Coulter: Nirthers Are Just a Few 'Cranks' (Free Republic mentioned)

Little Green Footballs ^ | July 27, 2009 | Charles Johnson

[EveningStar]

Ann Coulter brushes off the nirth certifikit kooks as just a few cranks, nothing to worry about, pay no attention, it’s the media trying to make conservatives look bad again...

And over at Free Republic, hundreds of commenters are now convinced that Ann Coulter is a RINO and a traitor...

[BP2]

It's NOT that hard to get a fake birth certificate, back in the 70s and 80s -- just like getting a fake ID or birth certificate today in the "Digital Age".

Here's an excerpt that Omama may have read himself in an article from People Soup (1982 Issue, No 2) entitled, "So Ya Want To Run Away":

Just like the article suggests:

Other helpful items are Student IDs, which can be had by enrolling
in a course at any two-bit college (like Occidental)... you don't even
have to take the course you sign up for; just get your ID and drop it."

Obama Jr only needed to produce official-looking court documents, like from the 1964 and 1980 divorces, student IDs from Punahou and other Hawaiian schools -- and voila -- he's suddenly Barack Hussein Obama II when he hits the mainland to go start Occidental in 1979 ...

[Cicero]

Well, I DEFINITELY don’t agree with Ann on this.

I think that the last time I felt that way was when she endorsed Mitt Romney about a year ago.

But I agree with her 99% of the time.

[OafOfOffice]

another article trying to discredit birthers, this one is interesting, mediamatters funded by soros and factcheck.org funded by annenberg who full supports obama.

http://tinyurl.com/m275kd

LA Times: FactCheck.org says “CNN should be ashamed” of Dobbs’ birther remarks; CNN employee distances net from Dobbs

From a July 22 article by Los Angeles Times media writer James Rainey, who quotes FactCheck.org director and former CNN employee Brooks Jackson stating that “CNN should be ashamed of itself for putting some of that stuff on the air”:

Brooks Jackson, director of Annenberg Political Fact Check (FactCheck.Org) and a reporter with 34 years in the business, has seen one howler after another knocked down, only for another to sprout in its place.

[detective]

Like everything else about him Geraldo Rivera's name is phony. Geraldo Rivera's father is named Rivers. There is no Rivera, it is a made up name. Geraldo made up that name when he wanted a job as a TV reporter and was given the job set aside for a Hispanic journalist. An affirmative action hire, Geraldo screwed up every assignment but still managed to stay employed.

[OafOfOffice]

http://tinyurl.com/msn4ss

Even though some Birthers are accused of wearing tinfoil hats and having a pocket full of wingnuts, it is obvious, as Vox Day writes, “The question about the Obama birth certificate is no longer one of conspiracy theory or hypothetical questions of legitimacy, as it now threatens to become a very serious military matter.”

According to Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org, “We were told that Obama requested it when he first prepared to run. Our contact in the campaign was Tommy Vietor, who is now on the White House staff. If you want to see the thing for yourself, he’s the first guy I would call.”

[TheOldLady]

The founding fathers grandfathered themselves.

[OafOfOffice]

Notice the wording here? Proving citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

"While the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, it is NOT adequate for proving one's physical place of birth." Although the Department of State sometimes issues passports without a birth certificate, it is rare and the documents to do that are also missing when it comes to Barack Obama.

On the other hand, Brooks Jackson maintains, "What we said is that the document 'meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U. S. citizenship,' which it does."

He continues, "Anyone at the State Department who might have told you differently either didn't know what they were talking about or misunderstood your question."

[vpintheak]

I think she is moving to the dark side. She looked and sounded horrible on SeeBS this morning.

[bmwcyle]

Ann can be wrong.

[EagleUSA]

Anyone who thinks Ann is a RINO and a traitor needs to get a grip on reality.
::::::::
For sure. I am not sure what her motivation is for watering this issue down though. Maybe she is taking the outside odds and playing “against the dice”. Regardless she still has the libs calibrated and makes no bones about it. And the issue with Obama, whether it is one of birth PLACE or whether his mother qualified as a resident (time on the island) of Hawaii to make him a naturalized citizen is still an open question he and his goons continue to bury at all costs. Innocent people have nothing to hide — I don’t care who they are.

[Smokin' Joe]

Can you imagine the inner city riots if it ever really came to a head now with the economy being bad?

Urban renewal. Jobs, etc.

[woodyman]

Luo tribesmen are not Arabs. Arabs are Caucasian.

Everyone who has any concern at all about this issue would be much, much better off if each and every one of us would refrain from simply repeating something just because they 'heard' it and try to post accurate information.

[WOSG]

“I have no evidence to suggest he was born outside the United States, nor would I waste time trying to dig up any.”

Ne neither. It’s pretty certain he was born in Honolulu.
Do you acknowledge that being born in Honolulu means he was a citizen at birth? and having an American mother to boot.

” I don’t care what country he called home.”
The USA. I certainly care.

” By Mr. Obama’s own admission, his father was a citizen of a foreign country. He was a guest in our nation.”
Not a revelation. Of course a lot of natural-born Americans have parents from other countries.

” Unless both Mr. Obama’s parent’s were natural born themselves”
that has nothing to do with Obama’s status.
“, alive at the time the Constitution was adopted, or naturalized prior to his birth, it is not possible for Mr. Obama to be born with the advantage of the “natural born citizen” status. His genealogy disqualifies him, not his geography.”

This is completely, utterly and 100% wrong.
Barack Obama’s mother was Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. You are claiming that you can be born in the United States to a natural-born US citizen mother, and not be a natural-born citizen. No court or ruling has ever supported such a strangely narrow proposition, and multiple cases and current law contradicts that line of thought.

[TheOldLady]

I beg to differ. A natural-born citizen is one who was born on United States soil to two American citizens. Unless his father was an American citizen at the time he was born, zer0 is a native-born citizen, but not a natural-born citizen.

These two types of citizen are not the same, and a native-born citizen is not eligible to be president.

[WOSG]

Records offices don’t release information to just anyone because IT”S AGAINST THE LAW, to protect against identity theft.

Then why did Gibbs say this? At Robert Gibbs’ Wednesday briefing, radio host Lester Kinsolving asked whether the White House would satisfy several hundred thousand petitioners by releasing “a certified copy of [Obama’s] long-form birth certificate.” Gibbs appeared incredulous. “You’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet, Lester.”

You and I both know that what Gibbs calls the 'birth certificate' is the COLB that the Obama campaign has personally released to Journalists. This one:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

The key point is that this COLB is what Obama personally requested from State of Hawaii back in 2007 then put on the internet. The State of Hawaii will not and cannot release any further information about Obama's birth except to him. ANd the COLB is the standard form you get back from such requests.

Since this is "Certificate of Live Birth", the "Where's the Birth Certificate?" and "We already released it" brain-dead cycle could go on ad infinitum until both sides admit of the semantic difference and get more precise. A COLB, not 'birth certificate', was released, yet it suffices for documentation purposes.

Oh, and one more thing. If Gibbs wants to kill this issue, why not bring that same COLB to the press room and give it to the WND news reporter?

I AM CONVINCED THAT OBAMA WANTS THIS ISSUE ALIVE AND THAT IS WHY GIBBS IS CALLING ON THE WND AND ANSWERING HIS QUESTIONS. THEY NEED THIS ISSUE TO DISTRACT FROM THE COMPLETE CRATERING OF OBAMA'S HORRIBLE AGENDA.

[WOSG]

“Well, that got us far didnt it?”

It sure has. When the Tea Parties started Obama had approvals above 60%, now he’s at 48% and falling.

Stick to the issues, and we’ll win.

Who gives a cr* about “
Punahou School records — Not released
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records” etc.

I dont need to know his college grades now ... HE’S FAILING AS PRESIDENT!

[WOSG]

“If his school records show he received federal funds as a foreign student, he has, AS AN ADULT, asserted that he is not an American.”

Wrong. The only way to lose US citizenship is through a very specific renunciation.

Freeper ReignOfError has tried to educate on this topic:

“Nothing happens. There is no need to “affirm US citizenship.” The US government doesn’t care if you hold citizenship in another country and use that country’s passport, as long as you use your US passport when traveling to and from the US. Using foreign funds to attend college is not a crime, or we’d have to lock up all those Rhodes and Marshall scholars.”

You say:
“This means he accepted Indonesian citizenship (which requires renouncing American citizenship)”
Wrong. You only lose US citizenship through a specific process. Indonesian law has no force or impact on US law.
Also ...

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

— http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

“, and is therefore cannot be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”.

Bad set of premises, false conclusion.
If Obama was born a US citizen and never explicitly renounced citizenship, then he is eligible to be President.

[WOSG]

I gave you a link to the Supreme Court ruling for a reason. It corrects your false assumption. Obama doesnt fall into this category anyway, But one can be a dual national and a natural-born citizen at the same time:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”

[null and void]

Reading comprehension really isn’t your strong suit, is it?

[WOSG]

“I beg to differ. A natural-born citizen is one who was born on United States soil to two American citizens. “

You are wrong.

The Wong Ark ruling in multiple places used the phrase “natural-born” as a phrase to clearly mean ‘citizen (or subject) from time of birth’, and cited laws where children of aliens born in the realm were “natural-born” citizens/subjects.
I’ll share an extended quote from the Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark ruling to show what I mean. The distinction you claim between natural-born and some other class of citizen at birth is found nowhere in statutes or Supreme Court rulings, and is certainly at variance with the intent of the 14th amendment.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court

The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled

An act to enable His Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,

enacted that “all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands

from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom

title should be made or derived, had been or should be “born out of the King’s allegiance, and out of is Majesty’s realms and dominions,” as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors “had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King’s dominions.” 7 Statutes of the Realm, 90. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,” and, without such assumption, the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was

whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.

9 Wheat. 356.

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”