Main Menu

Early civics book comments on presidential eligibility

I stumbled across an interesting text this morning, “Elementary catechism on the Constitution: for the use of schools” (1828) byΒ  Arthur J. Stansbury. It presents a series of questions and answers about the Constitution. One question in particular interested me:

Q. May any person be chosen President of the United States ?

A. Not every person ; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution Was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years.

252 Responses to Early civics book comments on presidential eligibility

  1. avatar
    Whatever4 May 5, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    And, of course a “he”.

  2. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    I get e-mails all the time, with a breathless explanation about two citizen parents. I don’t post them, because I am not going to give a platform to them, flat earthers, truthers, moon landers telling me how they have proved it was staged, or any other cranks.

    Listen, all you Obama haters: he is going to be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

    And who are you going to vote for, when Romney chooses Jindal? Sit this out? Good.

  3. avatar
    Scott Brown May 5, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    I think you just pointed out why there is a problem with this source.

  4. avatar
    Scott Brown May 5, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    You can see the future, can you? Work on Wall Street?

    You know, I don’t hate Obama, but I certainly don’t like him either. I wish I could say I respect him although I don’t agree with his politics – but I can’t say that either. He has disgraced and embarrassed the US as well as disrespecting whole sections of it’s populace to the point he has earned no respect from me. I will always give the office the respect it deserves (as long as we are a Republic), but he is just a man – he has to earn my respect like everyone else.

    I’m not saying Obama won’t be re-elected, but I wouldn’t go betting my first born that he will be either. WOW – 2012 is a long way away and SO SO SO many things can happen between now and then to make your prediction go right out the window. Of course, SO SO SO many things could happen to make him a shoe in as well….but with our corrupt government, I would bet any amount of money on an speculated outcome at this point! LOL

  5. avatar
    SFJeff May 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    “He has disgraced and embarrassed the US as well as disrespecting whole sections of it’s populace”

    What exactly are the actions or policies that has disgraced or embarressed the US?

    What section of the U.S. populace has he disrespected and how?

    Seriously, I hear these claims and I just don’t get them. I can completely understand someone who disagrees with his appointments, or the health care bill, or the fiscal stimulas package- thats politics- but what you are speaking of is something much more insidious. For instance- I believe Bush harmed the United States by taking us to war against Irag- this was a specific action, with clear negative consequences. I would be interested in what you feel Obama has done that is worse than that.

    I think whether President Obama gets re-elected or not will rest entirely on the state of economy, unless there is some external event like 9/11, in which case all bets are off. At this point I am hoping he gets re-elected, because that will mean the country is doing well.

  6. avatar
    SFJeff May 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    I think the source reflects the popular understanding of the term “natural born” citizen, as it was taught to me in school also. The gender reflects the legal situation of the day, and doesn’t affect the general understanding of NBC.

  7. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 5, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Coming from someone who’s “disgraced and embarrassed” herself by being caught in two lies, and then refusing to fess up to either – that “explanation” was weak, Scottina – you have no room to criticize our President for jack when it comes to such matters.

    Why don’t you just shut up and leave?

  8. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    “You can see the future, can you? Work on Wall Street?”

    No – I go to a site in Dublin, called intrade.com. It’s real people wagering real money, on real events. They have an accuracy of better than 90%. For example, the day before the election, they gave Obama an 80% chance – so I knew.

    “He has disgraced and embarrassed the US as well as disrespecting whole sections of it’s populace”

    Like Iraq? Like every time the price of oil goes up, the Bush family profits? Like My Lai? Like the Blackwater mercenaries who literally got away with murder? Like Laura Bush, who killed a classmate when she was drunk, and ran a stop sign? Don’t leave me with this kind of opening, because I can go on for pages about Bush, and how he is nothing more than a case of affirmative action for the wealthy. Or how his brother helped loot Silverado Savings & Loan, and stuck the government with the bill. Of course, that kind of socialism or welfare, is perfectly acceptable to conservatives. Like corporate subsidies.

    Welfare, or socialism for the ordinary, gets them all worked up.

    I wrote this before: when I still lived in NY, I worked for someone who wanted his son to go to optometry school. Unfortunately, his son had a C average. So he told me he made a substantial (he told me the exact amount) donation to a school, and the son was admitted. The kid failed out his first semester.

    And don’t get me started on how the neocons and evangelicals sniff each others’ butts.

  9. avatar
    Black Lion May 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    Wow..Scott Brown the known liar emerges from her shell to once again comment and ignore a simple question. I wonder why that is. And her commentary is nothing other than repeating the crap that FOX and the Limbaughs spew because they have nothing other than hatred of the President. I mean they are desperate. I recall Hannity spewing that the stock market tanking was because of the election of Obama. Now that it has recovered, we don’t hear that. What we now hear is that there is no correlation between the President and the stock market. Or the new right wing fantasy, that somehow Obama is to blame for the oil spill or that he did not respond quickly enough. Even though it is documented that the response was quick, the right will take any opportunity to demonize Obama. And lying idiots like “Scott Brown” repeat these lies without being able to provide any evidence other than their opinions. And an opinion from a known liar is worthless….

  10. avatar
    BatGuano May 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    I wish I could say I respect him…….

    scott, by perpetuating your lie you haven’t earned a lot of respect yourself. to say the president isn’t respected by a liar……. doesn’t sound too bad for the president.

    i agree with sfjeff’s statement completely. ” it’s the economy, stupid”.

  11. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    And the oil geyser is a result of Bush I and II relaxing the laws, and the conservatives are blaming Obama.

    Let me address Ms. Scott Brown: when I tried living in Anchorage, I had so much anti-semitism flung in my face, I gave up. Who did it? Arabs? No. Muslims? No. Buddhists? No. Who’s left?

    So you can take your conservative movement, and shove it where the sun never shines. I had so much flung in my face I will NEVER vote GOP.

    Want a taste? I was following the Iditarod, and was at a B&B 100 miles north of Anchorage, to which we flew in a Cessna. The owners were proud members of Focus On The Family. Next morning, she served eggs benedict. I don’t eat pork, so I asked for only egg whites.

    She shook her spatula at me, like scolding a child, and loudly exclaimed “I’m just making eggs benedict.” So I sat down at the table, and said to fellow next to me, “Oh, well. I’ll just fill up on coffee and danishes.”

    He said, “I tired of your whining.”

    Moslems would have accommodated me. I suggest you learn about Arab hospitality, instead of listening to stereotypes.

    Got it?

  12. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Exactly

  13. avatar
    Dave May 5, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    I wouldn’t rely too much on intrade.com. Most of the contracts there are quite thinly traded, so they aren’t likely to be efficiently priced. They are also easily manipulated — the procedure is known as “painting the tape” — if anyone is sufficiently motivated to manipulate them.

  14. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    True, but they have been accurate on what I have followed. IIRC, they were correct about Franken.

    I think they’re more accurate than polls. Time will tell.

  15. avatar
    BatGuano May 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    I think you just pointed out why there is a problem with this source.

    state of birth: = ???

    please. nothing more.

  16. avatar
    Loren May 5, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Does that mean there’s a problem with this source too?

    “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of HIS Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President”

    “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which HE shall have been elected, and HE shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States”

    “Before HE enter on the Execution of HIS Office, HE shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:”

    U.S. Constitution, Article II. And that’s just Section 1; there are at least another 10 uses of the male pronoun to describe the President.

    So clearly, if Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin had been elected, they would be Constitutional usurpers.

  17. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    He has disgraced and embarrassed the US

    In the reality-based community, a sentence like this would be backed up with something other than your personal feelings.

    In the reality-based community, the World’s Opinion of the United States has sharply improved since the Obama administration began.

    People not hating us is kind of important. People who don’t hate us buy our products! A political economist estimates that Obama’s presidency has increased the value of the United States brand by 2 trillion dollars!

    Do you want to join us in the reality-based community? Tell us how Obama has “embarrased” the United States. Give us one reality-based example.

  18. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    “Give us one reality-based example.”

    The silence from Ms. Brown is deafening.

  19. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin May 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    “A. Not every person; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States …”

    So, a child born in the U.S. to a credentialed diplomat in service to a country other than the U.S. can be President of the United States someday?

    Or a child born in the U.S. to a university student on a student visa living in married-student housing with the intent to return to their home country after graduation and does so after the child is born, is eligible to be POTUS?

    I’m skeptical.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy May 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    MuhommadMcLovin says:

    “So, a child born in the U.S. to a credentialed diplomat in service to a country other than the U.S. can be President of the United States someday?”

    Considering it’s from a grammar school book, it’s hardly surpring that it would not discuss the very narrow exception of diplomats, that are not under the jurisdiciton of the US government. Diplomats, and jurisdiction are concepts that many adults don’t fully grasp, so why confuse children with something that has no impact on their lives? However, all children understand what a mother and father are, so if the case were that it required their parents to be citizens, don’t you think they might mention it?

    “Or a child born in the U.S. to a university student on a student visa living in married-student housing with the intent to return to their home country after graduation and does so after the child is born, is eligible to be POTUS?”

    That’s what the law is. Get used to it.

    “I’m skeptical.”

    You’re also a moron, but that’s a different matter.

  21. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    “Or a child born in the U.S. to a university student on a student visa living in married-student housing with the intent to return to their home country after graduation and does so after the child is born, is eligible to be POTUS?”

    That’s the law currently. If you are unhappy, write your congressmen and amend the 14th. Sorry.

  22. avatar
    nemocapn May 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Did I misunderstand Apuzzo? Did he say that Dr. C has provided no Supreme Court cases or history to show that natural born citizenship can be obtained simply by being born in the United States? I think you guys provided plenty of examples.

    Here’s another historical example for him–Confederate soldier John McCafferty. He is mentioned in “The Voyage of the Catalpa: A Perilous Journey and Six Irish Rebels’ Escape,” by Peter F. Stevens, published in 2003. McCafferty is described as “[b]orn of immigrant Irish parents in Sandusky, Ohio, McCafferty had thrown himself wholeheartedly into the American Fenian movement within weeks of surrender at Appamattox. He sailed to Ireland, as had several other Irish and Irish American officers who wore Yankee blue or Rebel gray, to train and lead the Fenian troops in the planned rising.”

    McCafferty was arrested in 1867 for treason against Ireland for planning an uprising there. He petitioned Parliament with the following words: “That your petitioner is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, having been born in Sandusky city, Ohio; that your petitioner was found guilty of high treason at a special commission of the county of Dublin, in the month of May last, and he was thereupon sentenced to death, but that the capital sentence was communted into the punishment of penal servitude for life….”

    McCafferty didn’t say that he was a natural born citizen having been born in Sandusky of two citizen parents. He alleged he was natural born simply because he was born in Sandusky. I suppose Apuzzo could argue that McCafferty is not a lawyer and is mistaken, so I quote from the Congressional Serial Set parts of a letter from McCafferty’s attorney James J. Rogers to William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Presidents Lincoln and Johnson:

    “…In that communication I stated that the proofs of the birth and citizenship of William Jackson, otherwise John McCafferty, now or lately imprisoned in Mountjoy prison, at or near Dublin, Ireland, were expected by me from McCafferty’s birth-place, Sandusky city, Ohio.

    “On Thursday of this week I received from Ireland a copy of a newspaper called the ‘Freeman’s Journal,’ published at Dublin, May 3, 1867, in which, among other reports of the proceedings on the trial of McCafferty, the following appears, viz:

    “….For the purposes of that trial he handed to his attorney, who appeared for him at Cork, certain official documents of the republic of the United States authenticating the fact of his having been a natural-born citizen of America.] He had applied for those papers, and they had not been found. He now wished for time to obtain those papers for the purpose of showing that he was a natural-born citizen of the United States. At the trial in Cork it was admitted by the Crown that the prisoner was a natural-born citizen, and of this fact he believed one of their lordships had judicial notice.”

    I suppose the response will be, “Someone born in the US of immigrant parents may be a ‘natural-born citizen’ but not a ‘natural born citizen.'”

  23. avatar
    nbc May 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    So, a child born in the U.S. to a credentialed diplomat in service to a country other than the U.S. can be President of the United States someday?

    Nope, common law understood this exception.

    Or a child born in the U.S. to a university student on a student visa living in married-student housing with the intent to return to their home country after graduation and does so after the child is born, is eligible to be POTUS?

    Of course. But there are some requirements here such as a timely intent to show that the child wants to continue his birth right natural born status in the United States.
    That combined with the 14 year residence requirement and the age requirement nicely fits into what the Founders had in mind.

  24. avatar
    G May 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Scott Brown, you are the problem. You have been caught here making up stories and have been cowardly ducking answering basic questions for over 2 weeks now (what state were you born again?). The one you should take issue with is yourself. You are an untrustworthy liar and possibly pathologically so.

  25. avatar
    richCares May 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    “People not hating us is kind of important.”
    TRUE, Obama recently was named most popular world leader giving USA more worldwide prestige than we have ever had. That plus the increased value of the American brand is a fantastic Obama legacy. Obama’s support among the military and among young people is very high. In his Michigan commencement speech he blew the lid off the stadium. Even an idiot like scott brown the liar should understand that’

    Note: in some countries bowing is a common courtesy, in some countries it is a sign of respect, in no country is it a sign of embarrassment or weakness (that’s only in the mind of an ignorant right winger or should I say right whiner). So STFU imitation scott brown.

  26. avatar
    G May 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    Of course she won’t answer. She is nothing but an empty coward and liar who just regurgitates any right wing garbage she comes across. She has demonstrated no ability to think for herself, other than to lie and then try to ignore all questions, because she lacks the integrity to admit when she’s wrong or when she’s caught.

    Who cares who she has respect for. Dishonest, cowardly, spiteful people like her are unworthy of respect themselves, so her opinion carries no weight. She is nothing but a fake Christian with poor morals and personal issues.

  27. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Misha,

    I think of Intrade as just another kind of poll – it has the advantage that in order to give an opinion you have to put your money down and the disadvantage that you can manipulate the odds if you are willing to pay to do it. I heard right before the elections that wealthy McCain supporters where inflating his odds on Intrade – certainly a 20% chance of a McCain victory a couple of days before the election seems awfully high. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com had the odds of Obama winning in the high 90s at that time.

  28. avatar
    nemocapn May 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    It’s also a commonly accepted practice in American English to use “he” when referring to someone who can be a “he” or “she.” According to sociohistorical linguist Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, this practice dates back to 1745. A grammar manual by Anne Fisher published in that year supposedly popularized the practice of using “he” as a gender neutral pronoun.

  29. avatar
    nemocapn May 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    I have another historical example about “natural born” citizenship. In 2004 there was a person running for President who was the son of an American mother and a Filipino father. His candidacy was challenged on the basis that he was not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution. He was believed to be a dual citizen of the US and the Philippines. There were even allegations of falsified documents. The case went to the Supreme Court even though some could argue that the case was a violation of the political question doctrine. The candidate was Fernando Poe, Jr. (nicknamed FPJ), and he was running for President of the Philippines.

    The Philippines were once a territory of the United States, so their laws and especially their Constitution were influenced by the U.S. Like the U.S., they require their President to be a natural born citizen. They define a natural born citizen as “those who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

    Like Obama’s father, FPJ’s father was married to more than one woman at the same time. (Obama Sr. was married to Keziah Obama at the same time he was married to Stanley Ann Dunham.) Because FPJ’s father was a bigamist, it was debated whether or not he was an illegitimate child, because bigamist marriages are by law “null ab initio.” Some people claimed that because of the bigamous marriage, FPJ acquired the citizenship of his American mother, not his Filipino father. They argued he couldn’t possibly be a natural born citizen of the Philippines because of his American citizenship. As evidence of his eligibility, FPJ submitted to the court his “birth certificate, his parents’ marriage certificate, and an affidavit executed by Poe’s aunt…” The documents were considered “prima facie veritable and hence sufficient proof of filiation.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled 8-5 that FPJ, a presumed American citizen, was also a natural born Filipino citizen, eligible to run for the Presidency of the Philippines.

    According to the Asian Times, “The court made its decision in an atmosphere tense with expectation and fraught with the threat of civil unrest. Hundreds of anti-riot police, armored and armed with batons and water cannons, were deployed outside the Supreme Court building. Traffic was redirected and sharpshooters were in position. Forces were also reportedly dispatched to secure the justices’ homes.”

    Despite the Supreme Court decision, the definition of “natural born citizen” was not definitely resolved by the FPJ case according to a highly respected legal expert. Joaquin G. Bernas, a framer of the Philippine Constitution, wrote, “The core of the opinion simply says that there is a preponderance of evidence that FPJ ‘cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy.'” Bernas held the opinion that if FPJ won, the losing candidate would have to file a “quo warranto petition” with the Supreme Court to settle the question. Even so, Bernas didn’t think dual citizenship had any bearing on Poe’s natural born citizenship. He wrote, “even if we were to assume that FPJ is American by birth, that does not remove the fact, if it is a fact, that he is also a Filipino by birth. He would have involuntary dual citizenship. I am not aware that involuntary dual citizenship is a disqualification for national office especially if the second citizenship has been, for all practical purposes, not only inactive but even denied.”

    Poe continued his bid for the Presidency, which he lost by over a million votes. He challenged the results of the election because of alleged voter fraud. He died before the Supreme Court could hear his case, Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Gloria Arroyo became President of the Philippines, an office she still holds today.

  30. avatar
    Arthur May 5, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    Scott Brown:

    As SFJeff pointed out, you must be faulted for wording your evaluation of President Obama as a statement of fact: “He [Obama] has disgraced and embarrassed the US as well as disrespecting whole sections of it’s (sic) populace.” Here are some suggestions about how to avoid unconvincing hyperbole.

    1. You could preface your comments with, “I believe.” Although this type of revision won’t increase the persuasiveness of your statements, it will make them more accurate.

    2. In order to increase your credibility, you could describe some of your core values, and then provide examples of things Obama has done to disgrace you. Keep in mind, however, that your values are not the nation’s, and what you find disgraceful, others may find honorable.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    While such things are subject to interpretation, I read that the dollar value of American assets in the world rose 1.5 trillion dollars due to Obama’s high international regard.

  32. avatar
    SFJeff May 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    Okay, I am really bummed.

    Apparently both Scott and WTF have been scared off, and we are left with Sven’s Pirate stories.

  33. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    Remember Colbert: reality has a well known liberal bias.

  34. avatar
    Scientist May 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    They define a natural born citizen as “those who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

    This is pretty much the clearest definition of the term, understandable by the average person without resort to legal mumbo-jumbo. It follows the plain English meaning of the word “natural”, as in “He was a natural at tennis”. It puts the lie to the need to resort to Swiss philosophers to understand the term. If you were born a citizen and never had to do anything about it, you are 100% kosher. Other citizenships that you or your parents or your 3rd cousin might have had are irrelevant.

    This should be the definition put forward against birthers who attempt to twist things. It’s simple and common-sense.

  35. avatar
    WTF? May 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    nemocapn,

    You did not say whether or not his parents were naturalized citizens or permanently domiciled here. Being immigrants, and not just visitors, it would be implied that his parents had been domiciled here at the time of his birth.

    Maybe you just misunderstood the word immigrant to mean something else.

    Was Obama’s father an immigrant? No. He was a student. No one has ever claimed that he was an immigrant.

    Thanks for playing. We need more like you on our side. πŸ˜‰

  36. avatar
    WTF? May 5, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    In case you’re wondering. I did a search for the legal definition of “immigrant”. This one agrees with that of Black’s.

    “The act of entering a country with the intention of remaining there permanently”

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/immigration

  37. avatar
    WTF? May 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Thanks for playing again!

    Being born in the Phillipines was not debated. (so much for those who think born on the soil is enough.) -He was born in Manila, Philippines.

    It was the citizenship of his father that the court relied upon.

    Here’s the rest of that article:

    His father’s son
    “The majority of Supreme Court justices decided that, under the 1935 constitution, Poe is indeed a natural-born Filipino citizen because his father, a Filipino citizen, recognized him as his son. Filiation, in other words, was substantiated. While the court acknowledged that Poe was born out of wedlock to an American mother, it maintained that proof of filiation establishes natural citizenship. The majority opinion regarded the documents submitted by the Poe camp as prima facie veritable and hence sufficient proof of filiation. These documents included Poe’s birth certificate, his parents’ marriage certificate, and an affidavit executed by Poe’s aunt attesting that his parents, Allan Poe and Bessie Kelly, lived together with their children, comporting like man and wife.

    Petitioners Victor Fornier and Jeanette Tecson had argued that Poe was not a natural-born citizen because he was born illegitimately and thus assumed the citizenship of his American mother.

    The court decision, however, cleaves to the opinions presented by the amici curiae, the “friends of the court” – constitutional and civil law experts – invited to weigh in on the case two weeks before. The four amici argued that as long as there was proof of filiation – once fatherhood had become less a matter of faith and more a matter of fact – the constitution did not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children in establishing citizenship.

    The decision was not without dissent. The minority opinion argued, along with the amici, that only proof of filiation was necessary to establish citizenship. It dissented, however, with regard to the sufficiency of the proof presented. Allan Poe’s recognition of his son was not established, it said. He even neglected to sign Ronald (alias Fernando) Poe’s birth certificate.”

    Headline: Phillipines does not recognize a child born on their soil to be a natural born citizen until they had sufficient proof that his father was a citizen.

    At least they could get a court to hear the case. Thanks for providing us with some precedent.

  38. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 5, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    Being born in the Phillipines was not debated. (so much for those who think born on the soil is enough.) -He was born in Manila, Philippines.

    It was the citizenship of his father that the court relied upon.

    That’s because in the Philippines, citizenship is determined jus sanguinis – so place of birth is irrelevant to the determination. (It took me 3 seconds to find that out with a Google search – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_nationality_law )

  39. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 5, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    The reason that a court heard the case is that the candidacy was challenged BEFORE the election.

    That is in accordance with general provisions of election law.

  40. avatar
    WTF? May 5, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    scientist,

    Hold your horses! His birth location was not questioned. He was born in Manila, Philippines.

    It wasn’t until they verified who his father was, and that his father was a citizen that they declared him to be a natural-born citizen.

    –It’s ok. When I was young, I used to get over-excited and celebrate too early. πŸ˜‰

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Scientist: It follows the plain English meaning of the word “natural”

    I always get antsy when the word “natural” comes up because what is natural to one person is wholly unnatural to another. It’s clear that to de Vattel the Jus Soli citizenship in England was “unnatural” because he uses (in translation) the word “naturalizes” to describe it. Lay interpretations of specialized terms are at the heart of much of the disinformation floating around the birther milieu.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    misha: Remember Colbert: reality has a well known liberal bias.

    I still feel the disappointment over Colbert (native son of South Carolina) being refused a position on the South Carolina primary ballot for president by the SC Democratic party. Since Obama didn’t have a black man’s chance at a Klan rally of getting elected, having Colbert on the ballot would have given me somebody I could feel good about voting for.

  43. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    No wonder illegal immigrants’ children are thus American citizens…

  44. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    Was Obama’s father an immigrant? No. He was a student. No one has ever claimed that he was an immigrant.

    Which is of course irrelevant. What matters is jurisdiction. Even under the domicile concept, Obama’s father was clearly domiciled in the United States.

    Another one bites the dust, poor WTF

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    The Scott Browns and the WTF?s of the world do spur the comment count (we past 38,000 now) upward, but the same old, same old gets wearying after a while. I suppose hoping that a well-informed, intelligent birther shows up is like expecting to win the Power Ball lottery (except with longer odds).

  46. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    Seems to me that WTF has to learn a lot about the concept of domicile versus temporary visitor.
    Of course, convinced of his conclusion being right, he is looking desperately for ways to further support his ignorance.

  47. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    “I suppose hoping that a well-informed, intelligent birther shows up is like expecting to win the Power Ball lottery (except with longer odds).”

    And I want a Leica M9.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    Arthur [speaking of Scott Brown]: In order to increase your credibility, you could describe some of your core values

    I think her core value most applicable to her comments here is: “NO OBAMA!” Pretty much everything else flows from that.

    Speaking generally, and not of Scott Brown in particular…

    Why would one think the COLB is a forgery? NO OBAMA!
    Why would one think the President must have two US Citizen parents? NO OBAMA!
    Why would one think “a certification is not a certificate?” NO OBAMA!
    Why would someone consider Lt. Col. Terry Lakin a patriot for his refusal to deploy? NO OBAMA!
    Why is Judge (fill in the blank) a traitor? NO OBAMA!

    It’s all about core values.

  49. avatar
    WTF? May 5, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    Good find! I also found this site, which indicates that those born abroad can still be considered to be Phillipino natural-born citizens.
    http://immigration.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=34

    I still need to verify that information.

  50. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    Funny how you are so quick to familiarize yourself with facts while at other times you seem to be totally unable to do the necessary research.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    WTF?: When I was young…

    Site visitor Demographics:

    ObamaConspiracy.org: more frequently by males who are in the age range 45-54, are graduate school educated
    ObamaCrimes.com: more frequently by females who are in the age range 55-64, some college
    TheObamaFile.com: more frequently by users who are in the age range 55-64
    OrlyTaitzesq.com: more frequently by users who are over 65 years old, some college
    ThePostEmail.com: more frequently by females who are over 65 years old, received some college education

    Source: Alexa.com

    So yes, the average visitor here is younger

  52. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    I thought the argument was that to be a natural born citizen you have to be native born with two citizen parents? Have you moved the goal post from two citizen parents to two domiciled parents in light of this new information?

  53. avatar
    nbC May 6, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    Yes, of course now the argument is that Obama’s father was never domiciled in the United States. Even though by any reasonable legal standard he would clearly be considered thus.
    Certainly in 1961, there is no evidence that Obama’s father had made up his mind to return to Kenya.
    He could have pursued citizenship through his marriage to Ann Dunham, he could have pursued citizenship through regular naturalization processes, he could have gotten an H1-B like visa etc etc. Just because he came here as a student does not mean that he was not domiciled here.

  54. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    I suppose hoping that a well-informed, intelligent birther shows up…

    Wow! Talk about the ultimate oxymoron!

    I don’t think such a creature can possibly exist. At the very beginning of this issue, when it was initially being explored in late 2008, maybe such a creature could exist.

    But after all this time and the preponderance of the evidence all pointing away from every birther supposition & myth, the only ones left are just crazy people and hard core haters so invested in their own prejudices that they have completely detached themselves from the reality based world.

    So all we are left with are crazies and trolls visiting.

    Some may try to pull the concern troll angle, but it quickly becomes apparent that none of them are sincere or actually trying to become informed. They are here for a pure agenda of pushing their crap propaganda and/or to be annoying/offensive in general.

  55. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    WTf?,Obama’s location of birth in Honolulu, Hawaii isn’t questioned either, except by people who ignore a certified prima facie birth certificate (i.e. COLB) and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

    In order to discredit Poe’s claims to citizenship, Poe’s political opponents forged birth and marriage certificates to create doubt about Poe’s citizenship. You know, kind of like those fake Kenyan Obama birth certificates.

    Expelliarmus is correct that the court took the case because it occurred prior to the election. It’s telling that in the alternate Philippine universe the Supreme Court case didn’t resolve the debate. Birthers say a Supreme Court ruling will resolve the issue here, but it won’t, even if the court isn’t split. It will be attributed to part of a conspiracy.

    Some birthers say if Obama was born in Kenya (which he’s not), he can’t even be a citizen because of the Immigration & Naturalization Act under Section 301(g). They say that Obama’s mother needed to be present in the US for ten years, five after the age of fourteen to transmit U.S. citizenship to Obama. That’s based on the assumption that Obama was legally born in wedlock. You can see from the Poe case that if the father is in a bigamous marriage, the rules of an out-of-wedlock birth apply. In the US, an out-of-wedlock birth to a citizen mother and alien father requires only 1 year of residence in order to be a “citizen at birth.” Now, if you’re one of those people who thinks that the INA can’t transmit natural born citizenship, that won’t convince you, but it does rebut those who say Obama’s not even an American citizen because his mother was 18 and not 19 years old when he was born.

    And for the record, I’m 39. Have been for many years now.

  56. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    “And for the record, I’m 39. Have been for many years now.”

    Just like Jack Benny. And I bet you drive a Maxwell, too. (bada-bing)

  57. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    Sorry. I was addressing WTF, but I accidentally placed the comment under yours.

    I think it’s immaterial to Obama’s citizenship why his father was here. McCafferty was a “natural-born citizen” because he was born in Sandusky. Period.

    Obama is a “natural born citizen” because he was born in Honolulu. Period.

  58. avatar
    Arthur May 6, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    Dr. C:

    You are probably correct to suggest that the core of Scott Brown’s objection to Obama is summed up in two words “N0 OBAMA!” What I have a hard time trying to understand, though, is why people who don’t like Obama choose to justify their antagonism by embracing the fraudulent claims of the birthers. Why not base their opposition to Obama on straightforward political concerns?

    I know that many believe racism drives the paranoid heart of the bither movement, but is that a sufficient explanation? Might it be, depending on the issue, that even the most fair-minded among us is susceptible to the heady belligerency of confirmation bias and ad hominen attacks? And if so, what should we do to avoid it? Turn off the internet, turn off the cable, and turn back to newspapers? I don’t think that’s going to happen . . .

    I would hate to think that Pogo was correct when he observed, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    (Pogo? You young-uns will have to look it up!)

  59. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    Hey, for the record, I’m 38. Seriously. Born in 1971.

  60. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 2:17 am #

    Arthur –

    RE: The “birther” & “NOBAMA” crowd:

    I think some are truly racists and can’t accept a world where a black man can be president.

    I think some are scared by his weird sounding name and bought into the crap that the HRC campaign started insinuating about him being a “secret Muslim”. These folks hate and/or are afraid of Muslims…and some go farther to hate/fear anyone who’s religion (or for that matter even sect within religion) is different than theirs.

    Some have just been brainwashed to believe that any Democrat is “evil” and instantly hate him for that reason.

    Some are PUMAs, that felt a woman was “owed” the presidency and hate Obama for beating HRC in the primaries.

    Some are probably just truly on the insane edge of paranoia and buy into all sorts of “black helicopter” talk and are convinced the government is evil and world leaders are lizard people or “Manchurian Candidate” puppets of some secret NWO cabal that rules the universe.

    I think when it comes down to it, the actual birthers fall into one or more of those “Big Five” categories. They are not basing their views on rational policy based disagreements or arguments at all.

    Beyond that, I’m sure that there are a lot of folks who don’t actually believe the birther bunk, but either pander to it or use the birthers to further their own political or financial (i.e. con job) agendas.

    Oh, and for the record, I get the Pogo reference. As a long time comic fan, I’ve read many a comic that came out long before I was born. πŸ™‚

  61. avatar
    myson May 6, 2010 at 4:40 am #

    me 1976

  62. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 6:33 am #

    Doc-In plain English, when one says, “He’s a natural at baseball,” it means you put the bat in his hand and he hits the ball. He has skills that he was born with, that you can’t teach. For this we don’t have to look to Swiss philosophers, but rather to the noted American philosophers, Bernard Malamud, Barry Levinson and Robert Redford.

  63. avatar
    Lupin May 6, 2010 at 6:37 am #

    Scottie Brownella wrote:

    “You know, I don’t hate Obama, but I certainly don’t like him either.”

    Why, that is mighty white of you!

  64. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 6:48 am #

    Here is what you are ignoring. As Doc has pointed out, paternity is often in doubt, while maternity is not. So, even if one were to buy your foolish theory regarding both parents having to be citizens (which Vattel doesn’t say if you properly translate the French) that is only in the case where the mother is married. Even where citizenship is purely by jus sanguinis, if the mother is unmarried then only her citizenship is relevant. And there is at least reasonable doubt that the Obama-Dunham marriage was valid, in view of his undissolved “village marriage” in Kenya. So even taking all your silly premises at face value, you fail again.

  65. avatar
    Bob Ross May 6, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    Damn I’m not your median audience Doc I’m only 29

  66. avatar
    WTF? May 6, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    nbC said; “Even under the domicile concept, Obama’s father was clearly domiciled in the United States.”

    How could you consider Obama’s father to have been domiciled here?

    Share your definition of “domicile” with us.

  67. avatar
    WTF? May 6, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    He could have done this, or he could have done that. That facts are; he didn’t.

    If you want to claim domicile on his behalf, you’re going to have to prove intent to join our society. Being here on a student visa is going to be a mighty big hurdle.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    You have a maturity in web sites beyond your age.

  69. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?

    You are painting with one extremely broad brush.

    I became aware of the eligibility issue through Jeff Schreiber’s site, America’s Right. After the election was over, Schrieber dropped the issue, as was his choice. I didn’t agree with his reasoning because eligibility in my eyes, didn’t become moot. The issues were still there.

    One of the many points that was raised concerning the possibility of a fraudulent COLB was that Obama Sr.’s race was listed as African, which at the time, would not have been the norm. Someone else found a document from the early 1960’s for Kenyans that stated that they should identify their race as African. That was pretty strong proof that Obama Sr. either filled out the application or gave the information to the person who did fill it out.

    Then, I learned that Obama Sr. spelled his name Barak. The two sources are as follows:

    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
    (note 31)

    (2) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11
    (Exhibit A)

    Some may say that there is a tiny “c” before the “k” in his signature but that would be inconsistent with the rest of the lettering. It looks like the “k” was written as a separate letter with a little upswing. Because his own work was published with the spelling as Barak, I think the signature shows no “c”.

    That (in conjunction with some other evidence) led me to believe that Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the birth of Obama. Heck, you would think he would get the spelling of his son correct. There is something strange about the whole thing, maybe something to do with his father.
    Obama is considered the issue of Obama Sr. because of the marriage. Is his name actually on the birth certificate? If the COLB is genuine, then it is.

    I am not a forensic expert. Neither are the two people who purportedly handled the COLB that was released electronically. A person named Sandra Lines, a forensic expert, could examine the COLB, if permitted. Why not release the COLB to her and have a Geraldo Rivera moment (what was in that tomb)?

    Now that Linda Lingle has come out and said this:

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    in violation of state law and in my view, confirming a waiver of all privacy if the comment is left to stand without objection,

    BRING ON THE LONG FORM. Because where else could the information about the hospital have come from?

  70. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    I tend to agree with Dr. C. Looking for the “plain English meaning” of any word when it comes to its use in the law (or when it is used as a term of art in any specialized field) is rather dangerous. The phrase had a very specific meaning that we all knew, and were taught in our grammar school civics classes. Over the course of our history, the definition pretty much stayed unchanged (with the exception of African Americans…there was some shift with native Americans, but that was a result of changes in the law in relation to jurisdiction of the US over the reservations…were they part of the US and subject to its laws, or were they on their own).

    No need to look any further into the “plain English meaning” or what some long forgotten Swiss commentator wrote about it 250 years ago. The phrase means what we knew it to mean 4 years ago. Born in the US (except to diplomats who are outside the jurisdiction of the US).

  71. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    “Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?”

    I am Jewish, and I can’t tell you how happy I am that you brought this up.

    It works like this: Jews were better off in the Ottoman Empire, than they were in Europe; they did not live in fear. Right wing governments have traditionally been terrible places for Jews.

    Know why Israel gets away with kicking around Arabs? Because evangelicals finance them, that’s why. Who do you think finances the Settlers, and their political campaigns? Hagee and his crowd.

    In exchange for this largess, right wing Jews ignore the fact that Hagee and his crowd are closet anti-semites.

    And as long as YOU brought up Christianity, I’ll tell you my concept: to me, the faith is epitomized by the Jesuits, the Catholic peace movement, and the Berigan Brothers.

    The rest are just a bunch of fascists, using it as a rationalization for wacko politics.

    And remember, you brought it up, so take your lumps. And Jews For Jesus are nothing more than concentration camp capos, founded by an anti-semite, and funded by the likes of Sarah Palin, who soooo loves Israel.

    Yeah, she loves Israel, but hates Judaism and Jewish culture.

    You asked for it.

  72. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    “Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?”

    that’s the old “all the other kids do this” when you admonish your child for wearing stupid clothes. Kinda Childlish!

  73. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    He started it!

  74. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    I can’t speak for all liberals but the wearing of the hijab would be equivalent to wearing a crucufix or a yarmulke or saffron robes, something I am 100% OK with. My objection is to anyone who attempts to incorporate their religious beliefs into civil law in order to force others to comply with them. I certainly have no desire to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran or any country where sharia law applies. Nor would I like to live under Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Wiccan religious law.

  75. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    The place at which a person is physically present and that the person regards as home; a person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.

    Blacks 7th Ed.

    Do you know that Obama Sr. had an intention to return to Kenya when Jr. was born? If he did not, then he was domiciled in the United States.

    The presumption is always toward facts that will uphold citizenship, so you have to prove that at the moment of Jr.’s birth Sr. fully intended to return to Kenya.

  76. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Even if Jr.’s citizenship depended on Sr. being domiciled here (and it doesn’t), the legal presumption is on the retention of citizenship.

    You have to prove an intent to leave. At the moment of Jr.’s birth.

    Thanks for playing.

  77. avatar
    nBC May 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Greg has expressed my opinions in a most excellent manner.
    Cheers

  78. avatar
    nBC May 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    If you want to claim domicile on his behalf, you’re going to have to prove intent to join our society. Being here on a student visa is going to be a mighty big hurdle.

    Still confused about the concept of who has to prove what. The presumption of arriving in the US, getting married going to school, then to graduate school all point to an indeterminate end.

    Sigh…

  79. avatar
    Dave May 6, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    This is an issue that’s bothered me for a while. I think with any difficult undertaking, like unseating a president, you can divide those making the attempt into two categories: those of exceptional ability who think they’re up to it, and those that have failed to understand the difficulties. The birthers seem to fall entirely into the second category.

  80. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs

    Amazing the persecution complex some conservatives have. The vast marjority of liberals have no problems with Christians living by, and expressing their faith (admittedly, there is a small contingent that is hostile to all religion). He’s a little surprise for you, a majority of us liberals actually do belong to some Christian religious sect. Like the Muslim who wears the hijab, we have no problem with Christians living their faith. However, like the Muslim who wants to push Sharia law on us all, we have problems when Christians want to write their particular interpretations of Christianity into the law, and force all of us to abide by their sect’s interpretations. No one is discriminating against or beating down on Christians. To tell you that no, Christianity does not get special benefits, like being endorsed by the state with school prayer, and placing Christain religious symbols on government property is neither targeting nor discriminating against Christians. It’s just telling them they’re the same as everyone else.

    As for the rest of your “concerns” about the President’s birth records. Get over it. None of that is evidence of anything but an over-active imagination. Just because you might “think it strange” doesn’t mean anyone else does, and the vast majority of us have not seen any reason to doubt it. As for examination of the COLB, it was available for inspection during the election. No one but the folks at factcheck.org took them up on it. Perhaps because no one wanted (a) to drop the money it cost for a real document expert to examine it, and (b) they knew if they did drop the money for a real expert, they wouldn’t find any problems with it. So instead, why not rely on anonomous internet “experts” who attempt to hide their lack of qualifications and spew a line of B.S. that the already convinced can continue to quote long after it has been discredited?

    Finally, about your little waiver of privacy argument. The right of privacy does not belong to the state, it belongs to the individual. So even if the state did violate the law with their statements, they cannot waive the right of privacy, because the state does not own that privilege. It belongs to Mr. Obama. So the state cannot remedy a violation of privacy laws by compounding it with an even further, and more intrusive violation by releasing a protected document. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  81. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    “None of that is evidence of anything but an over-active imagination.” (JoZeppy)

    You did not address the substance of what I said, except with regard to the privacy issue. Failure to make an objection to the statement indicates waiver IMO.

    If I “got over it,” what would be the point of this site?

    You came on persecuting and then wondered about a persecution complex. If I am persecuted for what I believe, then my tenet of faith states that I am blessed. What did I say my faith was in my response? Oh, that’s right. I didn’t.

    misha,

    I don’t know you except for comments that I have seen here which may or may not give a glimpse of your true self. (this is the internet after all) And I haven’t seen everything, just a little browsing now and then. You seem to have a wacky sense of humor along with a lot of anger and extreme intelligence. It makes for an interesting mix.

  82. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Am I Evangelical? Catholic? Mormon? One of the 20,000-30,000 types of Protestants? Do I have my own form of Christianity? Unitarian?

  83. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    “So instead, why not rely on anonomous internet “experts” who attempt to hide their lack of qualifications and spew a line of B.S. that the already convinced can continue to quote long after it has been discredited?”

    http://www.asqde.org/SRLines/SandraRLines.htm

  84. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    “Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?”

    In my neighborhood, we have Christian women who wear religious clothing, and they receive nothing but respect. They are called nuns. We also have Orthodox Russian Priests who wear religious identified clothing, Orthodox Jews and some type of Buddhist monks too. I have no objection to any of these- why would I object if a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab?

    I don’t know what Christian woman you refer to but your statement “is targeted for her right wing beliefs?” points out the issue- I will object to beliefs that I find objectionable, especially when that person is involved in politics.

    For instance, if a person claimed that Jesus taught that races should mix, I would object to that belief, not the persons faith(that is a real life example)

    So Charo- you became concerned because “African” was listed on the BC, and then there was some name discrepancy, so you became concerned there was some fraud.

    But your only response to the Hawaii Dept of Health confirming that he was born in Hawaii, along with the two contemporary birth announcements is that you want to see the long form?

    What if Baracks father was someone else? It wouldn’t change his eligibility at all. The only situation that would change his eligibility would be if he was born outside of Hawaii- but Hawaii has categorically stated he was born there, and that is backed up by his BC and the two contemporary birth announcements.

    I doubt you can do this, but take a step back and look at the hard evidence that shows President Obama was born in Hawaii, and the questions that lead you to question his BC- is there really anything other than wild speculation that leads you to anything questioning his being born in Hawaii?

    I will review once again:
    a) certified copy of birth certificate
    b) two contemporary birth announcements
    c) confirmation from the State of Hawaii
    vs
    a) his BC says his fathers race is African
    b) his BC has his fathers name spelled differently.

    Really? Really?

  85. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    bah- in my example I should have said “if a persons says that Jesus said that races should not mix”, not “should mix”

  86. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    what did she confirm, or did you just pulled this out of your rear end.

  87. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Who’s painting with a broad brush? Your statement implies that liberals aren’t Christians. The majority of liberals in this country are Christians. In my opinion, most liberals don’t have a problem with religion. They have a problem with people imposing their religion on everyone else.

    Many of us believe that one of things that makes the USA great is that people are free to practice any religion of their choosing. The separation of church and state is important in order to keep that great freedom. We have no state religion. Our perception of fundamentalist Christians is that they want to impose Christianity as a state religion; and not just any Christian religion–their own pecular evangelical interpretation of it. Liberals oppose state religion, whether it claims to be Christian, Muslim, or any other religion.

    How are you being “targeted” for your beliefs? Who told you that you can’t wear signs of your faith? I haven’t heard of any law being passed that prevents a Pentecostal women from wearing her jean skirt and tennis shoes. I haven’t heard of any law being passed that prevents an Amish woman from wearing a long dress and bonnet. If there were, liberals would defend the rights of those women, too. Criticizing and challenging someone’s political opinions or religious beliefs isn’t “targeting” them. If it is, then WTF? has been targeting me.

    Conservatives say they believe in family values. Well, guess what, you probably have some liberals in your family. I know I have onservatives in mine. I consider them my family. I get the distinct impression from many conservatives, though, that liberals aren’t family. They’re considered the enemy.

  88. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    As far as the spelling of Obama Sr.’s first name, it is a Swahili name derived from Arabic. It is spelled both Barak and Barack.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_name_Barack

    This is common with words transliterated from languages that don’t use the Roman alphabet. For example, the capital of China used to be rendered as Peking and is now rendered as Beijing. But it is still the same place and no one is committing fraud.

    As far as the term “African” a person can describe their ethnic identity however they like. My wife answered “human” on our census form (I can assure you she is correct).

  89. avatar
    sponson May 6, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Dr. C, you may find this of interest, a group of birthers ended up in an armed confrontation of sorts with authorities in a dispute over a “grand jury” and it did not go well. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/right-wing_extremists_take_on_local_law_enforcemen.php

  90. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    “So Charo- you became concerned because “African” was listed on the BC, and then there was some name discrepancy, so you became concerned there was some fraud”

    I am from Hawaii and attended University of Hawaii 1961/1964. I knew most of the foriegn exchange students including those from Africa, not a single Africam called himself Negro or black, when asked what race they called their race “African”. So that BC stating Obama Sr.’s race as “African” is proof that he supplied the information.

    Birthers always grab didly squat words because they are dip$shits.

  91. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    “So Charo- you became concerned because “African” was listed on the BC, and then there was some name discrepancy, so you I didn’t become concerned about someone being “African.” (SF Jeff)

    African would not have been a usual term at that time. That is just a common fact and has nothing to do with personal beliefs. As I said before, I can’t defend myself on the internet. It is a pointless endeavor.

    “Name discrepancy” is a nice dodge of the issue. Obama Senior’s name is spelled differently than his son’s.

    I think that IF there is fraud involved in the presentation of the COLB, then it would be of interest to the American people.

    “I will object to beliefs that I find objectionable, especially when that person is involved in politics.”

    Would this concern you?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

  92. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    I asked this before WTF, but you dodged it, so I will try again.

    You stated that your concern regarding the eligibility clause of the Constitution was because of National Safety- I think you said something along the lines of “because the Commander in Chief can launch nukes”.

    And then you seem to hang your hat on whether or not Obama Sr. was ‘domiciled’ in the United States at the moment of Obama’s birth.

    So do you believe, that, for the safety of the United States, a sitting President must be forced to demonstrate that his father was ‘domiciled’ in the United States, even though nothing else would change. Obama Sr still abandoned his family, Obama was still raised by his mother and grandparents, first in Hawaii, then in Indonesia and then to maturity in Hawaii.

    Here is my opinion- as mentioned before- you had no concern about the countries safety when Bush or Clinton were elected, and obviously the domicile question has nothing to do with our national security.

    I think you are one of those people who feel that he understands what the Constitution ‘really’ means much better than the voters, and that you are willing to overthrow election results in order to impose your understanding of the Constitution.

  93. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    I don’t think I said she confirmed anything. I’ll look back to see if I need to rephrase.

  94. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    That was pretty strong proof that Obama Sr. either filled out the application or gave the information to the person who did fill it out.

    Isn’t it pretty strong proof that a nurse asked Obama Sr. to give his race?

    Have you had kids?

    I don’t recall the nurses just eyeing the family and guessing at the races of each parent.

    How is Obama Sr. being involved in supplying information about his children suspicious?

  95. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    Failure to make an objection to the statement indicates waiver IMO.

    Failure to look in the extensive archives of this site to see that each issue has been addressed ad nauseum indicates political malpractice, IMO.

  96. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    WTF? says:
    He could have done this, or he could have done that. That facts are; he didn’t.If you want to claim domicile on his behalf, you’re going to have to prove intent to join our society. Being here on a student visa is going to be a mighty big hurdle.

    Providing enough evidence to overcome a prima facie Certification of Live Birth is a mighty big hurdle, too. So far no one has provided enough evidence to overcome it in a court of law. Where’s the naturalization certificate?

  97. avatar
    Dave May 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    Having perused this thread I can’t figure out who’s the Christian woman you’re referring to, but you do raise an interesting question anyhow.
    I do feel that it’s right to be respectful of other people’s religions. And it’s just fine with me if politicians advance arguments for their policy ideas based on their religious beliefs. And while I would consider it rude to criticize a religious belief when there is no cause to do so, on the other hand I will not hesitate to criticize a religious belief when it is despicable. A vile statement is still a vile statement whether it is religiously motivated or not.
    So no, I don’t think waving a Bible gives you a pass to advocate any nasty thing you want without fear of criticism.

  98. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    “African would not have been a usual term at that time. That is just a common fact and has nothing to do with personal beliefs. As I said before, I can’t defend myself on the internet. It is a pointless endeavor.”

    hey charo, this is total bull pupu. All on this site that have known African exchange students know this. It is your belief not a “factual thing”. At least pay attention!

  99. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    “None of that is evidence of anything but an over-active imagination.” (JoZeppy)You did not address the substance of what I said, except with regard to the privacy issue. Failure to make an objection to the statement indicates waiver IMO. If I “got over it,” what would be the point of this site? You came on persecuting and then wondered about a persecution complex. If I am persecuted for what I believe, then my tenet of faith states that I am blessed. What did I say my faith was in my response? Oh, that’s right. I didn’t.

    Your opinion doesn’t rise to the level of law, and you would be wrong. One cannot be deprived of their statutory privacy rights by the wrongful actions of another.

    As for not addressing the substance of your other comments, it’s because there is no substance. If true, they might be curiosities, but we don’t know the motivations of the president’s now dead parents in any spelling variations. People do vary spellings between generations. So unless you can provide concrete evidence as why I should doubt the docment, not just unsubstantiated speculation, there is nothing to respond to.

    If eveyone did get over it, there would be no need for this site…I would not shed a tear if this site disappeared because there weren’t any reason for it any longer.

    How are you persecuted? Did anyone stop you from holding your beliefs? Just because you believe something does not mean you are exempt from someone else disagreeing with you. Many people disagree with my beliefs, religious or otherwise. Some folks are quite adament about it. Unless they try to stop me from believing them, there is no persecution.

  100. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    scientist says,

    “This is common with words transliterated from languages that don’t use the Roman alphabet. For example, the capital of China used to be rendered as Peking and is now rendered as Beijing. But it is still the same place and no one is committing fraud.”

    Wow, at last an answer. Barak spelled his name as such as indicated by his signature and the published article. Are you saying that sometimes Sr. went by Barak and sometimes Barack? Names often have more than one spelling but people usually use the same spelling throughout their lives? Take the name Steven/Stephen for example.

    I’ll have to check back later.

  101. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Would this concern you?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

    To some extent, yes. According to the article, the sharia courts are being treated as a form of binding arbitration, to which both parties must agree to submit. That is acceptable. I would be concerned, however, that within the Muslim community, there might be undue pressure on people to submit to the sharia courts.

  102. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    “Just because you believe something does not mean you are exempt from someone else disagreeing with you.”

    Back at ya! πŸ™‚

  103. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

    Did you know that Judge Judy isn’t really a judge? She’s not enforcing the laws of any given state. She’s arbitrating a dispute between two people who agree to binding arbitration.

    Jewish “courts” are the same way.

    Why are you offended at what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own binding arbitration?

  104. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Are you saying that sometimes Sr. went by Barak and sometimes Barack?

    Apparently, yes, as is his right. Some people even use 2 different last names- is the football player Chad Ochocinco or Chad Johnson today? Who cares?

  105. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    ” hat was pretty strong proof that Obama Sr. either filled out the application or gave the information to the person who did fill it out.

    Isn’t it pretty strong proof that a nurse asked Obama Sr. to give his race? (Greg)

    – I filled out my own application for my kids. First, I don’t know why you would quibble with a statement that agrees with you. The minor point was that someone besides Sr. could have given the information, not that it wasn’t true. This was my thought prior to learning of the spelling difference.

  106. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Greg: I think there is a valid concern that members of a religious community (particularly women) could be unduly pressured to agree to arbitration by religious courts. I don’t know if that is the case, but it’s something to monitor.

  107. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    That is possible that he was using two different spellings of his name. But you were making it a cultural issue. I suppose that I should simply take your word that he used two different spellings, well, because he must have?

  108. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    And quick to key on the miniscule information he believes supports his theory, while ignoring the vast information that blows his theory out of the water.

    By international law standards, Obama may have had “involuntary dual citizenship” at birth which is probably not an impediment to claiming natural born citizenship. Even the dual citizenship isn’t certain because of Obama Sr.’s marriage to Keziah. In the UK, just like the US, a bigamous marriage is “null ab initio.” The rules for an unmarried British father to an unmarried American mother apply even though the couple may have considered themselves legally married.

    “Prior to 1983, as a general rule British nationality could only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married.”
    http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Nationality-Law

    It’s actually possible that Obama wasn’t born with British citizenship at all.

  109. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    If they were on equal footing, that would be a different discussion.

  110. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    One correction. A bigamous marriage is “void ab initio.” I remembered the wrong term, because I was thinking of “null and void.”

  111. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    We are talking 1961, not presently- and if YOU would pay attention- you would notice that I stated someone found proof that Kenyans were instructed to identify themselves as Africans. The issue is the two different spellings. Keep up will ya?

    Gotta go. Been fun.

  112. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    I understand that Chad Johnson will play under the name Chad Hachi Go (Hachi Go is Hapanese for “eight five”). Anyone can call themselves whatever they like. You can call me anything except late for dinner….

  113. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    “African would not have been a usual term at that time. That is just a common fact and has nothing to do with personal beliefs.”

    First of all, its is not a common fact. Secondly, even if it was- why would that cause any question in your mind? I for the life of me can’t figure out why someone would extrapolate this one detail into questioning whether the birth certificate was valid. But even if that caused you legitimate concern- the announcement from the State of Hawaii should have laid any eligibility questions to rest.

    “As I said before, I can’t defend myself on the internet. It is a pointless endeavor.”

    If you can’t defend your beliefs with concrete explanations then I assert that your beliefs are wafer thin.

    ““Name discrepancy” is a nice dodge of the issue. Obama Senior’s name is spelled differently than his son’s.”

    Again- so what? In my own family there was a long line of Obediah’s- at one point the spelling of the name was changed to Obadiah- should I doubt my family history because of this? What is it about the name change that causes concerns that President Obama was not eligibile?

    “I think that IF there is fraud involved in the presentation of the COLB, then it would be of interest to the American people.”

    If there was any evidence that the presentation of the BC that Barrack Obama had not been produced by the State of Hawaii, sure. But since the State of Hawaii has said he was born in Hawaii, then its not really an eligibility question is it? At best, you would be hoping for some evidence of a cover up of something embarressing to the President. Which of course is what birthers really want

    “Would this concern you?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

    Sure- I find Sharia laws- or any religious courts that enforce civil laws- objectionable even in Muslim countries. No idea what that has to do with this topic, since that involves the UK, but I guess it does point out my objection to trying to interject Christian or any other faiths tenets into our legal or political system.

  114. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Bingo. Paternity can be doubtful. That’s the reason that in many foreign countries the child of an unmarried mother acquires citizenship through the mother only.

  115. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    “I suppose that I should simply take your word that he used two different spellings, well, because he must have?”

    No, you obviously believe what you are determined to believe. The people here are just pointing out the short comings of your doubts. There is nothing suspicious to reasonable people about using two different spellings- and there is nothing that would lead to believing that President Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    You can worry about it as much as you want, but its not a reasonable doubt.

  116. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    “You seem to have a wacky sense of humor along with a lot of anger and extreme intelligence. It makes for an interesting mix.”

    If Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist Production.

    Remember, I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waiter, and drive safely.

  117. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    Barak is also a Hebrew name meaning “lightning.” I have a sneaking suspicion Obama’s a secret Jew. After all, Michelle Obama’s first cousin is a rabbi. It explains why they celebrated seder in the White House, and why he wore a yamulke at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. The Christian and Muslim thing is just a red herring to keep us from learning the real truth. πŸ™‚

  118. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    If the birth certificate said “African-American,” you would have a point as that phrase wasn’t in common usage at that time. It says “African” which was in use at the time.

    A headline from 1961:
    “An African Student Studies Us; A young man from Kenya, now in college…”

  119. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    “Barak is also a Hebrew name meaning “lightning.”

    Remember Sarah Silverman? Barack means lightning; John means toilet. Which would you rather have: a president named lightning, or a president named toilet?

    “Michelle Obama’s first cousin is a rabbi.” No, he is a second cousin. Also, Ms. Obama may have a Jewish paternal great-great grandfather. The NYT traced her family tree, and found one ancestor named Cohen. Ms. Obama’s secretary declined to be interviewed.

    President Obama became a Christian as an adult. His mother was an atheist; his father started out as a Muslim, and became an atheist. As long as you brought it up, I’m agnostic.

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    It is almost always the case that the mother is the informant [technical term] on a birth certificate. So if the spelling on the birth certificate matches the spelling on the divorce petition (which if memory serves me right is the case) then this issue is fully resolved.

    Obama Sr’s name is irrelevant; only what Stanley Ann Obama thought it was matters here.

  121. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    If what were on equal footing with what? The Jewish courts in England are also arbitration tribunals.

    As to your concern, Scientist, I don’t think it’s a concern unique to religious communities as opposed to other tight-knit communities, much less unique to Muslims. And the law has ways of dealing with duress – one can argue that the arbitration should not be binding because it was not voluntarily entered into.

  122. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    It’s not just religious arbitration that can be harmful to women. A female military contractor was raped by co-workers in Iraq, and Halliburton & KBR wanted her to go through arbitration. In sounds like arbitration in this country has more to do with Dick Cheney than Barack Obama.

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    Nemocapn, you have raised a monumentally interesting possibility in our silly conspiracy micro-universe.

    This needs thorough research. I wish we had a Kenyan lawyer contributor here.

  124. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    “sounds like arbitration in this country has more to do with Dick Cheney than Barack Obama.”

    Or with Islam.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    Very interesting.

  126. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    Lines wrote, “In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.”

    Any forensic document examiner would say you must examine the original to determine whether or not it’s a forgery. When people on the internet said the Bush National Guard papers were fake, forensic examiners said they would have to look at the original before they could say it was real or fake. That’s true of ANY document, so if the possibility of forgery gives you the right to examine the vault certificate of Barack Obama before believing he was born in Hawaii, it gives me the right to examine the vault certificate of every birther before I believe they were in this country. After all, many birthers write as if English is their second language.

  127. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    “As I said before, I can’t defend myself on the internet. It is a pointless endeavor.”

    If you can’t defend your beliefs with concrete explanations then I assert that your beliefs are wafer thin.

    – I was referring to implications of being a racist, which is certainly what is being pushed here.

  128. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    sorry- this is in the wrong place- I hate nesting style comments!

    So she didn’t know the spelling of her husband’s name???

    Bye!

  129. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    Mario and the Post and Fail is at it again with their misinformation….An excerpt from the article is below…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/05/the-bigamy-of-obamas-citizenship/#comments

    “US citizenship (not necessarily “natural born”) is required of Senators and Representatives under Article I, thus “naturalized” US citizens are eligible for these positions. Those officials who became naturalized at some point in their adult lives would have taken the Oath of Naturalization. This Oath requires the following declaration:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

    Mr. Apuzzo also makes this point regarding naturalization:

    [N]aturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature.

    Sole allegiance is thus a requirement of US citizenship, and the method of attainment of this citizenship, whether at birth or later by law, is the key difference in eligibility qualifications for office. The Oath of allegiance is made as a deliberate act as an adult for a naturalized citizen but is assumed to have been made naturally by a natural born citizen, at birth.”

    In fact, the framers would not have even envisioned “birthright citizenship” or “dual citizenship” as being allowed under the Constitution at all. These notions were discussed in articles here and here and were the subject of a 2005 Congressional Hearing. All representatives and experts present at the Hearing affirmed that both dual citizenship and birthright citizenship, while currently allowed in practice, were unconstitutional. Dr. John Eastman, an expert witness at the Hearing, in a recent interview stated:

    [T]he real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. “I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

    Obama, as the son of a non-US citizen father, would not have even been granted US citizenship at his birth if he had been born in America a decade earlier. Obama would have only been granted US citizenship as a minor if and when his father naturalized, or Obama Jr. could have applied for US citizenship at 18. Either way, he would have been a “naturalized” US citizen, not natural born.”

  130. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    I wasn’t aware that it was in use at the time. As now I have said for the third time, someone (who takes your position) found a document that said Kenyans should identify themselves as Africans. That wasn’t ultimately the issue anyways. It was the spelling of the names.

  131. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    “So instead, why not rely on anonomous internet “experts” who attempt to hide their lack of qualifications and spew a line of B.S. that the already convinced can continue to quote long after it has been discredited?”http://www.asqde.org/SRLines/SandraRLines.htm

    And did you read her declaration? Her delcaration consisted of three comments. (1) There is software that can manipulate electornic images. (2) They should not hide the certificate number which could be used to confirm it is related to the individual (which was later shown), (3) and that she would need to examine the original to be able to make a determiniation of the genuineness of the document. So she really didn’t make a determination one way or the other on the document.

  132. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    More misinformed ingnuttery. Excerpted. The scary part is that there are people out there as misinformed thinking that what he says is correct…

    (May 5, 2010) — The following is the second half of an interview with Gino DiSimone, independent candidate for Nevada governor.

    GINO: He pushed the fact that we should not punish the children for the sins of their parents. In the Bible, if a parent sins, the child doesn’t have to pay the penalty for the parent’s sins. That’s where he’s coming from. It’s a very Christian, ethical thing to do, but that is not the same as the what the Constitution says. The 14th Amendment says, “If you weren’t born here, then you’re not a citizen; if you weren’t born of a parent who is a citizen, then you’re not a citizen, even if you’re born on this soil.” That’s the correct understanding of the 14th Amendment. It was put in place because of slavery; those people were forced on our shores at gunpoint, and we compelled them to stay or we would kill them. So once we abolished slavery, the right thing to do was to grant them citizenship, and we did that. And that was the nature of the 14th Amendment, and further, it expanded and said, “If your parents are citizens, then that’s how you get to be a citizen.”

    SHARON: Would you like to see the 14th Amendment repealed? I’ve read that there is a movement which seeks to repeal it as if it never happened.

    GINO: If I’m not mistaken, that movement has been put in place because there is no more slavery; that is long out of our history. So their justification is since there’s no slavery, why do we have this? The problem with that is that the 14th Amendment provides protections for that illegal alien process. It says, very clearly, that the parents must be citizens for a person to be a citizen. So I think repealing it is a mistake because of those protections. However, the Supreme Court has, on many occasions, misinterpreted the 14th Amendment. They’ve gone both ways, by the way. It depends which on which court case and which Supreme Court you actually listen to, which means that there’s a problem with the Supreme Court because any high school person can read that, think it through, and recognize that your parent has to be a citizen or you can’t be.

    Now if a high school person’s child or youth can do that and understand it, why do we need the Supreme Court to tell us otherwise?

    SHARON: But a lot of times, the 14th Amendment is misinterpreted, and now it’s gotten to the point where illegal aliens are crossing the border, and someone has a baby on our soil and that baby is considered a citizen.

    GINO: That’s an incorrect application of the 14th Amendment. You’re absolutely right.

    SHARON: So what you’re saying is that there’s no problem with the 14th Amendment as written, but the misinterpretation has been the problem?

    GINO: That’s correct. The misinterpretation by the Supreme Court for what reason? There’s a motivation behind their misinterpreting it. They didn’t do it by accident.

    SHARON: What do you think that motivation is?

    GINO: For whatever reason, they wanted to have illegal aliens becoming citizens; I don’t know. However, it doesn’t matter what they want; the 14th Amendment is quite clear.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/05/gino-disimone-part-ii/#comments

  133. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Yes, and you wouldn’t be persecuting me for disagreeing.

  134. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    The following may have even originated here at this site.

    http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

  135. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    The following may have even originated here at this site.

    very funny!

  136. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Again, what’s the big deal? It is not unheard of people using different forms of their names, particularly when they have ethnic names. Just in my family, my cousin’s name is Jan (Polish), but has spelled it Janusz, and John, and Jon as well. In my family, we’ve even had last names altered (my grandmother and her brothers and sisters used 3 variations of their last name between them).

    Again, it’s really not proof of much of anything on its own.

  137. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    “There is nothing suspicious to reasonable people about using two different spellings…”

    You guys are the ones saying he (Obama Sr.) used two different spellings. I only see proof of HIS using one spelling: Barak. It is the COLB and the captioning of the divorce case that used the Barack spelling.

  138. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Do you have some sort of proof that Barack Sr.’s name is misspelled? It seems like on all official documents that it is spelled the same way that the President spells his name. You seem to be all about proof. So what proof do you have or can show us that Barack Obama Sr. did not spell his name that way? Did he ever claim that it was spelled wrong? Did the family? No? Then your argument seems to be moot.

    What matters is what the offical state of HI has as proof. And according to the GOP governor of HI, she stated the following…

    “It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

    So what is more plausible? That Obama Sr. spelled his name the way that the state of HI documented? Or that this is some part of a nefarious scheme by Soros that began in 1961 to have a baby born in Kenya designated an American? To most people with common sense, the President was born in Hawaii has the COLB and the state has confirmed on numerous occasions…

  139. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    I have to clarify here what is in a different place above. Where is the proof that Obama Sr. was using two different names? That wasn’t my theory at all. If you look back, my original contention was that Barak Obama had nothing to do with the birth of his son at all, or the filling out of the birth certificate because if he did, he would have spelled his name the same. I never said that it proved anything about his birthplace but the validity of the COLB. Others gave speculation as to why the names were spelled differently. There is proof that Senior spelled his name Barak and that OTHERS spelled it differently.

  140. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    I think someone needs to sit down and actually read the text of the 14th Amendment.

  141. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    But you claim that the names are spelled differently. I said that you need to source your claim that Obama Sr. ever spelled his name differently that is has appeared on the COLB and other official documents. We have heard speculation that was the case, but never any evidence. So if there is proof as you claim that OBAMA SPELLED HIS NAME DIFFERENTLY, then lets see it.

  142. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    I did above. (from 10:18)

    Then, I learned that Obama Sr. spelled his name Barak. The two sources are as follows:

    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
    (note 31)

    (2) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11
    (Exhibit A)

    Some may say that there is a tiny “c” before the “k” in his signature but that would be inconsistent with the rest of the lettering. It looks like the “k” was written as a separate letter with a little upswing. Because his own work was published with the spelling as Barak, I think the signature shows no “c”.
    ****

    I don’t know if the above has been refuted or not.

  143. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    Some may say that there is a tiny “c” before the “k” in his signature but that would be inconsistent with the rest of the lettering. It looks like the “k” was written as a separate letter with a little upswing. Because his own work was published with the spelling as Barak, I think the signature shows no “c”.

    Are we both looking at the signature on page 11 of the divorce .pdf?

    If so, that is clearly a C, there is no way that the K is a “separate letter with a little upswing.” In fact, if the K were a separate letter, that would be inconsistent with the rest of the signature, which is all in cursive!

    (I don’t see how you can possibly claim that the K is a separate letter, since it is seems obvious that the pen did not leave the page!)

    As to your first source, the one article published by “Barak H. Obama,” did you notice footnote 30 of the Wikipedia article? It goes to a bibliography of articles in African Studies, one of them, on page 304 is:

    Otieno jarieko. Kitabu mar ariyo »2Ό> Yore mabeyo mag puro puothe ¦ olosi gi
    Barack H. Obama. Nairobi> East African Literature Bureau, The Eagle Press, 1959.
    40 p. English title> Otieno, the wise man> a series of readers to follow the Luo Adult
    literacy primer. Book 2> Wise ways of farming. (SOAS 3164)

    Barack with a C.

    So, we’ve got the birth certificate which has a C, the Divorce papers are captioned Stanley Ann Dunham Obama v. Barack Obama. His signature appears to me to have a C in it. His Ministry of Education publication is Barack.

    This is the problem with the birthers. A mountain of contrary evidence and they go with the snippet of information that might, possibly, with some squinting, support their position.

    Did it ever occur to you that the mountain of evidence was right and the single article omitted the C by mistake?

  144. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    ““So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    So she looked at the long form eh?

    I may have missed a comment or two somewhere.

  145. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    You have your interpretation of the signature, I have mine.

    The “mountain of evidence” could all be sourced to the same spelling error.

    Have a nice day.

  146. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    That is not evidence. It is speculation. If there was an acutal document that was by Obama Sr. that could be sourced and verified, then that would be proof. What about his school records for the U of Hawaii and Harvard? His rental lease application? Those documents would be evidence. However we have not seen anything like that. All of the actual documents that we can attribute to him in the US spell his name Barack. All you have that supports the other spelling is some African article that may or may not be correct and someone opinion that Greg has already demonstrated that it means little. That is the point. You are more willing to give credence to highly dubious sources as proof because they support your preconcieved notion that there is something amiss with the President. And when there is more proof that shows otherwise, you still continue to hang on to said belief because that is what you want to believe….

  147. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    I am sure that Dr. Fukino did view all relevant records that showed that the President was born in HI. She stated as much when she released the statement that “Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI”…No one has ever claimed that there is no “long form”. What people have stated that it is irrelevant because the state of HI does not issue anything but a COLB currently and the Hospital and doctor’s name means nothing.

  148. avatar
    Whatever4 May 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    I missed something What is the name discrepancy issue?

  149. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Not only is Barak Obama’s name spelled as such in the introductory part of the article but also right after the caption in the article itself.

    You don’t have to get all hot under the collar here. I am in enemy territory, not you.

    Maybe I’ll contact Polarik for analysis of the signature…

    JOKE ALERT since there seems to be very little sense of humor (unless it is directed at someone personally here)

  150. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    “That wasn’t my theory at all. If you look back, my original contention was that Barak Obama had nothing to do with the birth of his son at all,”

    Well, assuming he is the father, he had at least one thing to do with the birth of his son…and its the only relevant thing.

  151. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Of course you are going to believe that. You want to belive. The divorce decree shows that his name was spelled Barack. But that would ruin your theory so you will state that you don’t see that. So what is your belief to dispute Dr. Fukino’s statement that the President was born in HI and the confirmation from Gov. Lingle?

  152. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    “The “mountain of evidence” could all be sourced to the same spelling error.”

    How? Really how? Evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii:
    a) a state certified copy of his birth certificate
    b) contemporary birth announcements in two newspapers
    c) Confirmation at least twice from the State of Hawaii that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Tell me how Barack Sr. spelled his name could have led to some conclusion that shows President Obama was not born in Hawaii?

  153. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    What? That people from Africa identified themselves as Africans? The term Black and Negro were American constructs….No African person from Africa would ever use those terms…

  154. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    “Bingo. Paternity can be doubtful.”

    Who said it? A birther?

  155. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    I’m not. The point is that this dubiously sourced article is the only “so called proof” that his name was ever spelled Barak…While other documents which are from the US spelled it differently…Could it be a mistake? Sure. It could be spelled wrong on the President’s BC and on the divorce papers. Or it could be spelled wrong on the article from Africa. However other article from Africa that reference the President and his family spell it Barack. So it seems more likely that the one article from over 40 years ago got it wrong….

  156. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    “So she looked at the long form eh? ”

    When you read the statement from the Governor of Hawaii, you basically have three choices:
    a) You can accept the statement at face value- i.e. the birth records show President Obama was born in Hawaii- in that case you stop here.
    b) You can question whether the person who the Governor relied upon was competant to check the documents- which of course is your right but there is no evidence to suggest that she is not competant to look at a birth certificate. A reasonable person would assume she was able to distinguish this.
    c) You can assume there is a vast conspiracy involving Dr. Fukino, the Governor, and pretty much everyone else in our entire political system.

    So do you think that Dr. Fukino is not competant or do you think she is lieing?

  157. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    I don’t know what your point is. I already mentioned many comments ago that Kenyans were instructed to identify themselves as Africans. I found the source.

  158. avatar
    richCares May 6, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    just want to make fun of you

  159. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    Well, I will go back to my original comment.

    **That (in conjunction with some other evidence) led me to believe that Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the birth of Obama. Heck, you would think he would get the spelling of his son correct. There is something strange about the whole thing, maybe something to do with his father.
    Obama is considered the issue of Obama Sr. because of the marriage. Is his name actually on the birth certificate? If the COLB is genuine, then it is.**

    Why not just release the long form? Why not state that yes, a request was made for the COLB? What is the big deal at this point?

    Is the COLB still available for viewing? I wonder if the offer would be open to Hemmenway (sp?) or Apuzzio or one of the birther lawyers? Why take back the offer now? I think they should ask if the offer is still good, I mean if it was good then why not now? It’s not a request for every citizen of the country to see the COLB.

    I don’t go to any of these sites, but it might be worth a shot to simply ask one of those attorneys to see if the offer is still valid. Of course, if I were them I would take along Sandra Lines.

  160. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Self-deprecating humor is one of my specialties. Let me in on it next time. You know birthers are kinda slow …

  161. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Charo asks:

    Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?

    You are painting with one extremely broad brush.

    Charo,

    First of all, thank you for your polite and well written inquiry. I wanted to give you a full response, even though I see others have already beat me to it.

    Yes, I agree that my “Big Five” suppositions for birther & “NOBAMA” motivations are painting a broad brush. I’m definitely looking for others to provide exceptions that fall outside of those “Big Five” or even better, further clarity of motivation within the “Big Five” that help narrow the “broad brush” somewhat.

    After also reading the other responses under this threat so far, I want to save some time by saying that in response to your religious question I quoted above, I agree fully with and would restate all the points to that aspect that the following posters have already replied on this: Scientist, JoZeppy, SFJeff, nemocapn, Dave.

    On that issue, based on your question, I would say that my impression of you is that you would fall under the “Religious reasons” broad brush of my “Big Five” as a birther. I don’t mean that as an attack or a criticism; just a statement of what so far seems to be a motivation for you, based on what little I have to go on. You may or may not agree and I’d appreciate if you’d respond back in terms of how you view what drives you in terms of those, any of the other “Big Five” motivations I mentioned, or what you feel falls outside of those broad brushes and why.

    Furthermore, in terms of your question, I just wanted to state that I find it interesting (and quite frankly, I take it as a bit telling) that you give a specific example of an expression of religious freedom (the hijab) for the Muslim woman trying to exemplify her faith; yet your follow-up argument on persecution of Christian women trying to exemplify her faith has NO corresponding example in comparison.

    In addition to what has already been said by others, I just want to make the following additional points:

    1. Your very statement of connecting respect for wearing a hijab (a type of head scarf) is a “liberal” position is an extremely “broad brush” assumption in itself. Both in terms of assuming that such has to be a liberal “position” and/or implying that the non-birthers on this board must be “liberals”, which is way too broad a brush to be anywhere close to correct.

    2. Head scarves are worn as an expression of faith or culture by women of many different faiths and cultures, including some conservative Christian sects. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering)

    3. Please provide your examples of “Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs”, as you did not supply any support for this statement and therefore it is impossible to understand your correlation to allowing Muslim women to wear a simple head scarf.

    4. Are you personally bothered that Muslim women wear a head scarf and why?

    5. Personally, I have no problems with head scarves being worn by any women as part of cultural or religious purposes. My only exception to that is that I agree that extreme forms which obscure the face (burqa and such) should be allowed to be banned from being worn outside the home or religious institution use simply because they overly conceal one’s identity, which is a security issue and not one of religious persecution. (I don’t want people wearing full ninja masks walking around on the streets either).

    Finally, in terms of the rest of what you wrote and the issues you stated you have with with Obama’s name, etc., I think the others have addressed those points sufficiently as well.

    In essence, it seems to me that you are intentionally and desperately grasping at straws by looking for trivial minutiae that has no overall bearing on the bigger issue of NBC qualifications for POTUS in order to desperately justify whatever your preconceived reasons are for fearing/hating Obama and feverishly wishing that somehow the act of his election could be nullified.

  162. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Charo,

    Are you saying that you feel religiously persecuted yourself, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

    If you do, can you explain what you mean and give some actual examples?

  163. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    Something is up with the COLB. I don’t have any proof of what that something is. To make public statements without showing the source of the statement is violating the tenets of the freedom of information for the people. If no statement had been made at all by the DoH or Lingle, then there is no violation of that tenant.

    Where are you Libertarians?

  164. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    I don’t know whether the COLB is still avaiable for viewing. The point is that these self-appointed “defenders of the Constitution” couldn’t be bothered to go and look when it was available. Nor, frankly could they be bothered to file cases when the matter was supposed to be decided, according to law and common sense, namely BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    So, if it were me, I would tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. Obama, being more diplomatic than I, is just ignoring them…

  165. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    OK….I just wasn’t sure where you were going in regards to the link….

  166. avatar
    Black Lion May 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    In rereading what the article alleges, the fact that they make the following statement is crazy…

    “Obama, as the son of a non-US citizen father, would not have even been granted US citizenship at his birth if he had been born in America a decade earlier. Obama would have only been granted US citizenship as a minor if and when his father naturalized, or Obama Jr. could have applied for US citizenship at 18. Either way, he would have been a “naturalized” US citizen, not natural born.”

    I don’t know where to even begin with that statement….

  167. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    The article I read said first cousin, but since you seem to know, I’ll take your word for it.

    In all seriousness, I consider Obama a Christian whose parents were non-religious. I’ve read that Obama Sr. was raised Muslim and Dunham was raised Christian but both seem to have rejected those faiths. The father of Obama Sr. reportedly was raised in the Luo faith which involves some sort of ancestor worship. He converted first to Christianity before converting to Islam. I laugh at the birthers who think that the Obamas are a long line of Arab Muslims when 90% of Luos are Christians. They’re Nilotic, not Semitic.

    I watched a documentary about Obama’s campaign where they interviewed Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng in her kitchen. I looked at a magnet on the fridge, and I think it said, “What would Buddha do?” She’s a Buddhist. I think it’s great that Obama comes from a multi-denominational family, including those of no denomination at all.

    I was raised Methodist. My dad’s grandpa was an evangelical preacher, but I’m a freethinker of sorts. My religion is what I make of it. I draw my religious beliefs from all the great religions. I accept and reject what I consider the best and worst of all faiths. I’m no longer the self-righteous Christian I was as a child.

    Like you, I don’t trust Sarah Palin’s professed love of Israel. I suspect she loves Israel only because she believes Jews have to return to Jerusalem to bring on the second coming. I suspect she wants to stop the Arabs from destroying the Jews now, so Satan can destroy them later.

  168. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    You do a better job of speaking than Gibbs. I think Obama should hire you instead.

  169. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    “but it might be worth a shot to simply ask one of those attorneys to see if the offer is still valid. Of course, if I were them I would take along Sandra Lines.”

    Certainly would be a good idea. A Birther who was really, really interested in finding out the truth might actually find out whether Obama’s campaign still has the document availible for review. Odd isn’t it that all these concerned Birthers never once mention trying to look at it?

  170. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    The point is that these self-appointed “defenders of the Constitution” couldn’t be bothered to go and look when it was available. Nor, frankly could they be bothered to file cases when the matter was supposed to be decided, according to law and common sense, namely BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    – I thought the issue wasn’t ripe yet and then it was too late afterwards, er something…

    – The offer was made; statute of limitations on it?

  171. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    You didn’t answer my question:

    So do you think that Dr. Fukino is not competant or do you think she is lieing?

  172. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    “Something is up with the COLB. I don’t have any proof of what that something is.”

    Read what you wrote again. Basically you just have a hinky feeling that something is wrong- without any actual evidence- and yet you want the President to act to aleviate your baseless fear?

    “To make public statements without showing the source of the statement is violating the tenets of the freedom of information for the people.”

    No, not really. Did you just fill out the Census form? When Census reports the results of this years census, do you expect you should be able to look at everyone’s census form?

    “If no statement had been made at all by the DoH or Lingle, then there is no violation of that tenant.”

    And here is where you folk infuriate me- you keep moving the goal post.

    You demand proof of birth from Obama- the first President ever to be asked for it- and he provides a certified copy of his birth certificate- the same document any of us would get- and Birthers then say its a forgery.

    You demand more proof that Obama was really born in Hawaii- and when state officials state that they have viewed the documents- which by the way is actual evidence- you then say that because of that additional evidence, you have more need for additional evidence.

    Really- when Obama opens his Presidential Library and posts a certified copy of his long form, Birthers will still be saying that the form was forged, or that his grandmother committed fraud.

  173. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Charo says:

    African would not have been a usual term at that time.That is just a common fact and has nothing to do with personal beliefs.As I said before, I can’t defend myself on the internet.It is a pointless endeavor.

    I just get a kick out of how people in common speaking misuse terms like “fact” all the time. It is a “common fact”? Oh really? Sorry, what you are stating is just your personal belief or opinion, which is very different from what an actual “fact” is. More accurately, you might have said; “it would be more correct or more common for someone to list the actual country in Africa instead of list Africa on the form.” That would be a reasonable statement to make.

    However, as it has been pointed out endlessly here and elsewhere, African *has* been listed on such forms in a number of other instances. So, while not the preferred response nor a “common” one, it is nonetheless been an acceptable response on the form that is neither unique to Obama’s birth certificate nor in any way invalidates it.

    Charo says:

    “Name discrepancy” is a nice dodge of the issue.Obama Senior’s name is spelled differently than his son’s.I think that IF there is fraud involved in the presentation of the COLB, then it would be of interest to the American people.

    It would be of interest only in terms of those who enjoy the trivia of minutiae details, which is fine. For instance, such might make a nice question on Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit.

    However, such a concern would in no way invalidate a person’s place of birth or their birth itself. To call it a “fraud” is an extreme and unsupported judgment that you can’t back up. Nor could you prove intent of fraud in this situation, so you are just chasing shadows because you personally are looking for any EXCUSE to persecute the president for your own personal reasons.

    For one thing, there is no law that requires a son’s name to match the fathers or to be spelled the same. People can name their kids anything they want and they can vary the spellings either intentionally or via error and it isn’t illegal.

    Speaking of error, typos or spelling errors happen on documents and in databases all the time. It just means they need to be corrected when found, not that there is anything “sinister” behind it. You can create all the speculative scenarios in your own mind for “why” something like this could have happened, but that is all a meaningless exercise because there would have to be clear and concrete evidence of fraudulent intent before this could even begin to be an issue.

    Charo says:

    “I will object to beliefs that I find objectionable, especially when that person is involved in politics.”

    As I mentioned before in my “BIG FIVE” theory for what drives the birthers – they are all driven by personal beliefs, not facts in their persecution of Obama.

    Again, based on all your statements to date, you seem to be validating my theory and I’m pegging you clearly in the “Religious” motivation category and specifically under the sub-category of those who for some unsupported reason, think that he’s a “secret Muslim”.

    So, if that is truly what drives you on this, I must ask – why do you think he’s a Muslim? (And as a follow-up, why would that matter?).

    Why do you discount his being a Christian (and why would that matter in a country that specifically BANS any religious test for office in the Constitution)?

    Charo says:

    Would this concern you?http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

    In response to this article link you provided, I want to completely echo what SFJeff said, as I concur completely:

    Sure- I find Sharia laws- or any religious courts that enforce civil laws- objectionable even in Muslim countries. No idea what that has to do with this topic, since that involves the UK, but I guess it does point out my objection to trying to interject Christian or any other faiths tenets into our legal or political system.

  174. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    I don’t remember you being called a racist. Where did you get that?

  175. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    You have a maturity in web sites beyond your age.

    Dr. C – what was this in response to?

  176. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    Yes, but if the birth certificate says the father is Barack Obama, Sr. then it’s accepted as a fact on the face of it that he is the father until proven otherwise in a court of law.

    I think there’s some birther already on the case, trying to steal Obama’s water bottles for DNA. I’m sure someone has taken up a collection for a shovel already for their trip to Kenya. πŸ˜‰

    If Obama’s marriage to Ann Dunham was “void ab initio,” the father of Obama is probably irrelevant, because Ann Dunham was from a legal standpoint an unmarried woman. US and British citizenship laws are different if you’re unmarried versus married.

  177. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    Thank you for sharing all that, nemocapn.

    I really enjoyed learning more about you in your post and respect everything you said!

  178. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    You do a better job of speaking than Gibbs. I think Obama should hire you instead

    I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or not.

    It’s really quite ridiculous that you mention the President of the United States in the same sentence as a couple of ambulance chasers. I would come down on Obama like a ton of bricks if he wasted even a second on this nonsense. The “birther lawyers” are nobody, the bottom of the food chain-they don’t even have any active legal cases anymore.

    The President’s attention is focused right where it should be-on the European financial crisis, the oil spill, the war in Afghanistan, terrorism, etc. This matter ended with the election. That you are too dense to realize that is kind of sad.

  179. avatar
    Bob Ross May 6, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    She’s not currently a judge no. But she was one when she was appointed by Ed Koch in 1980 as a supervising family court judge in Manhattan. But I get what you’re saying.

  180. avatar
    nemocapn May 6, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    Thank you. Unfortunately I’m not a lawyer; I only play one on teh internets.

    The reason I came here is that you guys actually research history and law, trying to back up your position. You’re doing a great job supporting your positions, many of which I share. You don’t just parrot information you get from chain emails like some people I know. You actually know about the de facto officer doctrine which is something I learned about while researching a disputed election in the 1880’s. You guys know your stuff.

    I think the “void ab initio” marriage argument is an important one that has been largely ignored on both sides of the debate. If a bigamous marriage is treated as a non-existent marriage according to British and American law, it changes the debate. If Obama’s mother was the legal equivalent of an unmarried woman, he would be an American citizen no matter where he was born and he wouldn’t be a dual citizen. The birthers would probably say the illegitimate child of a citizen mother can’t be a natural born citizen, but they couldn’t say he’s not an American citizen at all, or that he holds dual allegiances without being intellectually dishonest.

  181. avatar
    WTF? May 6, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    The domicile question has to do with dual allegiances. Is it a perfect check? NO.

  182. avatar
    nbc May 6, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    Domicile has nothing to do with dual allegiances.

  183. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    “she believes Jews have to return to Jerusalem to bring on the second coming. I suspect she wants to stop the Arabs from destroying the Jews now, so Satan can destroy them later.”

    That’s exactly what her crowd believes. I heard it directly from them.

  184. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    This is not complicated WTF- you have said this is a security issue- and so I ask you- do you feel that the security of the United States is different depending on whether a court ruled the Obama Sr. was domiciled in the United States or if a court ruled that Obama Sr was not domiciled in the United States?

    I disagree with your interpretation that domicile matters but back up your dual assertion that this is a matter of national security and that domicile of the father matters.

  185. avatar
    misha May 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    Michelle Obama, and Rabbi Capers Funnye, spiritual leader of a mostly black synagogue on Chicago’s South Side, are first cousins once removed.

    Second cousins.

  186. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    I really don’t get this dual allegiance stuff. All polticians have multiple allegiances, including to their donors, their party, their home state, the financial opportunities that await them after they leave office, etc. All of those are much more worrisome than the supposed ties one would have to the home country of a sperm donor that you saw for a total of a few weeks in your whole life.

    I have asked you before to give me examples of any concrete change in US policies towards Kenya under this administration, compared to long-standing US policies. I know you are allergic to data, but I have a fondness for facts over theories, so humor me.

  187. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    I really would love some politician to take up this line of argument.

    To stand in front of voters and explain how their votes didn’t count because President Obama can’t prove that his father intended to stay in the United States. That the 2008 election should be nullified because, unbenownst to the voters, a President needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his father met the legally established rules of domicile.

    It would be grand theater at its best.

  188. avatar
    ron May 6, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    any child born to a foriegn diplomat on U.S, soil is not a u.s, citizen. Because their status theoretically takes their country wherever they go. So lets not fight lies with lies. THE PRESIDENT IS A U.S. CITIZEN PERIOD. HIS BIRTH WAS VERIFIED BY THE STATE OF HAWAII AS TRUE. EVEN IF HE WANTED TO SAY HE WAS BORN SOMEWHERE ELSE HE COULD NOT BECAUSE THAT BC HAS BEEN VERIFIED AS TRUE,

    My question for the women that support the GOP , how do you support a party that has a reputation for more disdain for the advancement of women than they do for minoroties. look at their stance on the Lily Ledbetter Act.

  189. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    I agree that someone should make an attempt to examine it.

  190. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    -“Read what you wrote again. Basically you just have a hinky feeling that something is wrong- without any actual evidence- and yet you want the President to act to aleviate your baseless fear?”

    It wasn’t a “hinky” feeling; it was the spelling of the names, the fact that there was no forthcoming answer about whether or not there was a receipt for a transaction for a COLB (when other more personal information was released). I am not going to rehash it now.

    -“When Census reports the results of this years census, do you expect you should be able to look at everyone’s census form?”
    Not everybody wants to be POTUS.

    – I want every presidential candidate to prove identity. I would like to see the same of all living presidents. I think McCain should have been forthcoming.

    – I hope the long form is in the library.

    – I have no power to demand anything.

  191. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    “Charo says:

    “I will object to beliefs that I find objectionable, especially when that person is involved in politics.”

    I never said that but was quoting someone else. So I don’t feel a need to address the rest of your reply when you can’t get that FACT straight.

  192. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    Then don’t reply.

  193. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    If I felt that you really wanted a civil discussion, I would answer. That is not the case here at this site.

  194. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    I adhere to both the tipping and driving admonitions.

  195. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Thank you may I have another?

  196. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    “If Obama’s marriage to Ann Dunham was “void ab initio,” the father of Obama is probably irrelevant, because Ann Dunham was from a legal standpoint an unmarried woman. US and British citizenship laws are different if you’re unmarried versus married.”

    That is true from what I understand.

  197. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    Got to give credit to Charo- that was my quote.

  198. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    “If I felt that you really wanted a civil discussion, I would answer”

    So you replied to say you wouldn’t reply?

  199. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    “The President’s attention is focused right where it should be-on the European financial crisis, the oil spill, the war in Afghanistan, terrorism, etc. This matter ended with the election. That you are too dense to realize that is kind of sad.”

    I didn’t start a website so that I could respond to it.

    I don’t think President Obama would have to be present at the hand-off of the COLB.

  200. avatar
    Scientist May 6, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    What you’re missing is that this matter is OVER, FINISHED, MOOT and has been since the election. Nothing to see. Move along.

  201. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    If a “birther” made the spelling errors contained in 5:04,… well never mind.

    I think she is incompetent because she should not supply information contained on birth certificates (or allow the Governor to do so without objection). Because she chose to do so, she has no good reason to withhold the answer to a non-personal question, such as is there a receipt showing that a request was made for a COLB in the relevant time period.

    That’s my final answer.

  202. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Then don’t respond to me.

  203. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    Ha!- well I give you credit for being able to spell better than I do, and for being more coherant than our typical birther poster. You even use paragraphs.

    Great- you think that Dr. Fukino is incompetent.

    Let me put it another way:

    If Dr. Fukino is lying, then she didn’t break any privacy laws(even assuming she may have) by sharing the information with the governor.

    If Dr. Fukino is incompetent and did not understand the document correctly, then she provided no private information.

    Only if Dr. Fukino provided a truthful response would there be any possible privacy concerns. And in that case, you would have a privacy issue with her, but Obama would be proven to be born in Hawaii, and you are left with trying to convince anyone that whether his father was domiciled in the U.S. matters.

  204. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    G at 4:19

    I did not see your response until now. It is easy to miss replies.

    I have some matters to take care of, but I want to respond to just one point: I can understand to a small degree what a Muslim woman would feel by the stares in wearing a head scarf and am not bothered by that. I go to the extraordinary form (EF) of the Catholic Mass and wear a chapel veil. Prior to the EF being offered more liberally under Pope Benedict, I wore my veil to the Mass in the ordinary form. I was very uncomfortable with standing out, for the most part. Muslim women wear head scarves as a matter of daily attire, whereas I wear one during Mass only. I do see a conflict between religious freedom and security matters. I wouldn’t want to be in the position to make that kind of decision.

  205. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    wait, I didn’t mean not bothered that women feel uncomfortable but that I am not bothered by the head scarves.

  206. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    SF Jeff 9:23

    “Ha!- well I give you credit for being able to spell better than I do,”

    Usually I would not bother with something as trivial as that. I trip up over my thoughts all the time. Substance is what matters and no one is submitting a thesis for a doctorate- at least I ain’t, being a dum birfer and all πŸ™‚

  207. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    Charo,

    I gave you a very lengthy, polite and civil response to your original reply to me. I even asked you a number of questions in a very civil manner.

    I find it odd that all of a sudden, after posting a lot of other posts, when I ask a bunch of straightforward questions in a non-threatening manner, that you won’t respond.

    I don’t get it. I see that you are probably unhappy with some others feedback to you, but so far, I’ve given you nothing but civil responses. So I’d hope that you could return to having a civil discussion. Thanks.

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    I would be most interested in British law regarding illegitimate children. I presume the British Nationality Act of 1948 is where to look. Also did Kenya allow polygamous marriages?

    I’m traveling this week and I can’t locate and paste hyperlinks on my phone easily.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    Flattery towards someone announcing youth but hanging out here.

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Tenant? Is Obama renting?

  211. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    The best advice I have is that the suit should have been agaist the Democratic party, probably before the convention, by an opposing delegate.

  212. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    tenant-tenent

    More proof that i am a dum birfer-

  213. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    tenant-

    and violated as well!

  214. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Charo,

    I apologize for overlooking the quotes on that one phrase and mis-attributing them to you instead of SFJeff.

    I have no problem admitting when I am in error and in this situation, I wrongly attributed his words to you, so feel free to strike that part of my reply as null & void.

    However, that in no way takes away for the other parts of my reply I directed to you, which DO use your words.

  215. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

    Tenant? Is Obama renting?

    *Answers above*

  216. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Yeah, kinda makes ya dizzy.

  217. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    “I find it odd that all of a sudden, after posting a lot of other posts, when I ask a bunch of straightforward questions in a non-threatening manner, that you won’t respond.” (G from somewhere above)

    I am not seeing all of the replies when they occur and also have been checking in and out. I do appreciate civility. I’ll try to answer as soon as I am able and can find the questions again!

  218. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    The “mountain of evidence” could all be sourced to the same spelling error.

    Yes, but only if the source of the spelling is Barack Obama Sr.

    The Kenyan Department of Education did not get Barack Obama’s name for the 1959 publication of “Otieno jarieko. Kitabu mar ariyo. 2: Yore mabeyo mag puro puothe” from Stanley Ann Dunham. They did not get it from the divorce records.

    What single source do YOU think gave us both the Department of Education publication AND the divorce proceedings?

  219. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    I think we have put up with the mindless birther wall of total denial so long that it takes a major effort to change gears when an oponent says something agreeable. I certainly did a triple take when I read your original comment.

    I was unaware of any instructions published about Kenyans reporting their race, so if you can locate it, I would be grateful.

  220. avatar
    Greg May 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Restated:

    If you and I can enter into a binding contract saying that the terms of the contract are going to be governed by the laws of Micronesia and arbitrated by a panel of the first three people we can pull in off the street, then I have no problem with two people agreeing to binding Sharia arbitration.

  221. avatar
    charo May 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    If this was directed at me, the link is above at 2:58 p.m.

    http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

    If not, then oops.

  222. avatar
    G May 6, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    Thank you for the response to that part of my question, charo.

    It is good to know that you are not bothered by head scarves in general and I respect and admire that you wear one to mass as part of your tradition & religious heritage.

    I’ve got a question about the EF, as I come from a Catholic background. Is that returning to the Latin mass style, sort of pre-Vatican II reforms? I’ve got some friends that perform as their church and are trained classical musicians and they said they much prefer the Latin mass, as the music was originally designed for it and that a lot was lost musically in translation to english. Just wanted your thoughts on that.

    I agree with you that issues of security and religious freedom can be in conflict and I just hope we can maintain a fair balance point that keeps us safe while still respecting and tolerating people’s religious & cultural rights.

  223. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    I am a convert to Catholicism and initially, was quite a long way from wearing a veil! Until Pope Benedict issued a motu proprio allowing the EF to be celebrated more readily, only the Bishop could give permission for its use. Even priests had to get permission for private recitation (I would guess that is the case because they now do not need permission).

    I am not one of those “trads” who think the OF is not valid. There are people who have waited years for the return of the old Mass and some of them have really been hateful toward the OF. The old Mass was suppressed; now it is not. I love the EF, but attend both forms (daily Mass when I am able is the OF).

    Sacred music is essentially lost in the OF. There is a sense of mystery that has also been lost. It is a matter of educating oneself to become familiar with the EF. Get a missal and have at it, I say.

    I intend to answer your other questions but have been distracted.

  224. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    I know I have seen research on this somewhere. You may find it before I get a chance, but I’ll look tomorrow if I am able.

  225. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    charo,

    Thanks for explaining and replying.

    I agree, it can be easy to miss a thread or reply on here, particularly as the number of replies gets fairly large. At some point, the “reply” function starts to breakdown as well, and a response will appear on its own towards the bottom, instead of embedded in the thread. Just a nature of the software in use here, but you get used to its flaws after awhile.

    If it helps, I’ve found that after you hit reply, you can always still highlight any text that you want to quote from a previous poster and click the (Quote) area next to the heading and it will paste that text in your reply window in a format that appears as indented text when you post. That way you can still carryover the point you want to reply to, even if the thread then gets broken and the reply appears elsewhere down the list.

    Anyways, here were some of the questions I had asked above that you might have missed and I was still hoping you could answer:

    1. As you pointed out, I had a pretty “broad brush” approach to categorizing birthers as being motivated by one or more of what I called the “BIG FIVE” real reasons this was an issue for them. I suspected that you fell under the “religion” based category, particularly of sub-category of fearing that he’s somehow a “secret muslim”. Would you say that is correct?

    2. Also, if you feel that is too “broad a brush”, I’d love to hear your thoughts of other exlanations I may have overlooked or even a further narrowing/clarification within that or any of the other “broad brush” categories I stated.

    3. Again, please provide your examples of “Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs”, as you did not supply any support for this statement and therefore it is impossible to understand your correlation to allowing Muslim women to wear a simple head scarf.

    I look forward to your replies and continuing a respectful dialog on these matters.

    I must say, it is refreshing to find someone who claims to be a “birther” who actually can carry on a civilized conversation that goes beyond just cutting & pasting the same tired talking points & ad hominem attacks over and over and over again that they’ve just regurgitated from other birther sites.

    A lot of us have become very jaded and easily lost patience with birther posters here, because its mostly been either the same debunked points over and over again with nothing new to add or what turns out to be made up insincere stories and intentional deception trolling, which quickly and understandably brings out our contempt.

  226. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    The link below explains marriage in Kenya but it is very complicated and difficult to determine what was in effect in 1961. The beginning of the article discusses a Marriage Proposal Bill but there are other parts that may be of interest. I found this email address of a possible contact person:

    The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya, juliemmuindi@yahoo.com

    http://infotrackea.co.ke/Resources/semapa/marriage/legal_marriage/index.html

  227. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    charo,

    Thanks again for sharing about your catholic experience & views on the OF & EF. I no longer participate in the Catholic church, but my background on both sides of my family is very Roman Catholic, probably going back for many generations and that is one of the predominant religions in the region I live in, so in addition to family, many of my friends and associates are of that faith as well, so I’m fairly well versed in it and respectful of it, even though I chose to no longer practice.

    I still find myself saying all the lines out of habit whenever I’m at weddings or funerals – LOL! Maybe out of curiosity, I’ll try to check out a Latin style mass someday, just to hear the wonder of the music!

    I am of the view that it is a good thing that Pope Benedict has relaxed the restrictions and allowed those that wish for a return to the Old Mass to be able to have it. I personally feel it is a good thing that people can choose which version of the mass to go to and I think that such a choice is a great expression of religious freedom.

  228. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    I would be most interested in British law regarding illegitimate children. I presume the British Nationality Act of 1948 is where to look. Also did Kenya allow polygamous marriages?I’m traveling this week and I can’t locate and paste hyperlinks on my phone easily.

    This is what I can find in the British Nationality Act of 1948. It’s not very helpful:

    “23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.

    “(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.”

    There’s conflicting information out there that probably would take a Kenyan and a US immigration attorney to resolve. According to genderindex.org, polygamy is forbidden for statutory marriage in Kenya, but not for Muslim or customary marriage. One would need to find out which form of marriage the first marriage was.

    Here’s something to support my view that bigamy is illegal in Kenya–from the Kenya Penal Code of 1930:

    http://www.kenyalaw.org/Downloads/GreyBook/Penal_Code_(cap_63).pdf
    Marriage And Domestic Obligations
    171. Any person who, having a husband or wife living, goes through a ceremony of marriage which is void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years:
    Provided that this section shall not extend to any person whose marriage with the husband or wife has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife if the husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, has been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and has not been heard of by such person as being alive within that time.

    Here’s a British court case about a polygamous marriage:
    Baindall v. Baindall (1946) described in “Family Law” by Francis Burton as “a case of a valid (albeit potentially polygamous) first marriage in India of a Hindu man who subsequently purported to marry an English domiciled wife in England. As the first marriage was clearly valid in India and therefore had to be recognised, and in England we do not practise polygamy, the second marriage had to be void.”

    I also found an immigration case on Francis Kodwo, decided in 2008. He was married in a “customary marriage” in Ghana, and he later married a US citizen. The case said, “The Director found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that her marriage to the beneficiary was valid, concluding that the beneficiary was not eligible to legally marry at the time of their marriage.” The US recognized the customary marriage as valid, so Kodwo had to provide documentation of a customary divorce. The evidence he supplied wasn’t adequate, so he wasn’t able to legally marry the American citizen. Unfortunately, I don’t have an example close to the date of Obama’s birth.

  229. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    1. As you pointed out, I had a pretty “broad brush” approach to categorizing birthers as being motivated by one or more of what I called the “BIG FIVE” real reasons this was an issue for them. I suspected that you fell under the “religion” based category, particularly of sub-category of fearing that he’s somehow a “secret muslim”. Would you say that is correct?

    – I don’t think he knows what faith he is. The President can never act alone so whether he is Muslim or not wouldn’t cause me any fear. The promotion of what appears to be socialistic ideals causes me fear, but not terror.

    2. Also, if you feel that is too “broad a brush”, I’d love to hear your thoughts of other exlanations I may have overlooked or even a further narrowing/clarification within that or any of the other “broad brush” categories I stated.

    – I don’t think I myself fall into any of your categories, so I believe that there are others who question this whole birth certificate mess who can’t be pigeon-holed. Why couldn’t he simply answer ages ago that he was born at such and such hospital? And why can’t he make it clear that he did indeed request his COLB because garsh, where else would it have come from? I don’t want to get bogged down here, but I don’t see the transparency from our President that you do.

    3. Again, please provide your examples of “Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs”, as you did not supply any support for this statement and therefore it is impossible to understand your correlation to allowing Muslim women to wear a simple head scarf.

    – A Muslim woman wears a hijab because it represents her religious beliefs. It is an outward sign to show her belief in modesty and chaste behavior. There was not a specific woman whom I had in mind but I was thinking in terms of the whole modesty issue and how Christians who try to promote chastity and modesty are treated in our society. If you are not one of those, and you don’t appear to be, please accept my apologies. Probably a weak answer, but I am tired and want to at least get some answers for you.

    Thanks for the advice on replying. I’ll have to look it over again at another time. I am not tech minded at all and don’t use any shortcuts or other techniques to even make my own responses more readable.

  230. avatar
    nemocapn May 7, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    Misha says:
    Michelle Obama, and Rabbi Capers Funnye, spiritual leader of a mostly black synagogue on Chicago’s South Side, are first cousins once removed. Second cousins.

    Now I understand the discrepancy. For a genealogist,first cousin once removed and second cousin aren’t the same thing. I’d explain it, but it usually bores people to tears.

    George W. Bush is my 10th cousin once removed, and Sarah Palin my 11th cousin. I’m not removed from her at all, but I’d like to be. In fact, I’d like to be removed from both of them as far as possible. If they ever met me, perhaps they’d feel the same way about me.

  231. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    I’ll try to check out a Latin style mass someday, just to hear the wonder of the music!

    -Make sure it is a high Mass and not a low one

  232. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    charo,

    Thank you very much for your replies. I hope you get a good night’s rest and I for one welcome you back another day when you have time to continue the conversation.

    You have been a refreshing change in the typical “birther” we receive, so I’m definitely open to revising my BIG FIVE to add another category – maybe #6 would be folks that are just very skeptical and prone to assume the worst might be true, because they’ve lost faith in government? Help me out with that one and let me know if you think I’m off the mark or getting close.

    I have to say that unfortunately, the propensity of “birthers” that we’ve seen comment on here or other sites have ended up pretty much falling quite easily into one or more of the “Big Five”.

    To make my post easier to read & follow, I’ll post some separate follow-up questions/comments to each of your other replies.

    Thanks again for the conversation and sleep well.

  233. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    Make sure it is a high Mass and not a low one

    Thanks for the advice! Oh, I did want to add that in the English mass that I’m used to, I do love to hear “Ava Maria”. That is my favorite and I always find it very emotionally stirring. Does that sound different or even better in high Mass?

  234. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 2:02 am #

    – I don’t think he knows what faith he is. The President can never act alone so whether he is Muslim or not wouldn’t cause me any fear. The promotion of what appears to be socialistic ideals causes me fear, but not terror.

    Thank you for your reply on this, which is an honest and fair response.

    The issues of policy are reasonable points of difference and honest disagreement between people. The issue of the extent of government involvement has always been a legitimate point of debate in this country, since our nation’s founding.

    Unfortunately, I think the opposition sometimes mis-characterizes legitimate policy viewpoints into hyperbolic language that appears more “sinister” by intent than it really is. “Socialism” has become one of those bogeyman terms, intending to scare people into thinking that Communist Russia is upon us or something like that, instead of legitimate and truly American issues of the role of federal government involvement that have always been with us and have always been part of our American way.

    If you tend to listen to Fox News or right wing radio and websites, you will hear a lot of this alarmist talk, characterizing just about every policy or action that democrats take in these terms.

    However, if you back away from the rhetoric and look at the actual effect of the policies being made, you will realize that life has not changed as much as those outlets would like everyone to believe, government control has not increased as much as they allude and capitalism and the marketplace are quite alive and well and will continue to be going forward.

  235. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Why couldn’t he simply answer ages ago that he was born at such and such hospital? And why can’t he make it clear that he did indeed request his COLB because garsh, where else would it have come from? I don’t want to get bogged down here, but I don’t see the transparency from our President that you do.

    Well, I can’t read the president’s mind, but from the public statements that either his campaign or administration have offered, I think they’ve made clear that they feel that they’ve provided more information in these regards that any president has in the past and feel that it is a bit offensive that they are being held to a higher standard on personal matters than anyone who’s come before.

    For one thing, “transparency” promises refer to promises for government to be more transparent – to which they have made a number of slight improvement here and there over what had been provided in the past: records of who visits the white house, releasing of certain government documents, etc.

    “Transparency” does not refer to one’s personal records or info. The public and the press have the right to ask and want to know every detail they can about someone’s past or private life, but simply put, the president does NOT owe answering any of those private questions.

    Obama is the ONLY president who has every offered up his birth certificate.

    Obama also wrote extensively about his entire life – publishing two best selling autobiographies, which were available prior to and during the campaign. That too is more info than provided by any candidate in the past that I’m aware of.

    He was fully open about drug use in his youth – issues that prior presidents tried to deny or dodge for the longest time (GWB always tried to dodge and remain silent on the issue of his prior cocaine use and refuses to answer questions about that or most of his prior drinking problems. Clinton tried to claim that he “didn’t inhale” – yeah, right.)

    On the matter of the hospital, the president did send that letter on official letterhead commending the hospital where he was born, if I remember.

    I don’t think your questions are unfair, just that you might not realize that you are applying a higher standard to this president for personal information over every other president that we’ve ever had.

  236. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    A Muslim woman wears a hijab because it represents her religious beliefs. It is an outward sign to show her belief in modesty and chaste behavior. There was not a specific woman whom I had in mind but I was thinking in terms of the whole modesty issue and how Christians who try to promote chastity and modesty are treated in our society.

    Christians wear the cross as an outward sign of their religious beliefs. You see people wearing crosses everywhere, so I don’t see any persecution there.

    Also, I see lots of women who dress very conservatively as a choice walking around everywhere. Just as there are lots of women who walk around dressed very “unconservatively” too. I can go to almost any public place full of people and see a mixture of such dress all in one place going about their business – from ultra conservative to ultra provacative, so I’m not sure I understand where you are seeing persecution and what I’m missing about your point here.

    Is it true that there are some people who are rude and tease/mock or even rudely stare or cricizse people that dress/act different than they do?

    Yes, unfortunately there are. But there always have been (every town has had its nosy, busybody, opinionated gossipy neighbors going back as far in time as I can think of) and these are individuals being rude and not respecting others differences, not matters of where people’s legal rights are not being protected. (Just to let you know, I do not condone or support such rude behavior.)

    Furthermore, such rudeness goes both ways: for every person rudely staring at a nun in full habit or an Amish family in traditional ultra-conservative attire, there exists people criticizing women for wearing jeans or calling women “slutty” just because they choose not to dress conservatively.

  237. avatar
    Scientist May 7, 2010 at 7:19 am #

    The difference is that a Muslim woman who wears a hijab (or an Orthodox Jewish or Christian woman who dresses modestly) are not demanding that others do what they do. I don’t know which “Christians promoting modesty and chastity” you have in mind, but I have absolutely no objection to them dressing modestly and acting chastely. In fact, I heartily approve. But, rather than “promoting” their views (i.e., attempting to impose them on others) they should let their behavior serve as a positive role model. Of course, we have all seen far too many ministers and priests (and rabbis and imams) whose private behavior has been revealed to be very different from what they “promoted”.

  238. avatar
    misha May 7, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    “In fact, I’d like to be removed from both of them as far as possible.”

    “Rabbi, is there a blessing for the Tsar?”
    “Of course. May G-d bless and keep the Tsar, far away from us.”

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    Charo: I was thinking in terms of the whole modesty issue and how Christians who try to promote chastity and modesty are treated in our society.

    I have observed that there are those who emphasize, embellish, misrepresent and publicize slights against Christians, inflaming emotions for the purpose of fundraising. I’ve seen it countless times on “Christian” TV programs. (They forget that Jesus said: blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.) If Christians are reviled in our culture it is either (a) because they are doing what is right, and the truth is never popular or (b) they are sanctimonious and bigoted and deserve to be reviled.

    The same strategy used by TV evangelists is used by right-wing political operatives who are fanning the “birther” myths.

  240. avatar
    misha May 7, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    “I do love to hear “Ava Maria”.

    This is my favorite.
    .

  241. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Although many people love it, Ave Maria is not sung as a matter of course. I believe I have heard it during Marian feast days. Maybe the Byzantine rite sings it more regularly.

  242. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    May use this in an article?

  243. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    “Is it true that there are some people who are rude and tease/mock or even rudely stare or cricizse people that dress/act different than they do?”

    I thought it would be a good idea to quote myself first.

    “Tell me G, why is it that the reasons a Muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab are respected by the liberals, but a Christian woman trying to exemplify her faith is targeted for her right wing beliefs?”

    Now, I will quote from you the words and phrases that jumped out at me when I read your comment (and I didn’t follow the thread closely- this just stood out).

    1) truly racists
    2) afraid of Muslims… hate/fear anyone who’s religion different than theirs
    3) felt a woman was “owed” the presidency and hate Obama
    4) brainwashed
    5) truly on the insane edge of paranoia

    I was thinking of (2) when I responded because frankly, it seemed at the time very hypocritical to not acknowledge that conservative Christians are also treated disrespectfully. But LOTS of thoughts were swirling around when I saw those words above. I wanted to respond more completely, but didn’t want to get off topic (which I of course did over and over anyways).

    I withdraw my statement because it paints liberals with the same kind of broad brush. I don’t know all liberals.

  244. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    They forget that Jesus said: blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.)

    – Doc, I was ahead of you on that one.

    Me from May 6, 12:29 p.m.

    “If I am persecuted for what I believe, then my tenet of faith states that I am blessed.”

    (pretend that I spelled tenet incorrectly- I think I used the word 4 times and the only time I spelled it correctly was above- it’s a sign πŸ™‚ )

  245. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    good grief- pretend that I spelled it correctly all the time I mean

  246. avatar
    charo May 7, 2010 at 8:46 am #

    I ask you to be patient because it takes time to find and answer comments.

    I have to pick up my repaired vehicle.

  247. avatar
    Angi May 7, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    I would love to hear about it personally, but I do genealogy as a hobby. For example, I’m a 2nd Cousin 8x removed from Issac Newton and John Locke which I suppose means barely related) whereas I’m a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer. πŸ˜‰

  248. avatar
    nbc May 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    The Bible also says (Romans 1:22)

    Professing to be wise, they became fools.

  249. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 7, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Doc,

    Is it possible to disable the nesting of comments? Nesting makes it nigh impossible to follow a discussion like this – which is a shame since this is one of the best discussions that I’ve seen on this site. It seems to me that nesting is a marginal improvement for short threads and an impossible tangle for long ones. At least give us the option to view posts chronologically if that is possible.

  250. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    I just posted this and it turned up as comment #31 on the thread – which only emphasizes my point. I’m reposting it in the hopes it will be added at the end of the thread where it will be noticed:

    Doc,

    Is it possible to disable the nesting of comments? Nesting makes it nigh impossible to follow a discussion like this – which is a shame since this is one of the best discussions that I’ve seen on this site. It seems to me that nesting is a marginal improvement for short threads and an impossible tangle for long ones. At least give us the option to view posts chronologically if that is possible.

  251. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    May your vehicle repairs be less painful than mine this week: new fuel pump, belt tensioner assembly & installation, serpentine belt, gas tank strap kit, fuel return line & sending unit, fuel line, fittings & 2 brake lines = 3 days of repairs = OUCH! Easily a four figure expense I wasn’t expecting.

  252. avatar
    G May 7, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    Although many people love it, Ave Maria is not sung as a matter of course.I believe I have heard it during Marian feast days.Maybe the Byzantine rite sings it more regularly.

    Well, I don’t know much about the Byzantine rites. In a typical RC church, I heard Ava Maria played often enough.