Skip to comments.Help show what's wrong in Salon's "Birther FAQ"
Posted on 08/05/2009 12:52:28 PM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com
click here to read article
One of the areas that "Birthers" have mostly ignored is potentially the one that could have the greatest impact on not just this issue but many others as well: the fact that the MSM and their allies have consistely lied and misled about this issue. By pointing out those lies and misleading statements in an effective way designed to have an impact on the careers of those who aren't telling the truth, we could help force the MSM to do real reporting not just on this issue but on other issues.
What I ask you to do is to pick Salon's article apart and show how it's not reliable. And, the audience for that should be Salon's readers and other Obama supporters. You have to present a logical, valid argument that the intellectually-honest among them will believe. For instance, simply saying, "he was born in Kenya" without providing definitive proof is not a valid counter-argument. However, if Salon says something could have only happened in one way when there are other possibilities, that is a valid counter-argument. If Salon gets a fact wrong or is misleading, point that out.
I already started by showing how Alex Koppelman is lying about state officials "repeatedly affirming [the] authenticity [of the COLB on Obama's site]".
How dare we not be like leftists who believe Hussein is qualified to be president because he is black and a devout America hating, Marxist thug!
Obviously, dual citizenship isn't an barrier. After all, the dictator of East Buttfrackistan could declare that all Americans are also East Buttfrackistanis, and, bingo, we all technically have "dual citizenship" (and, if that interpretation were correct, nobody would be eligibile for the Presidency).
So we can rule that list item out in any search for potential flaws in the author's reasoning.
Frankly it also bothers me that Barry has hired terrorists, communists, tax cheats and Black nationalists to run his administration.
I make no claims at all. I only ask two very simple things.
1. Lets see the original birth certificate.
2. What citizenship did O claim when he was in college.
Thats it. Its not a claim, its a question and a rather simple question at that.
They can crank up the noise-and-fog machine all they want, crank out all the phony documents they want, run out all the flacks and hacks they want to badmouth anyone with the nerve to ask the question, but its still just a very simple question and they still can’t bring themselves to answer.
Wow. The article actually admits that what Obama has released is not his birth certificate.
It also admits that people can get what Obama released even if they were born outside of hawaii, but that it would not list Hawaii as the birthplace.
As I have stated time and time again, until someone can come forward with the same document Obama has produced and can prove they were born outside of Hawaii-this argument is going nowhere.
The anti-birthers (Obamabots) are over here using this salon article (Load of BS) crying how this is a non-issue.
The fact they spend hours claiming Certifigate is a non-issue is amusing.
Obama doesnt meet the constitutional requirements to be POTUS...
If you think he does then prove it...
Uncle Floyd thinks anyone who reads Salon.com is an asshole and is cutting you out of his will.
Teh anti-Birthers certainly do misstate a lot of things too.
Just think what would have happened if the BC flap was over GWB, Sarah Palen, etc.
Seems like theyve been too long in the saloon
Seems to me that Salon has done a pretty good job (not perfect) on the myths.
At least it’s a commmon sensical enough approach that most people will buy. Unfortunately, it will never settle for the 10% that just won’t let this go.
Meanwhile, we suffer as conservatives because more and more libs get into office due to more and more conservatives being painted as cranks for believing in this nonsense.
I wish the author, however, would have some moral honesty and talk about how almost 40% of Democrats believed Bush and the gov’t knew about the 9/11 attacks.
I except his premise that the birthers situation is a far right fringe group that believes in this nonsense, but a far far far larger group of liberal nutjobs bought into the 9/11 garbage.
The first paragraph is wrong.
The state of Hawaii to my knowledge has not commented on the authenticity of the COLB, only stated that they've seen and inspected the still undisclosed long form.
Ding ding ding +10000. We have a winner!!!
But the state of Hawaii has commented that he was born in Hawaii....they’ve publicly stated it TWICE now.
assume...Obama could ...show it to reporters. Shouldn't he? Maybe not...; to cave in to the Birthers' demands now would legitimize them.
Huh? Seems to me it would shut them up for good. How do you figure that such a humiliation would legitimize them?
And some of its leaders wouldn't cease their quest even if they were given the original birth certificate
Maybe not the leaders, but it'd put the matter to rest for me, and for just about everyone else. You can't be much of a leader if no one follows, as 0 is starting to learn.
Birthers have a long list of other demands. Here's one...Read it, and abandon all hope: ...
* Passport files
* University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
* Harvard Law Review articles
* Harvard Law School records
* Columbia University records
* Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"...etc.
Actually, I'd forgo the birth certificate if you'd just show me his Harvard articles and Chicago Law school articles. Why were public docs sequestered? If we knew what these revealed about his thinking, we could weep together.
They haven’t even addressed a long form. The Fukino statement referred to ‘vital records’ not any specific item in that record. Democrats have to lie and misstate in order to cover for their affirmative action bastard. You will see it repeatedly on this thread! Deceiving is the only way to cover for this liar-in-chief.
I'm the King of Siam (Oh yes I am.) The State of New Jersey would concur if I paid them enough.
That’s false. The latest statement said he was born in HI. However, the 10/2008 statement only said he had a valid cert on file. The full text, link to the original document, and a picture of the 10/2008 statement is here:
The only other statement that might qualify was something a spokeswoman said. However, she won’t repeat it now, she admits she’s not qualified to speak to whether he was born there, and she’s not a credible source in any case due to conflicting statements and not even being able to remember what she’s told other people.
There's obviously something in the long form that he doesn't want the public to see.
You asserted: “But the state of Hawaii has commented that he was born in Hawaii....theyve publicly stated it TWICE now.” Prove it, prove to us that the state of Hawaii has made such a definitive staement TWICE. Then, since you’ve got the rabbit hat, prove to us that the lying bastard was actually born in Hawaii ... and not use the proven forgery he posted first at KOS and Factcheck and his website.
The two statements from Dr. Fukino are outstanding examples of circular argument both referring to “vital records” and the “vital records” could be anything or nothing ( who knows). Obama **himself** could have amended any of the “vital records”.
She reminds me of a Monty Python skit!
And...I am willing to bet my entire 401K plan that NO ONE since the dawn of our nation has ever had the words “natural born” written on their “vital records” or real birth certificate. The woman is deliberately obfuscating and misleading without actually lying.
We'd suffer over something else if it weren't for this. We're the cranks, but they're conspiracy nuts are investigators.
Remember the Bush service records?
Remember the "October surprise?"
Remember what Sen. Byrd said: "It's the seriousness of the charge."
I did ignore this thing. Gave it no mind. But what is keeping it alive? It's the repeated attacks on the "Birthers" by the libs that awakes my interest: as Will Shakespeare said: "Methinks thou doth protest too loudly..." (I mean this of them.) Why are they so worked up about a bunch of "cranks?"
An honest and forthright man considered it an **honor** to provide **all** relevant documentation to prove that he is a natural born citizen.
So?...I conclude that Obama is dishonorable and dishonest.
I’m tempted to do to this piece of Obama propaganda deceit what we did to the Taranto piece of deceit, go point by point and highlight why it is fifth column deceit not fourth estate clarification.
Koppelman actually complains in the end about someone asking for the affirmative action bastard to release the necessary documents to allow the people to know whom the hell this lying little half-black nettle really is!
That is a ridiculously false argument. The Law of Nations prohibits such a scenario by limiting recognition of citizenship to circumstances in which jus sanguinnis and/or jus soli exist in fact.
No person who is born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign may serve as Commader-in-Chief and President of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has publicly acknowledged he was born with an allegiance to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded such a person from being eligible to serve as Commader-in-Chief and President of the United States when they debated the inclusion of the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution. Until an Amendment to the Constitution lawfully changes the intent of the Founding Fathers to exclude persons with allegiance to a foreign sovereign by removing the natural born citizen phrase used to implement the exclusion, no person may lawfully serve as Commander-in-Chief or President of the United States who was born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
This is a strawman. How can anyone defend a strawman argument of **your** creation?
Pale,...Using strawmen arguments might work in a private conversation. You might even frustrate your Constitution defending debating partner to the point that he might walk away. You might falsely believe that you “won” the debate.
Ah! But...This is the Internet. That doesn't work here. Your words, and your strawmen arguments, stand for all to see and judge.
So?....What is so silly about asking for a **real** birth certificate?
What is rational about spending nearly a million dollars in attorney time trying to hide it?
That’s possible too; keep people running around chasing ghosts to distract them from his real machinations.
Their certainly seems to be a very strong “native son” component to the coverage he’s gotten, and in my experience those in HI I’ve talked to are a bit “laid back” about that whole “issue a definitive statement and tell the whole truth” thing.
And, I’ve been trying for a couple weeks to get the Hawaiian governor’s office to confirm that she never verified he was born there, without any luck. I’ve sent three emails and left two voice mail messages.
Since I don’t have all day for this, it would be great if others could try to get someone on the phone about this:
Now, that doesn’t mean an organized conspiracy, but I haven’t seen anyone in HI who’s an Obama opponent such as Palin has in AK.
Name one "conservative" who has lost an election because of this "so-called" nonsense.
The only nonsense is anything out of the mouth of anyone who despised the former Constitution so much that simply asking someone for their "birth certificate" is "crank" exercise.
Nice try.....(It is with great discipline that I refrain from pressing the "Troll" button!)
We ARE the strict constructionists. The problem is that most of these people are not even aware of the fact the United States had a different set of citizenship laws for each one of the States until long after the phrase was written into the Constitution.
John Jay, Goerge Washington, and the other Founding Fathers knew exactly what the phrase meant, and they knew perfectly well that they were talking about allegiance and not about the place of birth. The misrepresentations being disseminated in the SCOTUS case law and discussions are difficult to follow and understand because they are based upon false assumptions that naturally lead to conflicting and nonsensical interpretations. When you disregard all this later revisionism and return to the plainly written words of the Founding Fathers and the works of the authors like Vattel whose Law of Nations they relied upon, the errors of the later revisionists become obvious.
The following is a response I just posted in another thread, and it explains how the phrase is referring to allegiance a person has at birth as determined by the varying laws existing at the time in each of the thirteen States of the Union.
So far we have assumed that the conventional meaning of natural born citizen for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of natural born subject in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct?
No, the assumption is not correct. The British common-law was a relatively recent, 18th Century, abnormal departure from and in contradiction to the customary Law of Nations stretching back two millenia to the Roman Republic and earlier. The recent propensity to assume the 18th-19th Century English common-law practice of making the place of birth, jus soli, the method of determining status as a natural born subject equivalent to a natural born citizen is based upon widespread public ignorance and an erroneous confusion of the purpose and means of determining citizenship.
The place of birth, jus soli, is just one of many METHODS for determining ALLEGIANCE to a sovereign. There are many other METHODS which were used to determine ALLEGIANCE to a sovereiegn. Descent by blood, jus sanguinni, is another method used to determine allegiance to a sovereign. Descent from foreign parents, jus albinatus, was a method of denying allegiance to the sovereign in whose domains a person was born. In each circumstance, it is the allegiance which determines citizenship, and it is one or more of the methods which determines that allegiance.
A person natural born in the domain of a sovereign with parents of foreign citizenship and owing allegiance to another sovereign as a result of jus albinatus is the natural born citizen of the other sovereign, and is not the natural born citizen of the sovereign in whose domain the person was born. This was the actual law and practice in old France and many other nations at a time when England used jus soli as a method of claiming the allegiance of every person born in the dominions of the sovereign of England.
Upon the Revolution as of 4 July 1776, the United States of America abolished the British common-law and each state began to enact its own statutory citizenship laws in replacement of the former British common-law. The new statutory laws were modeled on a mixture of international law and custom as described by the works of Vattel and others of like background with respect to the Law of Nations. In every such law, the authors were concerned with allegiance to the sovereign State using a variety of methods including combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinni to determine the natural born allegiance of a person.
So when the phrase “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen” was used at the time of the origin of the Constitution, the true meaning of the phrase is “born in nature with allegiance to a sovereign” of this or another domain. As in old France, the sovereign owed the allegiance was not necessarily going to be the sovereign of the domain which was the place of birth, unless the place of birth was a domain of Britain.
The phrase, “natural born citizen,” as it was used in the Constitution was all about “natural born” allegiance and not about “natural born” place of birth. This is why the Founding Fathers understood exactly what they meant to say when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution for the purpose of excluding any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign from serving as Commander-in-Chief or being eligible to the Office of the President. As used by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, the phrase means “a person born in nature with allegiance only to the United States of America.” Each of the thirteen States of the Union had enacted its own laws to determine who could and could not be a Citizen of that State and thereby also a Citizen of the United States. Since dual nationality did not exist at that time, no person born with allegiance to another sovereign could possibly also be “a person born in nature with allegiance only to the United States of America.”
Not "is" but "could be." It wouldn't take the entire state government to pull something like this off, hypothetically.
When you factor in the collusion of the media and Dim partisans on this,the sequestering of other relevant documents--law school journal articles, scholarly articles and dissertations mainly==and moderates' fear of humiliation, at the very least it's a possibility.
I'll go away once they disprove my assumptions by releasing all relevant docs in just one of these categories.
Since we haven’t had any elections yet, nice try. But the perception that conservatives are loons because they focus on this rather than fixing a broken system is out there. The DNC is helping push it along with a commercial they released yesterday that got heavy play on all the news channels last night.
Real people believe that crap. It’s a war of public opinion and we need to do a better job then focus on this absolute nonsense of a birth certificate.
The Secretary of State AND the Governor of Hawaii have both made statements, on behalf of the state of Hawaii that he was born there.
By definition, in my mind, that’s word coming from the state of Hawaii. The job of the sec of state is to be responsible for these types of issues and her office has not once, but twice stated he was born in Hawaii.
Maybe you'd better assign each of us a point to address.
Um, Lingle’s comment was not a positive one. She said ‘he has claimed’ and then she offered something like ‘but no one seems to have heard of him here.’
Hello! Do you know when and where Lingle said that?