So suggests John Avalon, in a Daily Beast column “The Secret History of the Birthers.” He traces birtherism to a Texas woman named Linda Starr, who was a Hillary Clinton delegate to the 2008 Texas state Democratic Convention. Avalon writes that Starr “was also cited as a key source for CBS’ discredited election year investigation into George W. Bush’s National Guard records that led to Dan Rather’s replacement after 24 years as the evening news anchor.” Avalon links to the Thornburgh/Boccardi report, which was conducted at the request of CBS News to examine CBS’s conduct in producing the infamous 60 Minutes story about Bush supposedly evading National Guard service and then having the records scrubbed. As the report details, Starr made the claim about Bush in an article on her website, three days before the 2000 presidential election. She also played a key role in serving as an intermediary for CBS to obtain the document which purported to be National Guard memo regarding the removal of NG records about Bush. The Thornburgh/Boccardi report does not claim that Ms. Starr knew that the document was a clumsy fabrication.
At the very least, however, the fiasco of the Bush National Guard story shows that Ms. Starr did not provide her Internet readers, or CBS, with a story which could withstand factual scrutiny. Accordingly, if Avalon’s reporting is correct, he has provided yet another reason for people to disbelieve the (already-implausible) assertion that President Obama was not born in the United States. In contrast to the way the mainstream media initially handled the 2004 Bush National Guard story, the mainstream media did a better job in 2008 by not embracing a story about a presidential candidate which could not be supported by solid, verifiable facts.
wehted says:
unless you classify Fox News as part of the MSM, then they have been touting that little ditty for awhile.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:56 amorca says:
The press did a pretty good job of ignoring the Swift Boat liars in the last election, too.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:15 amObserver says:
“In contrast to the way the mainstream media initially handled the 2004 Bush National Guard story, the mainstream media did a better job in 2008 by not embracing a story about a presidential candidate which could not be supported by solid, verifiable facts.”
The media did a pretty good job of ignoring every story that could have hurt this particular presidential candidate AND covering every story that could have hurt the other presidential candidate, in each case, regardless of whether any particular story was “supported by solid, verifiable facts.”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:27 amSteve says:
The irony of concocting a conspiracy theory to explain the origin of other conspiracy theories is not lost.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:54 am1040 says:
Somebody should do a story on the vast left-wing conspiracy:) oh, by the way, did they ever find that black baby? john mccain’s, i mean. i know they found strom thurmond’s.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:27 amThe record says:
A front page story in the New York Times falsely suggested that John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. The New York Times embraced that lie, gave it a big sloppy kiss, and nibbled its ear.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:33 am“Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard hoax: Fruit of the same poisonous tree? | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] here to read the rest: “Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard hoax: Fruit of the same poisonous tree? [...]
PunditKix says:
The Volokh Conspiracy » “Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard hoax: Fruit of the same poisonous tree?...
Trackback from PunditKix...
ChrisHo says:
The difference being that a major news organization used their position of trust in an attempt to sway an election to the candidate and party they are most associated with.
In other words, the stories do not compare.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:31 amSarcastro says:
Awright, media bias! The best part about threads like this is the sample bias is baked right in!
Because whether Bush got preferential treatment in the Air National Guard is about as sexy as whether the new exotic Presidential candidate is a secret foreigner! The only explanation is media bias!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:25 amMeredith M. says:
I heard that there are some Army personnel who are trying to avoid being deployed because Obama “wasn’t” born in the US. They are refusing to deploy and as a legal defense they are claiming that they can’t, as good soldiers, follow Obama’s order to deploy because he’s not a legitimate president/commander in chief.
A bunch of bunk if you ask me. But it shows that this isn’t just a problem with people holding signs, but something that is attempting to survive judicial scrutiny.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:27 amRusty Bill says:
Bush released his National Guard records.
Has Obama released his original birth certificate?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:30 amcboldt says:
I wonder how dual citizenship at birth relates to the phrase “natural born citizen,” as expressed in the Constitution. That issue has never been adjudicated.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:32 amWidmerpool says:
Is the Birther story any more ridiculous than the 2004 Vice-Presidential candidate, while campaigning for President in 2008, managing to have a baby by another woman behind his dying wife’s back–and makes a homemade sex tape of his antics just to spice the story up a bit–but is outed over these shenanigans by only the National Enquirer because no one else deigns to cover the story? Suddenly, the Birther story starts looking plausible. All the MSM has is its credibility; once that’s gone, Katie bar the door because every nut job wearing a tin-foil hat has a plausible explanation for the meaning of the universe (Douglas Adams needs to be resurrected and given his own Fox TV News primetime program).
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:34 amSarcastro says:
Widmerpool is right. I blame the MSM for the birthers, since they got scooped that one time by the National Enquirer.
Though I also would like Bush to release his original long-form National Guard records or he isn’t my former President!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:42 amPersonFromPorlock says:
At this point, there are probably more than a few Democrats in Congress wishing that someone would prove the birthers right. It’ll be interesting to see if, after the expected November bloodbath, some Democrats don’t begin to wonder aloud if the birthers don’t have a point.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:48 amRicardo says:
That’s like asking whether you have your original driver’s license to prove that you are eligible to drive. The Certification of Live Birth issued by the Hawaii Department of Health is official proof of all the details of birth. Obama’s record of birth has already been made public. End of story.
It actually was adjudicated by an Indiana appellate court in Ankeny v. Governor and was referenced on this blog a few months ago. The court rejected this argument and accepted the Wong Kim Ark formulation that a natural born citizen is anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:05 amEric Rasmusen says:
Even if the Certification of Live Birth issued by the Hawaii Department of Health has been released, and that should resolve the question of whether Obama was born in the US, as I understand it the question does remain of why he obdurately refuses to allow the original birth certificate to be released. If it says the same thing, why the stonewalling?
Where the birthers have a point is in asking that question.
I haven’t looked into this lately, but I recall that on looknig at what’s available I concluded that the likely answer is that although Obama was born in the US, his parents were not married at the time (and maybe not later– I forget). That’s sufficiently embarassing to explain the stonewalling about the birth certicate.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:21 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Similarly, Neil Armstrong obdurately refuses to sit for any interviews regarding whether or not he landed on the moon. Just an hour or two, and answers to a few pointed questions, would resolve the controversy once and for all. Why is he stonewalling?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:29 amHistory Punk says:
Eric Rasmusen,
“Even if the Certification of Live Birth issued by the Hawaii Department of Health has been released, and that should resolve the question of whether Obama was born in the US, as I understand it the question does remain of why he obdurately refuses to allow the original birth certificate to be released. If it says the same thing, why the stonewalling? ”
It’s probably for the same reason sane historians/astronomers/biologists refuse to debate Holocaust deniers, UFOologists, and creationists. Something about legitimizing the crazy.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:31 amRicardo says:
Eric, I don’t know what actual facts you are basing this theory on. A fairly brief Google session reveals Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother) has a reported marriage date of February 2, 1961. Obama Jr. was born on August 4, 1961. If this reported date of marriage was somehow wrong, you would think someone would have delved into Hawaii’s record of marriage certificates by now and broken the story.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:38 amcboldt says:
– It actually was adjudicated by an Indiana appellate court in Ankeny v. Governor ... –
Thanks for the cite (and correction of my error). I missed the discussion here, and this is the first time I’ve seen the case. I disagree with the Indiana Court’s analysis (basically, that Wong Kim Ark stands for the proposition that any birth in the US [e.g., foreigner on vacation in the US, raise child to adulthood in Japan or Korea] is a natural born citizen for presidential qualification purposes), but it has been adjudicated, and has been so decided.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:40 amButternut says:
The birther movement is hilarious because it is so easy for Obama to make utter and complete fools out of all of them. Figure he must be waiting for the most advantageous time to do so politically. He is a smart guy, ya know.
The fringes of the movement are starting to get way out on the edge. Some have gone so far as to postulate that Obama is his “grandfather’s” child by black prostitute or that Obama’s father was actually Malcolm X.
I prefer to think he was born on Niburu and emigrated to this country under the cover of the Vietnamese boat flotilla of the mid 70s.
Weird, though. He is a dead ringer for Malcolm X.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:43 amgeokstr says:
You already believe that the fascist rightwing SCOTUS selected Bush in 2000 over the clear will of the majority of those too stupid to punch a hole in a ballot correctly. Therefore you already think he isn’t your “former president” anyway.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:55 amWidmerpool says:
There is an obvious connection between the Edwards story and the Birther story as one may have inferred from the title of this post (“Fruit of the Same Poisonous Tree”). The birther story originated from Hillary Clinton supporters. Why would they concoct such nonsense? Might it have something to do with their frustration regarding how the MSM failed to look into either Obama or Edwards? Indeed, here’s a little thought experiment–if the Edwards story got the play it deserved when it first was known, would that have had some effect on the Iowa caucuses, which, in turn, may have had some effect on how the Democratic primary campaign played out? Don’t get me wrong–I’m not complaining about the outcome. I always saw Hillary Clinton as a much more formidable Democratic President. Thanks MSM.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:57 amSarcastro says:
[good one, geokstr! Both sides love them some illegitimizing of the President from the other party these days.
I, personally, am not one of those ‘selected not elected’ types, but your point stands. Though based on recend surveys, it does look like the right is more crazy (at least in quantity) at the moment.
Will the left top them when next the pendulum shifts? I’d liek to think we’re at a maximum, but never say never.]
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:11 amDesiderius says:
Linda Starr?
How do we know for sure that she’s a real person? Perhaps she’s a cover identity for a conspiracy between Linda Tripp and Ken Starr to remain vaguely infamous.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:15 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard hoax: Fruit of the same poisonous tree? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PunditKix, The Jaded JD and Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard hoax: Fruit of the same poisonous tree?: So suggests John ... http://bit.ly/aH2nan [...]
LN says:
Come on people.
Imagine that you’re a Kenyan economics student over in America in the early 1960s. You marry a white Kansan girl and then she has a baby in Kenya. As soon as little Barack Junior pops out, aren’t you going to start kicking yourself for eliminating his shot at the Presidency? I mean, there’s the civil rights movement going on, you’re only a few years away from the full legalization of interracial marriage... Wouldn’t the temptation to go back to Hawaii and have people forge a birth certificate and a newspaper announcement be overwhelming?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:34 amlgm says:
The difference is that much of the Bush National Guard story is true. He used family connections to avoid the draft by entering the Guard. He was often awol. These stories were not invented by a lone weirdo in Texas, they were confirmed and reconfirmed by mainstream journalists.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:46 amG. May says:
Oh I dunno about that. Forget about the huge “selected not elected” crowd, I thought we maxed out several years ago with the number of high profile lefties and people who self-identified as Democrats who thought 9/11 was an inside job.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:07 amTonetel says:
Please, tell Dan Rather and his legal team...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:08 amMalvolio says:
It always comes down to that. The MSM are stunningly biased, but it just doesn’t seem to help their cause. They try to smother stories (Kerry, Edwards, the ACORN thing) but that just keeps the stories alive. They try to slander Republicans (Memogate) but that just makes legitimate criticism seems questionable.
Maybe at some point, the liberal media will realize that their endless plumping for liberalism is bankrupting them and driving America rightward. Probably not; to paraphrase Ann Coulter (another beneficiary of left-wing bile), if they weren’t so stupid, they wouldn’t be liberals.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:11 amLeft-Wing(nut) Birthers « Random Musings of a Deranged Mind says:
[...] Via Volokh Conspiracy, I came across this interesting article. It traces the Birther hoax’s actual origins not to [...]
Tonetel says:
Sounds very similar to Andrew Sullivan and the fan boys with their never ending theories about Sarah and the family. Joy Behar has her own TV show on HLN dedicated to that very topic.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:12 amgeokstr says:
Given that the last survey I saw of this said that 61% of Democrats (Democratics? I’m never certain what any given ethnic group wants to be called these days) believe or aren’t sure whether Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, I’ll challenge your statement about who has more crazies at present.
I’m not a Birther myself, but I hear that most would give up this nonsense if they saw one thing, the long form Birth Certificate, which Obama could authorize for the standard $10 document fee, but instead prefers to pay big legal bucks to avoid showing. By way of contrast, there is literally nothing that could prove to the satisfaction of Truthers that Bush didn’t know about 9/11 in advance, making it in PopperSpeak “unfalsifiable”, and rendering such belief more in line with religious dogma than anything else.
Oh, and did I mention the 2004 Diebold lunatics?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:16 amLN says:
The “selected not elected” thing is hardly loony; it’s a matter of framing. I’d say it’s less insane than referring to the proposed healthcare bills that have received majority votes in the Senate and the House as “Obamacare,” not to speak of the routine referral to Obama’s mainstream economic views as “radical socialist”.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:22 amwolfefan says:
I need to go dig out my car to go to work, so I can’t hunt it up but in one of the numerous birther threads we’ve had here before relevant portions of Hawaii law were posted to show that what you see is what there is. Contra Geokster, Obama cannot pay a $10 fee to get the original birth certificate released — Hawaii won’t do that. The $10 (or whatever it really is) gets you what you have right now, which is prima facie evidence in any court per the state.
I remember the thread because of 24ahead’s argument that the GOP establishment in Hawaii would gladly violate state law to release the original certificate on Obama’s request. Of course, if that happened then the birthers would use the fact that Hawaii law does not allow for the certificate’s release to slam Obama for overriding Hawaii law, and why would he do that NOW except that it took this long to doctor up a convincing fake?
My own guess is that Obama is hiding exactly what Ronald Reagan was hiding, since he never released his original birth certificate either. Too bad we didn’t have an internet then to call out this obvious fraud and faker.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:35 amBrett Bellmore says:
I never thought the birthers were right, but I have thought from the beginning that, if the Constitution is going to require you to be a “natural born citizen” to be President, there ought to be some mechanism in place for verifying it, formally. Satisfying a NYT reporter not qualifying as such a mechanism. The willingness of the courts to take clauses of the Constitution, and render them unenforcible by declaring that nobody has standing to sue for their enforcement, is very troubling.
Oh, and I think that if we were really enforcing that clause, it’s McCain who would have been in trouble; He doesn’t appear to have been a natural born citizen when he was born, and can you really make somebody such, retroactively, by legislation?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:10 pmJPG says:
Do you seriously equate the above statement with the Birthers movement? Whether or not to believe President Bush had been informed of Al Qaida’s whereabouts before 9/11 doesn’t make it a conspiracy theory, as it could very well mean the threat was deemed unimportant by the president and/or the intelligence services prior to the attack. It doesn’t give Bush et al. an active role in the making of the plot scenario, like you seem to claim.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:12 pmConstantin says:
I’d prefer a college transcript or an SAT/LSAT score.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:14 pmConstantin says:
Maybe he got it from here:
I don’t know, and don’t care, whether Obama’s parents were married when he was born. But his own wife has said they weren’t, on more than one occasion.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:20 pmLN says:
Oh God funny how these debates just go round and round.
Let’s say Obama was a pure AA selection to Harvard Law — say he scored a –12 on the LSAT and had a D– average at Columbia, but he was black, so what the hell. And then the guy goes on to graduate magna cum laude, serve as President of the Law Review, eventually gets elected Senator and President. Oh noes! How embarassing for affirmative action! Those poor people who served on the admission committee — it must be hard to live every day with so much regret.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:21 pmLN says:
Constantin — wait, Obama saw how single his mother was when she had him? And you don’t think such a precocious newborn got good LSAT scores?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:25 pmLoren says:
She’s a real person. Her actual name is Linda Belcher. She’s named in some of the intra-Birther lawsuits.
She is not, however, the first Birther, as Avalon proposes. She’s a major early player, and I did not previously know that she was responsible for enlisting Phil Berg to the cause, but she’s not Birtherism’s creator.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:28 pmJPG says:
Seeing how the Birthers movement is harming the Republicans more than the Democrats, it wouldn’t surprise me that — as the next sexy conspiration theory — Obama himself originated the whole story.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:36 pmA. Criminal says:
Accordingly, if Avalon’s reporting is correct, he has provided yet another reason for people to disbelieve the (already-implausible) assertion that President Obama was not born in the United States.
I, too, have complete faith and trust in Mr. Obama. After all, he’s Our President, and therefore he’s a citizen — it says so right in the Constitution!
Wrong. But I’m sure there’s some simple and innocent explanation as to why his actual birth certificate remains under wraps — perhaps he just wants to create and maintain an aura of mystery (all in good fun, of course); or perhaps he can’t show that he’s “the person whom the record is concerned with” because, Catch-22 style, they won’t release his birth certificate! And why waste $10 on paperwork when you obviously don’t have to?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:42 pmslimslowslider says:
good to see your posts, loren. thanks for the updates on all things birther.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:53 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I agree with Brett.
But I think the situation now is like after a wedding, when you’ve passed the “speak now or forever hold your peace” stuff. Once Jan 20 has come and gone, the opportunity to raise questions about the candidate’s qualifications is over.
Don’t understand the equating here with Bush’s National Guard record, though. You don’t have to be a veteran of the TNG to be Pres, but you do have to be a natural born citizen. Theoretically. There’s nothing really to stop you if you aren’t.
Him and his sister. Try to raise him and his sister. Dang.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:55 pmRandy says:
Or perhaps that, especially at this point, the birthers simply won’t be impressed by the so-called ‘actual birth certificate.’ The usual suspects will proclaim it a fraud, a forgery, not valid, and proof that Obama will stoop to anything in his thirst to turn the US into a stalinist camp.
Anyone who seriously believes that the birthers will suddenly be quieted by any evidence, no matter how conclusive, is fooling themselves. How do I know it? because Obama has in fact given conclusive proof of his citizenship — the Hawaii document, certified by independent officials, verified by contemporaneous birth announcements in the local paper at the time of his birth — and THAT hasn’t been accepted by the birthers.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:56 pmFub says:
Way too low standards there, Sarky Dude!
I say either the heirs of Robert Jenkins produce his ear, or George Washington ain’t my former president!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:03 pmLN says:
Interesting that Obama’s mother forged a newspaper announcement of his birth in Honolulu. What a prescient woman — at a time when establishing voting rights for black people was controversial, she was thinking that her son could be President one day and wanted to cover his tracks.
Obama has of course released a copy of his certified birth certificate, which naturally has survived all scrutiny. I’m fascinated by this posturing of “I’m not a crazy nutjob, but isn’t it suspicious that he hasn’t done more to address my completely insane concerns?” And the crazy people commenting from the public library profess to be small-government libertarians! Weird.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:04 pmGuest14 says:
The page you linked concerns acquiring a certified copy of birth records. Obama has already released a certified copy of his birth records. That isn’t good enough for the birthers. They want him to raid the vaults of the Hawaii state government to liberate some decades old piece of paper.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:08 pmzuch says:
You mean Clinton’s:
That was the “Danny Williams” crapola the RW foamers (like Chris Rudd and the Western ‘Journalism’ Center) cobbled up....
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:22 pmzuch says:
Nope. There’s no documentation (and witnesses to the contrary) for his alleged “service” while he was falling off of barstools and coming in at noon hung over in Alabama.
One thing that is indisputable: He lost his flight status for failing to get the required physical — unless you suggest that his being grounded was due to something else.... ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:26 pmluagha says:
It’ll really just have to wait until 2012 when some Secretary of State refuses to register Obama for the ballot until he gets to see the long-form birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital.
That’s the next time anyone will have some kind of standing.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:30 pmzuch says:
Who says there’s an “original”?
But one reason I can surmise for refusing such ‘requests’ is that it is not required, and just encourages (and rewards) more bad behaviour. And accomplishes nothing. The “birthers” won’t be satisfied no matter what he does. Isn’t this clear by now?
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:31 pmArthurKirkland says:
I don’t mind birther activity. It keeps the fringers occupied, much like the gun threads at this site.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:40 pmzuch says:
If you’re purporting to divine what Sarcastro is thinking, you’re easy pickings for such as the “birthers”. You need to work on that ... albeit the prognosis is not favourable.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:47 pmluagha says:
“it .. just encourages (and rewards) more bad behaviour.”
That’s why Bush signed the general form 180 releasing all of his military records to anyone who asked for them bar none.
It’s a basic contrast, and it’s how we know Obama is not really an American. When an American is presented with a rational request for paperwork that is easy for him to fulfill (ten bucks and a signature) he does so.
But, because Obama is a weasel, he does not. And since as we know all weasels are born in Weaselvania, we can therefore deduce that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the US.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:49 pmzuch says:
... and those numbers were?!?!?
FWIW, though, LaRouchites “self-identif[y] as Democrats”. The love is unrequited.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:50 pmbyomtov says:
Brett,
I never thought the birthers were right, but I have thought from the beginning that, if the Constitution is going to require you to be a “natural born citizen” to be President, there ought to be some mechanism in place for verifying it, formally.
From the beginning. Right, Brett. You agitated to see W’s birth certificate, and Clinton’s, and H.W. Bush’s, all the way back. I mean, you must have. Surely this isn’t a new-found concern, since you don’t think the birthers are right.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:50 pmzuch says:
Agreed. There is the legitimate question as to whether Dubya actually understood the Aug. 6th PDB....
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:53 pmDilan Esper says:
I never thought the birthers were right, but I have thought from the beginning that, if the Constitution is going to require you to be a “natural born citizen” to be President, there ought to be some mechanism in place for verifying it, formally.
There is. It’s just that it doesn’t satisfy people, and indeed, is a nice demonstration of why Marbury v. Madison had to come out the way it did.
The mechanism that is in place is that the Congress can refuse to certify the election of an ineligible candidate. (I would argue there are also some informal checks as well– parties would refuse to nominate such a candidate, and voters would refuse to vote for one. But the certification is the formal check.)
In the end, people often don’t trust the political branches to interpret the Constitution. And that’s why Marshall stepped in.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:05 pmJardinero1 says:
My understanding of the birth certificate not being released is because there are elements in the Democratic Party that are fearful of the public reaction when they find out that Obama’s parents were just unmarried but also that Obama’s father was black.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:08 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Surely there’s someone on these pages who was born in Hawaii, has ten dollars and would share with us what the State sends him as an ‘original’ birth certificate?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:12 pmjukeboxgrad says:
luagha:
Really? Are you sure? Can you prove that? See here:
If Bush signed SF-180, why did McClellan say “I don’t believe he signed any form?” And since McClellan said “I don’t believe he signed any form,” then why are you and lots of other people claiming he did?
And it turns out that what Bush did release was highly incomplete. But it still contained enough information to demonstrate that he had failed to meet his obligations.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:14 pmG. May says:
The my-conspiracy-theory-is-better-than-yours tone this thread has taken is amusing.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:19 pmjukeboxgrad says:
constantin:
You might be implying that other candidates (like Bush and/or Kerry) released their transcripts. Trouble is, they didn’t.
Bush didn’t voluntarily release his college transcript. It was leaked. See here.
Kerry did eventually release his transcript, as part of releasing his military records. Candidates Bush and Kerry did not voluntarily release their college records. With Bush, it wasn’t voluntary, and with Kerry, it only happened after he was no longer a candidate. By the way, have you seen McCain’s transcript? Or Palin’s? Romney’s?
Why are you asking Obama to do something these other candidates did not do, and were not asked to do?
I’ve also tried pretty hard to find the place where the birthers explain why they are demanding to see proof of Obama’s birth, after never making any such demand with any prior candidate or president. GWB’s daddy spent 14 months in China, and did plenty of other travel during his lifetime. How do we know where Dubya was really born? Palin can see Russia from her porch. How do you know she wasn’t born there?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:24 pmjukeboxgrad says:
person:
WSJ is obviously part of The Great Establishment Conspiracy to Subvert the Constitution and Keep the Usurping Brother in the White House:
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:27 pmEconGrad says:
Personally, the only thing I find credible about the birther arguments is from the actions of Obama himself. In one of his books he says his original “long form” birth certificate is one of his prized possessions. That would seem to mean that it is unlikely that he lost it. Unless he’s just an ass (which he may be, and if he is, he has a right to be) why wouldn’t he release a photocopy of it? I mean it’s not like anybody is going to use it to try to steal his identity. The counter arguments about Armstrong not debating the “we didn’t go to the moon” crowd don’t really work for me because there’s a world of difference between debating an idiot and getting sucked into their lunacy (and possibly saying something stupid yourself in the process) and releasing a copy of a piece of paper that should conclusively put the matter to rest. Yes, some people would then say the long form birth certificate is faked. But at that point what they are saying is that no proof is sufficient and the vast majority of folks can commence (or continue) ignoring them.
Sure the COLB should be sufficient to put an end to the question — and it would be if he were an average Joe. Since a COLB is really nothing more than a record in a database that has been printed out onto paper, and since databases are rather easy to modify (I do it for a living) I’d have a lot more faith in his “long form” original than I’d have in some database record that could have been inserted by a helpful supporter with the right database privileges.
I’m not a birther and am far past caring at this point, but I also don’t necessarily think it is a completely moot point either.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:45 pmjukeboxgrad says:
observer:
Really? The media did “a pretty good job” of “covering every story” that could have hurt McCain? I guess that’s why it took a UK paper to write the first big pre-election story about the despicable way he treated his first wife. LAT covered the story a month later, and WP covered the story three months after that. As far as I can tell, NYT didn’t say much about it.
Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright got a lot more mainstream ink than Carol Shepp did, even though we learn a lot about McCain’s character by noticing the way he treated her. (More details about the way McCain cheated on Carol are here.)
The press also ignored McCain’s record as a pilot, even though there are important questions that have never been answered. And McCain has not released his service records (and academic transcripts), and we did not hear demands for him to do so.
So your claim about the press doing “a pretty good job” of “covering every story” that could have hurt McCain is false. A google site search at NYT shows this many hits for Carol Shepp and/or Carol McCain: 481. And this many for Jeremiah Wright: 2090. And this many for Bill Ayers: 1050. At WP, those numbers are (respectively) 175, 3520, and 1870. The truth appears to be the opposite of what you claimed.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:52 pm1040 says:
But, zuch, 9/11 does not count. Didn’t you know there wasn’t a single domestic terror attack under Bush?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:55 pm1040 says:
I agree with the birthers, myself. I think Barack Obama is an alien, and the only way I will be convinced is if he lets me take DNA samples from him and test that they are indeed human.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:57 pmLN says:
Unless he’s just an ass (which he may be, and if he is, he has a right to be) why wouldn’t he release a photocopy of it?
So if he released a photocopy of it, you would be perfectly satisfied — because while databases are easy to modify (you do it for a living), photocopies are absolutely unforgeable?
Who is being fooled by this pretense of sanity? Why not just eat your keyboard?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:01 pmmattski says:
Words of wisdom, Arthur. What a country!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:04 pmConstantin says:
Because none of these other candidates was sold to America as a transcendent genius who, despite no experience germane to the job he was seeking, would rely primarily on an inherently superior intellect to govern.
Within the past month, his own senior advisor has invoked this purported genius to justify his decision making.
What’s the big deal? Let’s see how smart the guy really is. Trouble for you guys is I think you really know . . .
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:09 pmjukeboxgrad says:
econ:
His books are searchable at Amazon. I can find one place where he mentions having a birth certificate (“Dreams,” p. 24):
I don’t see where he claims that it is “his original ‘long form’ birth certificate,” and I don’t see where he claims it is “one of his prized possessions.” Can you show us?
He is describing something in his possession “when I was in high school.” He has covered a few miles since then. Why is it “unlikely that he lost it?”
And you’re not the only birther to pretend that his words mean something other than what they said. You seem to be channeling something that was said here.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:24 pmGuest14 says:
It’s inconceivable that a Real American would lose something that’s rarely useful and easily replaced!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
constantin:
If someone wants to know whether or not he’s “a transcendent genius,” then his transcripts wouldn’t prove anything that is not already demonstrated by the fact that he graduated HLS magna cum laude, and that he was president of the Law Review. That (and the other available evidence) was sufficient to prompt this comment:
From someone who is obviously not an Obama supporter. So the people who irrationally dismiss his proven credentials as some kind of AA fraud (even though, for example, HLS uses blind grading, like many other law schools) would also dismiss his transcripts, on the same irrational basis. Just like they would find an excuse to dismiss any additional birth-related documents that ever appeared.
The people who dismiss his proven academic credentials have no right to be seen as sincere when they express an interest in seeing his transcripts. They are simply trying to promote a falsehood: that he has failed to release what other candidates released. That falsehood is circulated regularly, at VC and elsewhere (example).
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:43 pmscattergood says:
There really are two main threads of the ‘birther’ position:
1) Because Obama was born of a US citizen and non US citizen parents, he cannot be a natural born citizen. The definition of natural born citizen, in their opinion, goes back to the late 18th century and is defined as being born of TWO US citizens. I do not believe the facts of this line of thinking has been adjudicated. Donofrio’s suit made it to the SCOTUS, but was not heard. It was an appeal on the issue of standing that was refused to be heard.
2) The other line of birther thought is that Hawaii had, and still has, a law that allows the registration of births in the state for births that happen OUT OF THE STATE. That’s right, here is the pertinent law:
Thus the issue isn’t whether Obama has a certification of live birth, it is the value of such certifications given the fact that they are issued for children born out of the state. Yes his says the location was Honolulu, but since in Hawaii you seemingly can register the birth of a child just by saying you lived there, the quality of such records are in the birther’s minds suspect.
This situation is compounded by the fact that Obama refuses to release ANY other record like school records which would help confirm or deny his birth location.
Further, seemingly all refusals of the courts to deal with this issue rely on the issue of standing. If Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, the courts think that voters and citizens aren’t hurt by that fact and have no cause of action.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:56 pmSammy finkelman says:
The question of who is responsible for the birther arguments s probably a very complicated conspiracy. I do get the feeling it is teh kind of accusation that, if it got out of hand, could easily be rebitted so it looks like something designed to discredit the people making it. We probabkly don’t know enough to figure out who is behind it. It might also be taht actually theer is a little problem with Obama’s birth certificate — like maybe what name was on it or perhaps different changes made at different times.
Of course the President who may really have altered his birth certificate is Bill Clinton — to escape the draft. In the 1980 Almanac of American Politics he’s about teh only person without a date of bIrth (only a
YEAR — 1946) I kind of feel that with Bill Clinton, there must be a *reason* fpr that. did he originally ue a different date of birth, and then get it corrected after the Draft lottery? His step-uncle was politically influential eneouygh maybe to do this. What date of biirth did he use in High School or college? Does anyone know?
And also of course theer may have been a President not born in teh United States — Chesater A. Arthur. He may have been really born in Canada. When he first got involved in polituics perhas it was simpler to say he was born in the United States so he would have unquestioned citizenship.
It is Obama’s half brothers by a nother white woman bigamously married to Barack Oabama Sr. who were born in Kenya.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:57 pmDan Hamilton says:
The problem is’t his birth.
It is his Indosiean(sp) or British citizenship.
1. Did he use a Non-US passport to go on his world tour(in college)?
2. Did he claim foreign citizenship to get into college or law school?
3. How did he pay for his tour or college? Where did the money come from? Did he get it by claiming non-US citizenship?
If after the age of 18 he used a non-US passport and claimed to be a non-citizen to go to college, I cannot see how he could be considered a natural born citizen even if he was born here. The purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to stop someone from becomming president who’s loyality wasn’t to the US.
I believe his birth certificate lists his citizenship as British from his father. His transcripts list him as a non-citizen.
We still know next to nothing about President Obama. The courts have blocked any cases saying they had no standing.
But all you nay sayers are right, it makes no difference.
Someone who doesn’t care about his US citizenship or the US is great as president. A man who maybe anti-US has been groomed to be president by people who hate the US.(Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, etc) But that doesn’t matter, because none of the questioners can PROVE anything. The documents are all sealed.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:14 pmLN says:
The issue isn’t his citizenship, it’s whether he’s human or not.
An alien President would be a catastrophe for humanity. Not only may he act against the interests of the United States, but he may act against the interests of all mankind. He can be groomed by Alpha Centaurians and Cylons to undermine our entire species.
Maybe even worse would be an Earthling non-human President; he may be acting to promote the interests of another species — possibly even another genus — to challenge fifty thousand years of homo sapiens dominance. Who knows how harshly the horses will treat us when they assume power? They’ve had many generations to build up resentment and anger.
The thing is, even a year into his Presidency, we have no idea if Barack Obama is human or not — and we may not be able to find out, even after he spends eight years as President and destroys the Treasury building with mind-control rays on live television. It’s very troubling.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:26 pmBob from Ohio says:
I wonder if Linda Starr knows Andrew Sillivan too? That might explain his kooky theory.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:28 pmMartyA says:
The birth certificate is simply a White House, left wing diversion. They have built a straw man. Obama has concealed a whole array of personal documents, only one of which is his actual birth certificate. Buried in that paper work is one or more facts that his masters felt would work against him in the general election. What secret(s) he is hiding is known only to the group that met secretly in Chicago, several years ago. It could be that he is HIV positive, a recovered addict, a Saudi citizen or any one of a dozen nasty things. He ain’t talking.
But, it isn’t JUST the birth certificate we want to see, it is what any real American would not have trouble showing, warts and all.
In fact, my bet is that Obama’s masters were planning to show the real birth certificate, no matter what it says, before the 2012 election to divert all attention from the real secret.
Alas, they assumed that the voters eyes would still be clouded by His aura. They are wrong; we now know what an empty suit he is and know that he will continue to prove that reality every week.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:59 pmWhitehall says:
The REAL issue can be seen with your own eyes by googling images of the mature Pres. Obama, Obama Sr., and Frank Davis.
I think the resemblence in both face and build between our president and Mr. Davis is more than coincidence as is his LACK of resemblence to Obama Sr.
This would be a personal embarrassment to anyone and a matter of privacy I would grant anyone.
EXCEPT, Obama has been making political hay off his supposed descent from Obama Sr. the Kenyan. He has also published two best selling books the revolve around that assertion.
I suspect that the real birth certificate would expose his genetic parentage and hence the fraudulant parts of his public persona.
I’ll readily grant his American “natural born citizenship.” The “birther” demands to see the core records is just a way to force Obama to continue to hide it at continued political cost for his lack of transparency.
Hardball politics on both sides — in the words of the immortal Gomer Pyle, “Surprise surprise”.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:05 pmJPG says:
Lets be frank here, if I inherited of any foreign citizenship by jus sangui, and I somehow could use my foreign passport as a mean to improve my academic or professional situation, I would. What would it say about my patriotic sentiments towards any of the two nations involved? Nothing.
Your standards to set one’s loyalty to the nation are flawed, if I may put it very politely.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:12 pmjukeboxgrad says:
econgrad:
scattergood:
I love all birthers, but I especially appreciate the birthers who promote birtherism while claiming (explicitly or implicitly) that they aren’t birthers. This tells us that they understand the stigma of birtherism.
But the GOP is stuck with that stigma. “28% of Republicans don’t believe Obama was born in America” (link). And another 30% say “not sure;” only 42% say “yes,” in answer to the question “Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?” In other words, most Republicans are not rational enough to understand that (according to WSJ) “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
The rational Republicans are a minority in their own party, which means they are going to have a hard time getting the irrational Republicans to shut up. And that’s good news for the rest of us.
More birtherism, please.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:25 pmscattergood says:
Yup, another fine smear campaign and attack squad regular response.
You don’t actually deal with the facts, just say, ‘hey everbody who thinks this way is crazy!’.
Let’s add some more in for fun shall we:
1) Until June of last year the State of Hawaii Homelands program did not accept COLB’s for their program. They REQUIRED the long form birth certificate. That’s right, for a State of Hawaii program the COLB wasn’t sufficient, but for the presidency, it’s good enough?
2) The newspapers who print birth announcements did so based on State of Hawaii birth registration, not hospital notification.
But again, according to you to even ask these questions makes somebody a narrow mindied, bigoted, racists reactionary.
And as always, you don’t even go into the implication that individual voters are not harmed by somebody who breaks the specifics of the Constitution. Let’s see what if there were a religious test for a gov’t position, and you sue. The case is dismissed because you didn’t every apply for the position and thus weren’t harmed by the requirement. Nah, that wouldn’t be a problem.....
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:39 pmjukeboxgrad says:
geo:
The “last survey?” Was there ever more than one? And for the one you are thinking of …
(Link.) And that’s true: he did.
So your comparison fails. Here’s another reason it fails: 9/11 truthers received little or no support from prominent elected officials (former and current). On the other hand, the birthers are indeed getting support from elected (former and current) Republicans. And here’s another reason it fails: DailyKos is the leading D blog, by far. Do you know how it handled the truthers? It rejected them completely. Those who refused to stop promoting trutherism were banned. Kos purged the truthers.
Compare this to how leading righty blogs are handling birtherism. The biggest righty blog, arguably, is Instapundit. He promotes Tom Maguire, a leading birther. And Maguire promotes Andy McCarthy of NRO, another leading birther. Yes, National Review, founded by Buckley, is now a platform for birtherism.
As former Republican John Cole has pointed out, “the entire party has been taken over by crazy people.”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:39 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, no you don’t.
I followed a physics blog (a physics blog!) for years until it got taken over by Truther nutcases. It was decidely not based on some disagreement over whether Bush took some memo unseriously before 9/11. I have a fair amount of knowledge about the claims, supporters and depth of this conspiracy theory. I don’t think you even know much about it.
It is about all the deliberately set thermite charges that were planted to bring the towers down, and how fire can’t melt steel girders, and how the third building fell faster than the law of gravity would allow, and how the videos of the planes flying into the towers were faked, and how the Jews all stayed home from work that day, and how Bush and his friends planned to make billions by starting a war, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
There are quite a few tenured professors who are still trying to prove that Bush not only knew about 9/11, but that he was also in on it. The movement was large enough that both Popular Mechanics and the History Channel felt compelled to do exhaustive studies to disprove these crazies but it did no good.
Here is the leftwing version of the Truther movement:
9/11 Truth Movement
It’s openly declared adherents include not only those professors, but some of the left’s fave Hollywooders. The theory has inspired a number of “crockumentaries”, and is international in scope. Large minorities in Muslim countries are total believers.
If you are trying to equate the “birthers” to the size and scope of the “Truther” movement, then I’ll just write it off as another in a long line of BS moral equivalencies that the left likes to fantasize about.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 5:48 pmzuch says:
We saw already with his address to the Republican luncheon. And he’s invited you back for more. But I understand that Republicans have become a bit gun-shy.... ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:07 pmgeokstr says:
Well, JBG, I realize that I am contradicting one of the world’s foremost finest self-proclaimed experts who knows more about everything than just about anybody else, but you obviously know little about the Truther movement.
As I stated above, because of my interest in the science, I followed this “movement” quite closely for a long time, and you are totally incorrect to try to mischaracterize it into a few unknown crazies who are only saying that Bush got a vague memo, from which he should have been able to specifically divine that jets would soon be hijacked into the World Trade Center. This “movement” states quite clearly that it believes Bush was an active participant in the attack and tried to blame it on Muslims to start a war.
In one quick google of “9/11 Truthers prominent supporters” I got these extensive lists of thousands, including politicians, both domestic and international, artists, scientists, professors, engineers, etc, etc:
9/11 truth for Beginners
Patriots Question 9/11
Note on each of these sites, extensive links to other websites all over the world, which undoubtedly have all their own lists of prominent supporters.
If you could, please use your extensive Kos and Media Matters databases to find me comparable lists of of thousands of prominent people on the right who believe in Birtherism. Even Glenn Beck rejects it, for crying out loud.
You’ll excuse me if I don’t take your couple quotes from the right that the Birthers will soon take over conservatism as somehow evidence that big name support for the 9/11 Truther movement does not exist.
It is your comparison that fails sir.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:34 pmGuest14 says:
Eligibility for the Hawaii Homelands program depends on the ethnicity of one’s parents. This information is not found on a COLB, but it is irrelevant for purposes of qualifying to be president. The COLB and “long form” do not differ with respect to quality of information, just quantity. That Obama was born in the U.S., which is established by the COLB, is sufficient to qualify him for the presidency.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:52 pmLN says:
Yes, does anyone in this comment thread have any evidence that there are a lot of birthers out there? I think this is just liberal propaganda. LOL.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:54 pmfwb says:
Question: Why is Obama reticent about releasing his school and other records? As a public figure he should hide nothing.
I cannot provide proof but I have read that Obama has spent $950,000 fighting the release of his records. Maybe ture. Maybe not.
But it is known that he has not released his college scores, etc. And I ask Why not? Afraid? If I was in his shoes, I would have no qualms about releasing my own.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:01 pmSarcastro says:
I’m no birther, but until Obama releases everything asked of him from everyone ever, I have no choice but to speculate about what’s in his past (I leave the full list of possibilities, secret masters, AIDS, Saudi citizenship and all, to well-known factmonger MartyA.) I mean, all he has to do is release like a million documents and this controversy is over, till we come up with some other theory as to why he is illegitimate, like how he totally looks like this other black guy! Disprove that, Barak O’Marshal-Davis!
And for all you people who just say birthers are crazy and don’t engage them, why do you not engage the wild, evidence-less speculations, and call them crazy?
Also, there are lots of truthers, geokster saw them on the internets! This means that the right isn’t crazy at all, despite actual surveys showing they are!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:27 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Let me be clear about this: If Congress doesn’t feel like enforcing a clause of the Constitution, the people ought to have standing to demand that it be enforced anyway.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:19 pmDr. Weevil says:
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a Certificate of Live Birth “established” (Guest14) that Obama was born in Hawaii. Historians agree that Sun Yat Sen was born in China in 1866, but he acquired a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (viewable here) “proving” that he was born in Hawaii in 1870. Amusingly enough, he also went to the Punahou School (not yet called that) though only for a semester.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:28 pmDr. Weevil says:
jukeboxgrad:
Please offer some evidence that Tom Maguire is “a leading birther” or any kind of birther at all.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:34 pmMark Buehner says:
What these ‘controversies’ have in common is that even if absolutely true they remain irrelevant. Seems like something to spend your energy on, eh?
Get it together. If Obama was born in Kenya or on Mars IT DOESN’T MATTER. Except to people who already hate him. Nobdoy else cares. Sorry, thats a fact. I’m a staunch conservative that opposed Obama and will almost certain oppose him again, and I don’t care. You really think his supporters do? At worst he made the terrible mistake of being born in the wrong place. So what? I understand the letter of the law, but for goodness sakes that line of the constitution was specifically put in to prevent a foreign power from imposing a ruler on us. Does that remotely apply here? Of course not. So, pragmatically, get over it. Even if true it wont change anything. Got it?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:37 pmRicardo says:
No, it was adjudicated in an Indiana appellate court in Ankeny v. Governor and rejected. It’s unlikely to make it to the Supreme Court because this is a fairly uncontroversial point of law. Blackstone defined a British natural born subject as anyone born within the British realm with the exception of a child of foreign soldiers or ambassadors. Wong Kim Ark accepted the proposition that the 14th Amendment re-instated the Blackstone/common law definition of citizenship with an additional exception for Native American tribes.
It’s irrelevant because the Certification of Live Birth that Obama has released shows his birthplace as Honolulu. If he was born out of state, the certification would have an out-of-state location listed for his place of birth.
First, you don’t have any evidence he used a non-US passport to travel (forget about his visit to Pakistan as “proof”: American citizens have always been perfectly free to visit Pakistan on their U.S. passports). Second, where is your citation to back up your legal argument? In Britain up until the late 19th century, anyone born in British territory was a “natural born subject” of the British Empire and there was no provision for ever loosing that status.
The Constitution also does not provide for any mechanism for anyone to lose natural born citizen status although, presumably, someone who renounces or loses U.S. citizenship would also lose natural born citizen status. If you don’t like that result, blame the framers for not being clearer. I don’t see why you want the judicial branch to wade into this issue, though.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:21 pmjukeboxgrad says:
scattergood:
I guess you don’t know much about the Hawaiian Home Lands (not “Homelands”) program:
Do you realize what’s not required? Being born in Hawaii. The program is about tracing your ancestry back to 1778, not about proving where you were born. You’re trying to use HHL policies to support the idea that certain documents are better or worse for the purpose of proving Hawaiian birth. But this argument makes no sense, because HHL has no interest whatsoever in the question of whether or not a person was born in Hawaii.
And it’s not true that they “did not accept COLB’s for their program.” What they said is that “submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” (That text can be found here and here.) So they haven’t changed their policy, but they’ve provided a more detailed explanation of how they treat these different documents:
(That text can be found here and here.)
And why did you say “they REQUIRED the long form birth certificate?” They preferred it (and for reasons that have no relevance whatsoever to the Obama matter). That’s not the same as “REQUIRED.” Your claim is false. Or maybe I should say FALSE.
Indeed. And why is there any basis to believe that the “State of Hawaii birth registration” was fraudulent?
And let’s go back to a few things you said earlier.
Eugene Volokh said this:
You should explain how your expertise in the law is superior to his. And after you teach Volokh about the law, I suggest you also bring your vast wisdom to David Nieporent, who is also well-known for his knee-jerk support of Obama.
That bogus argument is addressed here:
See also here:
You also said this:
You seem to not understand that “register the birth of a child” does not mean that the state certifies that you were born in Hawaii even if you weren’t. When you register the birth of a foreign-born child, the Hawaii certificate will indicate the country where you were actually born. Obama’s certificate indicates he was born in Hawaii. Please demonstrate that the State of Hawaii has ever issued a certificate indicating Hawaiian birth for a person who was born outside of Hawaii.
I see Ricardo has also explained some of these things to you.
I have shown that your “facts” are bogus. And do you really have to make it so easy? Folks are going to think you’re my sock puppet.
You now have roughly four choices:
A) Show proof that your bogus arguments are something other than bogus arguments
B) Apologize for posting bogus arguments
C) Post some evasive remarks that accomplish neither A nor B
D) Disappear from this thread, and then post the same baloney in some future thread
I’ve been through this situation hundreds of times with your ilk, and experience demonstrates that the smart bet is C and/or D.
Please, more bogus birther arguments. There are some you missed.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:32 pmjukeboxgrad says:
geo:
Before you made a claim about “61% of Democrats.” Now you’re making a claim about “quite a few tenured professors.” The backpedaling is blatant.
Tell us how many Democrats believe that Bush was “in on it,” and show us the D elected officials who have supported that view. Because R elected officials have indeed expressed support for birtherism.
Where did I say that it was “a few unknown crazies?” I didn’t. I simply said that the claim you made about “61% of Democrats” doesn’t mean much. When are you going to address that issue?
Many of those “prominent supporters” are Republicans. So if you’re trying to make a point about Democrats and Trutherism, those citations don’t help you much.
Birtherism is being promoted by prominent Republicans like Palin and Blunt, by prominent R bloggers, and by National Review. I’ve already provided the citations. Show us the comparable evidence regarding Democrats who claim Bush was “in on it.”
And this thread itself is a nice demonstration of how easy it is to find “people on the right who believe in Birtherism.”
Since the WTC had already been attacked, and since there were various indications that terrorists had discussed using planes as missiles (proof), Bush should have been smart enough to not spend the month of August 2001 clearing brush at his ranch. Maybe you’re upset that the August PDB didn’t give Bush the actual flight numbers.
But he sure did a nice job keeping us safe, except for when he didn’t.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
fwb:
I cannot provide proof but I have read that fwb tortures puppies and rapes nuns for fun. Maybe ‘ture.’ Maybe not.
======================
weevil:
The document you’re talking about was issued in 1904, 55 years before Hawaii became a state. In what way is it relevant to the policies and actions of the State of Hawaii in 1961?
And some observations here shed light on that document.
The “leading” part is justified by his prominence as a righty blogger. His prominence as a righty blogger is evident in Reynolds’ practice of regularly linking to him (examples). And someone who says “I am in the ‘Show Us The Certificate’ camp” qualifies as a birther. Especially when they say that in a post promoting a leading birther at NR. And especially when they say that a day after WSJ says “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
Please continue doing this.
======================
aubrey:
The birthers, including you, already look like fools. Obama has nothing to gain by standing in the way of their foolishness.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I’m still waiting for a birther to explain why they have never pointed their birtherism at any other candidate or president. Romney’s dad was born in Mexico. Who has seen Romney’s papers? How natural was his birth? Why isn’t his long visit to France seen as sign of dual loyalty? He lived there for over two years. Who can prove that the French did not bestow citizenship on him?
Birtherism suddenly became an important subject when Obama decided to run. Just like the tea party gang suddenly became born-again deficit hawks on 1/20/09, after staging zero (0) demonstrations while Bush doubled the national debt. And just like we are supposed to take GOP health-reform ideas seriously, even though they did essentially nothing to advance health reform while they were in power. The GOP does a lot of things that are impressive only to people with amnesia.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:34 pmButternut says:
jukeboxgrad,
Apoplexy is serious. Seek help now.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:43 pmSarcastro says:
Welcome to the Volokh Conspiracy, Butternut! I see you have never met JBG before!
No need for concern. Vessels of steel, that one has.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:52 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Aw shucks, “apoplexy?” Really? If I was trying to make a mark as apoplectic, I could never hold a candle to the tea party speakers who described Obama as a “totalitarian monster” who “envisions a one-world government.” And how his election was a “Pearl Harbor moment.”
I think the group that’s cornered the market on apoplexy doesn’t count me as a member. But I realize you’re not accustomed to hearing from people who present facts backed by proof, and therefore this strikes you as some kind of medical disorder.
Sarcastro, thanks for the compliment about my “vessels.” Yes, I think butternut is new around here. Somehow he got the idea that the internet has a shortage of gratuitous, puerile, substance-free mockery and that it’s his duty to address that problem. How did we get along without him for so long?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:13 pmDr. Weevil says:
Either jukeboxgrad can’t be bothered to follow his own links or he thinks we won’t follow them, but his evidence that Tom Maguire is a ‘birther’ is worthless. The very statement he quotes and links to has a link in it, leading to a post in which Maguire mockingly welcomes Andrew Sullivan to the ‘birther’ camp. Here it is in full, for those as lazy as jbg:
That Was Easy
“Suddenly Andrew Sullivan discovers that the most transparent Administration in history is stonewalling a release of the archived version of Obama’s *original* birth certificate, and now he is a birther too!
“Well, an honorary birther anyway, as am I — he doesn’t think there is anything there (nor do I), but the question of releasing a record sitting in a state archive seems innocuous enough, and participating in state-sponsored faith based initiatives seems unpleasant enough that Sully is curious. As am I.”
The “nor do I” statement contains a link to yet another Maguire post, Send Better Rebuttals, which contains these paragraphs:
“My official editorial position is that Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but I have not embraced the faith-based initiative currently on offer, especially when more evidence is on file in Hawaii and is surely available to the White House.
“That said, I am in broad agreement with the thrust of the Jacobson piece [in Legal Insurrection], to wit, this is a distraction that is not helpful to the conservative cause.
“And that is my graceful segue to the National Review editorial on this topic, Born in the USA. Their conclusion that this is a foolish distraction is utterly reasonable but unfortunately they deliver the sort of factual errors that will shatter their credibility with the true believers.”
If that makes Maguire a ‘birther’, then anyone who has ever suggested that Bush should have paid more attention to the August 2001 briefing is just as much a ‘truther’ as those who claim he had the WTC wired with explosives.
The fact is that Maguire has consistently had the best coverage of the birth certificate and Plame affairs, covering all arguments offered in great detail and demolishing most of them. If you don’t read him regularly, you are not qualified to discuss either.
As for Sun Yat Sen, I would be curious to know what evidence jbg has that Hawaii changed their methods of verifying information on birth certificates while becoming a state. He gives a link to a page that “sheds light on that document”, as if to imply that it helps his argument. The linked page specifically states that Sun Yat Sen was born in China. Again, is jbg too lazy to follow his own links, or hoping that his readers won’t bother?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:15 pmFury says:
It’s all about “What have you done for me lately?”
Dems are perhaps going to lose big in the Federal elections in the Fall. And if Repubs were in power, they would be more vulnerable. Each party is so busy jockeying for political advantage (depending on the circumstances of the situation) that much potentially useful work never gets completed.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:20 pmDr. Weevil says:
Why does jbg mention Romney? Apparently to confuse the issue. The late George Romney was born in Mexico, and there was some question whether he was eligible for the presidency when he ran in 1968. What does that have to do with Mitt Romney? Absolutely nothing. Is it really surprising that haven’t been any Romney ‘birthers’ in the last 42 years?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:22 pmSarcastro says:
[Unless, Dr. Weevil, one defines “natural born” to mean having both parents be US citizens. But no one would do that, that’s silly.]
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:26 pmRicardo says:
If you really think the Sun Yat-Sen example has relevance, then you are showing just how dishonest it is to demand the “long-form” birth certificate. If you think it was just as easy to obtain a record of birth through perjury and fraud in 1961 as in 1904 in Hawaii, the long-form birth certificate proves nothing in that way of thinking as it too could have been forged or created under fraudulent pretenses.
It’s only an excuse to keep a supposed “controversy” alive. Historians have evidence that Sun Yat-Sen was born in China. Birthers have no evidence Obama was born outside the U.S. Until they have this non-existent evidence, they will never be satisfied which is why it is no crime to ignore their demands.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:35 pmDr. Weevil says:
Unless, Sarcastro, we presume that George and Mrs Romney had become citizens before Mitt was born. Or are you suggesting that they thought they were already citizens, so they didn’t bother to make sure they were citizens?
Even that wouldn’t necessarily do it. My understanding is that birthright citizenship makes anyone born on U.S. soil a citizen, no matter what their parents’ citizenship, and even if the mother had only been in the U.S. a few hours and the father never entered the country. I’ve certainly heard rumors of Mexicans crossing the border to give birth in U.S. hospitals so the child will be an ‘anchor baby’ and a citizen.
Of course, some of the more desperate ‘birthers’ argue that Obama can’t be a citizen even if (we’ll grant them that “if” for the sake of the argument) he was born in Hawaii, if his mother was underage and his father was not a citizen. I’m pretty sure they’re wrong, and it was Tom Maguire who convinced me of that.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:40 pmDr. Weevil says:
Ricardo:
I’m not arguing that “it was just as easy to obtain a record of birth through perjury and fraud in 1961 as in 1904 in Hawaii”, just pointing out that a Hawaiian birth certificate has not always been an ironclad guarantee of Hawaiian birth, as some assume. My message can be summed up with one of Maguire’s post titles, already quoted above: “Send Better Rebuttals”.
Now, do you have any evidence that it had gotten harder to acquire a fake Hawaiian birth certificate between 1904 and 1961? The technology has changed enormously since 1961, but had it changed at all between 1904 and 1961? It seems likely to me that typewriters and filing cabinets full of alphabetized manila folders were used in both cases, and the shift from fountain pens to ball-points is trivial. Perhaps the humans doing the typing and filing had become more careful and suspicious, perhaps not. You have no evidence either way, and neither do I. You might want to admit that the Sun Yat Sen birth certificate is at least slightly disquieting to the anti-birther cause.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:50 pmRicardo says:
Then in that case, it has rather limited relevance to the question of whether Obama, his parents, and some combination of high-level government officials in the State of Hawaii conspired to create false birth documents for him and apparently keep them as part of the state’s official records.
What is the legal meaning of “ironclad guarantee”? The Certification contains language at the bottom (which you can view yourself by Googling) saying it serves as prima facie evidence of all the details of birth listed on the certification. Additionally, it seems to be the case that Obama has had a U.S. passport file which shows he is a U.S. citizen and presumably also lists his place of birth as Honolulu. As far as the law is concerned, the controversy is already over as Obama has provided the same kind of evidence that you yourself would be asked to provide to prove the details of your birth or citizenship. The burden of proof is on the birthers to provide evidence to the contrary.
If you were an objective historian applying the standard methodology of investigating these kinds of things, you would look at Obama’s birth announcements in two Hawaii newspapers within two weeks of his birth, the official record of birth released by the State of Hawaii regarding his birth, the fact that he possesses a U.S. passport file, the absence of any evidence that he has ever undertaken naturalization proceedings and the additional lack of any eyewitness testimony or evidence to the contrary as relatively conclusive evidence that Obama was, indeed, born in Honolulu.
The long-form birth certificate, as I pointed out, is a red herring and everyone knows it. Do you have any evidence that it would not, in fact, be possible to forge a 1961-era long-form birth certificate? Isn’t that fact “disquieting” to you? Continuing to treat this as a legitimate controversy is like treating questions over whether the first moon landing was staged as a legitimate point of historical dispute.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:17 amforseti says:
Many people, but not all, justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you?
If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about beyond a reasonable doubt?
Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.
Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC?
Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at http://birther.com that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.
To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government, has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -“Born in Hawaii.” It reminds me of someone telling another, “Because I say so.”
Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence believes that. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger.
Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the papers are not reliable evidence.
One more thing. Assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, someone please tell me what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:36 amDr. Weevil says:
Ricardo:
Please read the whole thread before commenting. Guest14 wrote (6:52pm) that the COLB “established” that Obama was born in Hawaii, I pointed out (8:28pm) that that was “a bit of an exaggeration”, since there is at least one well-established case of someone faking such a document. All I’m doing is pointing out that the case is not quite so closed as some like to pretend, and that it would really help if Obama would release the damned long form. Of course that wouldn’t shut up the more fanatical birthers, but it would convince a lot of people who are almost, but not quite, convinced.
If you don’t understand why the long form would help, try reading Tom Maguire’s archived posts on the question: they really are essential background. The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming but not in fact unanimous, and he could make it a lot closer to unanimous with little or no cost or expense. Doesn’t it bother you just a little bit that he refuses to do so? Don’t you wonder what he may be hiding? It is highly unlikely to be foreign birth, but what is it?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:44 amRicardo says:
Who said anything about Obama meeting a certain burden of proof? This isn’t a trial. As a country with a federal system of government, official records are frequently maintained by state governments and are presumed accurate unless Congress passes a law saying otherwise. According to the official records of the State of Hawaii, Obama was born in the state in 1961. That means it is true under the law. If the birthers want Congress to impose some stronger mechanism for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for President, they can advocate doing so for the 2012 election. The 2008 election was already decided and is final.
In any of the myriad of interactions I have had with government, I have never been asked to prove my name, date of birth or location of birth “by preponderance of evidence” or any such nonsense. I show my passport or my driver’s license, maybe they cross-check the details in the back-end database and that’s that.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:56 amRicardo says:
Dr. Weevil,
Since I have a job and a social life, I’m not inclined to devote much additional time to this. I specifically addressed the point you raised in my response by saying that the details of Obama’s birth are already “established” and settled as a matter of law by the official record. You don’t have the right to force me to spend time and money fielding discovery requests just because you don’t find certified copies of official state documents attesting to my citizenship and details of my birth convincing. There is no law that says the situation for elected officials is any different, which is why all of the birther lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing.
I further noted that those who are not convinced by the Certification of Live Birth are highly unlikely to accept any other document that is released at face value. I asked — and did not receive an answer to — the question of how difficult it would actually have been in practice to obtain a fake or forged long-form certificate in 1961. I imagine the answer is “not very.” It wouldn’t prove anything one way or the other.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:10 amjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
In your effort to try to portray Maguire as something other than a birther, you quote him saying things like this: “an honorary birther anyway, as am I.” Next up, weevil will explain how 1+1=3.
I’m still waiting for you to explain how someone who calls on Obama to release his birth certificate (after WSJ had pointed out that Obama has already released his birth certificate) should be considered something other than a birther.
As I have demonstrated on many occasions (example, example), Maguire is a disreputable hack. And his hackery with regard to Plame was especially egregious (example).
If you “read him regularly” you would know that I used to post there regularly.
I would be curious to know what evidence weevil has that a state and a government that didn’t exist until 1959 should be held responsible for a document issued in 1904. But 1904 and 1959 are exactly alike, so there’s no reason to assume that anything changed during that period, right?
The fact that you (collectively) have failed to find any such example subsequent to 1904 is indeed “disquieting,” except in the opposite direction.
Indeed. It provides some political and historical context to explain why officials in 1904 might have done what they did.
Where are his papers? Where are his father’s papers? Was his father a citizen? How do you know? What are they all hiding? How do you know his two years living in France are not an indication of dual loyalty? These questions about Romney are no sillier than the questions being asked about Obama. Why the double standard?
By birther standards, there is no such thing as “an ironclad guarantee” of anything. If we had live video of Obama’s birth on the steps of the Hawaii State Capitol, Joseph Farah would claim that George Soros and his evil minions had doctored the tape.
And I’m still waiting for any birther to explain why they have never asked any other candidate for any proof of birth, let alone “ironclad” proof.
WSJ was convinced a long time ago. Why should Obama care about convincing people who are even more anti-Obama than WSJ? In what way is that to his advantage? The birthers are doing a great job of demonstrating to everyone outside the GOP that the GOP is packed with kooks (just like this thread). Palin happily shared a stage with a leading birther, but I guess it’s no big deal, since she has made statements herself promoting birtherism. (Hey geo, which prominent Democrat ever shared a stage with a leading 9/11 Truther?) Meanwhile, a few people like Breitbart are coming to their senses and trying to pretend they weren’t promoting birtherism a few nanoseconds ago. It’s a great show. Why would Obama want to spoil the fun?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:28 amjukeboxgrad says:
fury:
How ironic that the people who say they want to be free from government are upset because the government hasn’t done enough for them. It’s roughly the same logic that’s embodied in brilliant statements like this:
WTF.
It would be great if we could figure out that replacing Democrats who are owned by corporate money with Republicans who are owned by corporate money (and vice versa) doesn’t get us anywhere.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:28 amforseti says:
What is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.
The answer to the burden of proof production question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.“Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.
It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.
Turning now to the burden of persuasion question, once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.
The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”
So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion — preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of the Evidence — (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases such as personal injury lawsuits.
If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.
Even if this standard is accepted, determining which 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing, the one with doctor and hospital documentation, or the five other ones that lack an adequate indicia of reliability, would be merely a guess. It is arguable then that none of these vital records is more likely to be the source document than the others, so it does not appear to satisfy the more likely than not standard.
Clear and Convincing Evidence — (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in the termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by the same standards that are used when two people are either fighting over custody of their children, or seeking an injunction to keep the other away by a few hundred feet. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are again, at opposite ends of the spectrum. Even if one were to argue that the clear and convincing standard should apply, it is inconceivable that one could argue in good faith that a Certification of Live Birth substantially proves that the unknown 1961 source document is credible and trustworthy. This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt — (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants not to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that the individual’s freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections so that he is not deprived of them. True, a presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justification for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to his Article II qualifications is so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:34 amRicardo says:
Except it does not according to the law as well as according to nearly every court that has faced the issue.
Except Obama is not applying to be manager at a Chicago McDonald’s. The Constitution imposes exactly three requirements to be eligible for the Presidency. It does this exactly so that an agency full of low– and mid-level bureaucrats cannot veto a person’s candidacy for specious reasons. The importance of the position of President actually cuts against you: it’s too important for eligibility to be determined by a bunch of unelected lawyers and mid-level bureaucrats.
Finally, I have never once been asked to produce a birth certificate — original or otherwise — for any job application or as part of any official or bureaucratic process at all. My unexpired passport is quite sufficient to prove place of birth and citizenship.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:59 amjukeboxgrad says:
forseti:
Then why has there been such a noticeable lack of interest in demanding “the aforementioned production of documentary evidence” from any other recent candidate or president?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:16 amzuch says:
Typo there. Should be “no brain”. NC.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:04 amMick says:
What’s really amusing about this thread is the level to which those who believe what they want to believe are willing to close their eyes to facts in front of their face, and the extent to which “federalist lawyers” are clueless.
These lawyers are willing to accept a newspaper ad from 40 odd years ago and a COLB that could be gotten by those born outside the country (on testimony from relatives, midwives etc), and that no one has seen, as proof of ANYTHING. I’m assuming there were some lawyers commenting here. Have you lost all powers of disbelief?
Where is your inquisitiveness, your strident search for the truth? (this goes for reporters too). You mean to tell me that every record about this man has been locked down and the only thing available is his own crafted message, and nobody thinks anything of it? The people that ask questions are the crazies? What an upside down world! You call yourselves lawyers and you accept the word of an anonymous unsworn website of an organization that once employed Obama (Annenberg) as proof of ANYTHING? You call yourselves lawyers and accept the gradually more specific multiple cryptic carefully worded statements statements by the Hi. Director of Health (including her proclaimation that Obama was a “Naturally Born American Citizen”– which again cryptically says that he was vaginally born in Hi.– and what would give her the authority to say Obama is a NBC anyway?). Whose hands are those in the Factcheck COLB photos? did they just write the article, or are they the ones handling the COLB? Are they document experts? What court of law would accept any of this as proof of anything? You all are lawyers and supposedly smart people and don’t ask these questions of a man that wanted the most powerful job in the free world?
I’ve heard all of the arguments by the 3 year olds, “well you didn’t make johnny do it”, “if I give you that then you’ll just want more”, “i know you are but what am i”. All nonsense, his secrecy is what should demand us to ask for more, but you all have suspended all disbelief. I’m beginning to think there is something to this hypnosis stuff.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:23 amMick says:
Ankeny v. Governor didn’t adjudicate anything about Natural Born Citizen. They dismissed the claim for standing, the rest was opinion grandstanding in an effort to help the Obama administration put the question to bed. To assume by the dicta of WKA that the original intent of the term Natural Born Citizen was based on British Common Law is false to begin with. To assume that there are only 2 subsets of citizens is patently false. The USC mentions 3; Born and Naturalized of the 14A and Natural Born of A2S1C4,5.
No one was aware that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen, that fact was only recently discovered, and Chester’s fraud he lied about his family history, his date of birth, and burned his family papers before his death. They quote Joseph Story as saying that Natural Born Citizeens are determined by place of birth. Joseph Story actually quotes Vattel verbatum in The Venus (1814) in defining Natural Born Citizen only 27 years after ratification of the USC as born in the US of Citizen parents. There are 4 other SCOTUS cases that define Natural BORN CITIZEN as Born in the US of Citizen Parents, including Perkins v. Elg 31 years after the farce of WKA. The supposed Federalists here don’t see the deceit of this ruling? The mangling of the Jurisdictional Clause that has muddied the waters of citizenship for 100 years (could it be a way to cleanse the NBC status of the only other Usurper, Chester Arthur, who appointed Judge Gray?, Especially when he made the opposit ruling on Jurisdiction only 13 yaers earlier in Elk, and makes a weak attempt to explain that away). Sens. Bingham and Trumbull were very specific about what Jurisdiction and Natural Born Citizen meant, it is well documented (I know the 3 year olds will say that they didn’t write the USC– well isn’t the 14A the USC? and it was less than 100 years since ratification.)
The decision of WKA said that the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE DOMICILED RESIDENT Aliens (the parents couldn’t naturalize due to the Chinese Exclusionary Acts) were CITIZENS, much like the children of slaves born in America to slave parents, who were not citizens at the time those children were born, were citizens (he made that comparison). The Ruling certainly did not say that anyone sojourning or swimming across the border or on vacation could have children in America and those children be Citizens, much less Natural Born Citizens.
Perkins v. Elg 31 years later described 3 subsets of citizenry. Miss Elg and Mr, Steinkauler born of Naturalized Citizen Parents in the US were Natural Born Citizens. Mr. Bohn, Born of Aliens in America was deemed “Citizen”, proving once again that the Vattel Born in the US to Citizen parents definition is the true one of original intent. The dicta of SCOTUS cases would certainly overrule dicta of State courts, the Ankeny NBC discussion is dicta (fraudulent support of this administration), and it is certainly not adjudication of the issue.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:15 amButternut says:
jukeboxgrad:
Gratuitous! Puerile! Substance-free? (joking, right?)
I seek only to balance the lofty discourse that graces this blog with words of homespun idiocy. A bumpkin foil am I.
Your arguments on this issue are on point, convincing and can lead the reader to only one conclusion. Mr. Obama’s actions and tone deafness fall far short of your work on his behalf.
I certainly do not care what the answer is but it is fun to watch the administration collectively squirm.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:55 amjukeboxgrad says:
So far you’re nailing it with regard to the “words” part and the “idiocy” part. I’m not optimistic about any of your aspirations beyond those simple ones, so I suggest you stick with your strengths.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:11 amButternut says:
Good morning to you, too.
I have noticed you don’t seem to be optimistic about much of anything and have a tendency to be a bit vitriolic about it.
I fell in the driveway and busted a rib. Leaves a feller a bit testy.
Why don’t you stay on subject and quit the comparison crap regarding the President’s whelping kennel.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:35 amjukeboxgrad says:
I’m actually quite optimistic about all sorts of things. For example, I’m optimistic that Palin and the other birthers are going to continue to embarrass the ever-shrinking sane wing of the GOP.
I’m sorry for your injury, and I appreciate that you’ve gone to the trouble of explaining your bad manners. Maybe you should refrain from typing until you heal up.
I don’t know where you think I’ve gone off subject, and I’d like to know who appointed you as subject monitor.
I don’t know what you mean by “the comparison crap” and I have no idea why you’re dragging Bo into the conversation, and your reference to “whelping” is even more incoherent than the rest of your “idiocy.” And that’s saying a lot.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:54 amButternut says:
Have a nice day! (as I back away from the bully on the playground)
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:07 amjukeboxgrad says:
You introduced yourself to me by saying “seek help now,” while alluding to a medical disorder. So therefore “the bully on the playground” is me, not you?
I learn something new on the internet every day.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:17 amRicardo says:
Mick,
1. It seems if a court says something you agree with, it is dicta that must be followed. If it says something you disagree with, it is grandstanding and fraud.
2. Perkins v. Elg does not define three subsets of citizenship nor does it define natural born citizen.
3. de Vettel does not “define” a natural born citizen the way you say he does. He gives a sufficient condition for natural born citizenship. If you remember your logic, a sufficient condition is not always a necessary one and does not establish a definition. Moreover, neither you nor any of the other birthers have any compelling argument for why we ought to disregard common law — which is much closer to the legal practices and traditions of the U.S. and supplies the definitions for many legal terms used in the Constitution and in the statutes — and instead fallaciously interpret the English translation of a natural law treatise written by a Swiss legal scholar as supplying the definitive law of citizenship for the U.S.
4. Please learn to use paragraph breaks.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:03 amDr. Weevil says:
It’s hardly worth arguing with jbg, but I’ll give it a go, anyway, for the benefit of any third parties who are still reading:
When Tom Maguire called himself “an honorary birther”, he was obviously joking. Welcoming Andrew Sullivan to the ‘birther’ movement proves that. (I mean the Obama birther movement: Sullivan is of course the ringleader of the even crazier Trig Palin birther movement, but that’s another story.) Is jbg (a) incapable of understanding irony, or (b) too dishonest to admit that he knows it was a joke?
jbg provides three links purporting to show that Maguire is a “disreputable hack”. Two lead to threads far too complicated to rehash here, but one (the second) goes to a page where jbg accused Maguire of “blatantly misrepresenting” a document and added “Is the problem with your integrity, or with your reading comprehension?”. Eighteen minutes later, Maguire quoted him and posted “My reading comprehension — yikes. / Fortunately, that has no impact on my main point”, with a bit of further explanation. That’s what an honest controversialist writes when caught in an error. To quote a quickly-corrected error as evidence that someone is a “disreputable hack” shows that you are yourself a disreputable hack.
jbg writes: “I’m still waiting for you to explain how someone who calls on Obama to release his birth certificate (after WSJ had pointed out that Obama has already released his birth certificate) should be considered something other than a birther.” jbg pretends to be unaware that there is a long form and a short form, that only the short form has been released, and that Maguire would like to see the long form.
jbg asks “Why should Obama care about convincing people who are even more anti-Obama than WSJ? In what way is that to his advantage?” It’s interesting that jbg only considers Obama’s advantage. Encouraging insanity in portions of the other party is good for one’s own party but bad for the country, and the President of the United States is supposed to act for the advantage of his country, not his own self or his party. I’m disgusted, but not surprised, that it doesn’t even occur to jbg to think that the President should rise above petty party interests.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:20 amJPG says:
geokstr, either you can’t read or you have serious issues. But I’ll presume you just botched the reading part in that case.
In my comment, I addressed the flawed logic from an assertion of yours (you equated 61% of Democrats who believe or aren’t sure whether Bush knew about 9/11 in advance with them being “crazies”). My point being that we obviously can’t conclude all, or most, of them truly believe Bush and his team orchestrated the attack, or even that they may ignored information from their intelligence services on bad faith. Replying in lenght about your own encounters and feelings about the Truthers movement doesn’t make your case. At all.
For the record, I didn’t compare the Truthers to the Birthers. You did!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:39 amMick says:
Perkins v. Elg absolutely defines 3 three subsets.
Miss Elg, and Mr. Steinkauler are Natural Born Citizens (1) born of Naturalized Citizen (2) parents in the US.
Mr. Bohn is an American Citizen (3) born of aliens in the US. Vattel absolutely defined Natural Born Citizen. Scalia said that British Common Law is “dead”. Our Bill of Rights is Natural Law ( our Common Law A1S8C10–law of nations). It is absurd to think that if the well documented purpose of A2S1C4,5 was to prevent foreign influence that the framers would have though that those born with foreign allegiances could be POTUS, and Vattels definition exemplifies that. Common sense.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:57 pmzuch says:
Perhaps. When he was suggesting that Obama produce the demanded ‘evidence’, he wasn’t. Now it may be that Maguire was simply trying to tell Obama what Maguire thought was the best (not “required” or “mandated” or “necessary”, but “best”) response to the “birthers”. But Obama has plenty of advisors capable of that, and why Obama should turn to Maguire for such advice is beyond me, and doesn’t speak well for Maguire’s thinking processes. I get a chuckle out of Rove and his ilk going on FauxSnooze and giving ‘advice’ to Obama. Whenever they do that, I’ve got a careful eye on their other hand.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:37 pmzuch says:
Q.E.D.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:41 pmzuch says:
First I’ve heard for the proposition that insanity can be “encourag[ed]”. Do you have a cite for this?
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:44 pmjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
Given the context (that he wants to see Obama’s birth certificate even though WSJ has pointed out that Obama has already provided his birth certificate), I see no reason to view it as a joke. Anyone to the right of WSJ on this point is fairly described as a birther.
It takes a birther to believe that there is any material difference. That’s why WSJ said “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
If all I had to show was the “quickly-corrected error,” you’d be right. But context matters, and that purported “error” was in the context of a long history of hackery (as demonstrated by the material that you claim is “far too complicated” to address, and as demonstrated by many other examples that I haven’t bothered to cite). Maguire’s history demonstrates that he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think his “error” was just an “error.” And I think he only admitted the “error” because I nailed him, and he had no choice.
No one outside the GOP, including and especially Obama, is in a position to increase or decrease the level of insanity inside the GOP. It’s simply there. It’s a self-created reality. And what’s healthy for the country is to see it clearly for what it is (recall what Brandeis said about sunlight). And that’s why I’m grateful that Palin is addicted to the spotlight, and that’s why I’m grateful that she and the other birthers are demanding more and more attention.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:47 pmDr. Weevil says:
No point in arguing further with jbg: he insists that what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see, and that is a bald-faced lie. He surely knows why the long-form would be more probative, if he’s read Maguire as closely as he pretends, but can’t admit it because that would destroy his argument. Anyone who wants to know the truth knows where to look, and it isn’t in jbg’s comments.
Of course, it’s quite possible to increase the insanity of the other side: Sarah Palin (not in fact a birther) recently did so by writing a few words on her hand.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:21 pmzuch says:
... to “birther” wingnuts that are not satisfied with the voluminous evidence already in the record, evidence far above what’s needed to register to vote, that Obama’s what he says he is. But even that claim is suspect, as the “birthers” will then demand the “longer long form, signed in triplicate by the Hawai’i Secretary of State in 1961″....
That being said, Obama needs to provide to no “birther” any such thing. And I support him in his refusal to do so.
You want to force disclosure of that (or his grades or whatever other random document the “birthers’ dream up that they absolutely ‘must have’), file a suit (make sure you pay the fees), and get a judge to agree that you have any such right. Good luck with that ... but save a few bucks for the Rule 11 sanctions too.....
Really, Dr. Weevil, I encourage you (and Maguire) and wish you well on your quest. Such efforts just demonstrate how our system of government works.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 4:05 pmHarryEagar says:
And O’s 39 Social Security numbers, don’t forget the 39 Social Security numbers!
If I were in Obama’s position, I wouldn’t release my birth certificate either. It’s like the scene in ‘Blazing Saddles.’
After a hard day of dealing with Ahmadinejad, Boehner and other morons, a summary of the latest birther news and a wee snort kinda rounds out the day, wouldn’t it?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:14 pmforseti says:
Zuch,
What voluminous evidence? His digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of six possible source documents? One lone person who claims to have heard about his birth in 1961? A Hawaiian newspaper notice that was generated from one of the six types of birth registrations procedures in 1961, five of which lacked an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness? It reminds me of the people who say, “Because I say so.”
You should reread what Mike said — he nailed it hands down.
“What’s really amusing about this thread is the level to which those who believe what they want to believe are willing to close their eyes to facts in front of their face, and the extent to which “federalist lawyers” are clueless.
These lawyers are willing to accept a newspaper ad from 40 odd years ago and a COLB that could be gotten by those born outside the country (on testimony from relatives, midwives etc), and that no one has seen, as proof of ANYTHING. I’m assuming there were some lawyers commenting here. Have you lost all powers of disbelief?
Where is your inquisitiveness, your strident search for the truth? (this goes for reporters too). You mean to tell me that every record about this man has been locked down and the only thing available is his own crafted message, and nobody thinks anything of it? The people that ask questions are the crazies? What an upside down world! You call yourselves lawyers and you accept the word of an anonymous unsworn website of an organization that once employed Obama (Annenberg) as proof of ANYTHING? You call yourselves lawyers and accept the gradually more specific multiple cryptic carefully worded statements statements by the Hi. Director of Health (including her proclaimation that Obama was a “Naturally Born American Citizen”– which again cryptically says that he was vaginally born in Hi.– and what would give her the authority to say Obama is a NBC anyway?). Whose hands are those in the Factcheck COLB photos? did they just write the article, or are they the ones handling the COLB? Are they document experts? What court of law would accept any of this as proof of anything? You all are lawyers and supposedly smart people and don’t ask these questions of a man that wanted the most powerful job in the free world?
I’ve heard all of the arguments by the 3 year olds, “well you didn’t make johnny do it”, “if I give you that then you’ll just want more”, “i know you are but what am i”. All nonsense, his secrecy is what should demand us to ask for more, but you all have suspended all disbelief. I’m beginning to think there is something to this hypnosis stuff.”
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:22 pmjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
As I said to Maguire, is the problem with your reading comprehension, or with your integrity? Possibly both, I guess. Where did I say “what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see?” Answer: nowhere. The “bald-faced lie” is claiming that I said something I didn’t say.
This is what Maguire said: “Show Us The Certificate.” And he said that a day after WSJ said this: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
Yes, everyone knows that what Maguire means by “The Certificate” is something different (technically) than what WSJ is indicating that “Obama has already provided.” Trouble is, it takes a birther to think that this difference means anything. It takes a birther to believe that “The Certificate” demanded by Maguire et al is going to demonstrate anything that is not already demonstrated by what WSJ has described as “a legal birth certificate.”
So I’m definitely not claiming that “what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see.” I am simply pointing out that it takes a birther to see any material difference between “what the WSJ says we have already seen” and “what Maguire wants to see.”
Are you still trying to claim that Maguire is not a birther? Birthers, virtually by definition, are people who are claiming that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” Anyone who understands that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii” would not be saying “Show Us The Certificate,” because it’s a meaningless, pointless request. It is only logical to say “Show Us The Certificate” if one believes that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” And there’s a word for people who believe that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” This is the word: birther. Maguire obviously does not believe that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” Here’s what that makes Maguire: a birther.
Have I still not made this simple enough for you to grasp?
Only someone who believes that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii” would have any interest in making claims about “why the long-form would [allegedly] be more probative.” It’s always possible to imagine the existence of something “more probative.” Live video of his birth on the steps of the Hawaii State Capitol would be even “more probative” than “the long-form,” right? So why should anyone think “the long-form” is probative enough? “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii,” which means that what he has already provided is probative enough. And there’s a word for people who don’t get this: birther.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:56 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Really? This is what she said:
Palin obviously doesn’t trust the radical Marxists at the WSJ, who have said that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” If I claim that something is being done “rightfully,” how is that not a choice to endorse that something? I think I need to get my hands on the special GOP dictionary, where words like ‘rightful’ have magically elastic meanings.
And speaking of lies, she then said this:
If I claim that the people suggesting he was not born in the United States are doing so “rightfully,” how is that different from suggesting “that he was not born in the United States?”
And of course this was before she happily shared a stage with Farah, who ranted at length about birtherism. Palin said nothing to disassociate herself from him and his birtherism.
This is on par with Coulter sharing a platform with Romney, who had this to say about her (video):
Romney should not be saying it’s a “good thing” to hear from Coulter unless he thinks her views are welcome in the GOP.
There are kooks in both parties, but the kooks in the GOP are front and center, and gladly embraced by the leadership. And this phenomenon is accelerating.
(And speaking of birth certificates, here’s another lie in that Palin interview: Palin suggesting that she has provided Trig’s birth certificate. She hasn’t.)
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:57 pmforseti says:
You lost me on that one. I have ducked no questions. I just cannot respond to every one in real time. I have other duties in life that keep me busy.
And I never made the statement about the “crazies.”
You also said, “Then why has there been such a noticeable lack of interest in demanding “the aforementioned production of documentary evidence” from any other recent candidate or president?
My answer is that, up until Obama’s red flags started waving in the wind, nobody in either party ever had a good faith basis for believing that any candidate’s eligibility was in issue... unless you want to consider that Congress did hold hearings on McCain’s Panamanian roots.
Bottom line is Obama posted a digital copy of a summary of his vital record from 1961. Now since that summary could have derived from one of several suspect birth registration procedures, I think we all have a right to scrutinize it. One more thing, even if Obama cannot obtain a copy of his original 1961 vital record, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from disclosing which vital record procedure is being summarized by his posted Certification of Live Birth. Was it the one with the doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation, or was it one of the ones that required no such witnesses? Obama knows, but he won’t say. I find his conduct suspect.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 12:44 amButternut says:
The more you foam at the mouth, jukeboxgrad, the more plausible the Malcolm X thing gets.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:00 amjukeboxgrad says:
forseti:
This is called begging the question. Earlier you said this:
If “it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion,” then why has no other candidate been called upon to produce “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Actually, other candidates have been called upon to produce no “documentary evidence” whatsoever (regarding place of birth). Where is Romney’s birth certificate? Where is Palin’s? Where is Dubya’s? Why are all those people assumed to be citizens, simply because they say they are? Why the double standard?
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:03 amjukeboxgrad says:
butternut:
Earlier you said this:
I thought that meant you were done embarrassing yourself. Promises, promises.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:06 amjukeboxgrad says:
forseti:
There must be multiple forsetis posting here, because one of them said this:
I think you’re accusing me of misquoting you. Trouble is, I didn’t.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:10 amButternut says:
Well, they gave me good painkillers for the rib and it brought out the morbid curiosity in me. I came back to watch the banty rooster strut around the chicken yard.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
That’s not all it brought out.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 2:35 amforseti says:
Jukeboxgrad, I stand by what I said. Regarding Obama’s red flags, hey, they are there. I am not going to ignore them. There’s no begging the question here, nor is there a double standard, I just didn’t see any red flags with the other past candidates, and neither did the media or the Left, save for McCain, and any investigation into his citizenhip became moot after the election.
There is nothing wrong with what I said, but you’d like to make it appear to be. Now I said, “It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.” The fact that some candidates skate on this issue is not relevant to Obama’s Article II’s eligibility requirements.
Regarding the “crazies” quote you attributed to me, that was a quote from “Mike” that I cited in my post earlier.”
Quote
February 11, 2010, 2:42 amjukeboxgrad says:
forseti:
“The fact that some candidates skate on this issue” is highly relevant to demonstrating your insincerity.
“Some” candidates skate on this issue? Is it really just “some?” It would be hard to find a more disingenuous use of the word “some.” The number of candidates who “skate on this issue” is awfully close to 100%.
I just demonstrated the double standard. The double standard is evident in your willingness to let every other candidate “skate on this issue.” Where are your calls to see Palin’s proof of citizenship? According to you, a candidate is supposed to present “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion.” Where is Palin’s “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Unfortunately, it’s quite invisible. What’s not invisible is your hypocrisy.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:14 amforseti says:
There were no eligibility red flags with Palin, and she did not win the election. The issue is moot. My sincerity is not relevant. You just want to redirect attention away from Obama’s eligibility issues. What’s your next strategy, the race card?
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:50 amjukeboxgrad says:
I see that you like to slide the goal posts around. Earlier you said this:
You didn’t say “the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion” is important only if there are “eligibility red flags.” But that’s what you seem to be saying now. Why did you change your position?
And your comment about “red flags” is indeed begging the question. The alleged “red flags” about Obama is that he has allegedly not provided convincing documents (“documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion”). But other candidates (like Palin) have also not provided such documents. So why is this called “red flags” for Obama but not called “red flags” for Palin? You said “a presidential candidate has a … burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President.” What has Palin done to meet that “burden of production and persuasion?”
And what if she runs in 2012? Will you then call on her to resolve her “red flags?” And were you calling on her to resolve her “red flags” when she was indeed a candidate?
Your lack of sincerity is both self-evident and relevant. You’re making it clear that you’ve invented “eligibility issues” for Obama that you’re not willing apply to anyone not named Obama.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 4:38 amButternut says:
Like a desperate lawyer; cant pound the law, cant pound the facts, gotta pound the table.
The red flags that are waving, jbg, are there for a reason. They represent BHO’s diapers.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 8:23 amzuch says:
Well, yes, now that you mention them.... ;-)
This just goes to show that there’s no point in producing any “long form” birth certificate (if such a thing even exists any more). And to be sure, it may not be a terrible thing politically to keep a bunch of wingnuts running around like eedjits demanding this. Far better that being soft and giving in to unreasonable demands:
“You’ll shoot your eye out.”
“Can’t I have one, Why, mommy, Whyyyyyy?”
“Because I say so.”
Cheers,
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:10 amzuch says:
Typo there. That example would be “arguments presented to the 3 year olds”.
No charge.
Cheers,
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:16 amjukeboxgrad says:
butternut:
Indeed. Thanks for that unintentional display of self-awareness. Few here have ever been as scrupulous as you with regard to keeping their comments untainted by any substantive reference to facts or law. If you have actually presented any facts or law in your comments, I hope you’ll tell us where they are hidden.
Then again, you told us yourself that you’re only a “bumpkin” here to provide “words of homespun idiocy.” Which is another way of saying that you aspire only to sound like an idiot pounding the table. Keep up the good work. And can you sustain this high standard you’ve set for yourself? I look forward to finding out. I hope you won’t let us down.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:23 amzuch says:
Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 in Rule 11 sanctions for lacking a “good faith basis” in her “birtherism” nonsense.
So sez da judge. I guess that settles it, eh?
Cheers,
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:27 amzuch says:
Not really. The actual “red flag” they see here (and go charging at) is that Obama won. Or he’s a sooper-seekret Commie Marxist carrying a red flag. Or something....
Cheers,
Quote
February 11, 2010, 11:38 amjukeboxgrad says:
Yes, that witch doctor photo is lovely. And I love the commenter who claims that portraying Obama with a bone through his nose is actually an example of paying someone “great compliments.”
Which is helpful to know, because now I understand that Rush was simply being complimentary when he told a black caller to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”
Having a black president is getting a bunch of white racists all riled up (example, example, example, example). This is a problem for the GOP, because it’s not eager to alienate these supporters. On the other hand, it can’t embrace them openly. So every now and then it sends them signals, and gets caught doing so (example, example, example).
But of course there’s really no racism in the GOP, and everyone knows that racism has nothing to do with the fact that people who have never challenged a president to prove his citizenship are challenging Obama to prove his citizenship.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 12:20 pmButternut says:
I take it then that if I want to be relevant and cogently present fact and law that I should follow the form in your last post?
You certainly seem to follow the internet into some corners unknown to me.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Citing examples to substantiate the claims you make is actually a good idea. You didn’t know? Then I’m glad you asked, and I’m glad I can help get you pointed in the right direction. If you need help with any other basic concepts of how to have an adult conversation, feel free to ask.
I realize a “bumpkin” like you has limited experience dealing with the world of facts and logic, but it’s never to late to learn about things like that. Give it a try.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:49 pmButternut says:
Zuch
Lemme hitch up my coveralls and try sayin’ that agin...
Sorry guys, payday tomorrow and I gotta go. You see the damn working class likes getting paid on time. And busted rib or not, I must go. Our young, vibrant, popularly elected President of all 57 states and Germany needs all the help each of us can provide.
Make yourselves useful and ask grandma if she will give you $5 to shovel her walk.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:58 pmzuch says:
Butternut:
Hate to burst your bubble, but not only are you lacking as to substantive comment, but you have a ways to go even as to the fine art of InterToobz snark and insult. Unfortunately for you, that’s an art that cannot be taught to everyone. Good luck on the “substantive comment” part though; JBG’s a fine teacher and perhaps the comments will be better off for it.
Cheers,
Quote
February 11, 2010, 2:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
butternut:
Obama would have to produce verbal gaffes at a very rapid rate if he ever hopes to catch up to the remarkable precedent recently established. I hope you enjoy these hundreds (!) of examples. They are quite humorous.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:15 pmDave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter | The American Jingoist says:
[...] David Kopel The Volokh Conspiracy February 9, 2010 http://volokh.com/2010/02/09/birther-claim-about-obama-and-the-bush-national-guard-hoax-fruit-of-the... [...]
TOM COPLIN says:
It is interesting to note there is no paper trail whatsoever regarding Barack Obama. No grade school records, no high school records, no college records, no Harvard Law School records...and of course no birth certificate records. Yet...he has spent about $1.7 million dollars making sure there were no reocrds...why?
Why is it the media did not vet him...yet vetted John McCain. McCain was born in the Canal Zone because his father a natural citizen and mother were stationed their in the Navy
Quote
March 4, 2010, 7:04 pm