Calling all Birthers

[BS-87 30]

packsaddle - The stance you want people to take is to believe in a myth that's already been debunked. It's like you're asking people to avow they believe the Earth is flat!

 

It sounds like the questions people have on here are well articulated and researched, not just mindnumbed sheeple opinions. Therein, nobody is willing to be degraded with a term like "birther" which in itself puts you in a category as someone with no sense of reason.

 

I'd rather have two questions than two contradicting opinions.

[acco40 95]

I thought only females of reproductive age could be birthers.

[BrentAllen 10]

pack,

You'll have to wait a month, but here is your answer:

 

Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President [Hardcover]

http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299/

 

I've heard what Kahuna said - that getting a birth certificate in Hawaii is easy - that Hawaii has/had a statute that allows a Certificate of Live Birth to be issued simply on the statement of one family member (with so many islands as part of the state, I'm guessing there may have been many births outside of hospitals at that time). If that is the case, then a big can of worms is opened. As for the birth notices in the paper, I understand they are generated from the Certificates of Life Birth. IF Obama was born overseas, the question as to why the parents/grandparents would go to the trouble of trying to say he was born in the US isn't answered. IF this actually happened, I seriously doubt it was so he could one day be president, but may have been for other rights of citizenship. Regardless, as others have stated, Obama appears to have something to hide.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Isn't conspiracy theorism fun? No sooner is one claim debunked than 10 others pop up, and there is still a core group of people who will, beyond all logic, still believe in a debunked claim. For instance, about a year back, one Orly Taitz produced a "birth certificate" for President Obama from the "Republic of Kenya". Despite the fact that the Republic of Kenya didn't exist until 1963, which means they couldn't have issued a birth certificate for Barack Obama in 1961, there are still folks who believe this fraudulent certificate is real.

 

Isn't it interesting how some of the GOP supporters of the "birthers" are starting to back away - rapidly? Who does Michelle Bachman think she's kidding? Isn't it interesting how some of the birthers are now starting to claim they aren't birthers because even though they believe in one portion of the birther platform, they don't believe in another? Sorry to break it to you fellows who are arguing that wondering about eligibility doesn't make you a birther. The eligibility argument comes right out of the birther handbook - you can deny it all you want but most of us will still consider you birthers.

 

Speaking of debunking - about those birth notices in the newspapers? They were provided, in list form, by the hospital - not the family - so if we're to believe the conspiracy, we have to believe that the hospital was somehow involved in it too. The practice then, as it is now, is for hospitals to provide lists of births for the week to the local papers. It's really no different than schools providing the weeks school lunch menu to newspapers. If people bothered to check, they'd learn that the newspapers confirmed that the listings came from the hospital, not the family.

 

Plain old common sense should tell us that the notices came from somewhere other than a family member. The notices read "Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama, (home address), son, August 4". Is there anyone that truly believes a proud grandmother, or aunt, (or heck, even a taciturn but proud grandfather) would submit such a notice? If a family member had sent the notice, it would have contained the mother's first name, the name of the child (not just "son"), possibly height and weight, names of siblings (if any) and names of the grandparents.

 

Brent - I caught the myth dogging the president bit too. I don't think it's dogging the president because there is anything behind the myth - I think it's dogging the president because the media loves to put nutjobs on television (as evidence of this statement, I offer Snooki, The Unit (or whatever he calls himself) and the rest of the Jersy Shore gang) and there is no bigger group of nutjobs in America right now than the birthers.

 

"It sounds like the questions people have on here are well articulated and researched, not just mindnumbed sheeple opinions." I couldn't let this one go. Something may be 'well articulated and researched" but that doesn't mean it's not nonsense. Look at all the 'well articulated and researched" articles about crop circles, UFO's, Bigfoot sightings, and paranormal activity. There are entire industries out there built around this stuff that just sucks money from people who want to believe in this stuff. There's an industry around the birther movement as well - evidenced by the book that Brent has shown us will be released in about a month. Someone is going to be making money off of people for writing this book - Sheeple seems to be an appropriate word - in the sense that a bunch of folks are about to get fleeced by someone who is going to make money off the backs of the gullible.

[BS-87 30]

CalicoPenn -

 

The left has been guilty of this since the argument started. They assume that by debunking one part of the argument, you debunk an entire movement. You've addressed quite well the already debunked myths. Some people are going to be silly enough to still believe what they believe despite what you present. However, there are people who understand what you say, and stand with you against the nonsense who also question eligibility because there still exists confusion about who is and who is not eligible to run for President. Just because you can prove Obama was born here doesn't mean you can prove he's eligible to run for President. This is because the Constitution is both explicit and vague on the subject.

 

It really needs to be laid out clearly in a Constitutional Amendment instead of arguing about the meaning of colloquial terms from centuries ago.

[vol_scouter 365]

I second BS-87. My personal feeling is that someone who is going to run for president:

 

must be of age 45 years of age (35 is too young), must be born on USA soil, must be born to citizens, must not have other citizenships, must never have given up citizenship {whether done by parents/legal guardians or themselves}, must present all pertinent documents {including but not limited to: birth certificate [long form if used in the state of birth], passport records, college records, loan records, financial disclosures, etc.} to every state for examination.

 

As an amendment, it would not affect Obama so it is not directed toward him but a result of his election. The same requirements should be made for the vice president and anyone wishing to be Speaker of the House would meet the same requirements but would not be reported to the states but some committee from both houses of the government. The 50 states are more likely to have clear and fair resolution than the FEC on eligibility since there would be less direct party control.

[Beavah 205]

The 50 states are more likely to have clear and fair resolution than the FEC on eligibility since there would be less direct party control.

 

Yah, this thread has been really funny, but this one has to take the cake. Sorry, vol. Yeh do know that da FEC is required by law to have a 50-50 split by party on the commission, and requires a 2/3 majority to approve anything, right? And yeh do know that many states of the union have single party control over both houses, the executive, and the state supreme court, right?

 

I confess I'm increasingly opposed to da intrusiveness of campaigning, and da whole inanity over President Obama's (and Senator McCain's) eligibility I think has been one of da causes. Reasonable financial disclosures I get. Health records I don't get. Why should a fellow who is running for office have to have his medical history published to the world? College records I don't get. Do we care if he got a B in freshman chemistry? Loan applications? Credit history? This is worse than tabloid journalism. I've never even heard of a long form birth certificate. Here we just have birth certificates, and in some cases people can't produce da originals because da county records department had a fire or took water damage or some low-paid clerk filed it under their middle name. Are we goin' to render all of 'em ineligible to run, along with anyone who had a poor credit score at some point in their life?

 

Seriously, what competent fellow would want the job? I'd walk away from any employer who requested all that from me (well, actually, I'd bring a wicked class action suit...).

 

Barack Obama has clearly been an active American all his teen and adult life. Who in their right mind tries to hold a man of age 50 to what he might have said at age 3, let alone what his parents said? And if yeh do find it reasonable for some reason, then I reckon yeh have to ask yourself why for this president and no one before?

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic 993]

Beavah; I think we know the answer to your last question.

[BS-87 30]

It always comes back to racism doesn't it?

 

Do any of the left leaners here disagree with Allen West or Herman Cain's platforms? If you disagree with their policy stances, I'm afraid to say it's probably just because you're racist.

 

Accuse me of being anti-statist, ultra-conservative, or crazy libertarian, but DO NOT assume I'm racist because I disagree with a POTUS for his beliefs that America is the "big bad" and who doesn't understand American exceptionalism. He feels our exceptionalism is no different from the patriotism of other nations, but the United States fills a unique role in the world today that he would rather us not hold. Those are destructive to our American system as it exists today. His not being born to two American citizens and especially his following those "dreams of my father" are examples of why our Founding Fathers stated "natural born" as they understood it. Obama is not "Anti-American", he's just leading a movement to destroy the America we currently know and love.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Obama is not "Anti-American", he's just leading a movement to destroy the America we currently know and love.

 

I find this belief (expressed above by BS-87) to be even more "out there" than the idea that President Obama was born somewhere other than in the U.S. I have also heard it expressed by hosts of radio talk shows, and it makes me shake my head every time. So you disagree with his policies. I disagree with some of them too, though probably not all the same ones or for the same reasons that you do. I disagreed with many policies of the past administration. But why does disagreement with policies have to turn into accusing the president of trying to "destroy the America we currently know and love."

[BS-87 30]

It comes to that conclusion because we fill a unique role in the world today.

 

A. Anyone who would take us out of our special role in the world would be "destroying" America as we know it today.

 

B. Obama does not want America to hold that special role in the world, and has been acting in ways to undermine that special role.

 

Conclusion - Obama is "destroying" America as we know it today.

[packsaddle 753]

I'm not sure it always comes back to racism rather than a fairly recent acceptance of an 'end justifying the means' approach to politics. And I think that might have started with Lee Atwater or perhaps goes back to Nixon or Johnson. In this case the 'race card' is convenient because it gives both sides something to 'use' as a misdirection instead of addressing real problems in realistic ways.

 

As far as America's special place, I would like to learn what, specifically, that is? Going back to the previous administrations, it seems to be 'Nationbuilder' or something along those lines. Is that what you mean? What?

[skeptic 993]

Personally, I would not be averse to having us go back to the time when we were not the defender (supposedly, but really a lot of political economics involved) of the world; where our assistance to other countries, especially developing countries, was limited to the lend a hand mode; where our priorities and financial resources (of the government) were used to improve our own country's infrastructure and schools; where rights were not so skewed to the "me/mine" idea. Many of our problems today are directly related to the very thing Eisenhower warned against. Add the oil, pharmaceutical firms, and big financial groups to his areas of concern. We cannot ignore the rest of the world; but we still need to focus more on our own issues, and far less on those of other countries. Certainly the military has its place, and we need to be able to properly defend ourselves should the "real need" occur. But think about it; every missal shot could pay for a new school; every plane lost is a cost that could rebuild hundreds of miles of highway; every soldier lost leaves not only grief, but financial hardship in many instances for the families; and the injuries to those not killed, cost even more problems both for the families, but for the society struggling to support their therapies.

 

The monies used in Afghanistan war; how much more effect might they have had if we had used them "to teach them to fish"?

 

Nothing is simple, especially in the almost totally linked world through modern technologies; but it just seems to me that we have lost sight of the things most important, especially on the governmental levels. We, as citizens of the United States, still appear to still be some of the most giving and "lend and hand" people of the world. This is seen by the continued efforts of the rank and file citizens to lend aide when major disasters occur. That is the face we should have focused on the world theater, in my opinion.

 

Yes, I know! I am thinking in a naive way, actually believing we are better than we present ourselves. Maybe if we, as a people, actually lived our lives more in line with the "Scout Law", things would be less fractured and contentious. One can dream! One of the perks of being old.

[BS-87 30]

By special role I mean that the United States serves as the strongest economic, military, and social welfare force in the world. This is because our dollar is the World Reserve Currency, we are unmatched in military strength, and we're allowed both of these by the rest of the world because we also do our best to ensure human rights are recognized worldwide.

 

If we lose our ability to act unilaterally, as Obama would have us relinquish, we lose that role.

 

If we lose our position as the world's reserve currency, as the Federal Reserve is ensuring through their decades old game of devaluing our dollar, we lose that role.

 

If we become isolationist or make a habit of being the aggressors in wars against sovereign nations and their leaders, like Iraq and Libya, we lose that special role.

 

America's special role is as the world's only superpower, and it makes America sustainably the "master" or most decadent of the rest of the world. This is because we are good, and we are right. If anyone wants to destroy this position every American currently enjoys (whether they realize it or not) then they are for destroying the America we all know and love.

 

While it's admirable in thought to say, "Hey, America shouldn't be anybody's master, we really aren't better than anyone else." Nobody wants to give up the standard of living that they've acquired because of that role of ours. It sounds selfish of us, but it is the right given to us by our ingenuity in the past. Truthfully, the only advantage we have over the rest of the world now is not that we're smarter, but that we're perfectly suited for managing the rest of them.

[packsaddle 753]

We could give up 50% of our military and remain unmatched in military might.

 

Our status as a reserve currency is being threatened by our having spent beyond our means for a long time. The debt commission supplied a very modest bipartisan approach to addressing that problem and both parties have ignored it. This does not fall at the feet of Obama alone, but rather at all involved. As Beavah noted a long time ago in another thread, there's no need to come up with partisan budgets like we're fighting over now, budgets that really don't address the problems, if we were serious about addressing the problem, take a bold move, adopt the advice of the debt commission. Ain't going to happen. We're not serious about it at all. Almost none of us.

 

 

"If we...make a habit of being the aggressors in wars against sovereign nations and their leaders, like Iraq and Libya, we lose that special role."

We squandered that during the last administration. Everyone seemed happy with it back then.

 

"Truthfully, the only advantage we have over the rest of the world now is not that we're smarter, but that we're perfectly suited for managing the rest of them."

Evidence the masterful ways we're handling our own affairs, right? This is a joke, right? This kind of statement is such nonsense. If a majority of us really believed that we'd deserve to get slapped down the way those who hold that view usually eventually get slapped down.

 

Your idea of 'sustainability' is a sad illusion that some get when they think their at the top of the pile. Usually a view held by the likes of the Castros and Gaddafis of the world.