Author Topic: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show  (Read 4133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« on: July 28, 2009, 03:58:35 AM »
quote
President Barack Obama turns 48 next week. August 4th.

But for a highly agitated fringe of unhappy Americans, the important thing is not when the president was born, but where.

They call themselves “birthers.” And despite the evidence of birth certificate, birth announcements, the records of the state of Hawaii, the affirmation of Hawaii’s Republican governor — the “birthers” do not believe, or want to believe, that Barack Obama is the legitimately American-born and elected president of the United States.

This hour, On Point: They can’t accept him. Against all evidence, what’s driving the “birthers”?

You can join the conversation. Tell us what you think — here on this page, on Twitter, and on Facebook.
unquote



Listen here

http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/the-fury-of-the-birthers


Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2009, 05:56:19 AM »
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450.html

A quick reality check, before we dive in: The challenges to Obama's eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement's theory — that Obama can't be a citizen because his father wasn't —as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.


Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2009, 08:38:37 AM »
"The challenges to Obama's eligibility have no grounding in evidence. "

Since the cases have never been adjudicated in a court of law there is no basis for making any statement about the evidence one way or another.

that is the point

It should be real simple to produce a real copy of a "Birth Certificate" (not a "Certificate of Live Birth") issued by a state just like I had to do when I got my passport.

or how about the old tired saying

If you don't have anything to hide .....


then there's that pesky Grandmother that stated she was there for his birth in Mombasa, Kenya


personally I am agnostic about this issue but the Obama crowd is getting a bit over the top about the subject IMO

Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline Pox Eclipse

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Noo Hampsha
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2009, 09:45:36 AM »
Why won't you accept a certified  "Certificate of Live Birth"?  That is what Hawaii uses to determine a person's official birth status.

No matter what the the President produces, the birthers will say "that's not good enough", or "that's a forgery".  They will accept no outcome other than removal from office, and that is not going to happen.  That is why it is pointless to even respond anymore.

Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2009, 10:34:53 AM »
"Why won't you accept a certified  "Certificate of Live Birth"? 


It's not me that won't accept a Certification of Live Birth -- I am agnostic on this. But in a court of law (where this should be adjudicated) it would not be accepted since it is not "best evidence" That is to say it is not the original document -- any competent lawyer would object to the "Certificate of Live Birth" as evidence on the basis that it is not "Best Evidence".

"That is what Hawaii uses to determine a person's official birth status."

Well not exactly, and they no longer use this program. 
 
Here's how the state of Hawaii explains it

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html


Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era


(emphasis mine)
Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2009, 11:16:39 AM »
Again, This whole argument is based on the spurious legal theory you have to be born in the united states to be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.  There is over 250 years of laws, acts of congress, executive acts, and case law as precedent that this is a false legal premise.  That is why not a singe court in this country will hear the case, because most judges can follow 250 years of law. 

The emphasis is the line "as a misreading of U.S. law".

One of the first acts of congress was to define natural born citizen.  They even added "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea".  It has been the law since the founding of the country.

I liked the article I posted because it has given an incite into the current legal field.  I work in the legal field.  This "birthers" thing is becoming more of an embarrassment to the intellectual conservative movement than anything the 9/11 conspiracies ever could.  At least with the 9/11 conspiracies, people talked about the nuances of the changes in laws, power, and motivations. The "birthers" are constantly brought up in conversations to embarrass the conservative attorneys because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of the U.S. judicial system.

I may come off a little edgy about this issue.  I have written some guidelines for professional practice of attorneys and for disciplinary procedures.  Many attorneys have been and would be disbarred for this behavior.  Constantly filing lawsuits when the law is a blatantly clear and they have been told many times that, deserves disciplinary action.

Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2009, 01:01:07 PM »
I removed the kenyan BC

I think it is a hoax
Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline muldoon

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,619
  • Muldoon, TX
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2009, 05:47:33 PM »
I don't even have a real strong opinion in this one..  but I will post a comment on something noted above that may not be accurate.  If nothing else, it is another perspective on the "birthers".  It's a long read, I didn't make it all the way through myself ... 

--
Quote
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “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”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of one of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section1 for the Office of President of the United States.

--
The above is a snippet of the recent article on western journalism that has sparked the recent questions about this.  Allegedly, in December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue.  On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

Offline Pox Eclipse

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Noo Hampsha
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2009, 06:16:45 PM »
On Monday, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution which, in addition to commemorating Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood, also states, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;"

I think if such a resolution passes 378-0, it is pretty much a dead issue.

Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2009, 03:36:19 AM »
very interesting and well documented read, Muldoon


it is starting to look like there is some real coverup going on here


Pox, are you suggesting that a resolution of congress is sufficient to change the Constitution.  ::)
Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2009, 04:22:09 AM »
Muldoon,

I assume that is one of the chain emails that people send.  Because at Obama's birth Ann Dunhum was 18 almost 19, not 17.   When people change the facts, you can make anything up.

The last paragraph is what is the flaw of the legal understanding.  If congress has the authority to define citizenship under the constitution, they have the authority to make it retroactive.  Basic Law 101.

Thousands of cases have been brought on this across the entire country, including the supreme court.  Every single judge from the states to federal judges to the supreme court has summarily rejected the argument that his mother cannot pass citizenship to him as a matter of law.  The birth cirtificate is a matter of truth. This would normally go before a jury.  If, for arguments sake, he was born in Kenya, is he a natural born citizen? That is a question of Law.  Questions of facts are usually decided by a Jury, questions of the Law are decided by Judges.  Every single judge has dismissed this case as a matter of Law.

Offline Pox Eclipse

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Noo Hampsha
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2009, 04:30:48 AM »

  Pox, are you suggesting that a resolution of congress is sufficient to change the Constitution.  ::)


No, I am suggesting that, since all of the members of the House are on record as believing he is a citizen, it will be unlikely that they will vote to impeach him.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2009, 05:44:40 AM »



Pox, are you suggesting that a resolution of congress is sufficient to change the Constitution.  ::)


No, it just contradicts the argument that a resolution of congress (immigration and naturalization act) can define him as not a citizen.  Either congress has the power or it doesn’t.  If it doesn't, it is up to judges to interpret and decide under the constitution.  Which they have, again, and again, and again, ............

Offline Windpower

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,634
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2009, 06:53:48 AM »
"If it doesn't, it is up to judges to interpret and decide under the constitution.  Which they have, again, and again, and again, ............"
 
 
 
I have to disagree

At least in the Berg case, Surrick dismissed the case on the basis that Berg had no standing to sue.

In Surrick's words:    The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

Surrick also stated


"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint"

Take that you serfs !

I think Surrick just didn't want to handle this 'hot potato'



more here

http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html



Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Offline muldoon

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,619
  • Muldoon, TX
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2009, 06:54:38 AM »
well, like I said, I am not too particularly invested in the particular story.  I think it greatly benefits Obama to continue to refuse showing the certificate.  If he can unite his detractors around this issue he can do a great deal of harm to their credibility.  His detractors can be angry about Cap and trade, about healthcare, about goldman sachs running the country, about bailouts of selected few, about community "organizing" groups..  but if they all were to rally around this they could be politically painted in one ugly swath.  Sometimes I think Obama is playing chess and his detractors are playing checkers.  

The Hawaii resolution was a line in the stand in my opinion, it pushed the repubs to put up or shut up.  It removes the ability of them to use the story later down the line for political leverage as they just voted that they accepted it.   If they truly believed the "controversy" was real - they would have pushed here.  


Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,897
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2009, 01:02:06 PM »
No body's mentioned anything about his mother being a US citizen; therefore he is. Either parent being a US citizen qualifies their children to be US citizens.
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

Offline muldoon

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,619
  • Muldoon, TX
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2009, 01:31:21 PM »
Don,

It has been mentioned above, and the point of contention appears to be in what was law at the time.

Quote
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Meaning, the citizen would need to be 19 years old to transfer citizenship and unfortunately she was 17, or perhaps 18 at the time.   Again, I think it's a non issue - but the way it is being handled certainly reeks, it does tickle the "where theres smoke theres fire" button and sets my bullshit detector off.  That being said, even if revealed, I still think it is a non-issue as the law was changed in 1994 that would have included him. 


Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,897
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: The Fury of the Birthers WBUR Radio show
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2009, 02:26:18 PM »
Thanks... that's what happens when I'm in a hurry and skim. I think the argument / discussion about this is a wate of time and effort that could be better spent on other issues.
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

 

Templates: 5: index (default), Ads (default), Portal (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 12: init, html_above, adsheaders_above, body_above, adsindex_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, adsindex_below, body_below, adsheaders_below, html_below.
Language files: 3: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default), Ads.english (default).
Style sheets: 1: portal (default).
Files included: 38 - 1132KB. (show)
Cache hits: 13: 0.00190s for 40,845 bytes (show)
Queries used: 28.

[Show Queries]