Posted on 07/30/2009 4:07:43 PM PDT by pissant
OR?
Did you actually read what Steyn wrote? He neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
I’m convinced it is forged, and I was since before Polarik finished his analysis.
“...and as for him being born in Kenya - he’s basically saying its likely he was...”
Mark Steyn actually says that he thinks Obama was born in Hawaii, but he also thinks there’s probably something on the long-form birth certificate that Obama doesn’t want people to know about.
It would be nice to find some more expert opinion in regards to that
Mark Steyn just publicly slapped down his editors at National Review.
Here's a quote from an unsigned 28 July 2009 editorial at National Review Online that essentially claims there is no “Long Form” birth certificate to release:
“The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.”
Then here's Mark Steyn on 30 July 2009:
“But do I think there's something on the long-form birth certificate he doesn't want us to see? Yes. That would seem entirely likely — and consistent with [Obama’s] modus operandi.”
Perhaps there is still hope for saving National Review from the Centrists and the Neo-Cons.
Oh, good point.
Mark actually isn’t a “birther”. But don’t let that stop you.
This is the most likely explanation, but not the only one.
My bad. I took it from your comment that we’re to add Steyn to the list of talkers who think conservatives that want to see the BC are nutters.
don’t you know that AUDACIOUS is what Saul Alinsy’s book is all about!!!! i.e., tell the biggest, outlandish lies, because nobdy will believe audacious lies, only small ones!!
I don’t know which country he was born in, either Indonesia or Kenya, only that when he spent over a million dollars to pay to have them hidden and keep them hidden, that means HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE!!
>>> Can we have more verification of this ? ....or can that be debunked?
There were several threads during the election which exhausted this discussion to the point of “beating a dead horse”. But the media never reported on that either.
The fact that you are just now learning about it illustrates the power that the press has to suppress an issue and the details surrounding it.
The problem with stupid statements like that are that they are stupid.
Birthers is a libtard creation to conjure up the image of truthers in the public mind.
The people here and eslewhere demanding to see Obama’s ORINGINAL BIRTH CERTIFCATE have myriad motivations for the demand. But all realize Obama is hiding something consequential on his original BC.
The morons who wrote that piece are so full of crap, I can smell them here on the West Coast.
I had to respond strongly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2303121/posts
I agree, the whole problem with this is with the Press...look what happened with GW Bush and his record in the Air National Guards.
Someone with clout has to take the reigns and bring everyone else along
James writes:
Compounding the confusion, some rebuttals of the birthers’ claims have been based in part on misinformation. National Review, for example, asserts that it would not matter if the president had been born in a foreign country: “His mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well.”
I must confess that when I read the quoted passage, I thought it was an irrelevant but harmless attempt at humor (the business about Kansas residents having been American citizens for a long time). Quite apart from James's complaint, which I'll get to in a second, the assertion was inaccurate on its face: Obviously, not all residents of Kansas are U.S. citizens -- many of them are aliens. (Technically, a resident is just one who resides in a place and is not necessarily a citizen thereof.) But this was an editorial, not a legal document, so no point getting hyper-technical.
Yet, it was an editorial about a legal matter, so some technicalities do matter. Under the law applicable at the time, it was utterly irrelevant whether Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen or, like Obama's father, a non-American. As far as Obama's eligibility to be president is concerned, it is Hawaii or the highway: If he was not physically born in the U.S., he cannot qualify as a "natural born" citizen. I assumed that was pretty common knowledge, even if the legal reasons why it is so are not well understood. (Obama's mother was too young and hadn't fulfilled -- indeed, could not at that age fulfill -- the necessary conditions to pass U.S. citizenship to her child derivatively.)
Anyhow, I read the editorial as essentially saying: Obama was so clearly born in Hawaii that it's not even worth addressing any other possibilities. Rereading the passage James has highlighted, though, readers could certainly have taken us to be saying that, regardless of whether he was born in the U.S., Obama would still be a citizen because he is the son of a Kansan -- which isn't so.
Knowing how we operate around here, had it been our intention to make a derivative citizenship argument, I think you can rest assured that we would not have done it en passant. We'd have teed it up and then supported it with facts and law. But the passage is confusing, and since I'm supposed to be the hot-shot lawyer in this crowd, I plead guilty to being asleep at the switch.
Neither a nor b would surprise me in the least. Obama has the delusion that he is "special" and so does not need to follow the rules obeyed by us lesser beings.
He also appears to be a compulsive liar. He lies about things that can easily be checked and proven false. The BC is something a little harder to check but it would be in his nature to lie about something on the document. If not, it would be the first time I think that he would have been totally truthful with the country at large.
Ahhh...yes, he did imply that ‘something’ on the long form would be embarassing. That, to me, is something.
In your original comment to this post, YOU used the term “birther”, and said we should add Mark Steyn to the list.
So it is silly for you to now complain about the use of the term. I was just saying that you were WRONG to say that Mark Steyn was a birther. If you want to argue that nobody should be called a birther, go right ahead, but don’t do so after calling someone who isn’t one a birther.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.