Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
“those who ask legitimate, intelligent questions.”
Doing that to birthers is like garlic to vampires. they dont take it well.
“How about just answering the questions with facts and sources?”
- Sierre Madre spoof - (’sources? we dont need no stinkin’ sources’)
Never will I believe he wasn’t born in Kenya and is today an illegal alien that should be deported!!
Totally agree. I think Hillary Clinton would have sold her daughter to gypsies if that’s what it took, to get a look at the certificate. And she found no reason to question his eligibility.
Americans saw the dems as conspiracy theorists and won handsomely. I don’t see the downside.
The trouble is that DOMF seems to be ghostwritten and has stuff in it that's not even authentically Obama.
Its the classic Conspiracy Theorist ruse. Come up with something extraordinary, then ask others to disprove you, rather than prove it themselves.
This helps no one, and the birthers will be tossed to the fringe by the calmer minds in the party. Otherwise, we are just playing to the stereotypes that the left has of us.
But, that is my opinion, evidently, that is not allowed...?
Source?
Which means Obama must learn to transcend EMBARRASSMENT ~ not hide behind more capable lawyers than himself.
Then, all will be well in the land and Global Warming will return.
As for where he was born, if he's a ‘natural born’ citizen or whatnot, honestly think the only body that had the right and responsibility to ensure that he was qualified to be president was the electoral college that elected him. Don't see any other body which would constitutionally have the authority to ask the question.
But the whole privacy argument is invalid. He is the sitting president of the United States; normal vital records are not only expected to be released, but are a virtual requirement. I really want to see a real FIOA challenge to his keeping his records private, and look forward to see how many loops Hawaii would go through in trying to enforce their ‘privacy’ statute against a constitutional challenge from someone supporting the freedom of the press.
You seem oh so sincere and passionate for someone who's only been here a month.
Pardon if I express my skepticism and invite you to return to DU. You've flunked the bc IQ test.
Orly Taitz listed it in Exhibit B in the Cook lawsuit.
Someone here posted a list, but I can’t find it.
Maybe you’ll have better luck.
My point exactly. Thanks for joining the team.
“Ok, then you make the case for O being a Natural Born citizen.”
1. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. on Aug 4th, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. His birth was announced in Honolulu papers a week later, and his birth records have been vouched for by state of Hawaii health director, who says she has verified that his records show him as being born in Honolulu.
2. As per SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark ruling and 14th amendment, he’s been a US citizen since birth, ergo is a natural-born citizen.
Ergo, eligible to be President.
QED.
====================================
Please reduce it more...
“The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.”
That statement has zero bearing on actual US law on citizenship and nationality.
Whether he produces the birth certificate or not, he IS a liar. In fact, has he told the truth on anything?
Some of this is just good clean fun.
“or his radical affiliations may become public”
You mean aside from the dozen or so we already know. I just saw Obama’s former doctor speak today on the evils of the private medical industry. He swore Medicare officials never, ever told him what to do, while insurance agents were always breathing down his neck.
I might inform him that there’s a big difference between private and public pressure, or that insurance companies are in competition with eachother (even if state governments restrict who can buy from them and otherwise regulate them), whereas the government is one big, undifferentiated blob. But what’s the use? I’m sure they indoctrinate them from pre-med on up.
I couldn’t believe the pablum coming out of the mouths of med students interviewed on Fox today. They have no business speaking to the economics of healthcare, especially since they have yet to practice in the real world. Still, it surprised me how lovey-dovey socialist they were. It’d be great to expand care, surely. This’ll help low income areas. Insurance companies already ration, what’s the difference? Sickening.
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.