PBS Official: Repeal The Natural Born Citizen Clause To Avoid Birther Controversy

It very well could be because nobody knows exactly where your head is at on this subject.

 

And it has always been that when Birthers ask the question they demonstrate a strange intellectual incapacity to come up with or consider more than two answers.

There you go... the classic Birther false dichotomy.

There are several other potential reasons, but proof is provided of the dichotomy's falsity by only providing one. And it is this:

It is beneath the dignity of the Office of the Presidency and sets a dangerous precedent to meet the demands of nut-jobs.

 

Nets need not be cast wide to catch fish swimming together.

It not being one of my areas of confidence in the Birther discussions, I have only pointed out that even Birther blogs have begun to claim that it is true that people can not get copies of their Hawaiian long forms, and they are really p*ssed off about it,

 

According to whom? Some Birther nut job or according to the state of Hawaii?
If you choose to believe a Birther nut job rather than a state of Hawaii web site, you too are a nut job.
Another strawman. Gonna have to line all of'em up and light a match. They now have so many strawmen, the flames would burn down New York City.

 

Most people like to figure that sort of thing out *before* attempting to label and dismiss others. Haven't seen a whole lot of that sort of behavior from the anti-birther crowd.
From my point of view, the people on the left seem to be behaving a lot less rationally than the people on the right in this matter.

 

And anyone who doesn't 100% agree with everything you say is obviously a fringe right-wing loony. IOW, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Bush.

If that's the criteria, then the vast majority of Americans must be "right-wing loonies". We can't be "fringe", as by definition, the majority can't be fringe. Must suck to be surrounded by whackos. Ever consider the idea that *you* might be on the fringe? After all, your behavior has consistently been less-than-rational.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts. My apologies.

Trench

 

I thank you for the kind apology.
Let's all take a deep breath and actually read what other folks are typing. This is just an internet discussion. Nuthin' to get all worked up about, right?

 

Right , this is not about Obama completely cutting off public access to a whole spectrum of information of a personal nature that's commonly demanded of all presidential candidates (health, education, family background, etc).

It's about Obama's highly principled stand that supports the dignity of the Office of the Presidency?
Okay...if you insist.

 

Nope... never said that. My, my, my but the irony has gotten delicious even sooner than usual in these threads. That was a tour de force of presumption right there. You must be very proud.

Hmmm.... gotta tell ya. I went back in the thread and can find no obvious inspiration for that sudden ejaculation of indignance. So perhaps you can put it back in your pants?

 

Was Bush asked for the hospital recorded version of his birth certificate? I don't remember that being commonly demanded. Nope, the only thing commonly demanded are tax filings and disclosure of any financial holdings. Obama has complied with that.

Who is the only one with standing to certify criteria is met? I'd say that would be the job of the Chief Justice, who swears in the President.

 

No. It's not. The demand for a documentary proctological examination of this president is historically unprecedented. No other President has ever been subjected to such a comprehensive and often idiotic set of demands. His kindergarten records? Seriously?



President Obama has "cut off public access" to exactly nothing. Personal records are protected by laws that have been in place since long before he ever considered his run for the Presidency. They are the same laws that protect yours and mine... and I am certainly not "cutting off public access" to anything. Are you?

In the past, candidates have never voluntarily released any of these things, even when they actually exist (unlike many of the imaginary records that Birthers ask for). Both Kerry's and Bush's academic records (for example) were leaked, and neither candidate was particularly happy about it.

The assertion that these things are "commonly demanded of all presidential candidates" is either a delusion or a lie, since it is patently untrue.

I do.

 

If this mess proves anything it is those you love America will NEVER again allow the Presidency to be handed to a 'Chicagoland' (cough) community organizer just because he can switch to 'ebonics' any time he's reading off a Tele-promoter in a Southern Baptist church promising those in attendance or at least implying to those in attendance, who apparently did not have the collective IQ of a slice of Wonder bread that he would pay for their gas and mortgage from his "stash"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moeh8Vr8Rrc&feature=related This is the level of intellectual vapidness that got Obama elected. Want another four years of Obama and his merry band of miscreants? I'm sure some reincarnation of Acorn will be willing to help.

 

Again, this is an argument supporting the notion that "he shouldn't have to", not "he would but he can't". Which is all well and good, but keep it real.
We know that he could do so if he were inclined, because other people with much less influence had absolutely no problem doing so as recently as last month. And we know that he doesn't want it released due to his legal battles to keep it under wraps.

Any speculation as to "why" is just that; pure speculation. But let's not delude ourselves about his abilities and motivations in the face of the evidence.

 

Do you suppose that being the son of the President of the United States of America might have something to do with that?

Candidates are frequently asked to provide health and education records too. Even on that benign pro forma level, Obama stonewalled.

You would say that, but it would be disingenuous to do so. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears in the President-elect purely as a matter of pro forma ceremony. Not as any sort of personal guarantee of
Robert's vetting of Obama. This is a fantasy that anti birthers sometimes claim, with no real connection to reality.

 

More to the point, the man had never even made it to Canada prior to being sworn in. Obama's parents travelled quite a bit around the time of his conception, birth, and infancy. He was raised in several different countries. It is only natural to expect such questions, given that fact. The reason the treatment is unique is because the situation is unique.
Jackson ran for President and nobody questioned his citizenship. Keyes ran for President and nobody questioned his citizenship either. The only other candidate who I'm aware of who had his eligibility questioned was McCain for having been born in the Panama Canal zone.
Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Personally, I think most of the people asking questions or entertaining doubts would be fully satisfied with the release of Obama's long form birth certificate. There would of course remain a very small fringe group who would continue to reject it, but the argument itself would cease to be of any importance to mainstream America.
President Obama could do this if he wanted to, but he has chosen not to.

 

yes, ANOTHER failed Mario thread - imagine that?

OBAMA 1,000,005 Apuzzo 0

 

Obama's mother was in school in Hawaii in 1961, married and had Obama is August... which means she conceived in the winter of 1960... probably around Thanksgiving.

After Obama's birth in Hawaii, she moved to Seattle and enrolled in university there.

He was raised in the United States except for 3 gradeschool years in Indonesia.

There have been five or six natural birth challenges to Presidential candidaates.

 

We are into chicken and egg territory here. Which came first? Obama's stonewalling or the requests to release documentation?

No other president has ever caused the demand for personal information by being so secretive.
When John McCain was asked to prove his constitutional eligibility
(vis his Panama Canal Zone birth place) he immediately released a copy of his birth certificate (long form, hospital copy, of course). Obama?
Ummmm....not so much.

Presidential candidates, as a routine matter of business, waive all considerations and make their private matters (financial, educational, health) public. Obama?
Ummm....not so much.

So the experience of Kerry and Bush settles the matter for everyone else? Al Gore unhesitatingly released his college transcripts in an effort to prove he was brainier than the dunce George Bush, and then so did Bush (guess what? Bush had better grades). Your point is not well taken, at all.

Perhaps you mean your denial is. Perhaps you and your myopic view of Barry Sotero Obama causes you to miss the big picture, but when it comes time to vote for president, people like to know everything they can know about the man that is running.

 

Oh, you mean like the monumentally important Rush/Trump 'press conference' radio interview revelation that we are still waiting for? It's Mario who, as ever, has nothing pal.

I might also mention the 'unbelievable findings' that Trump's investigators are supposed to have discovered. Where are they? More of Mario's desperation

 

You missed the whole point of the stupid challenge to McCain's eligibility..

They knew he was born in Panama to two US citizen parents.. They tried to equivocate on the statutes.

The birther position ... or constantly shifting position.. gets sillier and more desperate every day.

Now we have birthers trying to change the meaning of the word "jurisdiction".

 

Originally Posted by SFJEFF
heh...sure. I would care if any President was proven to be not eligible.

What we do know is if the original birth certiicate is released and when it shows President Obama was born in Hawaii Birthers will not accept that as proof either.

Originally Posted by October78
the question has always been 'why is this being withheld?' It goes back to obama either being afraid of the verified contents or he is pulling a Saddam hussein in holding back information to taunt and gain public sympathy. Just in time for the election he'll suddenly release this doc and teary-eyed in clintonesque form will say 'I've always been honest and true and the right wingers are just mean.'

I generally agree as well. That said, when the left changed history during the Bush years and the U.S. two party system went from the legacy "loyal opposition" to the current "kill the quarterback" mentality, both sides commenced on a no holds barred approach to demeaning each other. Similar to the birthers were the band of crackpots led by Dan Rather to ruin Bush on his military record. Unlike the birthers, they even went so far as to forge documents. At the time, the left was all too eager to demean the office of POTUS. Unfortunately, the flood gates have been opened and getting back to a more honorable set of behavioral standards is unlikely any time soon.

 

Actually, no. It is an argument that the claim he has "cut off" or "sealed" records is a lie.

Please... take a step back and realize that there are more discussions going on here than the single narrow issue that seems to command so much of your attention.

You mischaracterize his "legal battles." None of them have ever reached the point where anybody had to battle to keep anything under wraps.

 

Except there is NO motive to forge documents.. The Constitution and Statues are very clear.

What the birthers are counting on now is the ignorance of the US population and lack of knowledge about Indonesia law to suggest Obama was an Indonesian citizen.

 

Of course! But apologist and propagandists will find any
reason at all (though it almost always comes down to screaming racist at someone) to create a pretense to explain why people treat Obama differently. The argument is, at it's heart, dishonest. You can imagine the precedent that sets for the rest of their blather.

Add to that the name of Colin Powell, son of Jamaican immigrants, who briefly considered a run at the presidency. His past and story were well known and I don't recall anyone
claiming he had no business running (though he never did).

Yes! Exactly! Because you can never, as a matter of practicality, please 100% of the people this is used as an excuse to continue to hide behind disingenuous sophistry and continue the stonewalling.

These disinformation wizards, I believe, make this transparent argument as much to brace up each other as to try and convince others. The argument really holds no water, on it's own merits and most people see through it.

We all know what a huge liar Obama has turned out to be. But if he was truly a new sort of politician that unites people, he would release the information that he claims backs up his story and take the divisive issue away from birthers. Clearly, comments on the issue prove his administration is bothered by the distraction it causes and it is absolutely a no risk proposition for Obama. But then, that assumes that Obama is the sort of person he claims to be (in every sense of the phrase).


I think both you and I are of like mind about this issue and are bothered by
the low regard these pitiful excuses for an argument make about the people they are made to. And that is as bothersome at least as any constitutional considerations this issue assumes.