Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[Ivy Matt]

The "Birther" label is something of an umbrella term for believers or advocates of various different claims, some of which may be contradictory. I'll run down what I think are the main claims, and how today's news affects them.

Claim: "Barack Obama, Sr. is not Barack Obama's real father."

Status: Unaffected, as far as I can tell. Birth certificates don't require evidence of paternity, do they? At least, I'm sure they didn't in 1961. Of course, this claim does nothing to weaken Obama's eligibility to be president.

Claim: "Obama was born in Kenya, or somewhere outside the United States."

Status: Unless the administration did a really botched forgery job, which I think unlikely, I'd say this claim has been dealt a death blow. A few will protest, but I think most will decide it's time to cut their losses while they still can.

Claim: "Barry Soetoro was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, and is now an Indonesian citizen."

Status: Given that Obama was able to obtain his long-form birth certificate showing his biological father, this claim would appear to be mortally wounded as well, although for the President of the United States, many things may be possible. (Note: As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Obama used an Indonesian passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. The State Department issued a travel advisory for Pakistan in that year, but not a travel ban. Obama could just as well have used a U.S. passport.)

Claim: "Because his father was Kenyan, and a British subject, Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' according to the U.S. Constitution."

Status: Largely unaffected. Either you believe, as some do, that "natural born citizen" status is defined by Federal statute, or you believe, as others do, that it requires an interpretation of the Constitution. If you believe the latter, then there are really only nine people whose opinion matters on this subject, and you can safely ignore everyone else's.

[quixote]

For me there are two issues.

First, I want the same standard applied to Obama as was applied to McCain. In early 2008, there were tons of articles discussing McCain's eligibility, and they were't considered crazy or fringe or tin-foil-hat types. The Senate even passed a resolution signing off on the investigation of the issue done by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe. Where's the official investigation of Obama's eligibility?

Here are two articles from the NY Times that discuss the issue pretty reasonably.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... ccain.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/po ... ccain.html

Here's the press release from Patrick Leahy on the subject, followed by the report from Olson and Tribe.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_rel ... c97cd07b68
http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/M ... alysis.pdf

The second is my general skepticism of all things, especially government. Why all the hiding of the official documents? Why spend millions to hide something not worth hiding? When someone's being secretive, usually it's because they have a secret.

Lastly, while I consider the issue important personally, I don't consider it of any practical importance. Even if he turned out to be illegitimate, I have no doubt Congress would immediately pass a law retroactively legitimating everything he's done. No doubt the lawsuits immediately following would get thrown out like the eligibility ones have due to lack of standing.

[chrismb]

You guys should just change the constitution so anyone is eligible to become POTUS.

Why hold on to this crazy notion that everyone inside US loves the US and wants it to succeed, and everyone outside hates it and wants it to fail?

Or maybe it is a cultural thing... like; Americans all understand each other, whereas no-one outside can relate to the cultural problems of America.

....Riiiiiight !?

Just change your constitution! It's anachronistic in regards Presidential eligibility.

[quixote]

Why hold on to this crazy notion that everyone inside US loves the US and wants it to succeed, and everyone outside hates it and wants it to fail?

Or maybe it is a cultural thing... like; Americans all understand each other, whereas no-one outside can relate to the cultural problems of America.

I doubt anyone believes these things as you've stated them. The intent of the requirement is to try to ensure that anyone trying to become president will place the interests of the United States before other interests. I agree that at the present time simply being born in America and living here a while does not in any way guarantee that.

I'm surprised that you, as a citizen of the UK, don't appreciate the need for such a thing considering how your government has been trying like mad to subordinate itself to the EU. Where were Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from again?

Just change your constitution!

Changing the constitution is quite difficult, and probably unnecessary. Other requirements aside, I believe the Constitution only requires that one be a natural born citizen. Congress only needs to pass a law redefining what it means, and preempting or voiding previous laws, to effect such a change.

[ladajo]

Well, I think the laws have been passed, and even blessed by the 9 votes that matter.

Where his father is from is irrelevent. He has "a" parent that is US, AND it certainly appears fairly certain that he was born in the US, not that it matters, as he has the parent part nailed with his mother.

Again, I am no fan, but it is something to move on from.

[chrismb]

I'm surprised that you, as a citizen of the UK, don't appreciate the need for such a thing considering how your government has been trying like mad to subordinate itself to the EU. Where were Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from again?

If the only people standing for election here were those two jokers and a third-time divorced Texan Redneck truck driver with an alcohol problem who wears his boots in bed, who'd never left his State and who proposed to run the UK remotely by email, part-time on Thursday afternoons fortnightly, then I'd vote for the Redneck!!!

In point of fact [well, OK, my opinion], the politics of the EU have actually protected us from some of the excesses of this recent Labour government. It's a terrible thing to say - thank the Lord for EU socialism rather than our 'homegroan' stuff.

[bcglorf]

Upon some reflection this thread's title is really getting under my skin.

Jimmy Carter was the guy who decided that it was a good trade to pay North Korea millions of dollars in oil supplies and to deliver a pair of a GW light water reactors to them, in exchange for North Korea merely agreeing to abide by the NPT they were already signatories to. What has Obama managed to do that even touches that realm of stupidity?

The worst things I've seen leveled at Obama in the thread seem to be public health insurance and suspicions around his birth certificate. I take it the later is now as thoroughly dealt with as possible. As to the former, I don't quite see how universal public health insurance is inherently more vulgar to American values than even Bush's warrantless wiretapping and refusing the right to habeas corpus even exists within the constitution. See his hand picked AG:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFqYVAOosM

There is no express grant of Habeas Corpus, there is a prohibition against taking it away.

I'm no cheer leader for Obama. Nor am I anywhere near the left wing of things, I am an adamant supporter of both the Iraq and Afghan missions. But the complaints being thrown at Obama as though he's the worst American president that the nation has ever seen is just ridiculous. The worst thing I've seen him do is to squander all his political and public good will on a partisan fight over health insurance when he aught to have spent it against the economy and foreign policy. Next to Carter giving nuclear reactors to the worlds worst dictator to try and stop his nuclear ambitions, that just doesn't seem all that bad by comparison.

[/i]

[Diogenes]

I have to disagree with the Natural Born part. Given that his mother was a citizen, and had lived in the US, I think it is enough. Take a look at my argument on this back around page 5. I looked it all up and chained it together. The Constitution, framers, 1st Congress and follow ons, as well as the Supreme Court all think he is natural born.

Believe me, I am not an Obama fan, but I think his citizenship is not in question. Many other things yes, but not that.

That said, I will take a look at the links above for the "faked" certificate.

Yeah, I disagree. Not sure whether to bother posting the evidence why.

[Diogenes]

The "Birther" label is something of an umbrella term for believers or advocates of various different claims, some of which may be contradictory. I'll run down what I think are the main claims, and how today's news affects them.

Claim: "Barack Obama, Sr. is not Barack Obama's real father."

Status: Unaffected, as far as I can tell. Birth certificates don't require evidence of paternity, do they? At least, I'm sure they didn't in 1961. Of course, this claim does nothing to weaken Obama's eligibility to be president.

Claim: "Obama was born in Kenya, or somewhere outside the United States."

Status: Unless the administration did a really botched forgery job, which I think unlikely, I'd say this claim has been dealt a death blow. A few will protest, but I think most will decide it's time to cut their losses while they still can.

Claim: "Barry Soetoro was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, and is now an Indonesian citizen."

Status: Given that Obama was able to obtain his long-form birth certificate showing his biological father, this claim would appear to be mortally wounded as well, although for the President of the United States, many things may be possible. (Note: As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Obama used an Indonesian passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. The State Department issued a travel advisory for Pakistan in that year, but not a travel ban. Obama could just as well have used a U.S. passport.)

Claim: "Because his father was Kenyan, and a British subject, Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' according to the U.S. Constitution."

Status: Largely unaffected. Either you believe, as some do, that "natural born citizen" status is defined by Federal statute, or you believe, as others do, that it requires an interpretation of the Constitution. If you believe the latter, then there are really only nine people whose opinion matters on this subject, and you can safely ignore everyone else's.

You're assessment is fairly accurate except for one thing. It has a hole in it of which most people are unaware.

Documents produced by the state which are not original are really not very good proof. Every adopted child receives a birth certificate issued by the state with false information on it. I know because I am one. I have two birth certificates. The original with all correct information on it, and the "Official" birth certificate with different names for the mother and father.

These documents are amendable, and if amended (usually by a judge) the state will report them as though they were accurate.

Unfortunately, most people are unaware that you cannot accept non-original documents from the state at face value. I originally thought amended documents wouldn't contain the signature of the witness (delivery doctor) but after looking at my official birth certificate obtained just a few years ago, it does indeed have a doctor's signature on it. It is the signature of the same doctor on my original birth certificate, but my adoption took place when I was 4 years old, so the doctor's signature is the strange anomaly of him asserting something that did not happen.

Now I just don't know HOW you prove something is real, rather than what some judge decided you should see.

[bcglorf]

Now I just don't know HOW you prove something is real, rather than what some judge decided you should see.

I think that summarizes the ultimate conclusion of the deeply rooted birthers. There simply is NO amount of proof that would be enough. Sadly, the logical extension they refuse to make is that applying the same rules evenly instead of solely against Obama, would equally disqualify every single candidate there has and will ever be for the position...

[ladajo]

I have to disagree with the Natural Born part. Given that his mother was a citizen, and had lived in the US, I think it is enough. Take a look at my argument on this back around page 5. I looked it all up and chained it together. The Constitution, framers, 1st Congress and follow ons, as well as the Supreme Court all think he is natural born.

Believe me, I am not an Obama fan, but I think his citizenship is not in question. Many other things yes, but not that.

That said, I will take a look at the links above for the "faked" certificate.

Yeah, I disagree. Not sure whether to bother posting the evidence why.

Do you agree he is "natural born"? I did not understand what you meant.

I accept the released birth certificate, but think it was pointless to the point of law and constitutional rights regarding his citizenship.
His his mother was a US citizen and she had lived in the US enough to satisfy ties to the country, and that is enough to make Obama a "natural born" citizen.

In regard to John Mccain, and his citizenship, it is based on his parents and nothing else matters. The whole diversion in many folks arguments about being born on a US miltary base has no merit. US Military base or not births have no bearing on the citizenship standard. It is about the parents. US Military bases are not "Sovereign US Territory" is all dependant on the Status of Forces Agreements, MOA's & MOU's that allow establishment of the base. None of them treat the base as a sovereign ceding of territory. Cuba is a great example, ultimately it is Cuba, not US soil. We maintain the base on legal grounds to an existing agreement. But if you are Cuban and jump in over the fence, we do not recognize that you made it to "America". You get sent home.
Naval ships however, come under an entirely different rule set than land bases and do have sovereign rights.

Bottom line, as I see it based on my research,you can be born in town at a local hospital in a foreign country, and you are still american at birth ==> thus natural born american as it is based on blood and ties.

[Diogenes]

Now I just don't know HOW you prove something is real, rather than what some judge decided you should see.

I think that summarizes the ultimate conclusion of the deeply rooted birthers. There simply is NO amount of proof that would be enough. Sadly, the logical extension they refuse to make is that applying the same rules evenly instead of solely against Obama, would equally disqualify every single candidate there has and will ever be for the position...

Yeah, I keep hearing that used as an excuse to cover up the fact that people are still playing games with their birth certificate.

This is what a real one looks like. If we had not been playing games we would have submitted THIS document.

[Diogenes]

Did I mention that it was the same hospital just a few hours after Obama? His real document would look exactly like that, yet it doesn't.


Still playing silly games with this issue.


You con people, then con them some more, and finally con them a third time, and then complain that "No Amount of truth will EVER convince these people! "


I wonder why?

[bcglorf]

Now I just don't know HOW you prove something is real, rather than what some judge decided you should see.

I think that summarizes the ultimate conclusion of the deeply rooted birthers. There simply is NO amount of proof that would be enough. Sadly, the logical extension they refuse to make is that applying the same rules evenly instead of solely against Obama, would equally disqualify every single candidate there has and will ever be for the position...

Yeah, I keep hearing that used as an excuse to cover up the fact that people are still playing games with their birth certificate.

This is what a real one looks like. If we had not been playing games we would have submitted THIS document.

Well that seems perfectly reasonable. Here's an image of a Birth Certificate that claims to be that of someone born just hours after Obama at the same hospital. You apparently take this image as valid, true and convincing. Can you explain exactly what it is about the source of this image that makes you believe it is so much more reliable, accurate and trustworthy than the documents for Obama that have been repeatedly testified to as being accurate by all manner of officials? Who's verification is it exactly that you have seen for your posted image that leads you to put so much more trust in it than what Obama has presented?

Oh right, as you've already stated it's a circle and there is no end....

[bcglorf]

Diogenes, here's the document released yesterday. It looks pretty much identical to what you posted above as what you want. Can you explain your objections that still exist??????