What is a "long" birth certificate?

I actually have a copy of Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate. His Mama was US American and his Dad was African.
I don't know how it compares in length with a long one but all of the info that might be needed seems to be there.

I wonder if Lincoln had a long birth certificate? I'll bet just a Bible with a notation! If anything exists.

Just how many of them immigrants what come here from all them foreign places brought long birth certificates with parents listed and all in English language?

Now the 41 million people here now from Mexico and South America are not eligible for President, I take it. But won't their youngans be eligible? Providing they git a "long" birth certificate.

I'll just bet that if one checked the Irish birth records of Joe Biden's parents they might find they didn't come here with a long birth certificate--just lots of Irish whiskey! (His old man also sold used cars).

Anyway most all of us wus "natural born" and not by C-section!

How many ways can one say bad things about a person without calling them a racist name? Before they assimilated, mostly, I was raised near a bunch of tallies, hunkies, nips, pollocks, darkies, chinks, and bead wrestlers. Also snake handlers.
Most all them folks have now been accepted.

Bonkers's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AXJ's picture
Submitted by AXJ on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 11:01am.

Somebody just posted on the AXJ website: www.axjus.com that Judge Carter has ordered discovery. Is it true?

I am a member of AXJ and value the truth above all else. Join us now.

suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:48am.

grow up...

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 2:03am.

I have refrained so far from commenting on this issue because a) I feel that it is a non issue and b) I believe it leaves the realm of reason. It should always be our goal, in any of lifes' endeavors, to employ reason.

Is it reasonable to question the communist philosophy of those within President Obama's circle? Yes, I think that is reasonable to question and seek answers. Was it reasonable to criticize the Presidents' speech to school children? No, that was unreasonable. Is it reasonable to question the validity of a birth certificate? No, I think that is also unreasonable.

Here's the rub: One can raise reasonable arguments and debate them in a reasonable manner, but the minute he/she reaches out into the perimeter for that which is unsubstantiated and unreasonable - well, then the whole house of cards becomes shaky. One unreasonable argument can discredit two reasonable ones, making any viable opinion null and void because now you have introduced that one seed of absurdity.

Case in point: Hannity raised some reasonable questions in his interview with Michael Moore last week. But, the minute he pulled in a video of an EMPTY Cuban hospital - well, he looked silly. That one moment of silliness, unfortunately, overshadows any viable argument up to that point.

I think we should make an effort to steer clear of the absurd and stick to reasonable debate.

Submitted by pomsmom on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:58pm.

Anytime anyone questions anything about Obama we are called right-wing extremeist or birthers. I want to know WHY. My word we know nothing about this man except what he tells us. Well that's just not good enough. He is going to be running this country for the next 3 plus years and I think I am entitled toknow what kind of grades he made in school. What was the subject of all his college papers? Why does he have so many radical associations? Why has he tried so hard to cover his past? Why can't we see his long form birthcertificate? (BTW Hiwaii is now reporting that all paper documents pertainning to this document has been destroyed now that everything is on computer.) I don't believe this. There is a question about his passport from years ago. Why can't he answer this? I've got my long foorm birth certificate and my passport from years ago. If I am ever making decisions for you or anyone else you are welcome to see it.

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:39am.

I would like to see your "long" BC, please.
Also a set of bank statements for last 20 years.
Also your work history and if ever lost a job.
Who you voted for.
Who are your friends, enemies?
Ever been sued? Paid any tickets?
Got any tickets?
Paid all your taxes---like to see ten years worth of copies.

Just what Obama would be in for if he started such trash! Authorities authorized his running. You can't!

Submitted by pomsmom on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:01pm.

I have never had a traffic ticket ( and I have been driving for at least 45 years.) I am a little short on the job front. I only worked one place for 15 years and another place for 13 years. I left both voluntarily. I have always paid my tax. I was afraid not to. I have never been arrested. I hope I don't have any enemies. When I am elected president of the United States I will post all of the rest on line or better yet I will make it available for you and every one else to see.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:12pm.

as President he has an obligation to all of us.. If a personal item becomes an issue.. then we should be able to prove or disprove the point..

Example: Lets say a credible story comes out the the President was hooked on Narcotics and might potentially interfere with his/her duties as President..not to mention the National Security issues.. Do we the People, whom they serve, (supposedly) have a "RIGHT" to know what is in the Presidents Medical Files?
I think so.. Now does the Birth Certificant rise to that level..? Maybe... At least they should put this issue to bed and be done with it.. but as I said before they are doing this intentionally.. to divide and tag/label the Right as nut jobs..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by seegars on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 9:16pm.

I must question you why you would think it would be unreasonable for me not to want my 14 year old daughter to hear a speech by Obama. It would go against our family values to have our daughter listen to a speech by this man. This is the same man who before giving a speech at Georgetown University had the crucifix and the name of Jesus covered up, also the same administration that canceled the military fly-overs at the "God & Country" celebration during the July 4th holiday because of the name of the celebration. Also the same man who did not celebrate National Day of Prayer at the White House.

We didn't even have to suggest it to our daughter. She did not want to hear anything he had to say. She is also carries a 4.0 GPA and take 4 honors classes. She can think for herself. Even at her age she can see the direction this country is going in and she does not agree with it

Unreasonable to question a birth certificate? Yes, I think so. Considering I have not seen one yet for this man.

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 9:43pm.

As I stated before, there are plenty of questions to be asked about this administration and it's "philosophy". I, like many, do not like the anti-capitalist movement that I see taking shape.

I also have a daughter and, like yours, she is very bright - which is exactly why she nor I felt threatened by a benign speech on education given by the President of the United States.

I feel that perhaps you are confusing religion with reason. And by that rational, you seem to be saying that only Christians qualify for the office of President.

Here is my point. When you bring the ludicrous into the conversation you severely abase any viable argument you may have. Arguing over a birth certificate is absurd when there are more important issues at hand.

By the way, I haven't seen your birth certificate yet...could you email that to me ASAP. Thank you.

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:21am.

All I was saying it was NOT UNREASONABLE FOR OUR DAUGHTER not to listen to his speech. I could care less what decision you make for yourself and your family.

But I don't think you should make that judgment for everyone.

Please give me more credit than to confuse religion with reason. Yes, I am a Christian. But so is the Obama, or so he says. Why is it reasonable to remove religious symbols before giving a speech?
How do you get I'm saying only Christians can be Presidents?
What I am tried of and a lot of people are, is the complete throwing out of anything "GOD" in this country and this administration, with their far-left view of the country is on track to to make that worse.

I don't feel that wanting the Constitution to be followed is to be "ludicrous". How does this debase any argument I may have - only to you and to others like you maybe who either

1: support Obama under any circumstance.

2: don't care about our Constitution

3: like the dismissive judges are too fearful of a race war if the truth comes out.

4: just don't want to believe that there could be that big of a screw up in vetting a candidate.

5. 1000 more reasons not to do the right thing -expose Obama for the fraud that he is.

And I would be glad to provide you a copy of my LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It is right here at home in my safe.

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:14pm.

Would it be OK with you if we hung the star of David over official government functions instead of Christian trivia?
How about A Buddha or a Crescent?
Separate religion from government--not from individuals!
There have been 7000 years of war over that---enough is enough!

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 12:40pm.

"Try to focus, dawn 69"

Well, I'll give you that much. I do sometimes stray off into tangents, it is one of my many shortcomings. But, I am a reasonable woman and can admit to such folly. So, please, accept my apologies for straying into the religious theme.

However, I maintain my original argument that reason needs to abound against things that are not substantiated.

Did I vote for Obama? No, I did not.

Do I support Obama under any circumstance? No, I do not.

Do I care about our Constitution? Of course I do. That is why I advocate for a citizens right to own a firearm. That is why I advocate free speech and question those who may want to stifle that freedom. That is why I believe that every citizen has the right to peaceful assembly and question those who consider that to be "unpatriotic".

Am I fearful of a race war? No. I would have to say that I have more faith in the American people than that.

Do I know that Obama is a United States citizen? Well, I don't know that for sure but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a citizen - even if I don't care for his policies or the manifestos of those surrounding him.

My point, originally, is that there are in my opinion many questions to be answered with regards to this administration but the birth certificate, in my opinion, is not one of them. And by focusing on that, many lose sight of what is reasonable and lose validity in any reasonable debate.

A year ago, during the gasoline shortage in our area, I made some pretty unreasonable comments on this site. After the fact, I corrected myself and admitted to my folly. It took a while for me to shake that unfortunate gaffe on my part and any reasonable statement I made was overshadowed by those few stupid comments I made about Middle Eastern gas station owners. I am a reasonable, fair-minded, somewhat intelligent woman - but those comments made me look incredibly stupid. This is the point I am trying to make. Stick to asking reasonable questions and leave the fringe out of it. That's just my opinion.

And no, I don't need to see your birth certificate just as I didn't need to see the birth certificates of Clinton or Bush.

"That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet."
- Emily Dickinson

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 1:20pm.

I fail to see why wanting to know the history of the man who holds the most powerful position in the free world somehow puts me on the fringe of society. God, I pray we would all want to know the truth about this man. And not his version from his 2 books. We know he had radical associations in the past. Why is he spending all this money to keep his past sealed? Why is wanting to know this about the man who has the launch codes of the world's largest nuclear weapons stockpile - being on the fringe?

My own take is by calling Patriots like myself who want to know about this man because we truly fear for the security of our nation - as kooks,birthers, nuts etc. Is too keep our message from getting out, and to keep others from publicly stating that they have concerns too.

I really don't care what you call me....What I answer to is much more important.

Submitted by Bonkers on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 3:12am.

Millions of citizens elected this "fringe." Hush!

You trust Bush for our security more than Obama?
At least Obama listens to all of our knowledgeable people, Bush didn't!
Wait a while and see. The world won't end tomorrow as Bush said it might if he didn't attack everybody immediately.

It is not about Patriotism--it is about Obama.

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:52pm.

Ya'know, I actually believe both have the same destination but have simply shosen different avenues of approach. Now that's fine, as long as some of those avenues don't lead into a "Bridge Out" sign and you choose to ignore it. That way, you both lose and you just might take some innocents with you. I hope that doesn't happen. In my view, another case for common sense, admittedly in short supply in some places, should rule.

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:34am.

Where? Georgia?
Maybe GA living off feds generosity?

I have never seen so many very bright daughters as we have on here!

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 6:22am.

Don't dignify all those guys with an answer. Obey the sign that says "Don't Feed The Alligators".

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:03am.

I won't. I don't think they got my point. I'm just trying to inject a little reason and advise against the temptation to go beyond what is reasonable.

Bringing the fringe into an otherwise reasonable argument is like hanging a snake over the fence to make it rain - you sacrifice the snake and the clouds don't care. Smiling

"If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading." - Lao Tzu

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:26pm.

The following is reprinted with permission from the author JB Williams and Right Side News.

It expresses my thoughts exactly on this issue.

How Crazy are those Birthers? Print E-mail
Written by JB Williams
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 19:56

In case you don't know, after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, there were indeed a few Americans who honestly believed that the federal government was so corrupt that it was behind and responsible for the events of September 11. Even though we all watched in shock, as hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, these folks imagined that someone in Washington DC might have blown up those buildings instead.

Not that our federal government isn't capable of such things, mind you... but they are not likely to pull off such a thing without anyone spilling the beans sooner or later.

These believers were labeled "truthers" - and were often the same folks who claimed to have seen UFOs or even to have been abducted by aliens from outer space at some point in their lives.

Most Americans passed these folks off as crackpots - mentally unstable individuals in need of help, not a seat in congress.

So when very normal people starting asking who this grand nobody from Chicago was, who appeared out of thin air with a blank résumé and a billion dollar campaign fund from donors around the globe, they were labeled "birthers" for questioning the "Natural Born Citizen" status of a mystery messiah seeking the Oval Office.

Every mainstream media outlet in America has either ignored the question, or joined the chorus of pro-Obama propagandists in discrediting "birthers" as the same crackpots known as "truthers."

What had "birthers" done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that "crazy" request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama's personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney's $20,000 for "filing frivolous law suits" on the matter.

Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the "transparent president" is anything but "transparent." He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past.

Now, how reasonable is Obama's behavior, and how unreasonable is the behavior of the so-called "birther?"

Natural Born Citizen

Article II - Section I - Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a "natural born citizen" hold the office of President. It's no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.

Lets not play any games here... too many games have been played with this phrase already. It's a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.

Not just any ole "citizen..."

Not Native - "belonging to a particular place by birth"

Not Naturalized - "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship" (as with an immigrant)

But NATURAL - "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power."

The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a "natural born citizen" of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John's birth. In other words, by "divine power" and the "laws of growth," "produced by nature" of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.

However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.

The Birth Certificate

Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama's actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.

I won't get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!

Officials in Hawaii have issued their "opinion" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their "opinion" is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama's birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim.

Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.

Some "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That's because Obama's Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama's birth in Kenya.

But where he was born isn't so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that makes him an "unconstitutional president" at best!

Proof of Constitutional Standing

Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less "natural born" status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I'm wrong, send me the proof you have!

We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a "diplomat," while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.

But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.

We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.

Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!

What's the BIG Deal?

The BIG deal is national security! Like it or not, the Unites States has enemies, some of them obvious and others less overt in their strategies.

After nine months of Marxist agenda advancements at odds with most Americans, leaving Obama with record sinking approval ratings in the states, no imagination is required when wondering what damages can be done to the USA from within the halls of our corrupt federal government.

So, how crazy are those "birthers" to ask a question as basic as a birth certificate?

Standard National Security Clearance

Not only has Obama never passed any standard security clearance, he has never been asked to apply for such clearance and couldn't pass that clearance if his life depended on it.

Yet, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, the highest office in our land and the most powerful office in the world, without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the lofty office he holds.

What if he had to pass security clearance before having access to Top Secret information, as any other American citizen would have to pass?

The security check will begin with you filling out a 17-page questionnaire. Most of the questions seek information that can be investigated, such as past residences and employment. It will also ask for contact information for people who know you. Fill out the form thoroughly and honestly. Providing false information on a U.S. security form is punishable with a fine, jail time and/or a dishonorable discharge if you are in the military.

None of this information has been made available on Barack Obama... He has filled out no such form, has no "employment history" - won't discuss any of the people he spent twenty years hanging out with, some of whom are known terrorists, all of whom have a very funny view of America.

Next, the actual security check...

A security check involves investigation of your life, including federal records, criminal checks and credit checks. Higher level checks will also involve field interviews not only with you, but with people who know you. Investigators will be looking into your character, criminal history, emotional stability, trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability to see if you should be allowed to access confidential information, most notably national security information. So you don't want to have committed serious crimes, be deep in debt or associate with groups that act against the government.

Oops! --- No record of how he paid for college, where he traveled or on what passport, or why. Twenty years in the pew of a racially charged anti-American church run by an overtly racists preacher. Friends like Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Saudi Royal front man Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, criminal Tony Rezko, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and many - MANY more!

Adjudicative Process

The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e. The voluntariness of participation;
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes;
g. The motivation for the conduct;
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:

a. Voluntarily reported the information;
b. Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;
c. Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;
d. Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;
e. Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;
f. Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

Maybe "birthers" are nuts! They have only asked for a simple birth certificate, which any other legal American citizen with nothing to hide would have released immediately upon request! Maybe it is "crazy" that "birthers" are only concerned with the missing birth certificate at this late date?

Most American citizens have a job, a bank account, a post office box, a driver's license, and some even have high level security clearances. What was asked of you before you can have any of these things?

Something more than a simple birth certificate, yes?

Yet somehow, it isn't Obama who is in trouble here, but rather those crazy "birthers" who simply want to know who in the hell this mystery messiah from Kenya is and why he is so damned anti-American, and anything but transparent?

The US citizen is becoming aware of the fact that they have an entire administration of foxes guarding their hen house and they are growing desperate in their attempts to seek peaceful redress in the courts, which are supposed to be the unbiased defenders of the Constitution and rule of law in this country.

It's clear that neither the executive or legislative branches of the federal government represent the will of the legal US taxpayer anymore. Before we commence to "altering or abolishing" a government which has indeed become "destructive" of the individual right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we must exhaust the peaceful means of redress established in the courts.

But it appears that we may have already arrived at this point in time, as NO court in the land believes that average American citizens have the "proper standing" to ask who in the hell this mystery man really is?

That being the case, I suppose all peaceful means of redress have been exhausted and it is time to take matters into our own hands while there is still a country left to save and a Constitution around to uphold.

Before citizens allow people who won't even disclose a birth certificate to control life and death by way of nationalized medicine, they had better wake up and take a stand.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If it's true that NO American court will allow the people access to peaceful redress of such a fundamental concern, then I'm afraid we have indeed arrived at the moment in history when the people are left to their own remedies.

I will NOT call for violent actions, but I sure have no hesitation in predicting that violent action is the natural result of no access to peaceful solutions. The people are tirelessly, relentlessly and patiently hoping that some court somewhere will rise to the duty of their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, before the people themselves have to rise in defense of their beloved country.

If the courts continue to run interference of Obama & Co., I predict it will be a grave error of enormous proportions...

In the end, citizens of this country will demand freedom and a constitutional government. They will seek peaceful solutions first, but when all else fails, they will once again arise to the call of duty, in defense of the greatest nation ever known to mankind. For freedom to exist anywhere on earth, it must exist in the United States of America.

I sincerely pray for wisdom in the courts, before the people run out of patience.

The "birthers" aren't crazy. They're right! The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all. If it means nothing at all, then the people are on their own and the time to alter or abolish has arrived.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 11:13am.

The first glaring one is calling Obama a "nobody who appeared out of thin air." Only an inbred hick running around with his "Free Eric Rudolph" airbrush t-shirt had no idea about Obama before his campaign for Prez started. The guy was generating a lot of coverage even before his 2004 speech at the Dem convention. What planet are some of these people living on?

Let's see...next on the hit brigade of total BS is "record sinking approval levels." That is so beyond false, but JB Williams' readers are obviously as clueless as he is, so it's simply rhetoric to fire them up I guess.

Of course, JB can't stick to the so-called central point of the birth certificate and shows his agenda by whining constantly about Obama/Marxism and all that. Look, I think Obama's policies suck, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the whole birther issue. Being a non-talented loser of a writer, JB leaves it wide open for someone with any intelligence to surmise that this article is never written if the Prez happened to NOT be Obama, NOT a Marxist, etc. In other words, if he was a huge spending Repub who loves the Baby Jesus but who refused to show his birth certificate, it would be A-OK. At least if he was "known" before being elected. Sheesh.

The real laugher is the threat of impending widespsread VIOLENCE over the birth certificate issue and that it is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. That's definite crackpot right-wing garbage. While i have no doubt that there exists plenty of stupid and insane people, good 'ol JB is stating there is going to be some kind of big uprising over this whole issue. No, no there isn't. On one hand he thinks that people are so ignorant they had no idea who Obama was before he became Prez, but on the other hand, everyone is so in tune with this birth certificate nonsense that there will be widespread outrage that ends in VIOLENCE. Huh? Most people could CARE LESS and will forever CARE LESS, except for the lunatic fringe who sit around all day waiting for something to get PO'd about and start the next revolution over, one nut group at a time. What JB fails to realize is that most could CARE LESS about who is Prez in the first place. Obama getting elected is suddenly going to awaken everyone? Yeah, right.

It's so easy to target Obama's policies, Pelosi, the entire progressive agenda.....why in the world do you go after something this inane and allow the Dems to make you look like a bunch of morons? Well, it's simply because they ARE a bunch of morons.

Submitted by seegars on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 11:54am.

You 2 are obviously the most intelligent 2 people I have never met and have an answer and a way to slam and belittle anyone that you do not agree with. I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong. Sorry to have interrupted your little domain here.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:51pm.

You are not reading the Constitution of the United States. It requires none of that for the President. Nor is your information correct. State senators are not eligible for diplomatic passports and I've never heard that Obama had one. But beyond that, under the Constitution, Obama becomes commander-in-chief which automatically gives him the top security clearances. That's what government by the people means. We elect them and bestow these powers upon them.

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 11:27am.

Jeff is mostly right but I do believe that all ELECTED officials at the Federal level--are granted automatic access to classified information without having to go through the process the rest of us are required to negotiate. Right or wrong,that's the way it is.

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:40pm.

Everything I could find on Senators said that when traveling abroad they are required to carry a Diplomatic Passport which is different than a normal citizen passport in color and it has the words Diplomat on the front - kind of confusing, huh?

Of course once he is sworn in he has all the security clearances. I believe the writer of the article was trying to make the point that Obama could not pass the security clearances BEFORE he was sworn in.

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:09pm.

The Executive Powers do not override the Constitution. Which would not matter anyway if the election results were determined to null and void because the candidate was Constitutional unable to run.

You seem to think the President has all power over everything. I think you need to research your US history.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 1:25am.

The Executive powers are the Constitution! See Nuk_1's comment and link below. You have made up a completely fabricated argument about the results of an election result being determined to be null and void. There is absolutely no provision for that in any way shape or form in the Constitution. I have not said or implied that the President has power over everything. I have limited my discussion to the Constitutional provisions for impeachment, the circumstances that must occur before that happens, the consequences afterwards, and the President's Constitutionally enumerated protection before an impeachment. And I have backed up my argument by citing specific sections in the Constitution and legal precedent resulting from the impeachments of Clinton and Andrew Jackson.

I believe that my grasp of US history is adequate in this case and that it may be your's that is deficient and ask that you point to any provision in the Constitution or common law or any precedent whatsoever to back up your assertion that an election result can be declared null and void because a President, either before or after an election, was or could be deemed Constitutionally unqualified to run.

As to the passport issue, the easiest way to research it is to go to the US State Department website where you will find this: "Official and diplomatic passports are issued only in Washington, DC by the Special Issuance Agency (SIA) to employees of the U.S. government traveling or on assignment abroad on official business." And no, it's not confusing to me at all. I used to have one and when I could use it and the circumstances under which I could use it were highly restrictive and explicitly stated.

State senators don't qualify and Obama didn't have a diplomatic passport.

Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 9:32am.

Wasn't it Andrew Johnson that was impeached not Andrew Jackson?

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:24pm.

Article 2 IS part of the Constitution so maybe you had better do some research. Here's a good place to start:


(too tired to format it as a hot link)

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:50pm.

it certainly does add credence to the argument.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 5:30pm.

Thank you for reading the article and for having and open mind to the argument.

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 5:30pm.

Thank you for reading the article and for having and open mind to the argument.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 8:37pm.

comprehensive and well written I have seen.. Now as to it's validity?

I personally hope Obama stays right where he is.. He has made himself the center of the argument.. a change of leadership now will only muddy up the issues.

I would not want McCain to take over.. Nothing would change. The only good thing would be we would fight the war to win or get out..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:34am.

Git seems to be condescending to you! Acting as if you aren't very smart, maybe?
Some get confused when alternative ideas are presented to a closed mind.
I feel that way when Reagan, Nixon and W. Bush and Hoover are presented to me as great Presidents. They put us into untenable debt, wars, lunacy, and recessions--then run away.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 8:35am.

Who told you that? Eye-wink

So that's what it is huh. Git is condescending to Dawn. Thanks buddy. Guess if the collective minds at the Bonker$ Think Tank says it.... then that policy statement must have been well thought through. Smiling

They put us into untenable debt, wars, lunacy, and recessions--then run away.

Thank God we were saved from all that.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:06pm.

Reagan's 8 years cost us 4 trillion debt more and no help for anyone except corporations; Nixon was a near lunatic -- evil even; Hoover and W, left a huge depression and now at least a recession from Bush, plus two untenable wars!
We were not saved from all that!
How can you defend such stuff just because Obama is half African-American and is trying desperately to keep us out of a depression and get out of two Viet-Nams?
He may not even be able to solve it anytime soon---too bad a situation. More banks to go, more retail to go, more warring to go, a terrible debt that maybe money can't get us out of it.

Support the smart people trying to help. We have had enough ignorance and Bravado and credit.

AXJ's picture
Submitted by AXJ on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 7:34pm.

We were waiting for more from you. Nobody ever questioned if Lincoln was a natural born citizen same as nobody should be questioning Obama but posting a fake Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii on the internet was the stupidest thing his team could have done.

Everybody knows you can easily buy a COLB from Hawaii, rumor has it his sister Maya has one too and she was born in Indonesia.

The pics of his supposed mother Stanley Ann Dunham nude on a beach in summer of 1961 prove she was not pregnant, and no other evidence of him exists, not even the 1964 or 1980 birth certificates acknowledge him.

As for newspapers, most of them in 2004 state he was not born in the USA. Can you explain all these things? Thought so. I don't want a President that has lied from the get go just to be in power and bowing to the Saudi King. Like to hear you take on that one.

I think his days are almost over as soon as Judge Carter grants standing and orders discovery...

I am a member of AXJ and value the truth above all else. Join us now.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 5:45pm.

Exactly what do you expect to happen once Obama is proven to be a non-citizen?

Submitted by Davids mom on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:05am.

and bowing to the Saudi King.

Are you referring to Bush and his family? Gee, Bush was seen even holding the King's hand.

AXJ (American Action for Justice) Is this the organization that you are a member of? If this 'birther' movement was based on truth and integrity - why the proven doctored photos, false birth certificates, etc.? There is no need to try to 'doctor' evidence if one is after the 'truth'. If Bush had the 'right' to not produce his military record and his college grades for public scrutiny - I guess Obama may have the same 'right'. Obama paid the $5.00 and submitted his birth certificate.

Birther attorney Orly Taitz, fined $20,000 today October 13 for willfully abusing her right to practice law. Justice has been served and the birthers have lost. Thank you U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 2:12pm.

Right you are David's Mom. Obama does not have to produce his military records (Oh wait he has none) or college grades. I'd be happy if he'd just produce a long form BC and prof that he's not now nor ever has been a citizen of Kenya. But he's above the law and doesn't have too. You are also right that the "birthers" will never unseat him. Not because he is legal but because the powers that be are afraid of the ramifications.

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:38am.

I was startled to turn on the TV when the KING visited Bush in Crawford, and see Bush leading him all the way from the limo to the house by holding his hand tightly.
I thought he was "coming out!" But it was just about Saudi oil.

SpinDr's picture
Submitted by SpinDr on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 1:42pm.

It is customary for Saudi men who are friends (not in the carnal sense) to hold hands in public. Having traveled to the Middle East a few times I was taken aback by this practice, but when it was explained to me I was fine with it so long as I did not gain any new admirers while I was there.

suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:11pm.

Not, the other way around. What purpose would that serve?

If they have the baby here...he is a citizen, the parents, if from another country, receive aide to stay here and raise the kid.

Come on. Why would anyone fly to Kenya to have their baby? Get Real.

Submitted by Davids mom on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 2:18pm.

Prove his mama was in Kenya in 1961 and the argument is over!

Submitted by PreciousStahr on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 10:26am.

Why don’t you just call Pres O and ask, Hey, Mr. President whuts up, will you please release your colb so I don’t have to defend you from this trouble maker Birthers and put this controversy to rest. Of course you won’t do that. What would happen if he tells you, David’s Mom, I lied to you and to the rest of the world, so I just have to ignore this issue and let Eric Holder do his job. You just continue on wiping your a$$ on the constitution okay? And don’t you feel so guilty that you help elect a liar that you might actually hurt yourself.
Well, I can just imagine David’s Mom shrug her shoulders and say “Who cares”.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 7:05pm.

It's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to our law abiding president. We know that his parents were in Kenya before he was born so the question isn't why did they go to Kenya to have him, but instead why did they come here?

Still if he were a law abiding president he could put this to bed very easily. Yet he chooses not to. Wonder why?

Submitted by Bonkers on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 4:50am.

Muddle uses BB term. (subs for cussing).

Nobody questions Lincoln and nobody should question Obama. Then why do you?

Newspapers say? And old one of 1961 announced Obama's birth.
Are you speaking of todays papers doubting Obama's birth? I kinda agree (like FOX) anything newspapers print as they die is questinable.

So his Mother didn't look pregnant in a picture (what month, time) and what 64 and 80 BC didn't acknowledge him?

From the gitgo lying and bowing to Kings do look most bad! If they had happened.

Hey, I voted for McCain but Obama is the President!

You sound somewhat flaggelated, disturbed, mixed-up, conning, and ridiculous. When will Judge Carter (whomever he or she is) certify you? No discovery required.

What are this truthful values AXJ?

What is it you want? Impeachment? Joe would take over then.

Or maybe the AXJ has a better way?

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:27am.

Bonkers, As I requested before.....Do your homework. That is if you're really trying to have a discussion of a topic and not just stirring the pot so to speak. Biden does not become president.

If Obama is found ineligible, the results of the election will be nullified since it was based on a fraud...as opposed to if the fraud had occurred after the election.

The entire executive office would be vacated and another election scheduled. Congress would have the option to seat McCain as the runner up, but its a democratic majority so that aint happening.

Technically Bush would have to serve in the interim as the last authenticated president.

It's my understanding that the issue has already been reviewed and constitutional scholars have weighed in at the request of DOJ. This was their finding.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:02pm.

Sorry Dude, that's preposterous. Read Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution, it is absolutely perfectly clear. There is no way to remove a President except impeachment. There is no retroactive nullification of the election mentioned in any way shape or form. Even if the election was based on fraud, the only recourse is impeachment. There is no option for Congress to seat McCain. There is no return of Geo. Bush. If Obama were to be impeached, Biden becomes President.

SpinDr's picture
Submitted by SpinDr on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 1:56pm.

If anyone thinks Congress would ever impeach Barak, they must have been living under a rock since January 20. The Democraps in Congress are in a mutual love fest with Barak.

Submitted by Bufbills on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 6:53pm.

Jeff, I believe that if BO were impeached due to his not being a natural born citizen, that the election would be invalid, and Biden would not be the valid VP. The new POTUS would be Nancy Pelosi. God help us all.

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:58pm.

Just why do you believe such a thing? Don't see what it has to do with the VP and why he would not assume the Presidency. At that point, he would then select a new VP, who would have to be approved by both Houses of Congress. Pelosi remains as Speaker.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 7:07pm.

You would be correct IF Obama were a legal president. If he's not eligible to be president you still think we'd have to impeach him to have him removed?

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 9:43pm.

Once he's sworn in he's the legal President. After that Article 2 takes effect. There is absolutely no provision for declaring that someone is not a legal President. The only recourse is the impeachment process no matter what the offense and there are no retroactive provisions. As soon as he took the oath of office, he fell under the protection of Article 2, Section 4 and there are no Constitutional exceptions whatsoever. I'd be interested to hear another argument which might apply but Article 2 is the only Constitutional provision and it seems pretty iron clad to me. It's going to be very, very difficult argument to make to say that he is not the President. He was sworn in. He is the President, therefore, you've got to start with Article 2. Everybody has got to agree that an argument that begins with: "He is not and never was President" isn't going to get much traction in the courts. And even if a court ruled, the separation of powers clause would kick in and Obama as President would ignore it and Congress would claim the court was illegitimately encroaching on their exclusive Constitutional impeachment power.

Submitted by seegars on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 9:23pm.

You seem to have forgotten that when a government gets so far removed from what the people want and if it is proved in fact that he is Constitutionally not eligible to hold office and will not remove himself.....then there is always a coup.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 9:23am.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here as my point of view is that if he were never eligible to be president then nothing that took place after the election is valid. Still I salute you. You are obviously an intelligent person that uses facts and knowledge to make your point instead of those that want to play where in the world was mama in 1961.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 6:28pm.

I just want to reiterate that regardless of whether or not the election was valid or if Obama met the legal requirements, once he was sworn in and became President, all other laws were then superseded by Article 2. It is a specialty law applying to only the President but it is all encompassing. This was all decided during the Andrew Jackson impeachment. Even if he were to go into New Eats in DC, grabbed a Secret Service Uzi, and hosed the chef for overcooking his Obamaburger,he could not be tried until he was impeached or his term expired and he left office. He has absolute Constitutional immunity from normal proceedings of the Judicial branch while in office.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:22pm.

Didn't this Article 2 blanket immunity get limited by the Supreme Court during Nixon-Watergate? Unless I remember incorrectly, Nixon was subpoenaed and the Court made him answer it and produce evidence that was going to be used in a criminal case.

cogitoergofay's picture
Submitted by cogitoergofay on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 8:12pm.

JeffC: Very intruiging ...Or as they say in the vernacular "Way cool".

Nuk-- I think that the unanimous Supreme Court ruling upholding Judge Sirica was testimonial/evidentiary in nature. It did not go to the core of the President's own culpability or exposure. I could be wrong.

You guys have me interested in this one. Thanks...

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:00pm.

Yes, you are both right. A President can be charged while in office but not tried until impeached. The President does not come under the preview of the Judicial branch without the Legislative branch's determination. If Clinton had been impeached and convicted for lying under oath, there would have been no penalties that could have been imposed by Congress except removal from office. At that point, a separate trial would have to have been had to determine penalties under law for lying under oath. I read a paper once...okay I scanned it because it was boring... analyzing whether Clinton could still be tried for lying under oath based on double jeopardy vis-vis his impeachment trial. The yes side said yes and that's why Nixon had to accept a pardon, the no side said no because Clinton had already been tried and found not guilty during the impeachment and the Nixon precedent did not apply because Nixon had not been impeached. My humble opinion is that the American people do not want to see a President tried, and if he is impeached and removed from office, the vast majority would accept that as a final judgment at that point and would just want to move on. I've never seen any serious movement to bring Clinton to trial (beyond the impeachment) after he got out of office.

Of course, none of this applies to the Obama birth certificate. When filing for his intent to run for office, Obama filed legally acceptable documents certifying that he was a legal citizen and of acceptable age; the Constitutional requirements. His filings were determined to be adequately acceptable and no argument by the birthers is going to be seriously considered at this point no matter the real consternation by their gullible followers nor the contrived consternation by their leaders who know better. The fact that they will not accept legally acceptable documents is totally irrelevant in the real world.

Nonetheless, they all enjoy their fantasies, which are harmless, and it's a free country, so it does not bother me in the least that they pursue it to their hearts content. They have fun with it; what's the harm? Everybody needs a hobby.

Submitted by Spyglass on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:30am.

you guys continue to fall for Bonker$ drivel.

Submitted by Bonkers on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 4:29pm.

I do drivel!
And G-35 says McCain would be President in case of Obama being removed (in some fashion), and maybe congress would appoint a President! (Biden didn't have a "long form BC either, I suppose?)

This 'birther crap" is wasting time---nothing is there. Why don't you people just change the law that a racial mixture (even blacks with any white in them) can not be President, and if they have no white---they can't be either due to so much static!

We had a bunch of English dudes once as President and half of the other Presidents are racial mixtures!
If they make it through the election and are sworn in they are elected.
He might even get us out of this mess we are in!

The current budget deficit coming up (over a trillion) is due to lack of sales taxes and lack of property taxes, and lack of income taxes collected, caused by the Bush people and their greedy policies.

Up to 20% of the work force of the coming unemployment numbers also belong to them.

They totally failed and about 10 years will cure it if we can keep the like out. Providing their 3 billion dollars wars can be resolved.

They are faking the stock market right now hoping for more suckers!!

Buy bonds, annuities guaranteed by the government, and invest in real estate. Hire someone.

Submitted by seegars on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 9:31pm.

Hey Bonkers, since when do we pay sales taxes and property taxes to the federal government?

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:31am.

Why do you think the feds are sending billions to STATES to pay their bills and keep their teachers and cops? Lack of tax income!

States have no guts to raise taxes (like GA). Let feds do it.
They want elected next time.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 9:18pm.

handle the tough ones..
"The current budget deficit coming up (over a trillion) is due to lack of sales taxes and lack of property taxes, and lack of income taxes collected, caused by the Bush people and their greedy policies."

Uhh.. the current spending has absolutely NOTHING to do with the deficit.. Ok... You're nuts but we knew that already.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by Bonkers on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 7:55am.

You really don't know what you are talking about!

The deficit (now) comes from lack of income! Due to (BUSH).

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 9:29am.

Remember the "Stimulas (sic) Bill"?

We had to do it NOW..
We could not WAIT...
We don't have the time to READ it..

Obama said it was nescersary or Unemployement would skyrocket.. He also said this bill would hold it at 8% or less.. What is now?

That bill was LOADED with EARMARKS.. you know those things that Obama PROMISED he was going to stop.. BILLIONS WASTED for what?



You should be joining me instead of throwing out bbbbbush..

I understand you have kids and they probrally have kids.. You really want to leave this debt to them to pay? Or are you ok just as long as you get yours first?


Pay attention to the very bottom of the page on the right.. $345,000 per Citizen.. that is what your kids and their kids owe TODAY...

After all of the NEW spending UHC, Aspire, Cap and Trade.. etc..

How much debt are you willing to pile on your kids and their kids just to support a party and yourself?

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 8:58pm.

this Government is doing has nothing to do with it...

ARE YOU NUTS?? Ok Don't answer that..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by Bufbills on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 6:55pm.

The government does not have an income. They just take our income.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 7:09pm.

I love how the extreme left turns this into a racial issue when they can't defend their position.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 2:15pm.

I don't post here as much as some so I'm not familiar with the posters. But I do see what you mean here.

Submitted by seegars on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 12:17am.

For anyone wanting to clarification on this short form / long form COLB controversy and why most of us "Birthers" do not accept what Obama has posted on his web site as having any value as to his eligibility to serve as President please go to:


and read "Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report"

This is the most well written and investigated report I have seen anywhere on this issue. I challenge any of the Obama supporters here to read that through and honestly tell me he is not hiding something from the American people.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:16pm.

I'll never get that ten minutes of my life back. It's drivel full of "ifs" and speculation. They won't accept a computer generated copy of the State of Hawaii's birth certificate records because computers weren't invented in 1961? Gosh, is it okay with you guys if I read a copy of the Bible that was printed with one of those new fangled printing thingys instead of written in long hand by a scribe?

Submitted by seegars on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 7:51pm.

Jeff, your response is what I have become to expect from most liberals when confused by the facts. That is to distort.

What the writer is saying: The main stream media said that the "Original Birth Certificate was posted online". This is the actual quote from the report:

On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org.

This is why a computer generated birth certificate could not be an original as has been reported by the main stream media.

You should get your facts straight before you quote them to fit your own agenda.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 6:51pm.

I don't have an agenda here. To me the whole thing is totally insignificant. The number of people who care about this or think there is an actual question about Obama's citizenship is vanishingly small. My only tangential interest is how the Dems are using the birthers to portray the R's as captured by the fringe elements of the Party. If all of this was real, don't you think that Obama could get a birth certificate put in the files? The Dems are using the birthers. Why do you think Rusk and Sean and Beck and FOX are all saying that it's a non-issue that is hurting the Party.

This is not me being a typical liberal. How many of them would come right out and tell you that the Dem Party is gloating over and using the birthers? This is about y'all being caught up in a conspiracy theory. Hey, go for it! My fiscally conservative side advises that you not send them money.

Submitted by seegars on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:50pm.

OK, I noticed you didn't try to defend that you took the BC computerized statement out of context after I brought it to your attention. See when you do things like that you keep others from thinking that here is any point in reading it themselves and developing there own opinion - same as the main stream media has treated this whole issue. Hard not to think you don't have an agenda when you have that type of response.

Please read "How crazy are those birthers" that I posted earlier today.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:35pm.

I was going to read Seegar's link, but I was fearful that my already struggling IQ would drop too much upon exposure. Your family seems to have immunity to the effects of drivel.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 7:03pm.

We've been trained from birth and have had years of practice.

Submitted by Davids mom on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:39am.

Where was his mother in August 1961? Do you have proof that she was in 'Kenya'? I think it's reasonable to assume that wherever she was - that was where Obama was born.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 6:41pm.

Now it finally dawns on me why the Obama team is so dead set on hiding the TRUTH!!!

August, 1961. I knew there was something about that date. It nagged at me all day.

August, 1961? August, 1961? Then it hit me!!! Obama's mom was probably in Germany helping to build the Berlin wall!!!

Realizing the TRUTH, I searched the web and found a picture of her, trowel in hand, bricks at ready! True, her hat covers her face and she looks a little to young and she seems in the photo to be several inches too short, way too thin and she doesn't seem to be black, but I'm sure it's her!

That's the reason for this whole cover-up.

I bet your Tri-Lateral Commission friends never thought I'd find the photographs.

Now, I am awaiting your proof that she was not there.

Official government documents will not be accepted for obvious reasons.

Submitted by Davids mom on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 10:36pm.

Rush and Heck will have that as their main story tomorrow - and the Dentist/Lawyer will be back in court!! (But I have the proof that she wasn't there!!) Eye-wink

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:47pm.

Rush and Heck are merely seeking the TRUTH which I am in the process of Photoshopping right now.

Submitted by jokerman on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 8:07pm.

man's college records? Or his medical records? Or a simple birth certificate (AND NOT THE COLB!!!!) Really? That's too much to ask? If Obama spent ten cents trying not to let us see these documents, that would be enough to tell me somethings not right. This should be a very simple act to make all of the controversy go away. But he hasn't done it. Something is amiss.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:35pm.

I don't have dog in this fight. The whole thing is silly to me. I'm telling you that as far as Obama is concerned, it doesn't even register. He has not spent a dime of his own money on it and never will. But for the national democrats, the birthers are useful fools, wackos who can be easily portrayed as nuts and held up as examples of Obama's opposition. They love the birthers and never want the controversy to go away. They use them to tie legitimate opposition in with this, as they portray it, fringe group.

As to releasing the birth certificate, (and I believe he already has, but beyond that and regardless of my thinking that he has), if he were to release it, it would be immediately denounced as a fraud. There's no way the birthers would accept anything Obama produces. Conspiracy theories can't be ended with facts or evidence. After Obama goes to all this trouble and gets elected President, do you not believe that he could get a fake birth certificate put into the files to be released if he wanted to? That would be so trivial.

The birther organizers don't want the birth certificate released because it would put them out of business. Follow the money. Obama isn't affected either way, he's completely insulated from it. The Dems love it. Why do you think the RNC and people like Sean and Beck and FOX try to kill and downplay the birthers? It's because they see that the Dems are using them, and very effectively.

As I said, this is non-issue to me and I'm not trying to make anybody mad. But considering my argument, please let me know your thoughts on where I'm wrong in my analysis.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 11:54am.

First off remember that not only does a person have to be a citizen he has to have natural born status to be president. What is natural born status you say? Well I did some research and here is a re-posting of the closest definition that I could find:

In trying to define natural born status I did some research. I found this analysis to be the closest thing to a condensed version of it that I could find. If you pay attention to Number 5 it states that even if a citizen is born a citizen he can not keep natural born status if he ever claims citizenship to another country which many believe Obama has done. I can find nothing that claims natural born status solely based on the mother being a citizen. Now having said this I agree that the case will be thrown out of court. Because to over throw the Obama presidency now would cause more problems than it's worth. My commentary ends here. The rest of this post is from the source noted below.


Wong Kim Ark Analysis


From reading all the material on the subject of natural born citizens I can’t help but conclude the following:

1) Citizens of united states was never properly defined by the framers mainly because only state law could define whom were born a citizen of the state which in return automatically made them a citizen of the united states under article 4.

2) Congress in 1866 recognized not all states recognized people of color as citizens and set out to define who were citizens of the united states through statute and amendment to the constitution.

3) Congress decided to recognize all persons born or naturalized as citizens of the united states as long as they could not be claimed as subjects of another country.

4) The 14th amendment was clearly designed to recognized only those politically attached to the nation (citizens) and no other.

5) Just as a naturalized citizen cannot be claimed by any other foreign power as their citizens, neither can anyone born.

Obama cannot be a citizen of the united states under the true meaning behind born or naturalized subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. Justice Gray himself confirmed this in Elk v Wilkins writing for the majority in defining subject to the jurisdiction as political attachment and not mere place of birth. This was in perfect agreement with acts of congress of 1866, 1868 and 1874.

This crazy notion that place of birth controls citizenship is so contrary to written law makes you wonder how so many got carried away with such an easily debunked belief.

Now having addressed that lets discuss the true value of the short form (Thats all I've seen from Obama's camp on the web) I'll say this. My insurance company would not accept it as verification for my son to be covered as a dependent. It had to be the long form.

You can view the short form BC on factcheck.org. I believe it to be valid as for what it is. It conveys citizenship not natural born status. I think Hawaii issues this to children adopted from other countries to convey citizenship once earned by the parents for said child as well as several other ways to get one.

Even if Obama was natural born and supplies the long form BC to prove it many think that he is or was also a citizen Kenya. This too would disqualify him to be president under #3 above. He could easily put all of this too bed if he choose to. But he doesn't. I wonder why? Do you have a clue?

Submitted by Tenk on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:19pm.

Do do you expect to achieve after this drawn out fight?

Dont you think there has been extensive research done by obama's political opponents in regard to birth rights and legal status? Is it that far fetched that if there was an ounce of doubt or discrepancy with his qualifications for office, McCain or any other political opposition in Washington would "pick it up" and exploit it to the fullest amount. Lets face it, you're research is done off of questionable sources with no definite resolution. You and your partisan friends are simply searching for ways to mar the election of the current president. If any shadow of a doubt was present in Obama's legal documents i think it would have been picked up by the former army of right wing represenitives that controlled the white house only a year ago. You are achieving nothing by defining the qualifications for president in such an explicit form. the deed is done, now let it rest and find something else that bothers you so extensively about the current administration.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.