Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
I distinctly recall when Ace of Spades flipped from being suspicious of Obama's birth to complete intolerance of any discussion regarding it. Prior to the discovery of those Newspaper announcements in those two Hawaiian newspapers, Ace was supporting questions about Obama's origins, and refusal to release a birth certificate. As soon as those announcements were discovered, not only Ace flipped, but so did Drew, Gabe, Monty, Maetenlock, Dave, and the entire gang at Ace of Spades. Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit (Hot Air) were already against any inquiry into the issue, but with the Crew at Ace of Spades, it was like a light switch. I could SEE the Cascade and Herd mentality taking effect. They went from asking the same questions, to rabidly opposing any further inquiry. From there it spread throughout most of the Conservative movement with Eric Erickson of "Red State" viciously banning any and all discussion of the topic.
I have long thought that one of the major reasons for this is the belief that inquiries into whether Obama was born in America were regarded as dangerous to the Republican Candidate John McCain who was definitely NOT born in the United States. Discussing the issue was seen as DANGEROUS to our side politically. The MOST vicious vituperative verbal assaults I ever received in any of these discussions were for suggesting that these people were motivated by "pragmatism". That's how I knew I had struck a nerve.
So in a word, Yes. I do think most conservatives made up their minds too early (cascade) and "herded up" to oppose the dissenters which they regarded as political threats. As time went on their positions just only grew more rigid. The "Conspiracy" word was repeated often with rolled eyes in an effort to demean and discredit those remaining dissenters, but despite that, the meme was spreading that Obama was somehow illegitimate. It is still spreading, but at a much lower rate now that he's released his image file which is supposed to be a copy of his original birth certificate.
At this point it appears that the election will come and render the whole discussion moot. For what it's worth, I believe most of the Anti-birthers here at Free Republic are more likely to be RNC establishment types than DNC trolls. Not all, but most.
I wish you would distinguish “Birthers” better and say that “VATTLE” Birthers are full of crap, because the rest of us who were Birthers were just people with legitimate suspicions that Obama was hiding something. Which, based on how much American presidents have lied to people in BIG ways over the last 100 years, was not a irrational suspicion.
If "native born" and "natural born" were originally synonymous, clearly the Founders meant that all born on American soil (with the usual exceptions of children of foreign diplomats, etc.) were natural born. Period. No legislation can change what's in the Constitution, unless it is a Constitutional amendment. I disagree with some of your comments on the Cable act and the 1934 act, but that is irrelevant. Those Acts do not change the Constitution.
"Further, Common Law is cited by name or definition frequently through our history and law. I will again bring up Rogers vs. Bellei, supreme court case which said
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute."
Bellei was a citizen by statute only. Natural born citizens are not citizens by statute, but by nature. (English common law statutes are irrelevant to natural born citizen status.) Had he been a natural born citizen, he would have had no residency requirement.
I encourage you to read the actual case. Bellei was not born in the United States, he was born in Italy. He had one citizen parent, and one who was an alien. The justices ruled that Congress had the right to make stipulations as part of the statute:
It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born, and, at the same time, to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.and
The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a "Fourteenth Amendment first sentence" citizen.So the justices draw a clear distinction between those born abroad, and those born in the United States. If 0bama had really been born in Kenya, your line of argument would work. If (as the evidence says) he was born on US soil, it doesn't. I urge you to turn your attention to persuading people on the basis of horrible policies, and not on the basis of the Cable Act and subsequent naturalization acts.
As long as we are clear that you see the evaluation of conclusive evidence as just following the herd.
Completely to the contrary. It is the knee jerk reaction to inconclusive evidence which prompted people to follow the herd.
The newspaper announcements do not PROVE birth in Hawaii. They prove that a birth record was filed at this time, in Hawaii. Most people equate the one thing with the other, and initially I was one of them, but after people pointed out to me how PECULIAR Hawaii's birth certificate laws are, I realized that a newspaper notice cannot be a substitute for a sworn affidavit of birth, and as of yet, Obama has not produced a satisfactory one.
So as I said, there was no "evaluation of conclusive evidence", there was a rush to assume that a notice in a newspaper is acceptable legal proof that someone was born in Hawaii. It. Is. Not.
Well, good luck with that.
unless we go into rebellion...which I will not do.
Rebellion can manifest itself in many forms including non-violent resistance...are you not willing to march on the Capital or your representatives and voice your opinion?
It is already over. The wrongness of it will not be addressed, if at all, till much later. In American History, this is much like John Kennedy's administration lying to the Cuban freedom fighters about providing them with air and naval support when they attacked Cuba. He left them to die on the beaches. It was horribly wrong, and the subsequent fallout CAUSED the Cuban Missile crisis, but Kennedy was never held accountable for his backstabbing. (Except perhaps by Karma.)
Obama (and his supporters) may never be held accountable for their perfidy, but if they ever are, it will likely be after the reins of power have been taken away from them.
That’s also what Truthers say about Bush and 9/11.
They aren’t having too much luck either.
They aren’t having too much luck either.
Yes, and Hitler loved dogs and built highways, so that makes all dog lovers and highway builders just like him! (following the El Sordo logic anyway.)
Karma is still a b*tch. It got Kennedy after all. I expect it to rain down on Bammy eventually.
Lots of things will catch up with the current President.
But Birther fantasies won't be on the list.
Lots of things will catch up with the current President.
But Birther fantasies won't be on the list.
We got Al Capone for Tax evasion. I don't care what "gets" him, I only care that he be "got."
And by the way, you are calling a refusal to be rushed to judgement (as with most of the herd) a "birther fantasy." It is in fact quite the opposite. It is the only call for judicious review of the available information. The lack of prudence is on the part of the people all too willing to accept what a habitual liar and con man has told them.
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.