3 Votes
Birth Certificate Silliness
|
||
It’s amazing to think the birth certificate controversy has plodded onward as long as it has. Recently, the White House released the so-called long form (pdf) to put the matter to rest at last. Despite completely deflating the birther’s sails, Trump managed to congratulate himself anyway stating, “I’m very proud of myself because I’ve accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish.” Meanwhile, President Obama explained the decision to release this document despite having already submitting the short form during the election, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” Incredibly, many of the birthers continue to be skeptical in disbelief.
|
||
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Ground Zero Mosque, by VnutZ almost 3 years ago
- Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize ... Seriously?, by VnutZ over 3 years ago
- Don't Touch the Queen, by VnutZ about 4 years ago
- Obama's Political Motivations to Not Produce Documentation, by Brandon over 4 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
A good read by Anonymous
a good read here
RE: A good read by scottb
It’s an excellent example showing that birthers are idiots.
The issue of Obama’s citizenship has already been tested in court — the relevant reference is Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009). The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to Obama’s eligibility.
The “good read” offers a sort of plausible argument, quibbling over a presumed distinction between “natural born citizen” and mere “citizen”. The problem is that the distinction hasn’t impressed the courts. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “natural born citizen” to mean “a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
Give it up already, losers.
RE: A good read by Occams
Agreed,
The court has ruled.
A court ruling was enough when W rigged his election in Florida, so it is enough now.
He is the best President of the USA in living memory so why would anyone who cares about the USA want to challenge his validity.
I think the birth rule is silly anyway. We are so short of good presidential candidates that we should allow anyone who is a citizen now to be eligible for election.
Never Really Thought About That Much by VnutZ
I think the birth rule is silly anyway. We are so short of good presidential candidates that we should allow anyone who is a citizen now to be eligible for election.
Now that’s an interesting one. At first I thought, “didn’t Occams once imply he worked in the intel community before? how could he possibly accept that ‘knowing’ what we know.”
But at the same time, simply being born here obviously isn’t enough to establish unwavering allegiance and even natural born citizens can spend the bulk of their lives overseas anyway. Which, while that really gives them better world views for foreign policy, doesn’t that provide just as much implied weakness as a foreign birth?
That said, perhaps all it should really take is a seriously strenuous background investigation to identify the same motivating factors towards external allegiance, persuasion and blackmail … just much more so than the usual full-scope polygraph procedures. It would certainly make for better public scrutiny as well if the voting public were allowed to see the results of the investigation (for any that ‘opt’ to run for such a position).
Curious Why? by VnutZ
He is the best President of the USA in living memory …
Just curious what makes you say that. Other than erasing a lot of the America-hate overseas (simply by not being somebody other than Bush) and pushing for healthcare reform that doesn’t exist yet, not much of what he’s done is all that different than Bush. After all, bailouts, Guantanamo practices, current tax rates, Iraq withdrawal and the bin Laden hunt efforts are all extensions of the pre-existing Bush policies.
RE: Curious Why? by scottb
Hm. “Living memory” would be something like the last sixty-five years, assuming that you’ve got to get through your teens until you’re aware enough about the President to remember much, and humans live to be about 80.
The presidents “in living memory” would be: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Most liberals (to include Occams) would easily agree that Obama’s the best since Johnson — with the possible exception of Clinton, whose impeachment certainly hurts his status. That leaves the presidents from Johnson on back. They’re not really within my own “living memory”, so I find that hard to call.
RE: Curious Why? by Occams
I remember as far back as Ike, although I was only a kid then. However I think we have to go back further to find one who was a better man and President than the one we have now.
FDR would be closest but I hate how he sucked up to Stalin towards the end of WWII. He gets most credit from me for his economics management during the great depression.
Ike was strong when we needed that during the Cold War and a very upright man.
Kennedy Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes were embarrassments to the USA in my opinion because they did not have either the intellectual or moral capacity that we should be able to expect from our President.
In Obama we have a strong leader who is highly educated, who well understands the divisive racial issues and who can articulate his policy better than any other President I have known. He is highly respected on the international stage by both out friends and enemies. He is a personal achiever who had to overcome his accident of birth and not capitalize on it like those from our patrician class. He is still young enough to be in his prime. He demonstrates the American myth that any citizen can become president if he is highly capable.
RE: Curious Why? by Anonymous
Do you always speak in generalities with out backing up your assertions? H. Bush and Reagan lacked moral capacity? What the hell is your definition of moral capacity?
RE: Curious Why? by Occams
No. If you read the thread you will see that Scott asked for my opinion.
And, I said that they “did not have either the intellectual or moral capacity”
Reagan was going senile so he did not have the intellectual capacity. Bush W failed on both counts. He was not only dumb, but his business ethics before becoming Governor showed a lack of the moral capacity to be a good President. This is well documented so you can research it for yourself.
not actual birth certificate by Anonymous
I never doubted he was born in America, too much vetting is done to let that happen. However, I believe the reason for no birth certificate is that usually on the birth certificate you have to put down the religion or there is an opportunity. I believe it is Musilm, which not to say there is anything wrong with that, but believe that it would cause more of a stir then be helpful.
Just makes you wonder why showing some cert of proof on american soil was held so long before being showed..what was the point of doing that.
Two Questionable Items by thumbs52
I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention. First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”.
This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could have Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.
The other item is the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Just look at the following resources: Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger here <http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx> .