Posted on 01/05/2010 1:52:27 PM PST by autumnraine
On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked "birthers" and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
"There's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show," Beck said. "Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air."
"I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?" Beck scoffed. "I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president's eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama's apologists in other news outlets.
Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck's running joke, birthers believe someone – maybe Obama's KGB "control" – preemptively placed Obama's birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a "roadmap" of getting an African man into office.
As for Obama producing a long-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beck questioned, "Why do that when these people ['birthers'] are so discrediting themselves?"
Get the must-wear clothing item for 2010! "Where's the birth certificate" T-shirt!
The radio host further argued that by distracting the public from actionable issues, "birthers" have become "a dream come true" for Obama, an ideal situation akin to the fantasies of adolescent boys after Hollywood bombshells.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
mocked "birthers" and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
Thanks for the ping!
He has claimed a non-citizen as his father all along, so that certainly can't be the reason.
If it were to show he was born outside the US, then you might have a point.
A debatable one, as I, in common with a good many, believe there are only two categories of US citizens, citizens-at-birth (incorporating native born) and naturalized citizens. Not three, with the third being native born as a special sub-group of citizens-at-birth. I'm unclear whether a child born outside the US to a native-born American woman and a foreign father is a citizen-at-birth or must undergo some sort of naturzliation process.
I'm familiar with all the counter-arguments about the meaning of "native-born." I just disagree with them. Until the Supreme Court rules on the definition of "native-born" all further discussion is pretty much academic.
Same here. Influence of O'Reilly? Or has he been saying this for a while?
I gave birth to my first child in 1970, a few months after Ann was supposed to have delivered Obama. I was a few weeks shy of my 19th birthday, just like Ann. I can attest that I was physically exhausted, bleeding, and certainly not able to travel for at least a month. I heard the report of her visit to her friend in Washington in about Feb, 2008, long before any of this birth certificate stuff started. Bells went off in my head. How could this be, I thought. When I got a call from a staffer during the primary asking for my vote, I questioned his birth in Hawaii with this interview I had seen. The lady didn’t know anything about it. I told her something fishy was up and I wouldn’t vote for him. I began following everything on him and in March, I saw the birth certificate question on a blog. I don’t now recall who it was. In June, NRO, brought it up, and soon DailyKos posted the COLB.
I don’t believe any of it. I don’t know what the truth is but clearly it is not what is being told.
First, you go to the main State of Hawaii, Department of Health webpage (as shown below in the first link, then you go to the Archived Press Releases (as shown in the second link) and lastly, you go to the actual press release from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, in PDF format. You'll notice that all the links are the official website each one tracks to the next one, and to the actual press release itself.
It is the following information, presented here text (not formatted exactly the same way, but all the same words), on that PDF file, with the official State of Hawaii seal on it...
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 -- 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
###
As far as addressing the issue from an official State of Hawaii pronouncement, since they are the holders of the original information, and have certified as a statement from the State of Hawaii (again the original maintainers and certifiers of that information) regarding the birth of Barack Obama -- this seems to wrap it up.
It doesn't get any more original or any more certified than this, as far as state records are concerned.
I heard the report of her visit to her friend in Washington in about Feb, 2008, long before any of this birth certificate stuff started. Bells went off in my head. How could this be, I thought.
In regards to your own experience, I don't know -- "how could this be..." as you ask.
All I do know is that we've got an official statement from the State of Hawaii, the official maintainers of the birth information for Obama and in which they certify that he was born there and that he is a natural born citizen.
It would seem to be (in regards to your own experience) to be a variation between individuals, more than anything else...
Officially speaking -- we've got the word from the State of Hawaii.
If it were to show he was born outside the US, then you might have a point.
With Obama, it's "beyond" that point... because it's already been officially stated by the State of Hawaii (who are the original holders of the birth information and official certifiers of the birth information) that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
So, it's beyond the point "if we find he was born elsewhere" -- because we have an official statement from the State of Hawaii saying he was born nowhere else except in Hawaii...
See my post and reference just up above here...
Hey, I agree with you.
But there are a good many around here who are convinced the State is lying.
We are a nation of laws. Because some in the public presumably don't care, we are to ignore both the Constitution and the words of Barack, “I was born a dual-citizen?” Then why bother with a Constitution?
Yes, I would say that being a nation of laws is true, and sometimes I think we're a nation of way too many laws... LOL...
As a side note, here, it's not possible to legislate every last single thing and make it so that people are "law-abiding" by making everything to be outlined to the last detail of your life, or else, you've broken the law.
And also, along with that, just because something is a law (making one able to "do something") doesn't necessarily make the doing of that thing right. And conversely, making something illegal, doesn't necessarily make somethig wrong to do.
Those are what I would call fundamental "provisos" of being a nation of laws. The law is not necessarily the right or wrong of something -- but only the legal and illegal or the requirements and the non-requirements of something.
AND, in that same way of thinking, we found out that although there is a very fundamental law (in the Constitution) that a candidate for President be qualified in three areas (35 years old or more, natural born citizen, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years) -- we also found out that there is no "law" that requires a specific way of showing or proving that (other than the way it's been done for the last many decades), namely there is no legal requirment to show one's birth certificate.
That's a big problem right there, as far as I can see, and that's the reason why I would support "another law" (in the states) requiring all candidates to show their birth certificates and prove that they are qualified to be in office or else they cannot be placed on the ballot.
BUT, having said that -- I also realize that what you're saying has nothing to do with where Obama was born -- and thus, having a law requiring him to show his birth certificate, would solve nothing for you (in your "argument").
Thus, the "birth certificate issue" is non-relevant for you and your argument [but it is relevant for a lot of other people, though...]. So, I won't address the birth certificate issue with you, right here.
The Hawaiian official did just what you said, and then defied Hawaii's Office of Information Practices statue which required that she provide information to support her claim. Chicago politics has triumphed in Hawaii.
Of course, as you put forth the argument, whatever the birth certificate says about Obama being born in Hawaii doesn't relate to what you're saying, so -- in terms of this issue (as you're discussing it for Obama not being "qualified") -- it doesn't matter how they gave this information about him being born there -- i.e., it doesn't matter to you.
It may matter on another level having nothing to do with Obama, but with whether laws were followed in Hawaii (as you seem to be saying) but that is a matter for Hawaii and their officials and their citizens, as with me being in another state, I have nothing to do with their laws in that state that their own citizens and legislators have power over enacting or not enacting.
You are correct. The Republican didn't object, because he too didn't satisfy the “jus soli” requirement.
You'll have to excuse me, but I've always thought it was funny that in this particular Presidential election, we've got FReepers arguing that neither our candidate nor "their candidate" was qualified to run for President of the United States.
Now, I'm afraid that when the greater voting public hears arguments like that -- that neither candidate of neither party (Democrat or Republican) is qualified to run for President and they are both seen actually "running for President" -- that this means that the greater voting electorate has said about this group (that says that neither is qualified) -- they come from kook-city... LOL...
I'm afraid that's something that you're not going to be able to overcome no matter how persuasive your arguments. In fact, I don't think you're going to get a single judge to "buy into it" -- any legislator to buy into the idea that neither his candidate or the other candidate were qualified, and neither are you going to be able to get legislation passed that would clarify the issue to make it so that neither McCain nor Obama could have run, if such proposed legislation had been in effect (even though there is no such legislation... "just saying").
You're simply fighting a losing battle and it's going to go nowhere -- as we've now seen for over a year and a half or more of people "trying" to get it to "go somewhere". It's going nowhere with the voting electorate, our side or the other side, in terms of your arguments.
You are observing the right inconsistencies. We are not a nation governed by the sentiments of “the general public (the wide body of the voting electorate)”. This is precisely why our founders specified a representative government based on an almost immutable foundation of laws - almost because the process of changing those laws, constitutional amendment, is exhaustive by design.
Well, what "plays out" and what actually works in our society and the legislative and political process and our elections and how the electorate views and takes everything and to what they object -- this is what determines the "reality for our nation" -- in the end.
I'm afraid that reality takes precedence over anything else... even when you don't agree with that reality and when you think that reality is not legitimate. In the end, it's "reality" for all that you have.
And I've said all along that those who are in the category of the "birthers" are simply not facing the "reality" of what has gone on and what has happened and what has become "real" for the greater voting electorate.
And as far as I can see, with the birthers who say that Obama was not born in Hawaii, they have no leg to stand on any more and they are definitely the "kook fringe element" here, with the larger majority of people and I would agree with that.
NOW..., on the other hand, your argument is the only one that has any possible legitimacy, but "reality" has currently overrriden it. In the long run, we may see some clarification of this issue, as you argue it, either through the Supreme Court or through an Amendment to the Constitution clarifying it, or through "mere practice" of whom we elect (which evidences "what we understand this means to the voters, and thus, what it means "in law" too, if the Supreme Court doesn't address the issue, which they might never address).
At any rate, I do not believe any court or even the Supreme Court will address your issue pertaining to the details of what makes a person "natural born" in this country -- until long after Obama is out of office -- if they ever do so -- and I'm suspecting that they may never do so, leaving it just the way it is right now.
But there are a good many around here who are convinced the State is lying.
Yes, I've run across them... :-)
And that's the big problem with someone who holds to a certain idea so strongly that when "reality" overrides that idea that they are holding to -- they have only one recourse -- "a conspiracy".
Now, I'm not dismissing all conspiracies as not true. There are conspiracies in the world, as we all have come across. But, I'm just saying that when a person is wrong and they don't want to admit it and finally say to an idea or someone else -- "I guess you were right after all" -- that they only have "conspiracy theories" left to explain their position.
And what I've also seen with these types of "conspiracy theories" is that one can make "anything true" using a good collection of conspiracy theories... LOL...
I mean, the Supreme Court is obviously in cahoots with Obama, and the lower courts are definitely in cahoots with Obama, on top of that, top Republican officials were also in cahoots with Obama, and all the Secretaries of State were in cahoots with Obama for accepting his sworn statement that he was qualified and not making him "prove it", and even the "military" is in cahoots with Obama, because they don't drive their tanks up to the White House and surround it demanding he leave, and even FReepers here are in cahoots with Obama for supporting his statement that he is qualified per the Constitution, and now we see that Beck is in cahoots with Obama, along with a whole list of previous conservatives who were thought to be in a position to "do something" about it, but have, instead, joined in with the "conspiracy" to allow Obama to ignore the law and the Constitution.
This must be a very vast and wide-ranging conspiracy -- as evidenced by my only question -- "Is there anyone left that is 'not in cahoots' with Obama, besides those complaining about it?"... LOL...
Could you please relay this “proof” from the state of Hawaii because I have not seen or heard it. I’ve written to them several times since June, 2008. They refuse to provide me any info.
I’ve read numerous newspaper accounts of his Indonesian birth, his Kenyan birth, his Hawaii birth at Queens hospital reported by UPI, his birth at Kapiolani by the Hawaii papers, the letter he supposedly wrote to the hospital and was read publicly by Rep. Abercrombie which neither he nor his spokesman, Gibbs, will confirm or deny he signed. Why should I trust the sources now, when they keep changing the facts. Should I have believed them before?
I have visited the birthplace of several of our presidents but no one is willing to confirm one for Obama. Why?
On the other hand, he and others have named different hospitals and offered no proof of any. The COLB posted only electronically and not shared with anyone except FactCheck is worthless in my opinion and that of a lot of others.
I recall the Governor of Hawaii stating early on that a COLB was requested and sent in 2008. The one posted online was stamped 2007. So again, no confirmation of authenticity of the online copy and no one except FactCheck has been allowed to see the paper copy.
I also read a report of another friend of Ann’s who spoke of receiving a postcard from her from a ship during the disputed time period. So many questions remain for me.
Could you please relay this “proof” from the state of Hawaii because I have not seen or heard it.
Right up above in my Post #306
I’d like to have that “official” statement made under oath and penalty of perjury, please.
Obama, via his campaign website did claim his natural born citizenship was valid under the 14th Amendment. I thought that was interesting. And more interesting when we learned his emphasis in teaching ‘Constitutional Law’ was on expanding claims of harmed rights to be redressed under the 14th. As I recollect the court rulings on citizenship by birth that referenced the 14th have become more and more liberal, and the balancing act such rulings engendered resulted in ever more complex legislation reasserting boundaries.
Nor do I think that Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws — the three branches are co-equal in that, and the People supreme over all those three branches. Madison v Marbury was a ruling made moot by President Jefferson’s nulling action and should never have been made part of the canon of settled law.
Nothing in her statement proves that the COLB he posted online is authentic and I don’t believe it is. Everything I have read points to it being fake.
So, let’s just assume that he was born there and there is an authentic certificate on file. If the one he posted was a legitimate copy, why will he not let anyone (except FactCheck, with whom he has connections) see or touch it?
And why won’t he verify the location? It is pure craziness to allow this to drag on.
Nothing in her statement proves that the COLB he posted online is authentic and I don’t believe it is. Everything I have read points to it being fake.
Well, that's a "shifty" answer... LOL...
I say that because I never brought up the issue of the COLB posted online. And in light of what the State of Hawaii said -- it wouldn't matter if his campaign posted a shopping list online -- it still remains true that the State of Hawaii has stated in no uncertain way that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
I'm not saying something that is disputable, because I've already posted their direct copy (that they have online) to this thread. It's exactly what they said -- and -- they are the original certifiers of that information, the maintainers of that information and they are the only ones who can print the certified copies of that information (for any other agency to use for evidence).
Thus, if the very state who issues the birth certificates themselves and is qualified under the law to do so -- if they say that -- then I would say that pretty much cinches up the issue, in that one regard (of whether he was born there or not).
So, let’s just assume that he was born there and there is an authentic certificate on file. If the one he posted was a legitimate copy, why will he not let anyone (except FactCheck, with whom he has connections) see or touch it?
Well, I do appreciate your willingness to "assume it" (for the sake of discussion here) -- but -- I do have to say that it's gone way beyond the "assuming stage" when the State of Hawaii says it... LOL...
What you're asking here is what is the motive for doing such things, as you see being done. That's a completely different issue than the facts of the matter as to where he was born. We have the facts, as they are stated from the State of Hawaii, who issues the very birth certificate that you are asking for... :-)
The "motive" is unrelated to the facts of where he was born.
As for me, I don't know the motive and I could care less what the motive is. I have suspicions as to what the motive is, but it's not something that I really care to waste a lot of my time on.
But, for you, I'll post what I suspect his motives are. They could be in one of two areas and may be a combination of the two.
It's that there is some embarassing information on the full birth certificate that he doesn't want someone to know about his family (maybe the name of a real father, for example).
And then secondly, the situation that started developing with the "birth certificate issue" seemed to be a good thing for his campaign to use to "marginalize" certain conservatives (who jumped on the bandwagon of the issue) -- and to call them "kooks" and "crazies"....
It's like a commercial on TV about a charge card... what's the cost of not showing the full birth certificate, $1 million dollars.... but, "marginalizing some of the loudest conservatives opponents as kooks and crazies"... "priceless"... LOL....
And the trouble is, it's not only Obama and liberals who are trying to make out this small vocal segment (of birthers) as crazies and kooks -- but -- it's also the larger majority of conservatives who are now coming to the same conclusion, themselves, that they are "crazies" and "kooks" -- and that is certainly "priceless" to the opposition (i.e., to the liberals)...
Nor do I think that Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws — the three branches are co-equal in that, and the People supreme over all those three branches.
In real life practice it does turn out that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws -- for the most part.
That's because the "bar" to exercising what is theoretically possible under the Constitution (as you are saying) is so high that it's not possible to do it for many things (i.e., to overturn what the Supreme Court has decided).
Now, it has been done in this country so it's not impossible, and in theory it could be done for a whole lot of things, except that the founding fathers did make that bar so high that it wouldn't be done very much, only in the worst cases (in which "the people" object) would it be done.
I’d like to have that “official” statement made under oath and penalty of perjury, please.
I've actually picked up my birth certificate one time, and then helped a couple of family members pick up theirs too (i.e., go through the minimal process, and get it at the state agency) -- and I've never had any person that I've dealt with in that process swear anything in a court of law, before handing me that birth certificate... LOL...
What I'm saying is that when you have a statement from the State of Hawaii, which is an official acting in their official capacity in that state agency, on the very thing that they are charged with doing and maintaining in that state agency (i.e., birth records and birth certificates) -- pronounce to the public on state letterhead and sign it (and also has the Republican governor's name on the letterhead, if that wasn't bad enough... :-) ... ) -- then it's the same as someone swearing in court under oath.
And really..., if what you're implying is true -- namely that a state official acting in his capacity in that same state, and in that very agency in which they are in charge -- is lying about this information -- then what makes you think that they are not going to lie under oath?? LOL...
And lastly, no matter what you want that particular head of the State of Hawaii agency to do -- the greater majority of the public is going to take that statement as the final word on Obama being born in the State of Hawaii...
I doubt you're going to get that "swearing an oath" in court. All you will do is just marginalize yourself (and others like you) into a deeper and deepar corner of the political world -- which I suspect is exactly what Obama's operatives love to see happening.
LOL!
Hey, I own some property in Alaska, purportedly it’s mineral-rich, if I send you a copy of my title for it will you send a transfer from your Paypal account?
I have a official statement from the Alaskan Governor and Sec’y of State stating that the Alaskan land does exist and that there are titles to it!
Look, it’s work a few million, but I need the cash today, so you’d really help me if we could do this deal for say — $50,000. That’s real cheap! I’m desperate. Take advantage of me!
I can only take Paypal.
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.