Main Menu

Executive Order 13489 – Presidential Records

Obama Conspiracy Theories received an email from a visitor expressing concerns about an executive order by President Obama:

I’d like for OCT to comment on Executive Order 13489, one of Obama’s first official acts in office, and which is largely interpreted as banning the release of his records without his permission and which also revokes Section 6 of Executive Order 13233 so as to ban Congress and the courts from interceding.

The preamble to the Executive order says:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows

The key point in understanding what’s going on here is the definition of “Presidential records”. Here is the relevant passage from the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22):

§ 2201 Definitions… 2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

from which it is obvious that “Presidential records” are not those records being sought by eligibility doubters, documents created before Obama became President.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Print Friendly

,

72 Responses to Executive Order 13489 – Presidential Records

  1. avatar
    brygenon August 19, 2009 at 10:10 am #

    The executive order makes presidential records more easily available by removing restrictions ordered by President G.W. Bush.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/

    A President’s executive orders apply to the executive branch of the federal government. Another birther myth is that Governor Lingle sealed Obama’s birth records. She did not, but at least they had the right executive that time.

  2. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    The reason this Order is so important is that it also seals President Clinton’s records in the National Archives.

    In the early 90’s, Michelle Obama was given an award by First Lady Clinton in the Rose Garden. At the time Ms. Obama was escorted by her husband, Barack Obama.

    As a matter of National Security, the Secret Service conducted an extensive background check on Mr. and Ms. Obama. If the files generated on Mr. Obama’s background check were revealed, then Mr. Obama may suffer a irreparable embarrassment.

  3. avatar
    Bob August 19, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    The reason this Order is so important is that it also seals President Clinton’s records in the National Archives.

    Obama’s executive order restores the general presumption of openness that existed prior to Bush.

    Because of the order, it will be possible to review documents about the Obama’s prior visit with Mrs. Clinton.

  4. avatar
    aarrgghh August 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    IngloriousBuzzard says:

    if the files generated on mr. obama’s background check were revealed, then mr. obama may suffer a irreparable embarrassment.

    something tells me you passed up a promising career writing horoscopes.

  5. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    In the early 90’s, Michelle Obama was given an award by First Lady Clinton in the Rose Garden. At the time Ms. Obama was escorted by her husband, Barack Obama.

    Really? I’d be interested in knowing exactly when this award presentation took plance, and what the award was for, because I can’t find any evidence of it anywhere.

    As a matter of National Security, the Secret Service conducted an extensive background check on Mr. and Ms. Obama. If the files generated on Mr. Obama’s background check were revealed, then Mr. Obama may suffer a irreparable embarrassment.

    If such a background check had been performed, and it contained embarrassing information, why didn’t the Bush Administration use it against Obama? And why didn’t Hillary Clinton use it against Obama? This is beyond preposterous.

  6. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    During the Campaign, Katie Couric asked Hillary what she liked to read and Hillary said, “The Federalist Papers.”

    I haven’t read all of the Federalist Papers, but I recommend Federalist Paper No. 68.

  7. avatar
    Greg August 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    I started to write how this new executive order makes it harder for Obama to hide the information, since he now has to make a determination within 30 days and can’t designate family members. So, under Bush’s EO, Sasha Obama could have said in 78 years, “Nope, I’m not going to release these because I’m still reviewing them.”

    But the bigger issue is that this EO only applies to presidential records. Defined by 42 USC 2201 as documents “created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President…”

    It is NOT “official records of an agency…”

    The Secret Service is not part of the Executive Office of the President. They are part of the Treasury Department. Background checks would likely be the sort of official record of an agency that would not be a Presidential Record. There has been some debate about whether lists of people entering the White House, created by the Secret Service but kept at the White House, are Presidential Records, but no one has argued that the Secret Service doing a background check is a Presidential Record!

  8. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Off Topic: All patriots must carefully read Leo Donofrio’s lasted post at Natural Born Citizen.

  9. avatar
    Gordon August 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Where did you get this “gem”. Sounds pretty fishy. Link please

  10. avatar
    Gordon August 19, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    “In the early 90’s, Michelle Obama was given an award by First Lady Clinton in the Rose Garden. At the time Ms. Obama was escorted by her husband, Barack Obama.”

    That one doesn’t pass the sniff test for me either.

  11. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    UPDATE: What was little Michelle from the Southside of Chicago doing in 1993?

    1993: Public Allies Chicago with 30 Allies is launched by founding Executive Director Michelle Obama. President Clinton names Public Allies a model for national service. First Lady Hilary Clinton hosts Rose Garden reception for Public Allies at the White House.

  12. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida August 19, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    I always do love good fiction, I’ll have to read Donofrio’s latest novella, above.

  13. avatar
    Nullifidian August 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    1993: Public Allies Chicago with 30 Allies is launched by founding Executive Director Michelle Obama. President Clinton names Public Allies a model for national service. First Lady Hilary Clinton hosts Rose Garden reception for Public Allies at the White House.

    Great. Now all you need is the date and time of this alleged Rose Garden reception, evidence that Michelle Obama was present, and evidence that the Secret Service uncovered something “embarrassing” about the Obamas during a security check (but somehow let them meet with the then-First Lady anyway). Then you’re off to the races.

  14. avatar
    Nullifidian August 19, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    Off Topic: All patriots must carefully read Leo Donofrio’s lasted post at Natural Born Citizen.

    Then it’s a good thing that I hold patriots in the same low regard as Ambrose Bierce, so that I don’t have to read every scrap of ludicrous dribble Leo Donofrio posts.

  15. avatar
    Nullifidian August 19, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    I haven’t read all of the Federalist Papers, but I recommend Federalist Paper No. 68.

    You mean the one in which Alexander Hamilton answers the baseless fears of a “Manchurian Candidate” situation by stating that the “convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention” through the creation of the Electoral College system?

    Yeah, I like that one too.

  16. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    1993: Public Allies Chicago with 30 Allies is launched by founding Executive Director Michelle Obama. President Clinton names Public Allies a model for national service. First Lady Hilary Clinton hosts Rose Garden reception for Public Allies at the White House.

    Public Allies Chicago is merely one of multiple Public Allies chapters. The headquarters for Public Allies in 1993 was in D.C. (now it’s in Milwaukee). Where is your evidence that Michelle Obama attended the Rose Garden reception, and where is your evidence that Barack Obama accompanied her?

    And I almost forgot — where is your evidence that the FBI conducted an “embarrassing” background check of Obama?

  17. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    I also like:

    ‘It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.’

    Doesn’t seem to say ‘but this can be overridden by a bunch of wingnuts who don’t like the result’

  18. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    When Orly Taitz was sued by a patient over dental malpractice, one of the witnesses died in mysterous circumstances.

  19. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    Orly Taitz is not an American Citizen. Even if she produces citizenship papers, they are likely to be forged.

  20. avatar
    BlackLion August 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    I read it…Very entertaining…Almost like reading the newest Vince Flynn or WEB Griffin without the entertainment value. Basically more speculation and Donofrio’s issue with the Wong Kim Ark case. Since that one ruling basically defeats his theories regarding “natural born” he is trying to diminish it by disparaging Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion.

  21. avatar
    BlackLion August 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Unless she can produce a COLB from the USSR and have someone from her republic make a statement that she was born where she states she was, then I would have to believe that it is a forgery.

  22. avatar
    InfloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

    Federalist Paper No. 68

    Which can be interpreted to mean there are many threats to a form of government described in the US Constitution, but the most serious threat is from foreign powers promoting a candidate with dual citizenship.

  23. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Orly Taitz, who has US/Israel citizenship, is clearly an agent of Mossad and is trying to destabilize the Obama government because he is less hawkish on Iran.

  24. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    “What was little Michelle from the Southside of Chicago doing in 1993?”

    What is Orly Taitz hiding in her background?

  25. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    Unless she’s paying them off. I hope she can put these rumors to rest.

  26. avatar
    Nullifidian August 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

    Federalist Paper No. 68

    Yes, this is the “Manchurian Candidate” scenario I was talking about.

    Which can be interpreted to mean there are many threats to a form of government described in the US Constitution, but the most serious threat is from foreign powers promoting a candidate with dual citizenship.

    Yes, it can be interpreted that way by idiots.

    People who are not idiots would read after that passage and see that this was an objection raised by the Anti-Federalists, which Hamilton answered by stating that the convention had dealt with the possibility by establishing the Electoral College.

    This is a standard rhetorical turn in persuasive writing: you state the points advanced by your opponents, then you shoot them down systematically.

    You do remember which side The Federalist Papers were written from, don’t you? Why on earth would Hamilton advance problems with a federal system if he didn’t believe that there were solutions in place for dealing with them?

  27. avatar
    Greg August 19, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    I think maybe Donofrio should refer to him as General POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur.

    He was Quartermaster General during the Civil war, with the rank of Brigadier General.

    Anyway, yes, saluting other nations’ flags is an act of treason. So much so, that they did it in World War II:

    “The first lieutenant, to whom this duty was entrusted, told us that we were always to salute the British flag, the French flag, and the flags of all the other Allies.”

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    President Obama does not have dual citizenship.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    I stopped regular reading of Donofrio when he started engaging in intellectual dishonesty, specifically in his attempts to smear Chester A. Arthur.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    I have read them all, but that was a long time ago. Recently I have been reading the Life of John Marshall, and have gained an appreciation for the Federalists (and a deep and abiding disgust at the Republicans of his time).

  31. avatar
    Epectitus August 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    Don’t forget, though, that the “Republicans” of his time are the Democrats of ours.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Early 19th century Republicans (or Democrat-Republicans as they were also called) were ideologically aligned with the libertarians of today or the far right of the Republican party. They would be first in line to get tickets to the next tea party.

  33. avatar
    Shrieking Wombat August 19, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Sorry, but completely OT:

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/05/first-dog-on-the-moon-372/

    Perhaps we need the occassional open thread.

  34. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 19, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    And Hamilton closed Federalist Papers No. 68 with, “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    So, Hamilton’s argument there is a protectionn against foreign usurpation of the CiC is based on the premise the Candidate meets the minimum qualification, i.e. Natural Born Citizen, 35+ and at least a resident of 14 years.

    If the Candidate is not a Natural Born Citizen, then foreign usurpation is the greatest threat to our republic.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    It seems to me that he is saying, that the electoral college wouldn’t elect someone who was not qualified.

    As for your interpretation — it bears no resemblance to the original.

  36. avatar
    Bob Weber August 19, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    misha says:

    “When Orly Taitz was sued by a patient over dental malpractice, one of the witnesses died in mysterous circumstances.”

    *******************

    The Orly Taitz body count? [:^)

  37. avatar
    Bob Weber August 19, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    BlackLion says:

    “I read it…Very entertaining…”

    *******************

    For entertainment value, Leo has never surpassed his post on how black helicopters were hovering over his house, and was being tailed by feds, some in yellow suits and some disguised as derelicts. Even though he has disguised himself. ‘Cause, you see, the feds were tracing his whereabouts with an RFID in his passport. Oh, and Fed-Ex and UPS are part of the Vast Conspiracy.

    Note to newbies: No, I’m not making this up!

    P.S. The quality of the birfer-lawyers tells you all you need to know about the quality of their case.

  38. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    Misha,

    Of course, if the Obamas were at the White House in 1993, we can’t rule out the possibility that they murdered Vince Foster. Of course, Orly Taitz hasn’t denied that she killed Vince Foster, either.

  39. avatar
    Nullifidian August 19, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    And Hamilton closed Federalist Papers No. 68 with, “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    No, Hamilton closed that essay with the following:

    We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

    The portion you quoted is from the beginning of the third-to-last paragraph.

    If the Candidate is not a Natural Born Citizen, then foreign usurpation is the greatest threat to our republic.

    Then I guess you will be relieved to hear that no major party’s candidate has ever been anything other than a natural-born citizen or a citizen at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

  40. avatar
    Mary Brown August 19, 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    Why doesn’t she show her naturalization papers? If she would just do that there could be no question-of course OUR experts would need to examine them to be sure they were authentic. We also need a picture of her at the ceremony along with statements from witnesses to the event. No one has come forward to say they became citizens during the same ceremony. Why not? We need to know. It is all so suspicious. I was just thinking.

  41. avatar
    Sally HIll August 20, 2009 at 8:54 am #

    “President Obama does not have dual citizenship.”

    I know we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Also, stating something enough times, might get a lot of people to believe it, but it doesn’t make it a fact.

    I’m not buying this statement as a fact. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it might or could be true – but the FACT is – we really do NOT know anything for a FACT about Obama’s citizenship, because there is NO legal definition of Natural Born Citizen. For all I know, he continues to this day to be a British Subject since we don’t know for certain if he ever denounced his British Citizenship, embraced his British Citizenship, or if the Queen might want to call upon what she consideres to be her SUBJECT for a favor. The FACT is – we just do not know!

    I’m still curious why your site is constantly omitted from my daily Google Alerts. That aside – I read your site for the opposing view, I just wish you and your supporters were more interested in openly and honestly discussing the FACTS instead of engaging in Alinksy style debate (name calling, belittling, and insulting). Other than that, I enjoy seeing where the other side is coming from.

    While I lean more to the opinion that Obama is not a natural born citizen – there are no FACTS to bear it out one way or the other. There is a TON of speculation out there though, even right here on this site! I do feel Obama is doing a huge disservice to this nation by allowing this all to continue. Historically, why would he want his presidency marked by this controversy? People never remember the good things that come of a presidency – only the sorded and salacious….you know, like Bill Clinton’s presidency is historically marked by Lewinsky?

  42. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Gordo, Do your own “Detective” work and STFU!

  43. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 20, 2009 at 10:36 am #

    Sally
    If you want some facts :
    1)It is a FACT that BO acquired citizenship of the UK & Colonies (CUKC)this is easily determined from examining the UK’s Nationality Act 1948.
    2)It is a FACT that when Kenya became independent in December 1963 the UK’s Kenya Independence Act 1963 simultaneously stripped him of CUKC and made him a Kenyan Citizen.No renunciation of CUKC was necessary. This is easily determined from the Act but you have to use the original Act not the ‘as amended version’ that ,for instance, Mario Appuzzo used.
    3)It is a FACT that Kenya became a republic a year later, the Queen ceased to be head of state and BO at the age of three ceased in any way to be a ‘British Subject’. This is a bit of a technicality but included for completness.
    4)It is a FACT that Kenya does not allow adult dual citizenship and BO was stripped of his Kenyan citizenship at 21 when he failed to renounce his US citizenship.This is easily determined from examining the Kenyan constitution.
    I could go on but what facts do you wish to discuss?

  44. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Well said, Mary. Liberals are truth averse. They think that if you say something enough, it will become fact. It will not.There are several people here who spend countless hours “Researching” on behalf of THE ONE. They concoct theories and plot ways to continue their messiah’s charade. They fancy themselves as intellectuals and regularly engage in mutual masturbation.

    This site used to have a very small bit of objectivity. That is long gone along with Doc’s credibilty for letting it happen. Most folks here are blatant socialists, traitors and would not know TRUTH if it hit them on the head. Even those who claim not to have voted for THE ONE or that they are not liberals are intellectually dishonest.

    So, yes, Mary. Liberals are sick, twisted people who hate America, pray for and work toward her destruction and embrace socialism. They hate “Rich” people becuase they themselves do not have the ability to achieve. They hate God because they view religion as a threat to socialism. Unless that religion happens to be global warming.

    Liberals are against the right to bear arms because they know we won’t take their crap. Oh, did I mention, they scare easily? They run from fights and hate war. Even the ones THEY start. Have you noticed that there are no more anti war protests even though both “Wars” are still going strong and their messiah hhas even sent MORE troops? You see, it was NEVER an anti war thing. It was ALWAYS an anti Republican thing. As I said TRUTH means nothing to these people.

    Their messiah is being exposed for the fraud and usurper he is and they don’t like it. They can tell that the end of the charade is near and they are scared shitless!

  45. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 10:58 am #

    How about stating some “Facts’ that have some relevance.

  46. avatar
    Greg August 20, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    When Obama was born, Britain considered him a citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) pursuant to their naturalization laws. According to our laws, however, he was considered a natural born citizen. When Kenya became an independent nation, CUKC’s lost their natural born subject status. Anyone who was a CUKC from Kenya became a citizen of Kenya.

    [Note: even given the lack of Supreme Court precedence directly on the issue, the laws of our land considered him a natural born citizen and our laws trump those of other countries. To prove him not a natural born citizen would require overturning those laws, and likely require a fundamental rewriting of all citizenship law.]

    People who became citizens of Kenya by operation of their laws were required to officially renounce their other citizenship and officially adopt their Kenyan citizenship.

    So, we know for a fact that Obama ceased being a British subject (according to their laws) in 1963, when he was 2. Even if there were a procedure for CUKC’s to adopt the citizenship of the UK, a 2 year old could not have availed himself of it.

    As for Kenya, there’s no evidence that Obama officially renounced his citizenship in the United States and no evidence that he officially swore allegiance to Kenya as required by Kenyan law to retain his Kenyan citizenship. And to assume that it’s likely that he did, in fact, both officially renounce his citizenship here and officially swear allegiance to Kenya, you have to wish away some seriously negative facts:

    1) Obama was 21 in 1982. He would have had to officially renounce his citizenship in the United States and swear allegiance to Kenya by August 4, 1982, or else his citizenship there ceased to exist. In 1982, his only tie to Kenya was through a father who had been in his life only until he was two and who had seen him for one month when Barack was 10. Barack learned of his father’s death in Kenya in November or December of 1982.

    2) His closest tie to a foreign country was Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to age 10.

    3) Obama didn’t visit Kenya until 1988, when he would have been 27-28.

    So, to assume that Obama did, in fact, officially renounce his US citizenship and swear allegiance to Kenya, is to assume:

    A) A Presidential candidate can have officially renounce his US Citizenship and swear allegiance to Kenya and all the paperwork be undiscovered despite thorough oppo research by primary and general election rivals.

    B) Barack would have sworn allegiance to a country he had never visited and had ties to only through a father he didn’t much care for who had abandoned his mother to run off with another woman and who had a whole different family in Kenya. A father whose last visit to him was when he was 10, and who Barack counted the days until he left.

    C) That Barack either thought no one would find out about his official renunciation of US citizenship and official allegiance to Kenya and so never mentioned to anyone or in any writings nor attempted to revoke the renunciation; OR, Barack successfully revoked the renunciation/allegiance and these records too escaped the scrutiny of oppo researchers from primary and general election opponents.

    D) That Barack would write an autobiography called “Dreams from my father” and be prescient enough to know that (13 years later) his renunciation/allegiance would be an issue when he ran for President (and escape the notice of oppo researchers) so he completely fabricated his estrangement from his father so as to cast doubt on the whole idea of the renunciation/allegiance theory!

    Can we “know” for certain that Obama is not a dual citizen today? No more than we can “know” that the sun is going to come up tomorrow (it could explode in the middle of the night, or the earth could stop spinning). But, I’d submit we know that Obama is not a dual citizen today only slightly less than we know the sun is going to come up tomorrow. We know it way past any reasonable doubt. We know it to an almost metaphysical certainty based on the facts we know and on the logical conclusions we can draw from those facts.

  47. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    Heavy – some Facts from you would be a great improvement but no ‘Facts’ please.

  48. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Dragon, here are some facts for you;

    1. I am an American Citizen
    2. I do not believe that THE ONE how now poses as President is qualified to hold the office.
    3. There are MANY who hold the same belief and the number is growing by the minute.
    4. This issue WILL be resolved.

  49. avatar
    misha August 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Heavy, normally I don’t respond to drivel, but I am compelled in this case.

    “Most folks here are blatant socialists, traitors”

    My grandfather, who came here from Russia, was a socialist. I was educated by Jesuits, many of whom were socialists. Social Security is pure socialism. It was invented by Otto von Bismarck. Medicare and Social Security, which I have used since age 49, is socialism. I expect you to refuse Medicare when you turn 65. Please write to Medicare, telling them you do not ever want to participate, and post that e-mail. I’m waiting. When I was called for a pre-induction physical, I fully co-operated. They did not want me because of asthma. Two of my cousins were drafted into the IDF when they were 17. It felt strange to see girls drafted, but we were proud of them.

    “They hate God because they view religion as a threat to socialism.”

    I am a practicing Jew; my wife is a follower of the Dalai Lama. I was regularly invited to Mass in college. I detest hypocritical evangelicals.

    “Liberals are against the right to bear arms”

    The SCOTUS has spoken on the Second Amendment. End of issue. BTW, in Israel, everyone has an Uzi at home. They operate on the Minuteman Principle. We don’t have any firearms at home, because hunting is not a Jewish sport, and the US is not under imminent attack. I doubt the icebox to the north is going to invade.

    Kibbutzim, which are pure Marxist/Leninist, are armed to the teeth. I know, I was there. And they are not a dictatorship; they are a raucous democracy.

    “They run from fights and hate war.”

    My father was in the Signal Corps, which became the Airforce. I believe in self-defense. My wife’s father was a captain in the ROC navy. Al Gore volunteered for the Marine Corp.

    “They can tell that the end of the charade is near and they are scared shitless!”

    Every lawsuit has been dismissed. Obama will be re-elected, and Corey Booker will follow.

  50. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Thanks for the history lesson on Israel. WTF does that have to do with the US? Here, we have a RIGHT to bear arms. No, I doubt that the ice box to the north will invade anytime soon, but the cesspool to south has already started. I know, that is RACIST in your mind.

    BTW, the right to bear arms has less to do with foreign invasion than with protecting one’s self from a government invasion.

    Every lawsuit, thus far, has been dismissed. This is true. But we will NEVER stop until the truth is exposed.

    Your messiah won’t even make it to the end of this term without being removed, let alone another. As I said, traitor.

  51. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    One fact(I presume) and three opinions you’re improving.

  52. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    One more thing. As a prqcticing Jew, you should be ashamed of your blind support of this criminal.

  53. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Actually, the ONLY one open to speculation is #4. The rest are facts, plain and simple. But, as I said, liberals are truth averse.

  54. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    Well said Misha!

  55. avatar
    Nullifidian August 20, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    1. I am an American Citizen

    Can we really know that? I haven’t seen your “vault copy” birth certificate, after all.

    3. There are MANY who hold the same belief and the number is growing by the minute.

    By the minute? Then I guess P.T. Barnum was right.

    4. This issue WILL be resolved.

    Yes, once the judges finish dismissing the last birther lawsuit for its irreparable procedural flaws.

  56. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    Thanks, Nulli!

  57. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    1. Prove it, Heavy. I don’t believe that you are an American Citizen. Please send me by certified carrier a birth certificate. Only your long form birth certificate will do, and no short form. Furthermore, it’ll have to be accompied by 3 statements from the state registrar of vital records that you were actually born in this country. The people have a right to know!

    2. We know that you don’t believe in reality. You’re part of a small fringe that doesn’t believe it.

    3. No, many do not believe the same thing.

    4. The issue has already been resolved. The President is legally qualified to hold the office, as was prescribed by the constitution. Just because you’re sticking your head in the sand, and saying, “It’s not true” doesn’t make you right.

  58. avatar
    SFJeff August 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Sally:
    “I’m not buying this statement as a fact. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it might or could be true – but the FACT is – we really do NOT know anything for a FACT about Obama’s citizenship, because there is NO legal definition of Natural Born Citizen.”

    If that is the case, it is the same case for every previous president. If there is no accepted definition of a Natural Born Citizen, then how do we know Bush or Clinton met the definition?

    What facts we do know:
    a) Obama’s was qualified by each secretary of state of all 50 states.
    b) His primary opponents never expressed any doubt as to his qualifications
    c) McCain never expressed any doubt as to his qualifications
    d) He received the majority of votes by votors in the general election-all of whom knew his father was a citizen of Kenya.
    e) The Electoral College elected him without thinking his Kenyan father disqualified him.
    f) The U.S. Congress certified his election
    g) The Chief Justice of the Supreme court swore him in without a word of warning about dual citizenship.

    These are all real facts. You have an opinion about dual citizenship. The President has had his presidency confirmed through every legal channel. There is no credible authority that agrees with the novel theory that dual citizenship at birth means the baby is not natural born. This is a new theory made up specifically for our new president- you know the one with the conveniently foreign dad.

    “I just wish you and your supporters were more interested in openly and honestly discussing the FACTS instead of engaging in Alinksy style debate (name calling, belittling, and insulting).”

    I refer you to compare any three posts by Heavy and any three posts by Doc or myself or Greg or Mary. I find that in general the posts that get ridiculed are the ones full of name calling, implied threats or outright lies such as Heavy and JTX. I dislike the name calling in general even though I let some less than nice ones slip out, but I will try to do better. While I disagree with just about everything in your post- I find your posting style very even-tempered.

    “there are no FACTS to bear it out one way or the other. There is a TON of speculation out there though, even right here on this site!”

    I agree with you that the Constitution does not define NBC. Personally, I think the vast majority of citizens learned in Civics like I did that a NBC was anyone born in the U.S.- but I agree this is not a hard fact. But if the problem is that since NBC is not defined we can’t be sure that Obama is the President, then we cannot be sure that any previous president qualified as a NBC either.

    “I do feel Obama is doing a huge disservice to this nation by allowing this all to continue. Historically, why would he want his presidency marked by this controversy?”

    Given the Economy, Health Care Reform and the War in Afghanistan, 20 years from now, this issue will be small blip in Wikipedia, with less impact than the Vince Foster theories. But aside from that- how would he address whether he is a NBC? Given the theory that his father’s citizenship invalidates him- and given there is absolutely no authority that agrees with this speculation- how would Obama resolve it? I really know of no legal way that he could address a non-issue like this, and frankly no proof he offered would be accepted by the likes of Heavy anyways.

  59. avatar
    SFJeff August 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Heavy here are some facts for you
    1) I am an American Citizen
    2) That President Obama is the legally elected and sworn in President of the United States
    3) Over 50% of the electorate in the United States still supports the President
    4) Heavy will still be claiming the same thing in 2017

  60. avatar
    SFJeff August 20, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    Heavy- are you really deluded or just blinded by your hatred of anyone you disagree with?
    “Liberals are truth averse.” You must have a very paranoid life. Provide proof that Liberals are any more truth adverse than Conservatives. I see plenty of lies on both sides.
    “Most folks here are blatant socialists, traitors and would not know TRUTH if it hit them on the head.”
    Really a classic Fascist propaganda technique- was a favorite of Nixon’s too- call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist and a traitor. The answer of course is that Heavy is either delusional(good chance) or misunderstands the difference between say a votor left of his own politics and a socialist, or the difference between someone who voices their opinion and a traitor. In Heavy’s world there should be no dissenting voices.

    “Liberals are sick, twisted people who hate America, pray for and work toward her destruction and embrace socialism”

    Here Heavy comes into rare form. Apparently over half of the voting population of the United States is sick and want the destruction of their own country. Anyone who disagrees with Heavy must hate America. I bet he is a jolly next door neighbor.

    “They hate “Rich” people becuase they themselves do not have the ability to achieve.”

    Famous Billionaire Democrats
    Billionaire Democrat:
    Warren Buffet.
    Sergey Brin, Democrat, Billionaire.
    Larry Page, Democrat, Billionaire
    Charles Koch, Democrat, Billionaire
    Kirk Kerkorian, Democrat, Billionaire
    Abigail Johnson, Democrat, Billionaire
    Ballmer, Steven, Democrat, Billionaire

    Yeah- that Warren Buffet- no ability at all. What a loser.

    “They run from fights and hate war. Even the ones THEY start.”

    Franklin D. Roosevelt- Liberal and Democrat.

    And frankly- I hope all presidents hate war. Heavy- do you want Presidents who like war?

    “Have you noticed that there are no more anti war protests even though both “Wars” are still going strong and their messiah hhas even sent MORE troops? You see, it was NEVER an anti war thing. It was ALWAYS an anti Republican thing”

    The protests were always primarily about Iraq. Thinking people can rationalize why we had a plausible excuse to invade Afghanistan. But plenty of respective people- including many conservatives- felt and feel that invasion of Iraq not only wasn’t necessary, but was stupid since we had not finished our mission in Afghanistan. However, there are indeed liberals who are deeply upset- and Cindy Sheehan is indeed protesting that Obama is continueing the battle in Afghanistan. But nobody should- he said all through his campaign that he would focus our military on Afghanistan/Al Qaeda/Taliban.

    “You see, it was NEVER an anti war thing. It was ALWAYS an anti Republican thing.”

    Only in the same way that the Birther movement is an anti-Democrat thing. The difference was, American’s voted Obama in because they disagreed with the Bush Administration over the Iraq war. 99% of Americans have never heard of birther’s silly theories.

    Sally please note:
    “Their messiah is being exposed for the fraud and usurper he is and they don’t like it. They can tell that the end of the charade is near and they are scared shitless!”

    Thus speaks Heavy. He slanders our President and uses foul language. And just makes stuff up. He has been saying the end is near since January. He is the foul mouthed Chicken Little of the Birther movement.

  61. avatar
    Heavy August 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Jeff, what can I say. You personify EVERYTHING that is wrong with America. Thanks for making my point!

  62. avatar
    SFJeff August 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    Thank you Heavy- glad to be standing in the company of Warren Buffet and Franklin D. Roosevelt. I leave you to go back to your Bundt meeting.

  63. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 20, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Heavy says:

    So, yes, Mary. Liberals are sick, twisted people who hate America, pray for and work toward her destruction and embrace socialism. They hate “Rich” people becuase they themselves do not have the ability to achieve. They hate God because they view religion as a threat to socialism. Unless that religion happens to be global warming.

    Liberals are against the right to bear arms because they know we won’t take their crap. Oh, did I mention, they scare easily? They run from fights and hate war. Even the ones THEY start. Have you noticed that there are no more anti war protests even though both “Wars” are still going strong and their messiah hhas even sent MORE troops? You see, it was NEVER an anti war thing. It was ALWAYS an anti Republican thing. As I said TRUTH means nothing to these people.

    1. I am an American citizen, a Democrat and a praciticing Episcopalian. When I pray for America I pray that God protects her and guides her leaders, be they Democrat or Republican.

    2. I am working 50 hours or more a week to better my station in this world financially, however, I still support socialized medicine and education because I want my brothers and sisters in this country to have the same advantages that I have had.

    3. I do not hate God but I despise people who injure others in the name of God.

    4.

  64. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    Heavy says:

    So, yes, Mary. Liberals are sick, twisted people who hate America, pray for and work toward her destruction and embrace socialism. They hate “Rich” people becuase they themselves do not have the ability to achieve. They hate God because they view religion as a threat to socialism. Unless that religion happens to be global warming.

    Liberals are against the right to bear arms because they know we won’t take their crap. Oh, did I mention, they scare easily? They run from fights and hate war. Even the ones THEY start. Have you noticed that there are no more anti war protests even though both “Wars” are still going strong and their messiah hhas even sent MORE troops? You see, it was NEVER an anti war thing. It was ALWAYS an anti Republican thing. As I said TRUTH means nothing to these people.

    I say:

    1. I am an American citizen, a Democrat and a practicing Episcopalian. When I pray for America I pray that God protects her and leads her leaders, be they Dem or Rep.

    2. I work 50+ hours a week to better myself financially, but still support socialized medicine and education so that my American brothers and sisters can have the same advantages that I have had.

    3. I do not hate God, but despise those who injure their fellow man in the name of God.

    4. I do believe it is our duty to protect our planet and do it no harm.

    5. I own guns and I know how to fire them. I am a former police officer. I am also female. However, I have no desire to injure someone with a weapon unless I have to.

    6. Where I live there continues to be an anti-war protest every Friday afternoon. I am still against the Iraq war.

  65. avatar
    misha August 20, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    “One more thing. As a prqcticing Jew, you should be ashamed of your blind support of this criminal.”

    I am ashamed of Jews blindly accepting evangelicals’ support, who trash us in private. Evangelicals love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture. The only reason evangelicals gave Israel carte blanche in Gaza, was because they hoped it would spark Armageddon. They don’t give a damn about us. Two days before the Inauguration, Israel pulled out of Gaza. My, my, what a coincidence.

    Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. He is being advised on the Arab/Israel conflict by Axelrod and Emanuel. I believe Obama can be Israel’s Mandela. Mitchell,who is of Arabic descent, is trying to mediate that mess. Those settlers are esentially fascists: Jewish nationalists, and it’s disgusting. They have instituted apartheid. Those settlements are prohibited by the UN Charter, which Israel signed. Can you say Sudetenland?

    There are too many Israelis who do not treat Arabs with dignity. When Israelis commit pogroms against Arabs, I am horrified. And pogroms have been verified by neutral parties. Bob Simon, who is Jewish, has done documentaries on Israeli mistreatment of Arabs – like the Germans did to us.

    Pogrom is a Yiddish word, and it is sickening to see it describe Jewish actions. I suggest you make friends with Muslims, and learn about Muslim hospitality, as I have. You’d be impressed. Arab culture gave us Arabic numerals, and algebra. The Taj Mahal is actually a mosque.

    Before I had a stroke at 49, I was working as a licensed optician. I was unfairly reprimanded at work, and the only one to come to my defense was a Palestinian Muslim.

    At one time I ran an eyeglass lab, and still have all the equipment in my garage. If I can regain my strength, I am going to donate it to the nation of Jordan, and go there to teach.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    Modern evangelical fascination with the Jews is a curious phenomenon, and I disagree with Misha that they hate Judaism. From the 4th century until I guess the middle of the 20 century, Christians have been anti-Jewish. Then it shifted. It may have been a theological realization based on the writings of St. Paul, who said God’s promises to the Jews were eternal, or something else. I don’t know. Like I said: it’s curious.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2009 at 1:27 am #

    Heavy seems quite fond of that phrase: “Liberals are truth averse” and I’ve wondered what he means. One time I was tempted to make the snappy reply “Heavy is evidence averse” and it was then that I realized what was going on. We are talking about different kinds of truth. For Heavy, truth is a philosophical certainty, like physicians following the medical teaching of Aristotle, while for me, truth is an experimental result, like physicians following the experimental conclusions of Harvey. Evidence and logical argument is as irrelevant to Heavy, as the certainty of his world view is irrelevant to me.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    Sally,

    Mario Apuzzo offered the theory that Barack Obama retains citizenship in the UK and Colonies, and he came over to this blog to debate it. It went back and forth as each side discovered additional laws. However, after it was found (by contributor Bob) that the British Nationality Act of 1948 section under which Barack Obama had been a citizen of the UK and Colonies had been repealed, that clinched the case. If you would like to follow the detailed legal argument, visit this article and read the comments that follow (especially the comments):

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/is-president-obama-a-british-citizen/

  69. avatar
    Mary Brown August 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    Amen. This practicing Missouri Synod Luthean agrees with you. Heavy is under some heavy misconceptions about others. He always will. It is my feeling that the really scared people are folks like Heavy who depend on threats and negative comparisons to feel positive. You know Heavy, I start everyday thaking God for this beautiful country. I love its diversity in all respects. You might go and have a beer with a couple of folks who disagree with you. You will discover, if you try, a common humanity. It would be good for your health and your soul.

  70. avatar
    milspec August 21, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Well said Mary Bravo.

  71. avatar
    misha August 22, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    Amen. My wife and I went to Costco in NJ today. A Muslim woman and her children were next to us, so I greeted her in Arabic.