Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

creeksneakers2

User Profile Image creeksneakers2
Member since : Jun-02-2009 (Verified)
2 Ideas, 252 Comments, 101 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Congress is caving in to the health insurance and pharma lobbies. If Obama doesn't take the lead on getting the public option passed his health care initiative will turn into nothing more than a giveaway to the insurance companies.

A large majority of Americans favor a public option. Will Obama let the people lose on one of his signature issues?
The Cold War is over and no country is left out there that has the means and desire to invade us. Most of the military mission now is to play world policeman. We could save trillions if we just told the rest of the world they have to carry their share of the burden of keeping international peace or we quit.

We have problems with terrorism but the military can't do much about that, since we don't know who or where all the terrorists are. There's the possibility of a state sponsored attack but we already have more than enough weapons to make any country that tries very sorry that they did.

So we need enough to respond to state terror attacks, we need nukes, and we need a small token force to contribute to UN actions like the French do.

Everything else should go.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

creeksneakers2 8 months ago
See? Birthers are crazy
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
I got an E-mail. Is this back up?
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
Is it back on?
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
He said the ISSUE is serious. Since the fate of the nation is at stake, of course its a serious issue.

We can't even be sure what the judge said, since its filtered once through an attorney who is odd enough to file a birther suit. Then, its filtered again throught World Net Daily.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
The judge isn't saying the case won't be thrown out or that its not frivolous.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
Hardest question = The one about the woman's mother who lived five extra years because of an operation that the original doctors thought wasn't worth doing.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
Righties were the ones who demanded representation.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
training wheels
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
We should have never gone to Iraq. Bush got us stuck there. Then we had to stay long enough for the Iraqis to be able to take over. Bush wanted to stay forever.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
The government isn't going to take away anyone's private health care. Employers may just choose the public plan if its cheaper. That's between you and your employer and is not the fault of public health care.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
Gradually getting us out of Iraq.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
I watched ABC and it was not an informecial. They chose hard questions for Obama to answer. They brought up every major point against his health care plan.

Presidential interviews do not include time for the other side. They never have. Righties think they are entitled to things they don't deserve and then get mad when the goods don't arrive.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
If the private insurance industry can't compete, why have it?
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
The government option isn't supposed to be the Cadillac plan. Its better to have a very basic public plan, then allow others to buy better insurance if they can afford it.

Higher levels of skill pay more. It takes tremendous skill and hard work to be a Congressperson. Most would be worth more in the private sector.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
Much better research Rooster! I agree, Something has to give.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
apugh: I agree. We are spending too much. Something has to give.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
You don't have to think much of my opinion. I supply links. You can see and decide for yourself. If I'm the one who is an idiot, how come you always turn out to be the one that's wrong?
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
I'm sorry, but I think you made a math error. 82% of 264.4 million is 216.8 million. So if we subtract the correct numbers, we get 47.6 million unisured, which is in line with most public estimates.
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
I don't know where Rooster gets his numbers. Probably from some kooks site on the Internet, like World Net Daily.

Here are the real numbers from CBO for March. They cover the first half of fiscal year 2009, most of which was under Bush.

Total spending was 1.9T for six months, not the 2.6T Rooster thinks happened in two months.

TARP was passed under GW Bush. (supported by Obama)
By the end of March, $290B was spent on TARP, not the .8T Rooster imagines.

Obama's big spending package, the stimulus bill, spreads spending over three years. So little of it was spent by March 2009. The stimulus package included $82 billion in tax cuts, which the GOP pretends didn't happen under Democrats.

Revenues were off $160 billion in the first half of FY 2009, so not all of the increased deficit is due to spending.

The $1.2T Rooster calls bailout is probably the money Republicans think the Fed is printing. Here's what really happened. As trouble struck the banks, their reserves fell. Federal law mandates banks to hold a certain amount of cash in reserve. The reserve requirement could have caused a collapse of the banking system. So the Federal Reserve lent the banks money. Not paper money, but a credit to the accounts banks held with the Federal Reserve to guarantee their solvency. So the money never left the Federal Reserve. So long as the banks remain solvent, the computer adjustments will disappear, and all will go back to normal. The downside is, we've allowed banks to take greater risks. But we haven't spent $1.2T on bailouts.

Its best to read official sources and not get information from kook websites like World Net Daily.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10069/04-06-mbr.htm

Also see: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
The debt on January 20, 2001 when Bush took office was, $5,727,776,739,304.64. On Bush's last full day, January 19, 2009, the debt was $10,628,881,485,510.23
The debt rose $4,901,104,746,205.59. Obama took over on January 20,2009. The debt then was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Today, June 24, 2009 the debt is $11,407,973,761,151.02. So far, Obama has overseen a debt increase of $781,096,712,237.94. So, Obama hasn't done anything like tripling the deficit under Bush in one year. There's more of this year to come, but Obama's numbers still won't reach Bush's, let alone triple them. So far, Obama's deficit is 16%of Bush's so far. And Obama was left with Bush's mess.

NOTE*** The GOP has peddled falsehoods like the tripling myth. The biggest way they are fooling people is by using numbers from fiscal years and telling people they apply to calendar year. The last fiscal year was over September 30, 2008. Bush still had almost four months left to serve. And those four months are when the big bailouts came. Republicans take all Bush rang up and fraudulently put it in Obama's column.

You've got to watch the GOPers. They lie all the time.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
It's all Bush's fault. Only 6% of the population is strange enough to blame Obama for something that started before he took office.

Things will get better soon. Then what will the right say?
creeksneakers2 8 months ago
The wingnuts tried the same insanity with Clinton and ended up failing.

The scam works like this. Wingnut makes accusation. Wingnut forwards accusation to the justice department. The justice department reviews the accusation and declares it silly wingnutry. Wingnuts then accuse the justice department of having a conflict of interest, because the justice department works under the president. Winguts demand an independent counsel be appointed to investigate.

By this typically screwy logic,any accusation anybody anywhere wants to send to the justice department would get an independent counsel. Before wingnuts abused the independent counsel act so badly that it had to be left to expire, the test used to be that there had to be credible evidence for the accusation. Conflict of interest took something much more than simply working under the executive branch.

When Bush ran the justice deparment, they covered up and lied just as bad as he did. They never investigated crap, except the Liddy thing, for which they let Rove off the hook and Bush pardoned the guilty anyway.

The wingnuts are back to trying the stupid tricks they played on Bill Clinton but they won't work anymore. There is a strong left wing presence on the Internet who knows what the truth is and will get on the media's ass if they lie like they did about Clinton.

Obama and the Democrats have learned (after we on the net told them for years) that the best thing to do with wingnut witch hunts is to stand up to them from the start and never give them a thing. So the wingnut scams are a waste of time now. They won't work.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Lee: Its so unlikely that Obama ever got foreign student aid that its not worth wasting another pixel to ask those questions.

There is almost no aid for foreign students in America. There is a government program that sponsors about 1000 of the top students. That's pretty much it.

Obama would have had to have been crazy to give up his US Pell Grants and student loans to take a shot at being the one in 1000s lucky enough to get foreign student aid.

Also, Obama wanted to be president since he was in firt grade. No way he would give up his citizenship.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Birthers call lawsuits frivolous? There is no lawsuit more frivolous than Birther v. Obama.

No judge cleared Palin of anything. Let's see her secret E-mails she illegally sent.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I see you can do it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Gas lines started under Gerald Ford. There was no rationing under Carter. I think there was an odd/even system that wasn't enforced so it was pretty much voluntary. Inflation was high, as it was before Carter took office, but it never reached the definition of hyperinflation.

You have much to learn little one. You should read more and post less. Then you'll say less stupid stuff.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He was talking about your inability to use logic. I was there. You couldn't come up with a sensible answer for him because you didn't understand how logic is supposed to work.

I'll write my own dumbass replies. I've told no lies. You went beserk trying to run me out of here over nothing. That's what really happened.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Rooster is too dumb to understand what Moderator is talking about.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Doesn't sting at all. Tell us again about unemployment under Carter and Reagan.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Probe: Palin abused power

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-10-palin-ethics-probe_n.htm

She's always in trouble. Don't let her anywhere near your credit cards.



If we really want to compare, we ought to compare what wingnuts got away with under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'd like to see Palin's secret E-mails. What does she have to hide?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The duty of confidentiality is on the attorney general and those RECEIVING the complaint. There is no duty of confidentiality on the party MAKING the complaint.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Yeah. She's a dishonest lady. She pretends she knows what she's talking about when she has no idea.

I got what your angle was from the beginning. You did this and they did that and I did what I did.

I don't think the issue was working from home. She claimed per diem for staying in a hotel in Juneau when in fact she was working from home. I don't think she gave the clothes back, just said she did.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
What about the spending binge on clothes she went on with the RNC's money? I remember something about her changing the state for her kids' airplane trips.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
That panel that cleared Sarah just before the election was made up of her handpicked stooges. There was never any doubt they'd find in her favor.

I remember Sarah refusing to disclose material and keeping her aides from testifying.

She's a corrupt lady. Lots of cases against her.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
sallietoo:

I'm still working here and there to cover all you links. I spent a good deal of time today reading the comments part of the Business Week article and checking facts against other sources on the web. I'll post when I've reached a conclusion on it all. There are some interesting first hand anecdotes there and it does appear that the regulatory changes Bill Clinton made in 1995 did result in more loans going to low income borrowers. Not much there about ACORN, yet.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago

That's good news, because that's about the same number as the CBO said Obama's plan could cover.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
That's the best idea that's ever been posted on this birther plagued website.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Presidential eligibility too.

The words "natural born citizen" were well defined in law at the time of the framing. We should go by what can be learned or deduced of the intent of the framers. When one writes a legal document, he assumes the definitions in the law will be applied when questions about the document arise. The founding fathers knew very well what natural born citizen meant. It meant any child born in the country whose parents were not ambassadors or invading soldiers.

"natural born citizen" is defined in other Supreme Court cases. The birthers know better but just choose to be wrong about this to be difficult.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
we_spencer:

The Supreme Court never said the citizenship of an individual with one American parent was in doubt. They said that some people doubt the any child born is a citizen standard. The justices declined to rule on which standard applied in that case. The subject of the case had two citizen parents, so there was no need to rule.

The Supreme Court has upheld the any child born in the country regardless of parentage standard in many cases.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Sallietoo:

Thank you for offering your opinions and links to me. I've already started reading them. One can find support for any opinion on the Internet. I think its best to look at both sides, so I'm trying to keep up with what you've given me.

I listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh at work, so I do hear the conservative side of most issues.

I don't believe the Community Reinvestment Act played a significant role in our economic troubles. Most of the bad sub-prime loans were originated by big mortgage brokers like Countrywide Financial. Those institutions are not regulated under the Community Reinvestment Act. The act only covers banks and thrifts.

"Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations."

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

The act doesn't force banks to make bad loans. Its purpose is "to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered CONSISTENT WITH THE SAFE AND SOUND OPERATION OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS."

"Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

"More than that, the non-CRA mortgage firms made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA-covered firms."

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.html

I don't see how a law that was passed in 1977 could have worked fine for 30 years and then suddenly caused a crisis in 2007. CRA was weakened under Bush and enforcement dropped off. Yet, during this same time of a weaker CRA the number of risky loans went up.

Since the CRA did not play a significant role in the mortgage meltdown crisis, its wasn't possible for ACORN to cause the crisis by pushing the CRA.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
You start out by recommending the assistance of a "compassionate conservative." The rest of the essay didn't sound like the objective was to turn liberals into independents. The word conservative was used a few times after the first.

Nice dodge though. What do you think about the unemployment rate under Carter?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
sobi: Its hard to determine who is insane and that rule is almost never enforced. Criminals are a different matter. If one were to carry the Second Amendment out to the absolute right of anyone anywhere to have guns then prisoners in state pens would be allowed to have guns.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
rejean:

" Liberals refer to every mistake as a ‘learning experience.’"

I couldn't agree more with your observation that liberals love to find out they are wrong. That's not true of the radicals and far lefties, but its true for most of us. Where conservatives see black and white liberals see nuance. To maintain nuance, one must engage in an ever evolving world view. New facts must be taken in, old ones discarded. I love to find out I'm wrong, because that means I'm learning something and improving my world view. (I also love to be right because it gives me an ego rush)

Some people adjust their world views to what they see. Some people adjust what they see to their world views. The latter is necessary to maintain a black and white world. The person who cannot admit he's wrong learns nothing, and remains ignorant for his whole life. The people who are least likely to admit they are wrong are therefore the people who are most likely to actually be wrong.

To overcome ignorance we must be open minded and share ideas with those who are different from us. Sharing requires equality. Otherwise, at most only one party will learn and even that is unlikely. Who does not feel disrespected when somebody claims to know it all but doesn't listen? Who can learn from such a person? So I think you should have included listening and keeping an open mind among the tactics you've suggested for changing liberal minds.

I've noticed that delusions of superiority and inflexible minds go together. The delusion of superiority is what the inflexible person really wants, not a discussion or a chance to learn and share. If the delusional finds he is incorrect, he'll lose his delusion of superiority. He can't afford to do that.

I'll share something with you. You write, "A recommended scheme is to discuss the Carter years and why they led to double digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation." I agree that there were double digit interest and inflation rates. But I disagree about unemployment. I don't see how I can be wrong on this one.

Here are the official records from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau is by far the most authoritative source for unemployment rates. Its run by career bean counters, so their work can't just be passed off as a "liberal deception." Their data is also shared with the world and scrutinized intensely by critics. Its also revised when flaws are found. Here's the link:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

If you are open minded enough to look, you'll see that in the two years before Jimmy Carter took office the average unemployment rates were: 1975 - 8.5% , 1976 - 7.7%. Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. The unemployment rate fell then to 7.1%. It fell further in 1978 - 6.1% and 1979 - 5.8%. In Carter's last year, 2000, the rate climbed back to 7.1%, the same as Carter's first year but still lower than the worst years under Gerald Ford. The rate never went into double digits under Carter.

Did Reagan get unemployment back down? Not for a long time. In 1981 the rate went up to 7.6%. It 1982 it climbed all the way to 9.7% and stayed at 9.6% through 1983. In 1984 and 1985 the rates were 7.5% and 7.2%. It wasn't until Reagan's sixth year in office that he produced an unemployment rate lower that the highest under Carter. It was then one tenth of a percent lower at 7.0%. It wasn't until Reagan's last year, that he produced a rate lower than the lowest rate under Carter. 1988 clocked in at 5.5%.

Even though the real facts are right there on the web from the official source, I expect conservatives would have a hard time accepting that the average unemployment rate was higher under Reagan than it was under Carter, or that unemployment went up under Reagan's first years. Ideologies create their own myths and pound them into followers heads by repeating the same false information over and over. The more one believes, the harder it is to accept reality, like you said about liberals.

Over the years I've become convinced that right wing conservatives can't accept facts that conflict with their ideology. Please drop a response here if you can conclude you were wrong about the unemployment rates under Carter. I'd love to learn I'm wrong about right wing conservatives.
.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
rejean: Dream on
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
tsiya: I think Obama would like more control of guns but knows its a losing issue and won't touch it. Many libs are tired of the idea because the Brady law didn't improve anything. Obama was a Constitutional law professor and I believe he believes in an interpretation of the Amendment that includes an individual right to own guns.

I believe some controls are consistent with the Second Amendment and I think Obama probably does too. For example, I believe its constitutional to confiscate guns from criminals and insane persons.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
vandalism
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Your fears are not well founded. Relax. Listen to the other side of things.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
blackmonrikker: I agree with you. I can't defend Obama when he pushes his gay supporters aside.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
You can also respond here. I'll look for it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
ACORN was against sub-prime loans. They said many of the people who were given sub-prime actually qualified for traditional mortgages.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
rejean:

The child would grow up to be straight.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Big Rooster:

That is a problem. Allowing gay marriage would solve it. Then everybody equally could have spouses covered but not boyfriends and girlfriends.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Blackmonrikker:

I was very disappointed by Obama in this issue. The gays have been loyal supporters of Democratic and liberal causes, and they contribute heavily. Out of all the interest groups out there, they ask the least in return. All they want is to love each other and be treated like everybody else.

Some efforts can't be undertaken because they lose votes. But if only a few such battles are chosen, the party can survive them. Support for the gays, and opposition to anything to do with bigotry, ought to be on top of the to do list, whether popular or not.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Blackmonrikker:

Indecisiveness killed Kerry. I think Obama knows better.

I hope he breaks no more campaign promises. Most of the ones he's broken are ones he never should have made. Dealing with terrorists leaves nothing but hard choices. He never should have said he could close Gitmo, or things like that.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Moderator:

Big Rooster has been acting this way for days. I first saw it when he tried to sweet talk a yeti. I think he wanted to cyber with it right here on the open government forum. The yeti wasn't interested. So Big Rooster started saying really mean and vulgar things. He's been like that since. I think he wanted you too and now he's double heart broken.

He can't keep up with intelligent arguments so he acts like he doesn't care. Anybody who wants to can see through it. I don't know if you are really a moderator or not but if you aren't it sure is a funny gag. Liars like the birthers get all sanctimonius when they speak of the truth, but only when they are pointing at others. They set no standards for themselves.

I expect that Big Rooster will slink away when he can't scare everybody who raises questions about his stories away. He'll go to some place like World Net Daily, where he can compete with the intelligence of the inhabitants.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
csrbev: I disagree with a couple of your premises. I think interest rates have fallen in the past couple of months. I also think the stock market is up more than a few points since Obama took over. Its up 500 since Obama was inaugurated and 2000 since its low point in March.

I believe the economy is driven by consumer behavior. Like you said, people aren't spending. But there's reason for optimism. News reports when this recession started warned of another great depression. Complete economic collapse was predicted by some. Everybody wanted to hold on to every buck they had. Few believe now that a total collapse is coming. So people can loosen up a little bit.

In fact, a recent NBC poll found 46% of Americans expect the economy to improve in the next year. So half of America can breathe a little.

I don't know for sure if this will translate into more spending but I'm betting it will. I don't expect things to go back to the credit card spending spree type demand we had not so long ago. But I do think things will improve. And improvement begets more improvement.


Some positive news comes out now and then. Everything is still way down from a year ago but some stats have improved in the last couple of months.

I also hope we don't continue this level of government intervention in the private sector. So do most Americans. I don't believe Obama likes it either, despite what Rush Limbaugh says.

Hopefully within a year the government will be out of most of the private sector prop ups it took on since the recession began. There's going to be more intervention in health care, but there isn't much of a choice. The private sector has shown for decades that it can't keep prices from rising. Even big name rich people groups like the National Chamber of Commerce want the government to step in. If Obama gets his way, the people who have private coverage can continue on with what they have, so private health insurance can survive. If Obama doesn't get his way, it will be because the big lobbies killed his proposal. That will mean no change at all.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
A recent press conference confirmed that Hawaiian birth certificate officials receieved no special orders on how to handle Obama's birth certificate.

Transparency means open government. It doesn't mean an obligation to endlessly feed unsatifiable fanatics with documents they will only ignore.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama's plan does not represent a takeover of health care. The opponents of Obama's plan are on the short end of popular opinion. 75% of Americans want a public option. So the opponents of Obama's plan invented a straw man, a government takeover to fight against.

Its true that a public option would compete with private plans. However, the public option can't win unless it provides better care or less expensive care. I say we should go with the system which comes out on top of a fair fight.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Gypsy: I'm not sure if it was me you were asking about what was meant by the 5th Amendment and eminent domain.

I believe both liberals and conservatives see the constitution as more in their corner than it probably is. As an example of conservatives not respecting a constitutional rule, I brought up the 5th Amendment. Its final clause says, " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Since it says property can't be taken without compensation we can conclude that also meant that property can be taken with compensation. That's eminent domain, the power of the government to confiscate an individuals property. Conservatives believe in individuals more and government less than others, so they don't like this clause of the Constitution, and got mad when judges upheld it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The ones I've seen trying to change the meaning of the Constitution are the birthers and the righties. Righties are trying to twist facts to make it look like the Constitution said our president isn't qualified to hold office. Other righties a while back tried to act like there is no eminent domain when its clearly spelled out in the 5th Amendment.

Does the Constitution live? In some ways it does. Free speech applies to E-mails as much as it did to the newspapers or our founders' days.

creeksneakers2 9 months ago
If the private system is better they will be able to compete with the government except with the low income individuals the government will subsidize. The insurance companies didn't have those customers anyway. If the government plan has long lines, the people who can afford it will stay private.

That's not a bad system. We have public and private schools. Those with money to burn can get their kids into a better school. The rest, which is most of them, have the public to fall back on. One did not destroy the other.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The president still enjoys a positive approval rating. Some adjustment is to be expected. He's had to do some unpopular things like bailing out the auto industry. If Obama hadn't acted and the economy collapsed his poll ratings would be much lower than they are now.

The economy is starting to turn around and when it does Obama's numbers will start to rise.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
whizteck: Obama didn't want to take GM over. GM was failing before he got in office and received its first bailout money from GW Bush.

Its fine for companies to run themselves as they see fit, WHEN THEY ARE DOING IT WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. Since the taxpayers are paying tens of billions to keep GM in business, the public has the right to make sure their money isn't going to waste. When GM can support itself, it can go back to choosing its own CEO.

I don't know what George Washington would have done with GM. I know Hamilton wanted a national bank. I know that later on the government was deeply involved with the railroads. Comingling of government and business is nothing new. I know the government back in Washington's day used to grant road and bridge franchises.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
More misleading information from the birthers:

Bithers - "In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark')."

The Supreme Court extensively examined the meaning of the words "natural born citizen" in the Wong Kim Ark case. Lawyers and judges often use the histories of laws to discover the meaning and intent of them. This type of history regularly appears in Supreme Court cases. So when deciding what the 14th Amendment meant, they went back through the history of the phrase "natural born citizen" and pegged it to the Obot definition for the preceeding 400 years. Its true the court did not rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born citizen." They only ruled he was one under the 14th Amendment and used "natural born citizen" to interpret the 14th.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen":

Please name the case. Do you mean Happersett? They didn't rule at all about the meaning of "natural born citizen."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Another flaw:

Birthers often cite Roman law as precedent for the meaning of the phrase "natual born citizen." However, the citation in this essay comes from almost 2,000 years ago. At that time, the Romans subjucated much of the world. Those allowed in Rome were not allowed citizenship unless they were of the Roman clan. It had to be that way. What good would it have done for Rome to have won all those wars if the people they conquered could just move to Rome and in one generation vote the original Romans out?

Fortunately, America doesn't run that way and the definition used by Romans had no influence on the words used by the founding fathers.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Another problem with the essay:

Minor v. Happersett

The question in this case was whether the 14th Amendment gave women the right to vote. The justices looked to definitions of citizenship to help them decide.

The subject in this case was a woman who was born to two citizen parents. So when the court looked at the definition of "natural born citizen" they decided they didn't have to choose between the two possible definitions since everybody agreed the subject met the burden under the two citizen parent theory.

The justices in this case lent no weight at all to the idea that a person born in the US might not be a citizen. They merely pointed out that some people doubted it. Some people doubt anything. The two citizen parent standard was pushed by racists and xenophobes back then and the same type of people push it today. The justices weren't saying they doubted or that that the legal definition of "natural born citizen" was unclear.

Read the case.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Nice essay on birtherism. (sounds like a disease)
It includes some views from both sides and covers much of the ground birthers pace in circles over.

Here are some flaws though: Vattel

Vattel's original work in French did not contain the words "natural born citizen." Neither did the English translation that was available at the time of the framing. So the founding fathers could not possibly have used Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen." There was no such thing.

Vattel - http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/

Emer de Vattel
Citizenship denialist hoax exposed!

Those advocating that we should change our traditional view of “natural born citizen” in favor of a view advocated by a 18th century Swiss philosopher, Emer de Vattel, argue that the framers of the Constitution relied on a work by that philosopher for their definition of “natural born citizen”. They cite this passage from his work, the short English title of which is The Law of Nations:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel from 1883, almost 100 years after the Constitution’s ratification. Did the framers know Vattel’s work in the French? If so, there is a problem because the literal phrase “natural-born citizen” is not present in the original French which says:

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen) appears only ONCE in the sentence.

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation (thanks to Mr. Greschak for the images) in 1760 follows:


Vattel London 1760

And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.


Vattel 1787 American Edition

So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Artile II of the Constitution.

[Mr. Greshak has a more complete treatment of the phrase "natural born citizen" in history that is worth consideration. The serious student of this question would do well to follow the link and read the argument there.]

- - me now - -

Mr. Greshak has scans of the translated books themselves to prove his point. This isn't just some made up fact like the birthers use.

But birthers can ask, "Wasn't there a definition somewhere that Vattel might have been talking about, even if he didn't say 'natural born citizen?"

Vattel's work was not about American law. It was about the ideas behind the laws of different nations and their relationships with each other. Its incredibly unlikely that the founders would have used a definition of "natural born citizen" from another country when there was a well established definition in American law without qualifying the words when they ratified them.

Vattel has nothing to do with the original intent of "natural born citizen."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Great fame awaits me. I'll become a celebrity. I'll be invited on Sean Hannity and I'll kick his ass too. Just watch.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Just try it, fool. They will laugh at your stupidity.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'm a beacon of truth. The mainstream media doesn't want you to know the things I can tell you. That's why you've never heard my ideas before.

I'll go on any website I want. There's nothing you can do about it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
You've been squaking that all over Open Government Dialogue. You've made a national fool of yourself. I didn't lie about anything. You've confused yourself by trying to think. You would have been better off if you'd stopped trying to reason and just listened to me.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'm not going away. If you don't like me you can waddle back to your hole at World Net Daily.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
robhix: You got a tax cut. Isn't that what you guys all want the most?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
We saw it. We just don't let you see it. The less you know, the better off everyone else is.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Thoragibson:

That's what I said about the hospitals. Tell that to the mixed up birthers who think they are on to something.

I won't turn blue in the face because I love doing this. Every night, I have the satisfaction of crushing a birther talking point.

You, however, are continuously skinning your knuckles in a slime pool trying to fish out some tiny piece of paper and getting nowhere. Obama will never give you a thing and there is nothing you can do about it. No one listens to you.

That frustrates you and the rest of the birthers to no end. Already, many are fantasizing about violence because they are so aggravated. Don't be part of this. Homeland Security was already on alert about the right wing kooks even before Obama took office. They monitor all you and your confederates say. If you play even a minor role, you could be charged with conspiracy.

You'd be wise to give up this doomed graffiti crusade while you still can.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Droids? You can call up newspaper articles from the net from the Bush era that will show this all started under Bush. Yet, you pretend it started under Obama. Who is the droid? Me, who believes facts, or you, who hides from them?

If you are concerned for your country, quit defacing our national blog with your empty threats. Others here want to promote ideas that will make America better. You want to post graffiti.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
A couple days ago Citizen posted:

"So did the hospital lose it as well?

They have no clue who delivered Obama.

Call them and ask for yourself.

Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children
808-983-6000 http://www.hawaiipacifichealth.org/hph/contact-us/default.aspx "

I E-mailed Kapiolani Medical Center. They E-mailed back that they don't give out information. That must have been what they told all the birthers who posted that all the hospitals in Hawaii denied Obama was born in their hospitals. So it turns out the birthers all lied about that one too. Surprise?

Thank you for your inquiry.

Federal privacy laws prevent us from disclosing patient information without specific patient authorization.



David Fox

Information Security/Privacy Officer

Hawaii Pacific Health
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
How much closer to the birth certificate are you?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
robhix:

Obama didn't dismantle the banking system. It was collapsing. GW Bush spent the money to prop it up. Most of Obama's stimulus money went elsewhere. Some of the banks have already paid the money back.

Obama did not force GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy. They were going bankrupt and Obama did his best to save them. It was impossible to keep the companies alive without bankruptcy except by continuing to throw taxpayer money down a rat hole. Bush wanted to just fork over money to the auto companies. Obama and the Democrats did the right thing by demanding a plan for the future before throwing away more billions. Righties talk about free enterprise but its Democrats here who want the companies to go back to supporting and running themselves.

Obama isn't going to destroy any part of the health system. He's going to leave everything that's there now in place. He does plan to let the government compete with private health care. Notice how all the conservatives crack up at the idea that the government can be more efficient than private enterprise but look how the righties freak out if private enterprise and government are set to compete.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
thoragibson: Maybe.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
No scientific poll went 3.5 to 1 for the notion that Obama wasn't born in the US. The crowd here are not a representative sample. They were sent here by World Net Daily to do a dirty job.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Joan Riverside:

The words "natural born citizen" were not unique in law at the time our Constitution was framed. "Natural born citizen" was defined by 300 years of English law which became the law of the colonies up until the Revolution and then became our law through the framing.

Having been born in the US makes Obama a "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter where his parents came from. The only people who doubt that Obama qualifies are a few kook lawyers and the birthers. 99.9% of the population knows Obama is qualified. Don't you think if Obama wasn't qualified big name opponents of his would have made a big case about it before the election?

They taught us about presidential qualifications in elementary school. There has never been a case about presidents needing to be 35 years old to qualify, but I could tell you now if one was 36 he'd meet the test.

Here's a link to US v. Wong Kim Ark. It goes into the history and meaning of "natural born citizen" at great length.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Big Rooster: I'm assuming since you addressed you post to me that its OK for me to reply. I don't want to make you argue if you don't want to. If you don't want to argue with me, you can just not read this and not reply.

Here's the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about domestic enemies. (perhaps you are thinking of the oath of office) Given history, it appears they liked people to have guns so they could round up an army to slaughter the rebellious.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
accountstealerz:

The Constitution does not give you permission to take up violent rebellion. You can find lots of inspiring statements the founding fathers made when they were revolutionaries, but when they took power they did a complete one eighty, as you might expect.

If you read Article One, you'll see that Congress has the power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the event of an insurrection. Article One also gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections..."

Article Four Section Four states that the the federal government shall protect each of them (states) against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

One of the first thing the government did under the new constitution was put down a tax revolt, the Whiskey Rebellion. It was put down by George Washington himself, leading three state militias.

Finally, if you do decide to take up arms against the government and murder somebody, you'll run into another government power - the power to take your life with due process of law.

BTW - The Second Amendment didn't give an absolute right to arm. It only protected a common law right and said it could not be infringed. The common law allowed guns to be taken from criminals and insane persons. If they come take your guns, they'll have good reason and the authority to move.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
First Big Rooster tried to fool people into believing Obama isn't an American citizen. A few posts later, Big Rooster admits he's not a lawyer and has no idea what he's talking about. He then said he didn't care, that he won't listen, and then he acted like everybody else was as closed minded as he is. Big Rooster, then why did you post that lie about Obama not being a citizen? Why did you make jokes about our president being murdered? If you don't want anybody to talk to you, why do you post things on a public message board?

It got worse last night. The insults foamed out like an overflowing washing machine. Most of them were so vulgar that I thought the Big Rooster must have been drunk. He partnered up with some dumb racist kid who thought it was funny to pretend he was black. I went to bed, wondering why. Why?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
duvstvangeet proved it.

BigRooster projects that nobody would listen to him if he had the proof with statutes or court cases or state department bulletins or something like that. He likes to believe everybody else is as thick headed and inpenetrable as he is.

Wrong.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He acts like he doesn't care but he's the one who started it with moronic comments about Obama being a citizen of England and England only.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He asked for the proof.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He's angry now because he lost, and acting like he doesn't care.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html

Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC Section 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Big Rooster:

That's a birther myth. He had dual citizenship. He received American citizenship by virtue of his birth and never lost it. The only way one can lose his American citizenship is to renounce it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Birth laws?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'm disputing the fact that someone from out of state could obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate that fraudulently said they were born in Hawaii.

Obama's certificate says he was born in Honolulu. An out of stater couldnt' get one that said that.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The birth certificate doesn't just say Obama was born "somewhere." It says he was born in Honolulu. If the birthers are ready to concede that its not a fake, what else is left? Its an official state document and proof.

End of story.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The birthers didn't come here to discuss. They came here to desecrate our national blog and bother Obama so he might some day cave in to the birther witch hunt.

"The forum is open to the public for participation, and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, is urging those concerned about this issue to get involved."

There is a campaign being run out of WND to overrun this site.

"Eligibility debate explodes on White House 'dialogue' site
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificate
June 01, 2009
9:14 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

"The entire transparency portion of the White House website on "open government dialogue" has been overrun with citizens calling on Barack Obama to release his elusive "long-form" birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility to serve as president."

And the invasion bothered most of the people who were here. Check the vote on this baby:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049
A Failure to Prioritize - the Never-Ending Birth Certificate Issue
longshot9999 13 days ago Flag
Looks Promising!

1947(votes)

"I'm Not So Sure...Is this issue more important than coming up with new ideas on how to house the homeless, develop energy independence, protect our borders from terrorists, provide jobs for unemployed workers, etc, etc...? I think whoever is behind this campaign has expressed their only idea sufficiently for the rest of us to know it's important to them. Now if they only had one or two new solutions for more important problems....
Why Is This Idea Important?
The web site lacks an 'ignore button' to filter out repetitive ideas so people who really want to contribute something new might think why bother, no one will find the idea buried among all the repeating birth certificate ideas."

Notice the other netizens weren't complaining about the birthers' opinion. They were complaining about scrolling and cut and pasting and endless repetition. These were vandalism.

I've been bothered for the last 20 years by the right wing undermining our democracy. Democracy depends on a fair open debate so that citizens can make informed choices. The right wing has done all it could to destroy that debate. They launched talk radio which has been nothing but lies and hatred since the start. They've put discussion of real issues aside in favor of a slander war.

The vandalism of this blog is just one small part of that. Few of the birthers here engaged in honest discussion. Irrefutable evidence was just dismissed without response. Disproven claims reapppeared, usually by the same people who posted them before. There was no effort by the birthers to come here to hold a dialogue, which is what the name of this blog calls for. The collective wisdom of America is greater than that of any faction. Those who shut down dialogue damage America. Its annoying when the same people declare themselves the guardians of truth.

If Blackmonrikker drove these people off, he did America a favor. He's a hero. GW Bush didn't listen to anybody, even his own advisors (except Dick Cheney, the most evil of them all.) Barack Obama opened a channel here so that every American would have a chance to let their idea be known. Enough votes and support for a new idea that makes sense and the president can hear about it.

That's why Americans voted for change. Birthers lost. Now the birthers claim they are victims. They are victims of themselves.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. There is no reasonable doubt.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Goes to show how insane World Net Daily is.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Boiler: If a tyrant ever takes over here, the birthers and the gun nuts will be on his side.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Would you post links to the violent birther sites? I want to go there and bother them.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citizen: If its a fraud, how do explain World Net Daily verifying it and saying the birthers are the ones who committed fraud? Are you just going to ignore that too?

Factcheck.org has a copy of the original. Do you expect Obama to personally deliver an original to you?

Just about everybody who has looked at this cared about the certificate he posted. That settled the matter for all reasonable people.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
World Net Daily must be in on the big conspiracy then.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I don't think any of them are what I'd call good news outfits. I watch NBC because I think that's the least bad, but I post nasty comments on their blog sometimes because they mess up. I don't listen to cable much. If I do, I'd listen to MSNBC but I wouldn't take anything on there too seriously. They, like Fox, like to get people into an uproar and hooked on some controversy or story that the networks can feast on high ratings for a long as possible.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Fox News is not MSM.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers
Frank Rich - New York Times - 6/13/09

WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network’s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, “amped up” Americans who are “taking the extra step and getting the gun out,” maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.
The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday’s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

(snip)

What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had “become more and more frightening” in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he “could read a hundred” messages spewing “hate that’s not based in fact,” much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans “out there in a scary place,” Smith said.

creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citizen:

I sent an E-mail to the hospital you listed. I'm not sure that's the one Obama is born in. I agree there's a mystery there. Perhaps the reason there is no record is that records are no longer kept or they can't release the records or its too much trouble to dig them out. Maybe the hospital figures they'll get fewer annoying E-mails like mine if they deny it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The book says he knew where it was when he was a teenager. That's a long time ago. He might have lost it since. And does the book say whether the one he saw was the short form or long form?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He could have lost it since then.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Maybe he lost his long form birth certificate.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama was not president when his birth was recorded.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
big talk
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
This all started under Nixon and never stopped. Cabinet level appointees are overseen by White House staff. So if somebody is Secretary of Education, he doesn't have the last word on Education. The president does.

There's nothing illegal about it. The president can run the executive branch pretty much how he likes. He can't move or spend without authority from Congress, but there are lots of decisions left to make after Congress feeds the beast. Appointing a czar does not override Congressional authority. Its just using a different adminstrative structure to execute the laws.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
DJamieson:

That's a pretty long list and its typical of the tactics used by the right - launch endless accusations so that the victim doesn't have enough time to respond to them. I'm going to do my best though.

You write: "Did McCin provide a document that the interested parties accepted??? Yes Has Obama...NO!"
That says more about the attitudes of the people who refused to face facts than it does about the quality of the evidence.

You bring up Dr. Ron Polarik, a discredited Internet fraud. His work on the validity of the Obama birth certificate has been laughed off by many. Not only the big name organizations that checked his work, but hundreds of professionals on the net who followed the debate when Polarik started the hoax laughed at his assertions.

We do have the big name organizations. They verified the birth certificate too, and popped the balloon carrying Polarik's nonsense.

What is the response of the birthers? "It's a forgery." "They all must be in on the conspiracy." No matter what proof is given, the birthers refuse to accept it. The most respected verifiers of fact in the country are dismissed as conspirators with no evidence at all of a conspiracy.

This is part of the reason why Obama doesn't play into your witch hunt. There's no upside, since anything he produces will not satisfy the birthers. Right now, the birthers aren't taken seriously by anyone. Even lying propagandists without conscience like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are too embarrassed to be associated with birthers. Birthers pose no danger to Obama now. But if Obama responded, suddenly, there would be a reason for the media to cover all this. The birthers would feel empowered and victorious. Then the witch hunt would begin.

If anybody wants to see how the birthers would react if Obama responded to one request, look at the list of documents you are demanding. You want everything from his first Bazooka Joe comic to his last E-mail. And even that wouldn't satisfy you. Bill Clinton turned over millions of documents and the right wingers never quit telling a single lie when proven wrong over and over again.

I remember how they did it in the 90s. The righties tried to sucker people in with lies like "just show us this and we'll be satisfied" and "We have a right to know everything about everything" and "If he has nothing to hide, why not cooperate?" Next thing you know everybody you've ever met is under investigation and is called before a grand jury.

Don't expect Obama to fall for your clumsy attempts to trick him. Obama is 100 times smarter than GW Bush, and even Bush didn't fall for stuff like this. America is wise to this type of treachery now too.

There's a saying among those who use logic, "Absence of evidence is not evidence." Much of your reasoning is deduced from that faulty method though.You reason "If it isn't true, why didn't they deny it?"
Why didn't the Hawaiian government say this and that? The Hawaiian government can only attest to what they have on file. They can't attest to what Obama put on the Internet because they weren't involved in that step. Out of this type of thing you create vast universes of falsehoods.

By this same faulty reasoning you bring up items like, "Obama didn't release his birth certificate to Congress." That's because nobody in Congress asked for it. Nobody in Congress wants to touch this wackjob conspiracy theory with a ten foot pole. That's why Obama didn't send one. From this stupid question you deduce guilt. The media calls birthers "tin foil hat wearers" because that's what they are.

Perhaps you can explain, since no birther on this blog has done so yet, how Obama faked two newspaper birth announcements that occurred days after Obama's birth. Let me guess, you dismiss this challenge as a "Conspiracy" or "fake" without explaining how such a conspiracy or forgery could have occurred and why.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Joan Riverside:

That's the same thing as it would be if a cop wanted to arrest you for something you didn't do, and that the cop had no evidence for, and the cop said, "Why do you mind being arrested if you have nothing to hide?"
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
carpenturr:

Its not fraud for Hawaii to issue a birth certificate to someone who was not born in Hawaii. In fact, your link shows that.

The news certificate Hawaii issued would be an official state birth certificate, but it would list the out of state place where the birth occured under place of birth. It would not fraudulently name Hawaii as the place of birth if that wasn't true. Do you see the difference?

Suppose Delaware allowed anybody from any state to get a Delaware driver's license. Say you are from 2104 Birther Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Delaware might issue you a valid drivers license for driving in Delaware, but your true address would be listed. They would not fraudulently make up a place in Delaware for you to use as your address.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
carpenturr:

I don't believe allowing amendments to birth certificates means that they allow fraud. The same for the certificates issued to children born elsewhere. It is possible to get a new Hawaiian certificate, but if the person wasn't born in Hawaii they won't issue one that says the person was.

Amendments are for situation like a child born to unmarried parents who married shortly after the child was born and the child goes his entire life using his father's last name but then runs into conflict because his mother's name is on the birth certificate. That's the kind of thing they allow you to amend.

I'd like to see more about the Maya matter.

I've been reading about which hospital Obama was born in and its the most interesting issue I've seen so far from the birthers. Do you guys have anything, like a letter or a newspaper article from a normal publication, that quotes either of the hospitals as flat out saying Obama was NOT born there?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Carpenturr:

Both Obama and McCain provided birth certificates, although there was never any good reason in Obama's case to believe he wasn't a natural born citizen.

The contrast I see is that Democrats quickly cleared McCain, went to the trouble of adopting a resolution that removed all doubt, and left the matter alone. This despite the fact that the case for McCain being a natural born citizen had some valid doubts.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citar:

Your last post was very misleading. Senator McCain was born abroad. Leahy was only referring to cases where a child is born abroad with American citizen parents. Leahy wasn't expressing an opinion about children born in America.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The ambassador danced around the question about marking Obama's birthplace. That's because he knew there was no such place in Kenya.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Idurham:

Obama produced a birth certificate. Its on the web.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citar:

I'm sad that birthers who were here for a serious discussion aren't here. I enjoy debating and debunking. I don't know if they left or if they were kicked out.

I am happy that the birthers who tried to interfere with the rights of others by repeatedly posting new ideas which were the same topic are gone. Cut and pasters should be gone too. Those who post their own opinions but will not read and consider those of others have a right to be here. I don't welcome them though.

I've spent many hours trying to consider your opinion on the meaning of "natural born citizen." I haven't found anything that convinces me your interpretation is the correct one.

A main focus of your definition rests on the work of Vattel. Vattel wrote his work in French. The only English translation of his work did not use the exact words "natural born citizen." That translation didn't come until decades later. I don't speak French but I'm reading that the "natural born citizen" phrase does not appear in Vattel's work. The cited passage only uses the word "citizen" once, where it would take two times to say ,"A citizen is a natural born citizen if..." So its unlikely that framers used Vattel do define "natural born citizen."

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/

Several authoritative Obots concede that there were nations at the time of the framing who considered only those whose parents were citizens to be citizens at birth. However, this did not include America.

Vattel's book wasn't about American law. It was a book about the ideas that were used to form international relations. When discussing citizenship Vattel used definitions from other countries.

It doesn't make sense that the framers would use a foreign definition when there was an American one on the books. Suppose you were brought before a magistrate and charged with trespassing. You bring along a code book and point out to the magistrate that your conduct did not meet the legal definition of trespassing. The magistrate produces a book about the law in Egypt and shows you your conduct meets the definition there. Then the magistrate says some legislators studied Egyptian law, so that the Egyptian definition must be what they intended. Wouldn't that be crazy?

If we are to look for the intent of the founders when they wrote "natural born citizen" our search should start with what the legal definition was in America at the time.

I have differences with the rest of your case too. I'll post them.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
dj-confab:

When I said the issue could have been dealt with before the election, I mean you could have formed a campaign to convince the voters. The fact that your campaign was successful does not change the fact that you had an opportunity. There are thousands and thousands of different groups that want their ideas to be noticed by the population. Few succeed.

Lack of standing is not a "baloney" tactic. The finding has been repeated in different judicial forums. There is no case that found standing that I know of.

I take exception to your statement that I should "get out of the way." Who are you? We live in America, where we all have equal voice. What makes you think you can tell me to "get out of the way?"

I've outline the harm birther investigations can cause. Let me add one. Suppose one of Obama's school records gets misplaced. Berg would allege a cover up. Berg would contact the FBI. Berg would then tell the media the FBI is investigating. When the media would ask the FBI for a response they'd be told "no comment" because of FBI rules. From there the right wing media would say Obama is being investigated for obstruction of justice. Then the mainstream media would take up the claim.

Allowing an investigation of this hoax created by kooks would be like giving a lunatic a machine gun.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
rejean:

I don't believe Sean Penn is is willing to accept massive numbers of deaths to achieve his objectives.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
tsiya:

The constitution created government. Its a compact between the people and the government. There are limits to what the government can do in it. But the first primary purpose was to create a stonger federal government after the Articles of Confederation failed.

The parts that limit government just get talked about more.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The birth certificate issue was raised before the election. Obama posted his birth certificate on his campaign website.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
carpenturr: Standing has its own legal meeting within the courts. I forget all the rules, but I think one of them is that the person doesn't have standing to sue if he suffered no harm.

Suppose you buy a washing machine from Maytag and they fail to honor a warranty. You can sue them. I can't sue them, because I've suffered no harm. I wouldn't have standing.

There are other rules too. While the 1st amendment is important, it doesn't say the courts must hear every suit and can't dismiss frivolous ones. While philosophically I agree that the people are the true holders of power, they must exercise that power within the law. You may feel that you have the right to demand proof of something, but then, what about everybody else? Can we all sue? Can we all demand proof our suspicions are wrong? Can you imagine what would happen if that was the rule?

You as a citizen are free to petition government, or exercise your first amendment rights to promote your side of this issue. You just can't force the courts to assist you.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citar: Where does it say "subject to the jurisdiction" means no foreign allegience? I'm not coming up with a definition of allegiance in the way I'm inferring you mean it.

Does this all come from Vattel? If not, where?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Allison: If you are still here, could you help me with a piece of ammo I'd like to hurl at the Birthers?

The other day, in a major Hawaiian newspaper, the lady in charge of their birth certificate operation said the Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii's current certificates were acceptable. Would you happen to know the citation for the case?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Antoinette LaSalle:

US State Department -

"U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/11/131399.html
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
antoinette lasalle:

It doesn't mention dual citizens because all who fall into one of those categories (usually A) are US citizens whether they have dual citizenship or not.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'll tell you what's wrong with discovery. For one thing, Berg will allege perjury every time one witness'es memory is different from another's. If any documents are misplaced, Berg will allege obstruction of justice. If Berg asks somebody what his exact words were 15 years ago and the witness says he doesn't remember, Berg will yell cover up and accuse the witness of lying.

Witnesses and defendants have to pay legal bills. Witnesses who worked in the Clinton White House had to often pay $350,000 in legal fees. Who will pay the costs if some passport stamper from 1981 Pakistan has to travel here?

Such a circus would require countless hours preparing and complying. Important attention to other significant and real problems would suffer. Minutes at the White House are precious.

An investigation by Berg would intrude on private matters from here to Indonesia. Berg would never stop asking for more information.

And what could be achieved through all this? Nothing! The same people who are after Obama would just say it was a cover up if the investigation came up empty. They'd even say Berg was an Obama plant and stuff like that. Remember when Larry Klayman accused Ken Starr of covering up for Clinton?

The rest of America already recognizes birthers are kooks. No reputable person would want to be associated with the investigation, as their reputation could be lumped in with those of a bunch of nuts. Someone would have to be forced to go through all this.

Any reasonable person who looks at this whole thing realizes immediately this is an obvious hoax.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
apugh:

I don't know what you heard. If you mean the Trilateral Commission, they are on the web and would be happy to answer any of your questions. It helps to find out what the commission does before speculating on what they MIGHT do.

The Council of Foreign Relations has long been a right wing boogy man. The myth is that there is some kind of secret world control there. In fact, the Council has about 4,500 members, so it would be hard for them to all conspire with each other.

Invites to join the Council are a great honor and most who receive the offer accept. If Obama isn't a member now I'd expect him to join after he's finished with his presidency. There is nothing wrong with that.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Please cite the law by which you have a legal right to demand the president provide you proof of citizenship?

(Acutally, he did prove that, so what really need is to see the law that gives the right to demand endless proof of innocence to endless accusations.)
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Carpenturr:

No, I don't capiche. What does the process a foreigner goes through to become a US citizen have to do with Obama? Are you saying Obama had no US citizenship at all? He does under the 14th amendment. Even babies born to illegal immigrants who sneak across the border and deliver to give their children American citizenship get it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama already proved he's a citizen.

There were many opportunities before the election was certified for birthers to raise the qualifications issue. Birther complaints did not prevail.

I read lots of talk here about the people being more important than anything else, even the law. But do birthers represent the people? The people did not go along with the birthers. A majority of American voters chose Obama. That is when the people spoke and that's what deserves respect. A tiny fringe group on a witch hunt is not synonomous with "the people."

Knowing Obama is a citizen, there is no reason for me to welcome and inquiry. All it would be is publicity for birther lies and an endless witch hunt. I remember what the wingers did to Clinton after he agreed to cooperate and was cleared by multiple investigations. It was very ugly.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Dual citizenship doesn't result in any loss of American citizenship rights, except when American citizenship has been denounced.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/11/131399.html

I'd be happy to go through cases.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The newspaper announcement data was obtained from the Hawaiian health depart who obtained the information from hospitals.

For the birth announcements to be false, there would have had to have been a conspiracy at the health department to fake Obama's birthplace. Why would they do that? That's a question the birthers should answer.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Whether Obama had dual citizenship is not relevent. There's plenty of case law that says a natural born citizen doesn't lose any rights by holding citizenship in a second country, unless the citizen after turning 21 renounces his American citizenship.

Birthers! Demand records of every Embassy for all the years since Obama turned 21. After all, they have to prove it didn't happen, right?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
sallietoo:

When they talk about democratic socialism they aren't talking about the Democratic Party. When they say democratic they mean they believe in democracy.

I don't believe all those people on the list are socialists. Some conservatives define socialism as any government that engages in any wealth redistribution. So to them, all those people might be socialist.

I call it socialism when they want the government to own the means of production, when they want to destroy corporations, and they hold radical beliefs about redistribution, like full equality of results, rather than equality of opportunity.

I don't believe there are that great of differences between Americans on aid to the less fortunate. Both sides seem to agree that if someone is totally incapable of taking care of themselves, like an invalid, that person should get help. Neither side likes to see able bodied people freeloading on the system. Our only differences are over who falls into which category and how much they should pay or receive.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Excellent research!
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Rejean: Do you think the New York Times published a five page travel article in 1981 so that when you came to read it in 2009 they could fool you into thinking Obama could travel to Pakistan?

Anything that disagrees with birthers is immediately dismissed and ignored, regardless of what the facts, evidence and logic is. This is why birthers do not deserve information that they request.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citar:

I looked at the link you provided and its to a court document. The document says investigators were dispatched to the newspaper and they could not determine who placed the "ad." This tells me nobody seriously looked into the matter, because the announcement was not in an "ad." It was in a column list of birth announcements which the newspaper received from the Department of health.

Here's a link:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

This has been verified by Snopes.com, one of the most respected verifiers of fact versus falsehood on the Internet.

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

Its obvious that this information didn't come from individual announcements because it all closely follows a format. I learned the source was the health department from a comment on the Hawaiian Star-Bulletin.

What we have in the court document is either a gross failure to verify fact or an intentional effort to deceive. It's probably the latter.

I'm looking forward to exploring your explanation of natural law.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
freedomfigher4:

There was no ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. Here is a New York Times article from 1981 which discusses tourist attractions in Pakistan.

The more times identical items are posted, the dumber they always turn out to be.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/7009-4049http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

Please consider facts and stop pasting misinformation at our national blog.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Citar:

Thank you for linking to something that at least includes more than just repeated declarations about what the law is with no underlying support.

I've read some of your link and post and something jumps out at me right away. There is a misunderstanding of the term "under the jurisdiction." One need not be a citizen to fall under jurisdiction. If you were a Namibian in Ohio and you broke the law in Ohio you could be arrested and convicted and punished in Ohio. Ohio would have jurisdiction over you. What is meant with the definition of "natural born subject" is that the parent was under the control of the sovereign.

For 300 years before the US Revolution, common law held that any child born of two parents under the jurisdiction of the king was a citizen. Allegiance only came into place because there were two exceptions in common law. One was for ambassadors, who didn't qualify, because ambassadors were immune from arrest. The other exception was for soldiers of invading armies, because they weren't under the king's jurisdiction, at least not until they were defeated or captured.

From US V. Wong Kim Ark:

"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

P.A. Madison confuses this requirement of jurisdiction. He thinks it means require two citizen parents. That's not the case.

Another mistake in the linked article is the idea that a person with dual citizenship loses his American citizenship. That's not the case. You could find reference to the real rules in US V. Wong Kim Ark. I'll also cite other cases if you'd like.

P.A. Madison brought up the law of nations. The law of nations is the law of many different nations. Some held a two citizen parent standard. The rest granted citizenship by birth. England handed down the law in the US at the time of the drafting of the constitution. It set the citizenship by place of birth standard. While its interesting to see how other nations looked at it, its inconceivable that the founders would leave a legal term to be defined by the law of a foreign nation without notification when the current American law on the books well defined "natural born citizen." And it was defined, except for those two exceptions, as anyone born within the United States.

I don't agree with the author that one must have two citizen parents to be trustworthy. We are a nation of immigrants. Many of us could have been and in fact were taken for periods of time back to ancestral countries. Yet the number of cases of treason in the US are few. The idea that only those with domestic ancestry can be trusted is a convenient tool for racists and xenophobes.

I think its best to make a judgement based on ones own witness of the object of the discussion, rather than a second hand analysis of the object coming from someone else, particularly if they are partisan.

It takes a long time to read it but much can be learned from US V. Wong Kim Ark.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Johndot: I don't know who "Stanley" is. I can tell you why the corporate media hasn't covered proof of Obama's citizenship. Almost the entire reason is that this is a fringe kook issue and the rest of the world believes that only crazy people don't believe Obama was born here. So why would they make a big deal about evidence that say what everybody but a few knows is true?

The press was pretty tough on Obama up until the point when John McCain, their pet, became unbearably dishonest and ignorant. (like when he blamed Obama for high gas prices) Obama has had a nice honeymoon but they still snipe at him and would love to get a big story on him if they could.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I've been posting at a far left message board for years. There are hardened socialists and communists and Green Party members who may not be socialist but are very far left.

All of those people hate Obama. They hate him more than the birthers do. But instead of believing Obama is part of a communist plot, they believe Obama is part of a corporatist plot.

Communists are so extreme that they are unable to find anything in common with Obama. They would not be part of a plot to put him in office.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
A post in the Hawaii paper said that the lady who shared the hospital room with Obama's mother has come forward and records confirm her story. There were newspaper birth announcements for both ladies days after the birth. I believe nurses and others came forward too. The post says lots of people remember the Obamas and that all the Hawaiians know he was born there and think bithers are crazy.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
MadSpartan: Couldn't somebody who can forge the short certificate also forge the long one? And if a long one is what is called for and Obama used forgers, why didn't they forge the long one?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
"Why won't Barry instead simply order a $12.00 copy of his hospital birth certificate from the hospital he claims he was born in and post it?"

The hospital probably doesn't have the records.

I don't want Obama to provide anything to witch hunters. Giving them anything only makes them worse. Obama turned over his birth certificate. Two Hawaiian newspapers carried birth announcements days after Obama's birth. Independent experts examined the document. The people in charge of the records attested that they have his birth certificate on file. That is proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Any resonable person would be satisfied. It doesn't matter what kind of birth certificates the hospital kept or what his college application said because he was born in the United States and that legally makes him a natural born citizen. That's all anybody needs to know.

Endless doubts are raised by the witch hunters. Look at the statement - "Why doesn't he turn them over? What does he have to hide?"

Its an ignorant game that means if you don't submit to our demands we'll accuse you of something. Giving power to people who play that way is a losing game. Its best to ignore them if you can. I'm sure Obama feels the same way about it. I'm glad he's smart enough to give the birthers nothing.

They look foolish trying to trick a smart guy like Obama who won't fall for it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
They ought to force the filers of the frivolous suits to pay it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'd also like to get the citation for the Supreme Court case that says short form birth certificates are valid ID.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I think people who file frivolous lawsuits ought to be fined.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
This commentary will inflame the birthers.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Would Kandis and blackmonrikker mind if I butt in?

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S. 649, 656] explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Cockb. Nat. 7.

Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896 Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 99

The English statute of 11 & 12 Wm. III. (1700) c. 6

In McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354,

Levy v. McCartee (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115,

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

Gardner v. Ward (1805) 2 Mass. 244,

." State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.

Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, secretary of state, in 1854 ( 2 Whart. Int. Dig. [2d Ed.] p. 394); by Attorney General Black in 1859 (9 Ops. Attys. Gen. 373); and by Attorney General Bates in 1862 (10 Ops. Attys. Gen. 328, 382, 394, 396).

Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Phylmike34:

Please stop pasting the exact same thing all over the place. I'm going to answer what you are posting, knowing it's very likely that if I tell you something that makes sense and refutes your post, you will ignore it and go on pasting.

DHHL is a program for Hawaiian natives with 50% of more native blood. Money comes from a compensation legacy left by the US when they obtained the island from the inhabitants. Since lots of people who aren't 50% native would like a share of the legacy, the DHHL requires proof of ancestry.

The quicker way to do that is to provide the old long form birth certificate. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE LONG FORM IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE PROOF. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY A LONG FORM CAN BE STILL PICKED UP AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. THE DHHL OFFERS THE CHANCE TO SUBMIT A LONG FORM BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE WHO OBTAINED LONG FORM COPIES BEFORE 2001 STILL HAVE THEM. Those who have long forms will save steps.

The DHHL advises that there are alternative ways. It doesn't say anywhere that the current birth certificate can't be used to supply some of the information. It just says more would be needed.

Here's from the website:

"Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

It says "requires additional information. It doesn't say they don't accept it. If they didn't accept it as partial proof they wouldn't say "require additional." They'd way "We don't accept certifications."

World Net Daily is one of the worst sources of information on the Internet and that's saying a lot!

creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I found this over at the Honolulu Star-Tribune. It was posted by a guy who called himself Alferd and claimed to be from Chicago:


Birther: The fact that it is a COLB proves that Obama was born in Kenya, People born overseas were issued a COLB, while people born in Hawaii received a Birth Certificate.

Reality: Since 2001, the State only issues certified COLBs no other form is issued.

Birther: The birth certificate is fake. It was printed from a computer; They didn’t have computers in 1961.

Reality: The birth certificate was printed from the state vital records database in 2007 and certified by the state.

Birther: Hawaiian law allows people to register foreign births of children, Obama was born in Kenya but his birth was registered in Hawaii.

Reality: No such law existed in 1961. If President Obama was born on Friday Evening, August 4, 1961, how did the birth get registered on Tuesday, August 8, 1961? Did his mother fly from Kenya to Honolulu with a three day old child in her arms?(on a 1950’s era airplane, at that).

Birther: The Hawaiian Governor sealed the records so that no one can see where he was really born.

Reality: Why would the Republican Governor of Hawaii do that? No one “Sealed” the records, they are just protected under the same privacy (and anti-identity theft) laws that protect everyone else.

Birther: His Grandma said he was born in Kenya.

Reality: No she did not. That is a false claim perpetrated by one of the con-men looking to make money off this scam. The actual tapes show quite conclusively that his grandmother and other relatives stated that he was born in Hawaii.

Birther: He became an Indonesian citizen when he moved there with his parents and since Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, he must have renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Reality: President Obama lived in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10, when he moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. The supreme court has clearly stated that it is not possible for a minor child to renounce their U.S. citizenship.

Birther: His father was a British Subject, thus under British law, Obama was born with dual citizenship. Therefore he can not be a natural born citizen.

Reality: Laws of a foreign country have no bearing on how the U.S. chooses it’s leaders.

Birther: Vattel says that if his father was not a citizen, then he can not be a natural born citizen.

Reality: Vattell was a Swiss philosopher who had nothing to do with the crafting of the Constitution. In fact, Vattell himself admitted that under the British system in place at that time, the mere fact of birth within the realm was sufficient to grant natural born citizen status to a person regardless of the status of the parents.

Birther: In Minor v. Happersett, the judge ruled “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Parents is plural therefore both parents have to be citizens.

Reality: The term “Parents” is a collective noun, just like the term “Children.” Or are you suggesting that anyone who is an only child is not a citizen?

Birther: Obama flew to Pakistan in 1981, U.S. citizens were banned from travel to Pakistan, therefore Obama must have used a Indonesian passport.

Reality: There was no travel ban to Pakistan for U.S. citizens. In fact, due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.S. were close allies at that time.

Birther: Obama ha spent tens of millions of dollars trying to hide this document.

Reality: Most of the cases don’t even list him as a defendant, so there in no proof he spent any money on them at all. In the case of the Alan Keyes lawsuit, President Obama was represented Pro Bono.

Birther: The fact that it is a COLB proves that Obama was born in Kenya, People born overseas were issued a COLB, while people born in Hawaii received a Birth Certificate.

Reality:(Sigh)
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
US Patriot:

You should be evaluated.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
dapeoria:

What does he have to hide is another way of saying you have no evidence but its up to him to prove your speculation is wrong, and prove it to your unobtainable satisfaction.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
This is an absolute lie from World Net Daily (suprise!)

Here's what the Hawaiian Home Land site says:

Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

(snip)

There are times when the birth certificates for yourself and/or your parents or grandparents are not available and you have gotten "No-record" certifications from DOH. DHHL may accept secondary documents which assist in establishing family ties or blood quantum in place of primary documents.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I was poking around the Internet to look at this claim that a child need not be born in Hawaii to receive a Hawaiin birth certificate. I found that its true. If the child's parents resided for Hawaii for one year before the out of state birth, the state would issue a certificate.

But nowhere could I find anything that said that the certificate would list Hawaii as the birthplace. If Obama was born in Kenya to Hawaiin parents, he could get a Hawaiin birth certificate, but it would say he was born in Kenya.

Since Obama's birth certificate says he's born in Hawaii it means he was born in Hawaii. Any birther conclusion that the Hawaiin government is in the the business of providing fraudulent birth certificates is the kind of lunacy that makes birthers so much fun.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I enjoyed our chat.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Skydiver: As before, I'm drawing my impression that you are saying you want Obama to "submit" from the following passage:

"What bothers me, and millions of others, is not where Obama was born, but why he obstinately refuses to disclose his birth documents and any other records that in the normal course would be available. At the least, such refusal seems to reflect an unhealthy perspective of one's place in the community "

Obama supplied his birth certificate to his doubters. By doing such, he performed the duty which you but not I believe to exist.

Please cite the clause in the Constitution that gives the president a duty to satisfy the birthers. I don't believe there ever was one, so cannot say it was waived or excused.

I don't know what you mean by great lengths to avoid his "duty." Frivolous lawsuits have to be responded to.

In the last couple of days we ran into an article from the Hawaii paper in which the official in charge of birth certificate says they no longer keep the long form. Those were deleted in a 2001 transition to electronic record keeping. So its likely that Obama has lost his original birth certificate. If that's the case, he has no way to replace it and surrennder it to the birthers, even if he wanted to do that, which would be foolish.

Obama has no Constitutional duty to prove his qualifications to concerned citizens after he was certified to be the president by Congress.

The meaning of "natural born citizen" is best established by the controlling Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark.

In the case, the majority ruled:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore EVERY CHILD BORN IN ENGLAND OF ALIEN PARENTS WAS A NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III."THE SAME RULE WAS IN FORCE IN ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, AND CONTINUED TO PREVAIL UNDER THE CONSTITUION AS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649

I've refuted all citations I've seen given by birthers.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
blackmonrikker: ROFL! Also, I checked out politijab.com but couldn't find anything about birthers. Is it under forum? Anyway, it looks like a great site and I bookmarked it. Thank you for inviting me and I'd love to post there.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'd love to see that! I loved the thread about Dudley Doright's birth certicate.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
That isn't censorship. That's repairing vandalism. You posted that exact same thing about 20 times in one hour. Its annoying, especially because its so long.

I'm glad they flagged your idea. I hope they flag this post too.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
They also have to accept that wingerism failed and they haven't been able to do that.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Birthers don't have standing to sue. Article II of the constitution gave Congress the power to certify or not certify elections. It gave no such powers to the courts. You have no standing in court because even if the court agreed with you they don't have the power to do anything.

I agree the citizens are the real bosses in our country but they have to follow the law. There were chances for the citizens to disqualify Obama with his nominating petitions, with primary voters, at the party convention, with general election voters, with the state legislatures who approved the slates of electors, with the electors themselves, and with Congress when the election was certified. There has to be finality at some point. That finality came with the Congressional certification. There's nothing more you can do. You and the birthers lack standing.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Who is trolling who? The birthers are all here to disrupt in the first place.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The birthers don't have standing to sue. The constitution left the power to certify presidential elections to Congress. The constituion doesn't assign any certification powers to the courts. Birthers have no standing to sue because the courts don't have any standing to rule.

File a thousand cases. You'll get the same result every time.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Alan Keyes is a fruitcake made with rotten fruit.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
evreport: Thanks for the suggestion. I dropped them an E-mail.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I'd like to know too. I posted something about a public option for health care. I don't know why it was scrubbed.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
dandapper111:

Researchers discoved birth announcements in the two majoy Hawaiin newspapers published at the time of Obama's birth. How could somebody forge that?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Kandis:

Just because Obama saw the birth certificate when he was a teenager doesn't mean he hasn't lost it since then.

I'd like to see your evidence that the framers used a definition of natural born citizen from a book about laws of other nations. It doesn't make sense to use the definition of another country when American law at the time said anybody who was born in America, regardless of who their parents were, was a natural born citizen.

The US Supreme Court held up the any parent standard in US v. Kim Wong Ark. That case is the controlling authority on the subject.

John Jay said the president shouldn't be a foreigner. He doesn't say anything about the president's parents.

Here's a link to US v. Wong Kim Ark. If you read it, you'll see the majority found pages and pages of precedents which held up the any parent standard.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
bellevuedan:

I found something that parents who resided in Hawaii for one year could obtain a birth certificate. It doesn't say that the birth certificate will lists the child's place of birth as Hawaii. I think this is where the confusion is coming from.

I think what they'd give you is a certificate that lists a place of birth that is not in Hawaii.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
blackmonrikker:

I agree. Its probably a psychological problem.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
It already has been resolved. There is no more detailed birth certificate. Those records were scrubbed by the Hawaiin Department of Health back in 2001. That won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists though.

http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Born identity
Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations

By June Watanabe


POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009

(Single Page View) | Return to Paginated View

Question: What is the state's policy for issuing a "Certification of Live Birth" versus a "Certificate of Live Birth"? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier's name and title; attendant's name and title, etc. The certification has only the child's name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name and father's race. Why doesn't the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

Answer: No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."

The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

Asked about that document, Okubo said, "This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."

We found a discussion of "the truth about Obama's birth certificate" on the Web site FactCheck.org -- www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

The organization describes itself as "a nonpartisan, nonprofit 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."

It says a "certification of live birth" is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.

Write to "Kokua Line" at Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210, 500 Ala Moana, Honolulu 96813; call 529-4773; fax 529-4750; or e-mail kokualine@starbulletin.com.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I think all those kooks filing frivolous court documents ought to be fined.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I think creating dozens of frivolous court filings ought to be limited.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
So if Obama doesn't submit "he looks guilty." That's like saying submit or we'll get you. That sounds like a power trip to me.

I don't think there is that large of a movement of people who don't believe Obama is a citizen. Members of Congress, the senior GOP, and even talk radio hosts aren't playing with this one.

By the way, his birth certificate was examined by experts, and confirmed by the state of Hawaii.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Raydene: I can prove all that wrong with links. But for now, I'm just wondering, why if your friend was born in California she has a birth certificate that says she was born in Hawaii?

Here's the article EVREPORT posted. I can find links to contradict the rest of what you claim but for now:

evreport 5 hours ago Report Abuse
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 6, 2009


Question: What is the state's policy for issuing a "Certification of Live Birth" versus a "Certificate of Live Birth"? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier's name and title; attendant's name and title, etc. The certification has only the child's name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name and father's race. Why doesn't the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

Answer: No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.

Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."

The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

Asked about that document, Okubo said, "This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate."


http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
constitutionrules:

Did you read what I wrote? EVREPORT found an article from Hawaii in which the Hawaiin Deparment of Health stated that they got rid of all the old birth certificates back in 2001 and now only have the electronic version that was given to Obama.

Obama probably lost the original. He went to get a copy. What he gave you is all he could possibly get. THERE IS NO LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Does that, as you pretend, mean that the fact that the document being sought by the birthers does not exist means that the birthers will be satisfied and shut up?

Of course not. The birthers are demonically possessed with this stuff. They'll persist with this until....well, forever. Just watch!
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
If we can just get a group together and call ourselves a grand jury I want to form one to indict Rush Limbaugh for treason.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Raydene: Obama doesn't want to spend $1 million of the public treasury on frivolous lawsuits. The birthers do, and they should be ashamed of wasting so much money when times are so hard.

Obama has no choice but to fight. What is the alternative? Should he concede to bogus claims that he's not qualified and resign?

vcreport found out that its impossible for Obama to obtain his long form birth certificate. Those records were scrubbed in Hawaii in 2001 when they went to all electronic records. Why are the birthers filing frivolous lawsuits to demand a document that doesn't exist?

Of course, whatever could be given to the birthers wouldn't be enough. They'd want more and more. Its much cheaper for Obama to have these frivolous suits thrown out from the start. I'm glad he's doing it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
gypsy: Maybe your cousin got her certificate before 2001 when the switch was made.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
evreport:

Fantastic find! This destroys the whole birther argument about submitting a long form birth certificate. Mind if I use it too?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
evreport:

I enjoy wasting my time on pointless tasks on the Internet. I especially like debating wingers. I know that there is no way in the world they can be convinced of anything that doesn't completely follow wingerism.

I share your sympathy for them.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Those guys want to be part of the inside the beltway clique. They back off anything that might upset the status quo.

Its best to send them E-mails telling them you will no longer listen because of their cowardice and follow through.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama isn't charged with anything. A group of citizens can't just appoint themselves to be a grand jury and file some kook indictment against someone they don't like.

Your headline is deceptive. It should read "Group of kooks files frivolous court document."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
tjmccann:

The case Waite in Minor V. Happersett did not decide the meaning of "natural born citizen." Your quote is taken out of context. The court was discussing the meaning of "natural born citizen and brought up two competing theories, one that the parents must be citizens, and another that the parents need not be citizens. "It was never doubted..." only refers to the children of citizens, because they didn't have to rule on that since it was decided. The court then turned to the other possible definition. Here is the entire passage in context:

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 PARENT. 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."

The appellant in the case was born in America of citizen parents. She was a woman. The issue of the case was whether a woman was entitled to vote following the 14th Amendment. So the court didn't have to decide the meaning of "natural born citizen" and didn't. They never offered an opinion either way.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&page=162

In US V Kim Wong Ark the court did decide the meaning of "natural born citizen" based on hundreds of years of precedent and the law that was in affect in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The precedents listed go on further than I could stay awake reading. The framers were certainly using the current legal definition.

Here's what the court in Ark ruled:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore EVERY CHILD BORN IN ENGLAND OF ALIEN PARENTS WAS A NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. THE SAME RULE WAS IN FORCE IN ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards,AND CONTINUED TO PREVAIL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649

To the extent that its been decided, the law in the US for as long as we have existed has always been that a child born in the US of immigrant parents was a citizen. This law was later reinforced by the 14th Amendment.

Finally, you cite Vattel as a source of the principle that children of alien parents were not citizens. But Vattel wrote that in a book about the law of nations. Some nations said such children were citizens. Some nations didn't. Vattel was not discussing US law, which at the time of the framing said such children were citizens.

Vattel is cited by the defense in Ark. There is nothing in the dissent that says the founders followed Vattel's reference to the law of other nations when they drafted the constitution. We draft laws based on legal terms of our own county, not someone else's.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Why spend $1 million in legal fees? He doesn't want to spend anything. He has to to defend himself and his office. If Obama doesn't defend he risks being thrown out of office over a kook conspiracy theory.

The cheapest way to litigate these assaults is to have them thrown out of court at the outset.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Don't pretend you want to put the controversy to rest. If Obama provides a more detailed birth certificate you'll just call it a forgery and continue on as before.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Magikrider:

Rush wasn't the only source or first source of the corrupt dealership choice hoax. It also came from kook sites on the Internet. I blew lots of time refuting their arguments on their blogs.

I agree I'm an idiot because I spend so much time on the Internet.

Going after Rush is a brilliant strategy that I campaigned for for years. Rush escaped scrutiny for most of his career because he bullied down critics by smearing every one. Nobody would stand up to him.

Rush was, and still is very powerful. He's the driveshaft of the vast right wing conspiracy. Lately he's smeared a good Supreme Court nominee with statements taken out of context and distortions of her record. He's been effective.

He's effective, but he also offends most of the public with his arrogance, dishonesty, poor manners, hatred and intellectual slovenliness. So it was smart for the left to raise Limbaugh's profile and call him the head of the GOP.

Once the profile was raised and the kingship bestowed, Republicans were in a real pickle. If they supported Rush they'd lose votes. If they opposed Rush, he'd destroy them. At first a few Republicans denounced Rush. But gradually more went after him, and it quickly left Rush with not enough time to slander all his critics. That let more people join the Rush bashing, because Rush no longer held a threat. Rush can't defend what he does without bullying. There are too many lies. So Rush is losing stature.

Rush has to strike back at the GOP in general. But by doing so he weakens the party. That will make more Republicans oppose him. The fight could bring down all of them.

So going after Rush is brilliant and its best just to concentrate on him for awhile.

I don't think everybody gets their news from Rush. Conservatives get their biased news from multiple right wing media sources. Rush is just the kingpin.

I take Media Matters with a grain of salt because they are openly biased. I do think they are fair though, and judge what they say after critically looking at the evidence they provide. I don't always agree with them.

Dittoheads are another matter. No, they don't question Rush. Rush changes his story from one day to the next. His predictions are nearly always wrong (although he calls attention to the few that are right) Yet his followers believe him. I've been arguing with them for years on the net and no amount of proof can budge them from believing the lies Rush tells. Look at this case with the auto dealers. Can you admit Rush lied?

Here's a real event with Rush. Rush proclaimed on his show that the New York Times was conspiring to cover up the fact that Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown was black. Sherrod Brown isn't black. Rush admitted that later in the show, and admitted he got that wrong. But what about the conspiracy by the New York Times? Since such a conspiracy could not have taken place, where did Rush get the idea there was one? He pulled it out of his bottom. He flat out made up a terrible sensational accusation and was caught red handed. However, his followers never questioned what happened one bit.

The capital letters give me the impression you are angry. I don't see why. If you think for yourself I'd expect you to love a good debate.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
antoinette:

The state verified the birth certificate.

"The state health director said yesterday she has personally seen and verified Sen. Barack Obama's original birth certificate in an effort to address numerous requests for the document."

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20081101_officials_verify_birth_certificate_of_obama.html

I can explain why Obama doesn't take 15 minutes to provide a more detailed birth certificate. The birthers would immediately declare it to be a forgery.

The rule of how this should work is the birthers should come up with evidence that Obama is NOT a citizen, then ask for proof. This is the opposite. The birthers are demanding that Obama prove himself innocent. By yielding to a birther demand, Obama would be accepting a rule that said he must prove himself innocent to a mob that has no interest in facts.

This would be a witch hunt dynamic. Endless questions and accusations would follow. The demands for documents have already gone way beyond a detailed birth certificate. Along the way, any excuse his enemies could find would be used to accuse him of covering up. Suppose he lost a document? What would they say?

By responding, Obama would also bring media attention that would draw in more enemies and give a sense of power to the mob that would stimulate them. It could become a very public dirty war. All the while, Obama would have to submit under the prove your innocence rule.

Right now, Obama is in the captain's chair because birthers are unable to draw enough attention to their cause to gain significant public exposure. If Obama ignores the birthers, there's nothing they can do. So he'd be a fool to jump in the quicksand by submitting to birther demands.

You say you have no reason to believe the newspaper clips are authentic. They have been verified by Snopes.com, which is one of the most respected arbitrators of the truth on the net. What is the alternative, that Snopes is in on a fraud with fake newspapers clippings?

The disbelief here is why its just not true that Obama could clear this up in 15 minutes.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He was born in Hawaii. He has a birth certificate verified by the Hawaiin Health Department. There were also announcements in two newspapers when he was born. While birthers argue that the birth certificate is fraudulent, they haven't come up with an explanation for how Obama could have place an announcement in 40 year old newspapers. The announcements, taken together with the certificate, are proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How could they both be fake?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Kandis: I agree that "natural born citizen" is not in the 14th amendment.

Your website is trying to draw a distinction between children of legal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants. That's not an issue here. The meaning of "natural born citizen is. The case was decided with consideration of the 14th amendment but it was also decided using the history of the meaning of natural born citizen since that history illuminated the meaning of the 14th amendment.

Here is the last paragraph of the majority holding in the case:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama provided the proof. You won't accept it. You demand more. That's a demand that he prove his innocence.

It has nothing to do with "transparency." Transparency doesn't mean that a mob of his enemies can demand endless proof that every accusation they can think up is false and then submit more proof because the mob finds some far fetched excuse of why the first submissions weren't proof.

Transparency means that the put budgets on the net and stuff like that.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Magik:

Here's a link to what Rush said last Tuesday, well after the falsehood of his claims that Obama closed the dealerships turned out to be false. You'll see that here he's talking about the decision of whether to close any dealerships at all.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060209/content/01125114.guest.html

Here's a link to what the lawyer for the closed dealerships asked in court:

"Amy Brown, an attorney for the Committee of Chrysler Affected Dealers, which represents more than 330 dealers, asked why it was necessary to eliminate the franchises when neither the government or Fiat asked for it to happen."

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/05-29-2009/20090529013507_25.html

Its also noteworthy that Rush thought 2,000 dealerships were closed when it was in fact 789. Still, 2,000 was closer than the 4,000 Rush claimed previously. His attention to accuracy is shown here.

You bring up the kook fringe conspiracy theory about Obama picking WHICH dealers to close to accomplish political ends. The biggest flaw in that theory is that Obama and the task force did not make the picks. Both Obama and Chrysler deny that the task force was involved. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama or the task force was involved.

That conspiracy theory also fell apart when a study by the theory's proponents found no significant relationship between political donations and closure. In fact, the proportion of Republican donors to Democrats was higher in the stay open list.

So they went after Hillary Clinton. POOOF!

Yes, Rush was involved in peddling that kook conspiracy theory too.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Kandis:

One paragraph you cite doesn't mention the term "natural born citizen."

The other is not a legal opinion. I haven't read it in context to know what it means.

Here is the Supreme Court case that both sides in this find the most authoritative on the definition of "natural born citizen." You'll find the paragraphs below in the opinion of the court

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN ENGLAND OF ALIEN PARENTS WAS A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

The case cites more legal precedents than I have time to even read. You have one citation to an old book. The holding in this case is what the founders intended when they wrote "natural born citizen."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I have the same kind of birth certificate Obama presented and I've used it to replace a lost social security card and to renew my driver's license and to prove citizenship for employment.

Transparency? That means the public being provided information about government activities. It never meant that he would submit to every question and outrageous demand witch hunters could come up with.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
You aren't fooling anyone with the claim that if Obama releases another birth certificate all this will be over. The witch hunters behind this attack will just say the new certificate is a forgery. They still say the last one was a forgery, even though that was debunked long ago. Two newspapers carried announcements of Obama's birth when it happened. How could that be faked? So far, nobody has answered that to me. What they've said so far is "that isn't acceptable proof." Who are they to decide what is acceptable proof? When proof is supplied, they just say they don't accept it. If they aren't going to accept proof, why bother to provide it?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Media Matters posts transcripts and links to prove what they allege. Limbaugh just makes up lies.

Want an example? Limbaugh went on for weeks saying that Obama was behind the decision to close Chrysler dealerships. In fact it was Chrysler, and was for a long time. Here's a link about Chrysler planning the closures back in February,2008, long before Obama took office:

http://www.carseek.com/news/february2008/Chrysler-announces-Project-Genesis/
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
He probably doesn't have the original. Even if he did, why should he have to release it? He's already proved beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt he's a citizen.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I don't expect Obama to supply the birthers with anything.

The birthers made the rule that they can accuse Obama with no evidence at all. They say Obama has to prove his innocence. Those are witch hunt rules. If Obama obliges requests, he's signaling his acceptance of those crooked rules.

Once the test is for Obama to prove his innocence he can never win. If he submits transcripts that don't incriminate him, the birthers will just say they are forgeries, or the schools were involved in a cover up. Meanwhile, the birthers would continue to make up more accusations and demand more proof for more things.

If Obama recognizes the birthers, it will become big news. More of his enemies would appoint themselves as jurors. The thrill of pressuring and bending a US president would excite his enemies. They'd all want to join in. It would keep getting bigger and worse.

When there is a witch hunt, every meaningless detail would be used against him. Suppose he lost one of transcripts? They'd definitely say he was hiding something.

As it stands now, nobody is listening to the birthers. He doesn't have to prove anything. Why open a witch hunt nightmare by recognizing the birthers?

A NOTE: It is flawed logic often used in conspiracy theories that because one can't answer a question about a detail they must accept the far fetched explanation offered by the theory's author. Questions can be asked endlessly, and if the game gets covered on cable, they will be.

A good example of this was the "how could they make the lines so geometrically accurate" question that was used to push the crop circles hoax.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Are you guys talking about the hospital birth certificate with the baby footprints on it? You don't need that anywhere.

For an I9, the form to prove citizenship for employment, a simple birth certificate will do.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/ess/docs/med_verify_require_brochure_eng.pdf

Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver’s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor’s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
There are not government programs that sponsor foreign students, except for a lucky few. The Hubert Humphrey scholaship program helps about 150. That's about it.

If you feel Obama was eligible for private grants, I'd ask that you provide links to them. (transparency)

"Financial Assistance Guide for International Students
The U.S. government does not provide student assistance to non-citizens, except in the limited cases of federal exchange programs and some research opportunities. However, there may be other resources available."

http://www.usa.gov/visitors/study.shtml

A student who declared himself a foreigner would not be eligible for Pell Grants or student loans.

Could an aid source for foreigners be better than Pell Grants and student loans?

" The total number of full scholarships available each year to incoming international students in the United States is about 1,000, offered by only about 100 colleges."

"International Awards: International students also ask about financial assistance from foundations, organizations, and the U.S. government. Very little aid exists through such sources, and it is usually earmarked for advanced graduate students."

"Loans: In limited instances, you may be able to negotiate a loan to fund part of your educational costs" (Probably private loans at much higher interest rates and on far less favorable terms)

http://educationusa.state.gov/home/financial-assistance

It wouldn't make sense for Obama to trade away all the advantages of American citizenship to go after the very slim possibility that he might get money as a foreigner.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Do you have a link to lie of the day? I've been following Media Matters' full coverage of Limbaugh and its great. I'd recommend that too.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
There is no ACORN funding gravy train.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Sounds like a great idea. Its great to see this board being used as it was intended to be used. Thanks for the positive contribution.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I was doing some reading last night about the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. The judge who wrote the opinion I read, which is accepted by both sides as the case which is most relevent, researched British (common law) definitions of "natural born citizen." He found 300 years of British case law which established that the definition was anybody who was born in Britain or its territories of parents who were subject to the King's rule. That didn't mean the parents had to be citizens. Just like, if a foreigner is arrested in New Jersey he is subject to the laws of New Jersey, anyplace where the King set the law was considered subject to the King's rule. There were only two exceptions. A child of an invading foreign warrior, or the child of a foreign diplomat wasn't considered a "natural born citizen." All other children were designated as "natural born" and given citizenship.

The opinion also states that this remained the law in the American colonies up until the Declaration of Independence, and was adapted into law in force at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

Some obscure line in a legal treatise from 300 years ago does not overcome the evidence of common law definitions for what the founders intended "natural born citizen" to mean.

Obama qualifies as a "natural born citizen."
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
If Obama applied for government tuition assistance and declared himself a foreigner he would have received little or no money. If Obama got money to go to college, that's proof he didn't describe himself as a foreigner.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Skydiver:

I'm sorry you must part. If you are still reading, I'll try to answer your big question. (Why doesn't Obama just submit?)

The assumed rules by those demanding proof here are that it is up to Obama to disprove what they accuse him of. This is the opposite of what the real rule should be. The burden falls on the accuser to make at least enough of a case of culpability to warrant further investigation. Here we just have a bare accusation with no evidence at all that Obama ISN'T a citizen. So if Obama were to respond with proof, he'd be accepting the rule that its up to him to DISPROVE. Of course, Obama was foolish enough to take that step, release his birth certificate, and the accusers just got worse. Feeling a sense of power, and demanding more explanations, they went on to ask for more proof. This cycle will continue until Obama refuses to provide more information and the accusers give up.

What harm can come from people just asking? I followed events closely during the Clinton administration. Clinton made the mistake of trying to prove himself innocent to the satisfaction of his accusers. Nothing satisfied them because they weren't after truth. They were after Bill Clinton, because they hated him. They were ruthless and sick.

There were accusations when Clinton first ran like he was a KGB agent and he and Hillary had a plan to have children sue their parents because Bill and Hill wanted to destroy families. These people who made these crazy accusations appointed themselves jurors of Bill Clinton's public image.

Along came the "Whitewater Scandal." For the first couple of years there wasn't even a specific accusation, just innuendo that "something seems like its not on the up and up. Prove you did nothing wrong!"

The closest thing to an accusation was innuendo that implied that Clinton made a deal with an S&L operator to keep the operator's failing S&L open in exchange for money from a land deal. That was a ridiculous claim. Clinton was not yet governor when he engaged in the land deal. His partner was not yet an S&L owner. Clinton had no way to keep an S&L open even when he became governor because the federal government shuts down S&Ls, not states. Clinton's accusers couldn't come up with a single case of a state closing an S&L.

What states could do is bring in the fed when an S&L is insolvent. This is exactly what the State of Arkansas did. They wern't trying to keep the S&L open, they were trying to close it.

And the money part of the innuendo wasn't right either. Clinton lost money on the investment.

Never the less, Clinton submitted to and cooperated with investigations, including one by the Resolution Trust Corporation that cleared him. Clinton also hired an independent auditor to go over the records and made public the findings. All that just made things for him worse.

The accusers, encouraged by their ability to manufacture a scandal, just kept accusing, mostly in the way they are here. They ask a question, and say that if that question isn't answered then the president must be guilty. They accused the president of hiding incriminating documents because a staff member carried documents out of Vince Foster's office after Foster committed suicide. Clinton was accused of murdering Foster. There was never a shred of evidence he did. Just the endless questions like why didn't ____ and why didn't _____. Four investigations found the death was a suicide, but the accusers didn't stop. The Clintons were forced to pay legal bills for all this out of their own pockets.

A exculpatory document from the Whitewater deal was misplaced. The first lady was hauled before a grand jury 6 times because of that. There was also at least one Congressional investigation.

Some nutty secretary at the RTC said her investigation of Clinton was obstructed. That charge was carried by the media for months. It turned out that the lady was doing the investigation on her own and was never asked or allowed to perform it. Her testimony before the investigating Congressional Committee was so riddled with obvious lies that the women couldn't explain herself. She pretended to be suddenly ill, and asked to be excused until another time when she felt better. Did that clear Clinton?
Of course not. (The lady never was called back before the committee. She was, however, given a $140,000 a year job in the Bush administration.)

During the hearing, Republicans repeatedly asked questions like, "What were your exact words on that day three years ago?" Of course the witnesses couldn't remember and said so to the questioners. The Republicans counted them all up and their release to the press at the end of the day was "Democratic witnesses said they couldn't remember 157 times. GOP sees cover up."

The media of course, ignored how the accusation fell apart and instead went with the story about forgetful witnesses.

What happened at that hearing was typical of many that came and went. Each accusation that didn't turn out was replaced by two new ones. There were constant investigations going on. NEARLY EVER SENIOR STAFFER AT THE WHITEHOUSE RAN UP LEGAL BILLS IN EXCESS OF $300,000.

One GOP committee staffer doctored a tape to make it look like the Clintons tried to buy the silence of Hillary's incarcerated former law partner.

An entire industry sprung up that brought profits to authors, media figures, cable TV and radio talk shows, all specializing in making unfounded accusations against the Clintons.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ran an investigation into Clinton's sex life in Arkansas, under the absurd excuse that it was possible that Clinton did something illegal in Whitewater and confessed it in pillow talk during a tryst. Starr brought indictments against over a dozen people. Few of the people had anything significant to do with Whitewater. They were brought up on rarely prosecuted unrelated charges and told that they could gain leniency if they were willing to provide the investigators with something useful against the Clintons. It was all extortion to get people to lie.

Eventually, Whitwater led to the Lewinsky investigation and they did find something on Clinton. But even on that one subject, most of the accusations turned out to be false.

In the end Clinton was cleared of everything else to the extent that prosecutors clear anybody. "Not enough evidence to prosecute" is what prosecutors say when they've trampled a wrongly accused person.

The Clintons were left with $4 million in legal bills. Not one false accusor was ever forced to answer for their lies.

This is the kind of trouble Obama would be asking for if he continues to oblige the witch hunters. His responses would make big news. More public attention would come. The witch hunters would feel empowered and celebrate the release of each new document like a touchdown. There is no way in the world anything Obama could provide would ever satisfy the witch hunters. If he provides the "long form birth certificate" they'll just say its forged and continue on.

By refusing to go along with the witch hunt, Obama has left its participants empty handed. They can't get enough public attention to put pressure on him. As long as Obama doesn't release he has nothing to fear. Or, he could try to cooperate, like Bill Clinton did.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Boycott Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck if they don't respond.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Boycott the GOP in the next election. That's the only thing they'll understand.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Where does the request for academic records come from? Is it anything other than a fishing expedition for some snippet of information the president's opponents could use to embarrass him?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Skydiver:

I'm sorry you don't find me intellectually honest.

In addition to challenges that could be offered when nomination petitions are filed, the electoral college and Congress also serve to certify elections. So do the state legislatures. Bush V. Gore held that the power of state legislatures to choose electors is complete and unhindered. So if the state legislatures didn't think a candidate qualified, they could short circuit the process there. Unless where forced by state law, electors can also refuse to vote for a candidate who won the election. And finally, certification belongs to Congress. Objections can be raised there and have been. In 2000, an objection was made by a house member but she didn't meet the requirements that both a senator and house member must sign off on the objection. In 2004 both a senator and congresswoman objected the the Ohio election results. The cerification is put to a final vote. Any questions about qualification are to be raised there.

I believe the reason the courts keep finding a lack of standing for the birthers' lawsuits is that the qualifications were to be decided finally by Congress, and not members of the public.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/08/obama-certified-president-united-states/
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
StrangeTruth:

I went back to your site and decided to read as much of the court case cited there as I had time for this evening, even though it was edited by someone whose opinion conflicted with mine.

So, I was surprised that the judges opinion didn't support the claim that the framers considered only a person born to two citizen parents to be "natural born."

It turns out that the law of the past three centuries in England that carried down through the American colonies was that being born in England or a British possession was enough to qualify. The key being that the parents were subject to the King. That included everybody who was not either an Ambassador or soldier of an invading army. Since this was the law at the time up almost to the drafting of the constitution, its apparent what was meant by "natural born citizen."

Page 657:

'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) IS BORN WITHIN THE BRITISH DOMINIONS IS A NATURAL-BORN BRITISH SUBECT. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state

Page 658:


          It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

US v Wong Kim Ark's, link at site.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
StrangeTruth: I did go back to read the one article you pointed out and it wasn't racist. I don't know how honest it is.

I suspect some of the quotes from cases on the page are truncated because of an effort to mislead. There is a question of whether a child born ABROAD to American parents is a citizen. That's very different from a child born here. Since the beginnings of the quotes are cut off, I can't tell which is meant.

When I get a chance, I'll read more of this. Question - Was every other president born to two US citizens on American soil?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Photosrme and cloudscape:

Quit pretending that somebody is taking away your chance to air your opinions. What they are taking away is your ability to repeat them 1000s of times to block out what everybody else wants to talk about.

Dialogue is essential to democracy. Interfering with the dialogue by spamming it out is unpatriotic. This is your nation's blog. Like your nation's flag, respect it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
When Obama promised transparency he wasn't saying that he'd bend over for endless whippings from witch hunters who have no factual reasons for suspicion and would never be satisfied with any answer.

Nobody believed what the birthers say he promised was what was meant.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Hairlip:

You can see scans of the actual newspaper pages here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

The investigation by Snopes here:

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Skydiver, you write:
"What bothers me, and millions of others, is not where Obama was born, but why he obstinately refuses to disclose his birth documents...."

I think you are answering your own question of why Obama refuses to go further with this. You don't really care where he was born. So why are you asking?

I don't know your individual reasons for asking, but some common ones are a desire to get something on Obama, or to sense a teen vandalism rush from disturbing people and pressuring a powerful person to bow to your will, or feeling the excitement of being part of a crazed mob.

There is no reason for Obama to provide anything else. If we look at the verification by Hawaii, the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements and listen the the birthers, their entire theory of why this isn't proof includes:

The birth certificate is a forgery.
The government of Hawaii is in on a conspiracy to make fraudulent claims of American birth of the president.
(Let me guess, I haven't heard a response to the newspaper announcements yet) There is a conspiracy by Snopes and others to forge two Hawaiian newpaper pages from decades ago,

Do you see how improbable it would be for all these things to be true at once? Especially since the birth certificate forgery allegation has been debunked. Suppose Obama provides the "live birth record" or whatever it is. What's to stop you guys from claiming that's a forgery too? Obama and everybody else knows you'll never be satisfied by the truth because the truth isn't what you're after.

You write:

"At the least, such refusal seems to reflect an unhealthy perspective of one's place in the community. Particularly, when one has an obligation to qualify for the office of the president."

You seem to think that the president is obligated to submit to any questions, no matter how stupid, from any member of the public who asks. The president has no such duty. How could he get anything else done if he has to disprove every accusation his enemies can dream up?

I believe the president has an obligation to answer questions in response to a Congressional subpoena. However, GW Bush didn't comply with that, even when significant public business was involved and not just some fishing expedition for embarrassing information in college transcripts. Bush claimed the entire executive branch was under executive privilege and Congress wasn't entitled to information at all. Bush refused on many occasions to allow his staff to appear when subpoenaed. He also refused to provide subpoenaed documents. A subpoena was served on Condi Rice. She just plain didn't show up. Congress found the White House in criminal contempt. Bush's response was a terrifying abuse of power, he simply ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute. Under those rules, no president would ever have to answer anything to Congress. I call that Bush not knowing his place.

The birthers are just private citizens. Surely, If Bush doesn't even have to comply with legal duties Obama doesn't have to submit to a group of opponents who are out to get him. Private citizen is your place.

I've gone on too long in this post to get to your other two points. Sorry
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
I made many comments but they were all deleted. I don't know why.

I challenged all who disagreed with me to name one country that has the means and desire to attack us militarily. Whatever else they said, no one named one.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
yeshuasgrrl:

If the suject was a right winger no questions at all would be answered and there would be no pressure at all to do so.

George Bush ran around until he was 40 in a drunken stupor and got arrested at least a couple of times. Nobody ever got into whatever dumb stuff he did and the arrest record didn't come up until days before the 2000 election, at which time all the media asked was if there was a Democratic plot to release the information just prior to the election. They made it into a bad story about the Democrats.

Bush trashed a poor old woman's rental apartment too and skipped out on the bill she sent him to pay for it. Nobody found out until long after the election, and nobody said much about it when it was learned.

I could go on and on.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Skydiver:

See! Ask for proof and when it comes, zappo! It isn't accepted. Some drastically far fetched explanation is offered. Obama's family put a birth announcement in the paper because they had loan problems? How in the world would that help loan problems? Crazy.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The length of the list of requests is proof that this whole thing is a witch hunt. For every document they released, the witch hunters would want a hundred more.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Skydiver: Snopes.com also points out that the daily newspaper in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth published an announcement of his birth. How can you forge something into a newspaper 49 years old?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
StrangeTruth:

I'm sorry. I found TheObamaFile.com to be filled with lies and disgusting racism.

I did go to the trouble of looking at real legal scholars at findlaw.com, which is a great site. They report that the "natural born citizen" clause was added at the last minute and without debate. There is no controlling case law on the subject as it relates to presidential qualifications. The idea came from a letter to the framers which gave the purpose of the clause as to make sure we don't fall under the control of foreigners.

All I've ever read and known was that clause meant that the president had to be born in America. The contrary definitions here are unsupported and make no sense.

One can find somebody to say just about anything on the web. Its a very unreliable source of information.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
This definition of "natural born citizen" is obviously not the case. If one could only become a citizen if his parents were citizens, then only those who directly decended from the first American citizens could be citizens. Everybody else, including the birthers, would not be citizens.

Plain English, "natural born" means born in the United States. I noticed that the section of the Constitution also allowed for a president who was a citizen at the time the Constitution passed, regardless of where he was born. So they weren't out to provide an elite lineage that a president could only come from.

Such would be a plan to create royalty, and that's the last thing they wanted to do.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Millions of Americans aren't questioning it. Only a kook fringe group is.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The longer this goes on, the more people who will finally catch up with the rest of us and realize the GOP is run by the kook fringe now.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
mail2me wants to transfer the burden of proof to Obama. I'm sorry, but this is America, and the burden of proof falls on conspiracy theorists. Go find proof Obama was born somewhere else. Its up to you.

All the taunts of "the longer this goes on the more Americans will doubt Obama's citizenship" are bogus threats. 99% of Americans know a kook fringe fad when they see one.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The creators of this forum have asked for a halt to birth certificate spamming. Since this is a national blog, spammers are called upon by their country to serve. They serve by ending the spam attacks.

Its unpatriotic to spam.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Anything before the civil war about who is a citizen and who isn't was wiped out by the 14th amendment. Anybody born here is a citizen.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
End this immediately? Conspricy theory followers never give up. They just allege cover ups. Then, if somebody investigates to see if there was a cover up, and none is found, the conspiracy theory followers say that investigation was a cover up too.

There is nothing in the world Obama could do to "End this immediately." If he took all the birth certificate doubters in a time machine back to his birth in Hawaii the doubters still would not be persuaded. For some psychological reason the theory supporters need to believe what they do.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Why all this effort? Don't you know Obama was born in the United States?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama was born in Hawaii. That's a long long post just to get so much wrong.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
vishnu:

Its not a legitimate issue. Obama provided his birth certificate. It matches a newspaper announcement of his birth. The Hawaiin government verified the information. No reasonable person would conclude Obama is not a citizen.

I've read the constitution. It doesn't say anything about government having to provide a forum for cyber vandalism.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Then why isn't Canada taken over? Why isn't Costa Rica, which has no army at all? We have more military than the rest of the world combined. Why can all these other countries get by?

What happened long ago isn't what's happening now.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
You don't need an American father. All you need is to be born in the United States. Look up the 14th Amendment and read it.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Then perhaps you can explain just how Islam is going to take over the United States?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama doesn't own Snopes. That idea comes from a kook E-mail hoax.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
What are you frightened of that the military can protect you from? Nothing but vague ideas about somebody, you can't say who or how, coming to get us.

Nobody wants to invade us. Nobody. Why would they? We'd gun them down in the streets.

The number of negative votes I'm getting is evidence of both the storming of this site from right wing vandals and the brainwashing of the American public by the military industrial complex.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Spamming makes it harder for the rest of the participators to post our topics. We'll have more free speech when spammers respect the rights of others.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Do you think Cuba is going to invade us? Do you think we'll be taken over by Iran? Look it up. They have tiny armies. Probably smaller than the NYC police force.

Freedom is not free. Paranoid voters make us spend over $700 billion a year on it. We could get it for free though. Zombies brainwashed by talk radio are far more of a threat to our freedom than "Mexico."

Watch out for threats from Ecuador!
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Obama was born in Hawaii. Look it up on Snopes.com.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Name one country that has the means and intent to attack us. The Chinese with only 10% of the size of our military are closest to our size. They are all the way on the other side of the earth too and they can't invade us because we owe them too much money and we'd stop buying all their trinkets.

The next highest is Russia with a little under 10% of our spending. That's why I said keep the nukes. There's nothing else they can do to us.

Who else? Since you wish for us to spend $trillions on a threat, can you name exactly what that threat is?
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
An appendix with a plain language explanation sounds like a great idea.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The laws have to be able to pass a court challenge. Some of those words only lawyers know have 1500 years of case law about what the words mean. New more common terms will be argued forever and who knows what will come out.

You can look up legal terms on the web for free if you want to.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Judge Sotomayor is not a racist. She's been taken out of context by smear artists like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Her past remarks about Latina women, more often than not, making better decisions than whites, were made when she was only talking about discrimination cases.

She's experienced discrimination first hand. That makes her a better judge of it more often than not. A former member of the US Navy would probably make better decisions in admiralty cases than judges who have never been in a boat. Judge Alito says he has experience with immigrants that will help him decide immigration cases. Its a given that experience aids decision making. That's why employers look for it.

That's all Sotomayor was talking about. She's not a racist.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
Good idea! All the spammers are doing is cutting off a chance they have to raise specific answerable concerns.
creeksneakers2 9 months ago
The people have the right to abolish the government. However, they must do it through the ballot box and the amendment process.