Moron of the Day: Stefan Frederick Cook
Idiot reservist Stefan Frederick Cook, egged on by an idiot lawyer whose license should have been revoked a long time ago, takes birther insanity to a whole new level by arguing that he doesn’t have to deploy to Afghanistan because Barack Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, and Ann Dunham wasn’t a citizen either because Kansas is a rock group, not a state. Or maybe it’s because 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) doesn’t really say this:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[...]
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years … This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.
[Emphasis added.]
but rather, this:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[...]
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years … This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, unless the guy is a real dumbass who runs for President, in which case such person shall be inaugurated anyway but everyone in the military will be free to ignore any orders they wish.
[Emphasis and content added.]
This would-be deserter should go to the brig, as should the idiot lawyer who put him up to it.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire has more.
UPDATE: Cook’s orders have been revoked. Not for the kooky reasons advanced by Cook and his idiot attorney, of course, but either way the matter now appears to be moot.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
“whose license should have been revoked a long time ago”
Sorry to be the one who has to tell you this, but the only thing that’s been very oddly & suddenly -revoked- are the soldiers orders to deploy. Seems like the Transparent Prez is extremely afraid of having his birth creds up for debate in a court of law:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3077
July 15th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Rick Salent you are a bigger moron the STEFAN FREDERICK COOK AND ESPECIALLY THE DIZ OF AN ASSHOLE ATTORNEY ORLY TAITZ! THESE PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE SCAM MONEY FROM THIS BASELESS STORY. TO THE “BIRTHER” YOU WILL BURN IN THE BOWELS OF HELL. YOU AND FOX NEWS ARE GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST LAUGHING STOCK IN THE COUNTRY FOR THE ASSHOLES THAT YOU ARE. HOW MUCH IS STEFAN FREDERICK COOK BEING PAID BY THE BIRTHER ORGANIZATION FOR THIS STUPIDITY. THE LEGAL EAGLE SHOULD BE DISBARED IMMEDIATELY!
I HOPE YOU ARE GETTING PAID WELL, BECAUSE THIS IS A SCAM, AND YOU BOTH WILL BE EXPOSED.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Susan:
July 15th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Congratulations, Dr. Taitz, you did obtain a good result for your client. Now, whether your larger agenda, to embarass Obama, creates a conflict of interest, is a matter between you and him.
Like I’ve always said (TM), there might be an embarassment if there are amended birth certicates — first to Barry Soetoro and then back to Barack Hussein Obama.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Insanity” the repeated attempt at some activity while believing you’ll get a different result.
“Faith” The fervent belief in something when no proof of it exists.
When will you liberals give up the insane faith in someone who has done nothing to earn any faith or trust what so ever? There are several postings on YouTube where you can hear Sarah Obama claim to have been present at her grandson’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya. As well as a radio station interview with the Kenyan ambassador who when asked “Will you be erecting a monument at the place of Obama’s birth?” replied “It’s already been done”. Even Obama himself has vacillated on what hospital in Hawaii he was supposedly born in. If he can’t remember which hospital he claims to have been born in, and others with nothing to gain by lying say he was born in Kenya, why would you believe the guy with something to hide?
Stupidity?
To “nk” who said “there might be an embarassment if there are amended birth certicates — first to Barry Soetoro and then back to Barack Hussein Obama.” That’s not an embarrassment, that’s simply explained by his mothers marriages, the embarrassment is to reveal that he’s been lying about a Hawaiian birth, and that he’s not a natural born citizen and thus not qualified to hold the office of POTUS.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The U.S. Code: Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, #1401 Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The code now states:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
There is a HUGE difference between being a citizen at birth, and a “natural born citizen” as is required to become president. Further, Obama’s mother does not qualify under section (d)due to the fact that she in Kenya (no proof otherwise) while pregnant, also Obama’s father is not a national but an English citizen:
“(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;”
There is no proof that Obama was ever born in Hawaii. No long form certificate has ever been shown. Anyone who held a residence in Hawaii, at that time of Obama’s birth, could record a birth no matter where the child was born in the world.
To be president, Obama must be natural born, in other words, born on US soil. This has NEVER been proven. Information points that he was born in Mombassa, Kenya. THUS, HE CAN NOT LEGALLY HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT!!!
I also find it interesting how impassioned and rude people like Susan or Xriq get when this issue is discussed. It reminds me of an ostrich hiding his head in the sand.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Why doesn’t Obama just release the long form and be done with it? I thought his purpose was transparency and bringing us together? Wouldn’t that be more effective in silencing the “birthers” than using the Sal Alinsky triangulation method of ridicule? Producing the documents would end it. But the longer he avoids it…just makes him look guilty. And if in fact he was born in Kenya there would be a question of his qualifications that would have to be resolved by a court, not by the opinions of lawyers on he left and right. But because of this stonewalling by Obama, the 35% that strongly disapprove of him would not be appeased and the 45% that voted for McCain as well as the 25% that would have supported Hillary would feel rooked. She probably would be president, and you don’t want to “piss off” Hillary. There will be more than hell to pay, there will be blood. I certainly hope for all our sakes that the evidence (documents and financial records) back the claims because if they don’t – well wars have started on less and this Saul Alinsky tactic of ridicule will backfire and I emphasize the word “fire”.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
To Xlrg, the full content of this and 1409 does confer citizenship on the child (with some requirements to be met)but if you read the complete language it says “deemed to be a citizen of the US.” It does not say “deemed to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US.” To be a “Natural Born Citizen” according to the Constitution, one must be born of parents who are citizens. Notice the PLURAL in both cases. Must be the child of parents (two) who are citizens (two). So, even if he did qualify under 1401 he would be a citizen, not of another class but of another catagory – I.E., naturalized, but still is not qualified as a “Natural Born Citizen” to be president. Also, it would be awesome to see you make a post without all the name calling and you may want to check the definition of “moot” before saying it is moot.
To Susan, who dies and made you God. The last time I checked the only reason to “burn in the bowels of hell” is because of a lack of salvation not for what we’ve done or if you don’t believe this is the case maybe you better watch your mouth and the name calling because that may be a qualification for the “bowels of hell” too.
Anyway, you can make your accusations all you want but I have a question: Why if Obama is so innocent is he spending upward of One Million Dollars to keep his birth certificate and other information a secret instead of spending $12.00 for a copy of his birth certificate and showing the people? And don’t tell me about his COLB posted on several web sites. You try getting a drivers license or registering your kids for something using a computer and putting a scanned image for verification, see how far you get….we won’t even discuss the fact that his post was a photoshop image. Do a little research.
And finally, if you have nothing to fear that Mr. Obama is qualified then allow those who want to challenge it, which is their right to do so, according to the Constitution, and let’s see how it plays out. And concerning the money, that is none of your, nor my, business, unless you have given money.
Thank you, and if you have a response please leave out the name calling and threats and keep it civil.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Your comments and no light, they show your ignorance and spending too much time on Obama’s Bong, J.C.
You are entertaining, I’ll say that.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Obama’s birth could easily be demonstrated and this issue put away. But Obama like Kerry has shown he will not release the appropriate documents.
I wonder why?
Apparently because there are many witless among us who believe in magic beans, unicorns, and the words of used car salesmen.
Pathetic. I think we should adopt Mexico’s standards to prevent the witless amongst us foisting such a fraud on us again.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Rob: cute folk definitions of faith and insanity, but if you want to have any credibility among anyone but your fellow birthers, you might want to add “thinks Xrlq is a liberal” to both. On the plus side, if you can remember being born, and reading the hospital sign on the way out, then maybe you’re not a complete idiot after all.
Blanche: if you don’t think being a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. § 1401 makes someone a natural born citizen, then with all due respect, WTF does?! The Constitution itself doesn’t define the term, only Congress does, and “nationals and citizens … at birth” is the closest match there is. If being born abroad to the U.S. to one parent of U.S. citizenship who has spent the requisite period in the US doesn’t make a person a natural born citizen under subsection (g) of that statute, then being born on U.S. soil doesn’t make one a natural born citizen under subsection (a), either, nor does being born anywhere in the world to two U.S. citizens or nationals make you a natural born citizen under subsection (d). So by your logic, such as it is, Obama may not be a natural born citizen, but neither is anyone else. McCain certainly isn’t; he was born in Panama, remember?
Joel: I don’t know, or frankly much care, why Obama has only issued a short form birth certificate rather than the original, long form one. One possible reason is that the short form is much easier to come by, and seeing as it contains all the information you need to determine whether he is a U.S. citizen at birth by reason of being born in the U.S., there’s no good reason anyone should care. Another possible reason is a bit more Machiavellian slash Alinskian in nature. As long as a significant minority of Obama’s supporters continue to make asses of themselves by pushing this idiotic theory, why should he take any action that might get them to stop? The first rule of politics is that if your enemy is destroying himself, get out of the way.
Tom: I do not consider name-calling, as such, objectionable. Calling someone an idiot solely because he disagrees with you is objectionable, as “disagrees with me” is not a valid definition for “idiot.” However, calling someone an idiot because they push a frivolous position and willfully ignore facts to the contrary is another matter. And if you want a respectful response, start by not making crap up. I linked to the statute in question. If it actually had the “deemed” language you made up, it would be there for all to see. It doesn’t, so it isn’t, and claiming a statute says what it doesn’t, in a post linking directly to the statute in question, doesn’t do a hell of a lot for your credibility. Nor, I might add, does the fact that two of you birthers can’t even agree amongst yourself as to what the invisible “constitutional” definition of natural born citizen is. She “knows” it means you have to be born on U.S. soil. You “know” it means both parents have to be U.S. citizens (as if anyone ever claimed Barack, Sr. was a U.S. citizen). The reality, of course, is that neither of you knows a damned thing about what you’re talking about.
TJ: You didn’t read the statute, either, did you? Unless you’re disputing either his age or his mother’s citizenship, it’s pretty clear he’s a natural born citizen no matter where he was born. That, plus the fact that it was Congress’s decision to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, not the President’s (which, at the time of the authorization, was Bush, not Obama). If “President” Biden reinstated the order, would that make it valid in your book? Along with the rest of the electorate, you had your chance to help prevent a President Obama, and you blew it. Can’t make up for last year’s failure by screeching empty birtherisms now.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:21 am
There’s supposed to be a court hearing, today. The judge can dismiss the case because it is now moot or because it’s a political question. Also, because equity does not indulge bugf__k crazies.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:23 am
cute folk definitions of faith and insanity, but if you want to have any credibility among anyone but your fellow birthers, you might want to add “thinks Xrlq is a liberal” to both.
Do you have a dartboard with Obama’s face on it? No? LIBERAL!!!!!
nk´s last blog ..AT&T Sucks
July 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
@Thomas Jefferson: You bring up John Kerry’s documents? Is your calendar broken? BTW: He did release his medical records.
For all the birthiers out there. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Perhaps you saw Justice Roberts administer the oath of office? It was on tv.
Not to say that it ever was up to Mr. Obama to prove anything about is birth. But now that he is President it is up to you nutz to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Asking, requesting, demanding, whining about documents is pointless.
By all means be a “pay pal” to Cook’s attorney. Send her all the money you have after donating to the SarahPAC! Please!
July 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Hi Xriq! All Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birthplace, listing time, date, hospital, etc. Debate is over.
Being born on U.S. soil makes a person a “Natural Born Citizen” The definition of natural in this instance is: 6. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
Obama had to be born on United States soil. He has never proven this. All the man has to do is show a long form birth certificate. It’s that easy. Yet he has spent close to a million bucks to suppress the information. Why is this?
Further, Obama’s mother misses the U.S. Citizenship clause by a few months, but all Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birthplace, listing time, date, hospital, etc. Debate is over.
McCain was thoroughly vetted (I might ad that Obama was on the committee) and since McCain was born on a United States military base in Panama, it was deemed United States soil. Obama has never shown anything except the Certification of Live Birth, which shows that Obama’s birth was recorded (and recorded is the key word) in Hawaii, not that he was necessarily born in Hawaii. One, did not need to be born in Hawaii to have the birth recorded in Hawaii at that time. If you check Hawaiian law you will find this is correct. But, all Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birthplace, listing time, date, hospital, etc. Debate is over.
Look at the references here for more insight on our founding fathers’ reasons for the “Natural Born”, if you will:
http://www.naturalborncitizen.org/
Remember: All Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birth place. Debate is over.
Here is a Wisconsin State site that explains Citizens and Nationals (being natural born is a step higher):
http://www.emhandbooks.wi.gov/meh-ebd/Policy_Files/7/MEH_7_1_US_Citizen_and_Nationals.htm
and here:
http://askville.amazon.com/difference-citizen-national/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5225844
But remember, once again, all Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birthplace, listing time, date, hospital, etc. Debate is over! It’s that simple.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Seeing as it costs him zero support while making a significant number of his opponents look like idiots, I can’t imagine why he would want that debate to be over. If I were Rahm Emanuel, I’d be advising him to do everything he can to keep it alive. That said, I’m not sure why you think issuing a copy of the long form birth certificate would accomplish anything that the COLB hasn’t accomplished already. Both contain all the information needed to determine his name, age and location of birth. Nothing else is constitutionally relevant.
Sez you. But you’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your conclusion. The only constitutional reference to birth on U.S. soil is found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which the framers of the original Constitution could not have contemplated. And even under the Fourteenth Amendment, not all persons born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship, only those both born in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Wrong. The COLB states in plain English that his “city, town or location of birth” was Honolulu, that his “island of birth” was Oahu, and that his “county of birth” was Honolulu. Right there you have the State of Hawaii certifying to the only facts that matter. What other good does it do to know which Honolulu hospital he was born in? All Honolulu hospitals are in Honolulu. All of Honolulu is part of the U.S., and was on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m.
No, it isn’t. The same cranks who frivolously dispute the accuracy of the short-form certificate now could just as easily dispute the long-form one, as well. That could be forged, too, after all. The State of Hawaii has already certified to all facts of potential constitutional import. You either believe that certification or you don’t.
And no, a U.S. military base is not U.S. soil. Have you completely forgotten why Gitmo is located in Guantanamo, Cuba rather than, say, Leavenworth? It’s because military bases do not U.S. soil make. McCain is indeed a natural born citizen, but that’s because his parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, not because the location of his birth happened to be a military base. Do you really think a Panamanian kid born on that same base could run for President, too?
Sorry, but some crank with a web site and an axe to grind is not an authority on the founding fathers or anything else, especially where such crank’s preferred method of argument seems to be “my views were so patently obvious to the founding fathers that they saw no reason to leave behind any evidence of it!”
July 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This Cook reminds me of officers we had in Korea. When it got 30 below and there were Chinese in our mattress covers, these guys flew off in the helicopters sent for us. Some of us fought our way out, too many stayed behind – dead or captured. If it is any consolation, some of those officers were lost due to “friendly fire”.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I don’t know who this “Xrig” character is, but s/he’s really good at getting the trolls to come out from under the bridge! :)
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Health Care Reform Debate
July 16th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Sweetie, you made the comment about McCain’s parents and you are completely right, I am wrong, and I thank you for pointing it out:
“And no, a U.S. military base is not U.S. soil. Have you completely forgotten why Gitmo is located in Guantanamo, Cuba rather than, say, Leavenworth? It’s because military bases do not U.S. soil make. McCain is indeed a natural born citizen, but that’s because his parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, not because the location of his birth happened to be a military base. Do you really think a Panamanian kid born on that same base could run for President, too?”
You said both McCain’s parents were United States citizens conferring Natural Born status. You are correct, via senate resolution: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
Hawaiian law states:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
This means anyone could get a birth certificate for a child, no matter where (what country) the child is born, I think it is completely valid, but it does not prove he was born in Hawaii only that he obtained a certificate according to Hawaiian law. if a parent declared Hawaii as their legal residence at the time of Obama’s birth a certificate was issued this does not make him “Natural Born” especially if he was born in Kenya. If you will, please go to:
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com/
The fifth screen down, taken before the election, states, “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green, This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout.). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verfication by DHHL.”
The text now says:
“Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
I find it interesting that this has changed since Obama was elected. So many concessions are being made. Believe what you want, or don’t believe, it’s not like we are going to make any difference today or tomorrow. Wouldn’t you want to know for sure though, if he is legally allowed to serve? I do, and everything is sealed. Why?!? School records, passports, long form birth certificate, adoption papers, etc all out of reach. Is this transparent?
Once again I say, all Obama has to do is show a long form birth certificate with Hawaii as his birthplace, listing time, date, hospital, doctor, etc. Then this debate is over. I don’t think he can do it or it would have been done by now.
A trollette! :) ;}
July 16th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Lordy. These people are as bad as the “Bush went AWOL” types. Wake me when the fax comes through from Abilene.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Do you think the CIA did not already check all this stuff out, way before the election, you morons?
July 17th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Dear NK,
You are assuming that this falls under the CIA’s jurisdiction, which it doesn’t. But even more importantly, don’t you want to know for sure? What about open government and our right to know?
Have we lost those rights? Are you willing to lose YOUR rights?
Should we just blindly ASSUME that it’s okay if there is no proof, without doubt, that the Constitution has been followed? Is it a moot issue to you?
There would be little to discuss, if Obama showed a valid birth certificate stating a time, date, hospital, doctor, etc. You wouldn’t have the need to call anyone a moron (at least over this issue) if we had proof. In fact, there would be no debate.
One of the morons who cares about your right too!
July 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The facts that the birthers conviently ignore is that Obama’s birth was published in a Honolulu newspaper. This brings the conspiracy theory to a whole new level. The hospital, the newspaper, his parents all had the presient instincts to begin his illegitimate path to the White House 47 years ahead of time. Brilliant!
Fact 2: It is irrelevant where his father was born. He was born in the US.
Fact 3: Regarding his mother: the US code states “was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years ” – Mother spent 4 years and 10 months after 14, well exceeding the 2 year provision.
Fact 4: There is a gap in the US code regarding Panama. John McCain may not be eligible to be POTUS or for that matter, a Senator. IMHO his service to the country should render that point moot.
Fact 5: Going forward the code needs to be revised. I believe that any citizen of the US, no matter how citizenship is attained should be eligible for every elective office once certain minimums have been met ie. age and years as a citizen.
Fact 6: The birthers reckless interpretation of the Constitution and US code would actually render many children of the military to be ineligible to be POTUS. Be very careful what you wish for.
Fact 7: The Major is an asshat. A traitor and a coward. He should be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
Fact 8: The Apollo landing conspiracy theorists are mre grounded in reality than the Birthers. They are of insane nutjobs but of a slightly lesser magnitude.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
BlancheD,
My reference to the CIA was intended as only one example of strongly entrenched institutions in our country who make sure that we get no Manchurian Candidates. I have no love for the little bastard spawn of a Kenyan bigamist and an underage Kansan hippie. But why don’t we go huntin’ where the ducks are, hmm?
nk´s last blog ..Don’t Ask
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
For those of you who claim the soldier’s orders were ‘mysteriously’ revoked, you’re overlooking one detail. Major Stefan Cook is a reservist and a volunteer. As such, he has the right to revoke his orders at /his/ discretion. He didn’t even need to hire a lawyer to plead his case, but since he did file a case, that was taken as his will to revoke his orders to deploy, which means they were revoked. Furthermore, as he filed for ‘conscientious objector’ in the case, his ‘secret’ classification was automatically revoked, which resulted in his dismissal as a DoD contractor, as his position required him to have that classification.
People are claiming conspiracy without actually looking at the facts present.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Well the Birther movement is still around, and even growing idiot boy, and Obama’s approval ratings are in the cellar. So much for politics of letting your enemies destroy themselves: idiot boy. And America is so much closer to a Civil War. Do you know why you bayonet someone in the throat – so he can’t scream. Little fact that will come in handy pretty soon.
You must be SOME lawyer hahahahahahaha
March 20th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Obama’s ratings are indeed in the toilet, where they belong, but if you think for a minute that you birthtards are the reason, you’re even thicker than I thought. So far, it looks like Obama has done a fine job of destroying himself, despite your help. You are irrelevant. Please stay that way.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Xrlq.
The question isn’t; “Is Mr. Obama a citizen of the United States!” The question is; “Is Mr. Obama a NATURAL born citizen of the United States!” Big difference. I suggest you read Article II of the US Constitution. The Natural born qualification is what is being disputed. Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth from HI does not conclude that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United State.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Chuckster, the only real question is why you birthers continue to beat something that has all the attributes of a dead horse but one, namely, that the dead horse was actually alive once upon a time. If you had bothered to read the COLB before opening your pie hole, you’d know that it specifically states that he was born in the City and County of Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, in the State of Hawaii. Sure, it would be moderately neato to find out which Honolulu hospital he was born in, or even if he was born in a hospital at all, but so what? Nothing of constitutional import rides on that. All of Honolulu, HI was U.S. soil on 8/4/1961.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:41 am
The Western Journalism Center released an authoritative explanation of the Obama birth controversy that helps to explain the confusion on Capitol Hill which revolves mostly around Obama’s online Certification of Live Birth (COLB):
“The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is ‘on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.’ And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth – or parentage – in Hawaii. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?”
From: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5867/pub_detail.asp
Xriq, I find it sad that you must resort to name calling or other negative comments if someone has a different opinion from yours.
When Obama was born anyone who had a Hawaiian address could register a birth that occurred anywhere in the world. This is the reason for all the fuss. He may have actually been born in Hawaii but until he shows the long form as proof, we don’t know for sure. On Obama’s own site he referred to himself as “native” born not “natural” born. Why?
I am not loosing sleep over it. I am loosing sleep over what is happening to our country financially since the Dem’s have been voted into power.
A friend who has a small manufacturing company here in Texas casts pewter game tokens. They were using epoxy paint (made here in the U.S.) to color the recesses. When we had the lead scare from products coming in from China, new regulations went into effect stating that each batch of epoxy paint had to be certified lead free by an independent laboratory (the metal also has to have a certificate). This was too costly so he discontinued the product line. Imports from China still do not require a lead free certificate or testing to be imported.
Kinda weird isn’t it. He’s considering moving much of his manufacturing to China due to all the federal regulations. Manufacturing here in the U.S. produces jobs. So, if manufacturing goes to china what happens to those jobs?
April 16th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Blanche, I don’t resort to name calling solely because someone disagrees. I’m very respectful of other opinions on issues where reasonable minds can differ. This is not one of those issues.
No, willful ignorance, on your part, Joseph Farah’s, etc. is the ONLY reason for all the fuss. Could a Kenyan-born Obama have obtained a birth certificate in Hawaii? Yes. Would that certificate falsely claim he was born in Honolulu? Hell, no.
Because that’s the word he chose to use. The real question is why the frack should anyone care? You can’t be a “native born” U.S. citizen without being a natural born citizen. You’re either born into citizenship or you are not.
As to the “authoritative” ramblings of everyone’s favorite crank Joseph Farah (he’s the head of your Western Journalism Center, but is better known as the lead crank behind WorldNutDaily), let’s just say that merely calling someone’s incoherent ramblings “authoritative” does not make them so. The questions Farah asks have already been answered many times; he simply ignored the answers because addressing them would require him to admit his irrelevance and go home.
Wrong. The legal issues to which Farah refers required more than birth or parentage in Hawaii; they also required the applicant to prove a certain percentage of Hawaiian ancestry. The original birth certificate contains information about ancestry that is not included in the short-form COLB.
Because the U.S. Presidency does not require Hawaiian ancestry. Duh! What little the U.S. Constitution does require is included on both birth certificates, making them equally valid for that purpose.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I see you edited your original comment after it was sent to me:
Because, dumbass, the U.S. Presidency does not require Hawaiian ancestry. What little the U.S. Constitution does require is included on both birth certificates, making them equally valid for that purpose.
Equally interesting is your comment:
I’m very respectful of other opinions on issues where reasonable minds can differ.
It is sad that one can not have a different view with you and discuss it. If it’s not important and you don’t care, then why have the blog?
–Dumbass
April 16th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Blanche, I think you missed my point about reasonable vs. unreasonable disagreement. Just because some people disagree whether 2 plus 2 really equals 4 does not mean there is anything *reasonable* about disagreeing on that point. If there were a reasonable basis for controversy over Obama’s country of birth, I’d be keen to have that debate on respectful terms. But there is nothing remotely reasonable about implying that someone who was not born in Hawaii can get a COLB falsely claiming that he was. That’s just reasonable disagreement; it’s sheer lunacy. Ditto for Farah’s idiotic question as to why the State of Hawaii requires a birth certificate that proves Hawaiian ancestry to administer a grant that requires Hawaiian ancestry while the American people do not require such documentation for the U.S. Presidency, which does not. That question, asked a year and a half ago, could have been an honest mistake. It can’t be now; it’s been asked and answered too many times already. The reason I edited out my reference to him as a dumbass is because I figured, rightly, that my use of the word “dumbass” would give you an excuse to ignore the substance of my argument, not because Farah isn’t a dumbass. Though I suppose it’s possible he’s not a dumbass after all; maybe he’s fully aware of what he is doing and knows he can make more money by peddling his discredited lies than by owning up to the truth that there is no there there. So I guess I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he’s just a dumbass, and not much worse.
As to you, rather than whining about how sad it is that I don’t respect your groundless, woefully uninformed opinion, how about instead producing a shred of evidence that the opinion in question is not groundless or uninformed after all? The answer, of course, is you can’t; if there were any legitimate arguments to support the Birther position, we’d all have heard them by now.