

@ IndieDogg —

As soon as birthers can explain how Obama got a US passport back during the Reagan administration, and how his birth announcement made it into Hawaii newspapers, I will consider their argument. But until then, Occum’s Razor says he was born in Hawaii, where his father lived, his grandparents lived, his mother lived, and the newspaper said he was born. Any other questions about this borders on silliness and tin-foil hat stuff.

By the way — Columbia did not have a thesis requirement when Obama attended. So his thesis that you claim he is “hiding” is probably sitting on a shelf somewhere next to the knife that was used to stab JFK to death. In other words, it is a figment of a fertile imagination.

B-Rob

I was commenting on the last line of the piece, not the “Birther” arguments:

“Hell, he won’t even produce his college and law school transcripts.”

Thus, the lead… Let’s go one step further. It did not refer to Birthers. I personally don’t care where the man was born — he’s no better than he is in either case. But, I also don’t care to investigate Trig’s DNA. I believe Sarah Palin was making, essentially, a Goose and Gander argument (balance — what’s good for one is good for the other — Dem’s can’t have it both ways) but she can speak for herself.

Perhaps you’re right about Columbia, perhaps not. My friends who went there differ with you but that’s fine. And I didn’t bring up the thesis issue first. I have, however, inquired about it over several months in many settings and forums and yours is the first reply I’ve heard that there’s no such thing. But, whoever is right about that history is right. Certainly, if he wasn’t required to write one and didn’t write one, he couldn’t produce it. Agreed on that point.

As for JFK, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Don’t they have those on-line diplomas that you can by for a few bucks? Maybe that’s were he got his law degree too, and that is why he doesn’t want to provide any documentation. My guess is he is hiding more than a birth certificate, thesis, law degree; but much, much, more. He does act rather slimy.
Madalyn

Nobody remember Obama/Barry Soetoro at Columbia. and how come he has so many different SS# ? Who gave it to him? and how?
His Grandma, Sarah, who just went to Meccah for Hajj, remembers him being born in the hospital in Kenya!
Too many vacuums in this man’s life. He is a nobody that was put where he is by special interest groups.You cannot fool everybody all the time.

The Birth Cert is a red herring …

The real Constitutional issue is the following: Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen … So can’t be President … However lots of folks don’t understand that clause of U.S. constitution.

•Natural Born Citizen

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Now the part … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution… is a grandfather clause for themselves.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut…stitution.html

Now many think a natural born citizen mean being born in the U.S. This is not the case. When the founding father wrote the Constitution the interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen was well understood …

THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.txt

I want to emphasis parents is plural. It is a known fact that Obama father was a British Citizen
when he was born so thus he could be born next door to you or present a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii it would be irrelevant. Only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen not both so he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The President being Commander –In– Chief, the founding fathers wanted be the highest standard of Citizenship be applied to insure to the best of their abilities that the President would have full allegiance to the United States.
Now let’s take a look at the 14th amendment section 1

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again they use citizen not Natural Born citizen.

So Thus …

The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:

– “natural born citizen”, but only with regard to eligibility
to hold the office of President

– “citizen” to those born in the United States via the 14th
Amendment

– “citizen” to those naturalized in the United States via
the 14th amendment

IMHO you would need a Constitutional Amendment to change the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Yet I have some more for you … Take a look the following …

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Now maybe you understand why the MSM jumped all over Palin. They are scared to death.

The real issue of the birth certificate is that it is not illegitimate to ask someone to prove that they are eligible for the job of POTUS. There are qualifications explicitly stated in the Constitution. Obama supporters answer the question “does Obama meet those qualifications” with outrage — “How dare you ask that question!”. No — it is a legitimate question. I had to prove I was eligible for my job before I was hired. Why is it wrong to ask Obama to do the same?

To say it is illegitimate to ask sets a dangerous precedent. Formerly, it was considered legitimate to as someone to prove they were eligible to vote. Now, it is considered outrageous to ask someone to show a photo ID to prove they are an actual registered voter. Soon it will be considered illegitimate to ask someone to prove eligibility for the highest office in government. This is a dangerous path to take.

The only thing you got right was the quotes from the Constitution, and the last sentence.

The man-child was born here. Given birth by an American mother. Publicly listed by two different newspapers, the 1961 originals on display in Hawaii.

The Hospital, the doctor who signed the required papers, AND the governor…. have all put there careers on the line to verify the facts as they know them.

This whole Birther thing is a mis-direct from all the other work/history he (hasn’t) done. It’s kept alive to distract you, and to dilute/stratify their political competition.

Focus on the present. If he’s impeached. Biden is president. Oh goody, the stoopidist white boy on the planet!! I’ve ever had the misfortune of name-recognition, he’s it.

Guess who’s nex, you lazy Birtherist’s? NANCY FREAKIN PELOSI!!!

So for jeebus sake, direct your energy (of which you have an over-abundance of), TO DO SOMETHING BASED IN THE HERE AND NOW!!!!!

Palin said this for one and only reason: To hit back.

She did NOT say it to make Obama release his Birth-Certificate!

WAKE UP!!!!

Surely if we tried ha5rd one of us could find something to worry about that would be worthy of our time.

I’m going 71. How long to I have to live.

My savings are evaporating like dry iceused to in the desert. (Not sure it will melt anymore.)

The CO2 is a pollutant folks will send back to the stone ages.

Or it sure is getting cold.

Something

@Larry.

YOU are thinking like all people SHOULD be thinking, all the way down to age 21.

Red Herring or real issue….. can’t concretely say one way or the other, BUT…. I had to show MY Birth Certificate to get my SSN….. and again to get my Drivers License. The Law REQUIRED I show proof of Qualification. So in reality, why the heck SHOULDN’T proof be demanded to Qualify to run for the Most Important Job on the PLANET!! (yes, I hold the US in HIGH regard!)
You mean what I was doing was MORE IMPORTANT than POTUS?? Hardly!! Yet one can argue I was held to “a higher standard of proof”… which is just STUPID!

Secondly, WHAT is the big DEAL??? Show the darned thing and lets move on!! SHEESH!!

And Third… it’s known that they have spent over a half million in “legal fees” just to KEEP for “showing it”……fighting all those “challenges”.. now THAT friends… is downright SUSPICIOUS!!! No one tosses around that kind of cash for nothing…….

Will we EVER get to the bottom of this??? As long as the “mob” (Dimwitdems) controls Congress… don’t expect any HONEST actions on anything!! We may never know…….
Personally, I think Obama’s Birth Certificate is buried with Jimmy Hoffa!! LOL!!

Hankster58

My point is that Obama has admitted as fact that his father is Obama Sr., who was not a U.S. Citizen but British when Obama Jr. was born, so that automatically raises the question is Obama a Natural Born Citizen which is a requirement to be President of the United States.

Just keep calling them “birthers”, that is the surest way to reduce the real argument to a joke.

Nicely played Curt and Flopping Aces.

And remember conservatives can only think or talk about so many (1) issues at a time, and this issue is 1 too many.

I gave up on this issue several months ago when realizing that if something were going to be resolved, it would have been done so already. Yet having said that, what Sarah Palin is doing is what Sarah does very well. She is raising the bar to Obama to rise up to the occasion and satisfy the electorate on what is a reasonable request and serious concern on the part of many Americans, not just whacked out conspiracy theorists. There are some requests that are completely unreasonable, but she determined that producing the documents that Trig is her own son was a reasonable enough request at the time considering ALL the circumstances and so she willingly did so. I think Sarah is no respecter of persons when it comes to doing what is best for the country, as she has proven in her record of going after corrupt Republicans in her own state. She felt, I’m sure, that no matter what the motives of those bringing up the question, it was the best thing for the country to satisfy the question, thereby ending the discussion.

So, the question remains. If it’s true that he is a natural born citizen, then what’s the big whoop in producing the long form and thus moving on and dealing with the current state of affairs?

And, I agree with what someone said here, that it sets a precarious precedent when honest Americans are told they cannot even ask what is a reasonable request of anyone who would be leader of the free world because of what? Their race? I most certainly hope that is not the reason. The Constitution will have to be re-written to include ‘political correctness’ as the new (subjective) norm.

@ IndieDogg —

Obama’s professor at Columbia, where he wrote a major paper, had an interview clarifying the distinction. Obama wrote a major paper about nuclear disarmament talks. But it was not a “thesis”. And I don’t know about you, but I graduated years after Obama and I could not produce a copy of my papers if my kid’s life depended on it. So to expect him to have a paper he wrote is a bit of a stretch.

But a bigger question remains: what difference does it make what he wrote about in college, or what his grades were at Columbia? We know what he has been doing for the last 20 years: he wrote two friggin best selling books about it. Indeed, “Dreams of My Father” alone should put to rest all the birther silliness. He wrote it when he was a recent law school graduate. He was years from running for office. So if he had been adopted by his stepfather, or if he was born in Kenya, why would he have not put that in there? Indeed, it would have made an already interesting background even more interesting.

@ Max —

I have a suggestion. Go send away for a copy of your “birth certificate”. Don’t ask for your “original” or “long form*”. Just ask for a “birth certificate.” What you will receive is a document pretty much identical to what Obama produced in 2007: laser printed on security paper. That is a new requirement after 9/11 and it is an anti-identity theft protection. That document that Obama presented more than two years ago is identical to what I sent to the Bush State Department in 2006 to get my kid’s passport. And the brand new print out I got included her mom’s name misspelled the same way it was misspelled on the original.

Now you might not like it. You might think that there is some other explanation than the obvious as to why Obama’s birth was announced in Hawaii newspapers within a week of his birth. But the most plausible explanation is that it is a record of what happened at a local hospital. You might want to believe that Obama’s father was in Kenya when he was born and his mother traveled there, too, . . . even though there is not a shred of evidence, documentary or otherwise, that such an implausible thing occurred back in 1961. But Obama’s “proof” of citizenship was enough to get him a passport as far back as the 1980s (and possibly the early 70s when he came back to the US from Indonesia). He presented enough proof back in 2005, when he was sworn in to the Senate, to get top security clearance. Seems to me that if there was any question about his citizenship or nationality, it would have come out back then, dontcha think?

The reason Obama does not answer the birther nonsense is . . . why should he? The only people who question his eligibility are nutters on the right. The moderate Rs, independents . . . they think the birthers and anyone associating with them ought to be in straitjackets. So why do ANYTHING that would end the continued marginalization of your political enemies on the right? After all, Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed claiming responsibility for 9/11 did not stop the truthers from thinking Bush was behind 9/11. You can’t convince a crazy person that reality is not what they think it is, so there is no use wasting energy trying. Nothing Obama could possibly produce would change the minds of birther nutters, because they are not dealing with reality.

* a term I had never heard of until the birthers came along

@ URI

“Nobody remember Obama/Barry Soetoro at Columbia.”

No one except his professor

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbiathesis.asp

“and how come he has so many different SS# ?”

Who said he did? In fact, how do you even know what his current social security number is? You are trusting Orly Taitz’ representations? The woman who swore that Eric Holder was visiting the federal court judge in a coffee shop in Georgia at the same time Holder was in LA and the judge was NOT in Georgia?

http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/64158162.html?corder=reverse

“His Grandma, Sarah, who just went to Meccah for Hajj, remembers him being born in the hospital in Kenya!”

Uh, huh . . .

“Too many vacuums in this man’s life. He is a nobody that was put where he is by special interest groups.You cannot fool everybody all the time.”

I cannot recall anyone else who, in five years, went from being a minority senator in a major state legislature to the very pinnacle of the world’s power. It is unusual probably in world history. But to say he came from “no where” is simply false. He has been a very public known entity in Chicago and Illinois politics for years. I know people who went to law school with him and, therefore, go back to the late 80s with him. (I can give you their names if you want.). He wrote a book about his odd life more than 15 years ago and he has been in the public eye in the country’s third largest city for longer than that. So your conspiracy theory is, unfortunately, undermined by the record. You can read more about him and his life than GWB’s at the same point in his career. He is pretty new on the national scene, but hardly unknown if you want to learn anything about him.

But you know what? All that is irrelevant. In that sense, this is an experiment: take a very smart major state senator, from a racial minority and with an odd name and see if in five years time he has the ability to become the president of the United States. The answer was “yes” — an overwhelming yes. He is the president because he got 69 million votes and his opponent got far fewer. You had your chance more than a year ago to make the argument and your side was not convincing. He is the legitimate elected president, put there with the endorsement of more voters than anyone in US history, with the second largest vote margin ever. And the election was not even close.

You need to get used to the fact: Obama is the legitimate elected president and you are stuck with him until 2013.

B-Rob … Obama’s Birh cert is irrelevant as to my points & you know that …

Again … Now many think a natural born citizen mean being born in the U.S. This is not the case. When the founding father wrote the Constitution the interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen was well understood …

THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.txt

I want to emphasis parents is plural. It is a known fact that Obama father was a British Citizen when he was born so thus he could be born next door to you or present a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii it would be irrelevant. Only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen not both so he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The President being Commander –In– Chief, the founding fathers wanted be the highest standard of Citizenship be applied to insure to the best of their abilities that the President would have full allegiance to the United States.

Look we all know what a hotbed of anti american radicalism and anti Reagan leftwing radicalism that Columbia was in the 1980s. It goes without saying that Obama came down heavily against our national security in that paper and probably gave props to the Soviets as the keepers of the peace and unfairly warred against by the bad US imperialists. He may have even cited constructive grass roots activities by his soon to be friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers was at Columbia during this formative time when Obama was seeking out the most radical leftwing personages there, so there is the strong possibility that he met Killer Bill there.
As for the birther stuff, while it would be nice to see it, it’s not going to result in any action. The Electors of the Electoral College made the determination that Obama was qualified to be President. No one else can undo that vote, and even if the birth certificate showed something fishy, the Electoral College could not be called to meet again to change its vote. And if it did, do you really wish a President Biden on the country?

@B-Rob:

Ye-essss Brother B-Rob, raise those hands and shout, hail the O-mighty!

eaglewingz08 …

Wrong about removing a President. The Congress can but we know that will not happen with the Bamster.

However …

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has the jurisdiction to hear a case regarding a President Eligibility … very hard but it can be done.

So ….

The 2010 mid-terms & 2012 Presidential election is VERY important.

@ Max — Let me get this straight — you are relying on an international law treatise that predates the Constitution — not US law, not the law of another country we recognize, but a treatise — to argue that the person elected president of the United States does not qualify, even though he was born in the US (which grants him citizenship) of a US citizen parent (which also would grant him citizenship). And you think we should take this seriously? OK . . . .

It matters not one whit what the “founding fathers” MIGHT have meant when they mentioned “natural born citizen”; and it matters less what Mons. Vattel might have thought about things. But if Congress meant the person had to have two citizens as parents, they could have said that, couldn’t they? But they didn’t. They used the word “citizen” and modified it with “natural born” — distinguishing from a naturalized citizen. Your spin (that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a citizen) would have disqualified many past presidents, all of them elected much closer to the time when the Constitution was adopted. If no court in the 1800s interpreted “natural born citizen” to exclude them, no court would do so now — not based on some random Frenchman’s musings, and not with a president elected by close to 70 million people and by an almost 10 million vote margin. That would be nothing more than an unconstitutional coup. Not gonna happen, son.

@ eaglewing and Max —

Congress will not and cannot remove Obama because he has not engaged in any acts that are high crimes and misdemeanors.” No Article III court has jurisdiction to remove him, obviously, for separation of powers reasons — the same way Obama has not authority to remove an Article III judge!

@ Missy —

As usual, no substantive debate . . . just b.s.

@ eaglewing —

“It goes without saying that Obama came down heavily against our national security in that paper and probably gave props to the Soviets as the keepers of the peace and unfairly warred against by the bad US imperialists. ”

According to the professor who taught the class, his paper was not a polemic, but a historical survey. So your worst assumptions are wrong.

“He may have even cited constructive grass roots activities by his soon to be friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.”

And he may have cited “Hey, Jude” — but there is no evidence that he did that either.

“Ayers was at Columbia during this formative time when Obama was seeking out the most radical leftwing personages there, so there is the strong possibility that he met Killer Bill there.”

Strong possibility? Based on what facts to you conclude there is a “strong possibility”? It is a big school in a big city and Ayers would not have been associated with Obama’s area od study. So based on what facts do you conclude they met?

Honestly . . . are you about to resurrect the “Bill Ayers wrote ‘Dreams of my father'” theory, based on supposed similarities between that book and a book Ayers wrote years later? Because, logically speaking, the Ayers book following Obama’s in time would lead to the conclusion that Obama WROTE AYER’S BOOK, not the other way around!

B-Bob … You need to read …

Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

The dangerous precedent set by ignoring the Natural Born Citizen Constitution issues in regard to Obama could lead to let’s say two Mexican nationals having their child being born in the USA, then returning to Mexico to raise this child as a Mexican nationalist. Now this child grows up, returns to the USA, meets the 2 other requirements to run for President & wins. Now who do you think his loyalties are??? I don’t think the USA. That is why in their wisdom the founding father put the clause that the President has to be a Natural born Citizen, meaning being born in the US to two U.S. Citizens. Yes this is not foolproof, but it would put a credible deterrence for a foreign county from trying it.

Not to worry. As ACORN’s Legal Counsel during RICO Act Violations, Obama is likely to be indicted, tried and get some time anyway. Great Legacy. Illegal Use of Federal Block Grant money and money Laundering are Felonies.

I don’t believe he was born here. The “consensus” on this blog is wrong. It is a real issue! He did not attend Columbia at all. His classmates don’t recall him. I remember the heat I took for calling man-made GW a fraud. I take the same heat for claiming Evolutionism is concensus and not science; it is clearly a fraud and a religion. We birthers are not idiots and the integrity of the US Constitution is sacred to us. We love our country the way it is meant to be. I support Palin. It is not about “winning” anymore; it is about the Truth. Hopefully his illegal-alien aunt will require him to show his birth certificate to claim him as an “anchor relative.” She is mad he is ignoring her.
Go BSU!

>>The Hospital, the doctor who signed the required papers, AND the governor…. have all put there careers on the line to verify the facts as they know them.>>

Re: “The Hospital, the doctor who signed the required papers…”

Ummm. Do you have a reference for this? My understanding is that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of his birth, and no doctor so far is indicated.

As for the other statements – Hawaii had different birth recording record forms (and may still have), and as long as the mother had been a citizen of Hawaii for the previous year, the state would register the birth as long as the birth was recorded by _any_ member of the immediate family – which included grandparents. In fact, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian birth certificate, I believe, and she’s _known_ to be born in Indonesia.

Here’s a long discussion on the ins and outs of Hawaiian birth certificates, and why there’s a question about which type Obama has:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

There are two ways of looking at this issue of hidden records. One is that the hidden records are reminders of the mainstream media’s failure to properly vet Obama. What did we (and do we) really know about his background? We know what he told us, but even limited fact-checking on that raised serious questions. However, the Left would rather not have the issue presented in this way, so they have tried to delegitimize the issue of the non-vetting of Obama by branding anyone who raises it as a conspiracy fanatic, or “birther.” (Those obsessed with the birth record and who ignore all the other hidden records enable this.) There are real questions about the past of our president, and they persist in large part because the press did not do its job properly.