Bachmann Tries to Kill Birther Talk: ‘Stop Asking Republicans’ About it
- Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:05am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
In the past, Michelle Bachmann has given some cryptic answers when asked about her thoughts on the president’s birth certificate. Today on “Fox & Friends” she was pretty clear: the questions need to stop.
Speaking to host Gretchen Carlson, Bachmann said the media needs to “stop asking Republicans to vouch and verify for Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That‘s not my job to do or anyone else’s.”
“I take the president at his word. If he says he was born there, he was born there,” she said. But, she also thinks the only way for the president to put the issue to rest is to produce more evidence.
Still, she wants to move on: “We have bigger fish to fry.”
The comments start at about two minutes below:
Bachmann trumpeted a similar message on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today. She told George Stephanopoulos:
“That is not the main issue facing the United States right now. The main issue facing the United States is dealing with our debt and our deficit.”
Bachmann’s recent clarity on the issue comes at a time when she needs to distance herself from Donald Trump, a surprise GOP frontrunner.
You can watch the ABC interview below:
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 690 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 659 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 362 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 211 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 227 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 211 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (376)
chirodoc007
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:37amTrump has brought the question front and center and it is now being used to color every Republican interview. It’s as much a pro or con question with reference to Trump as it is with reference to Obama.
Unfortunately the media are asking it because they know that a negative response will definitely launch Trump on a counterattack against the offending Republican while Obama will continue to look down his nose at any interviewer that asks him about it while he states the the issue is moot.
This is becoming a Republican vs Republican issue with Trump now driving the fight. Remember that Ronald Reagan said that Republicans should never attack other Republicans. Our guys need to make the case for their vision and not snipe at each other.
Report Post »GadsdenGurl
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 1:54pmGiving Trump any cred will simply discredit conservatives. Do’nt fall for it!
Report Post »auntbea
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:34amMichelle is looking and sounding very good. If she would manage the country as soundly as she manages her life, I would vote for her.
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:34amAre any of us sending him snail mail or making phone calls?
I’m all for harassing the pee-waddle out of that man (and I use that term loosely)!
He harasses us hourly.
Turn about fair play…..
or is that too AMERICAN for you, you impostor!
Report Post »PER100
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:32amforget the cert, pick the fights on issues such as Obamacare, debt, and making the country look week to the rest of the world.
Report Post »POIPNE
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:49amAgreed! It‘s a little late to be asking if he’s eligible to be president, more important to be asking if he’s capable. That would be a “no”.
Report Post »Independencemp3
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:29amWe do have bigger fish to fry – Like the Entire Friggin’ Media: ABC, CBS, NBC (with its green borders), CNN, NPR and the sacred PBS, and our academia who intellectually promote the destruction of our market system, and 45% of our population who believe it, plus the aged unions, plus the professional politicians who dole out PC laws that are killing the very personal freedoms we have left (I want to play whiffle ball), plus all the “sunshine” voters who don’t pay attention, plus, plus, plus – Yes – Get Out the Nets, We Need to go Fishing!
Report Post »neverending
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:29amI agree with her wholeheartedly. It is plain to see that while he is in the whitehouse nothing is going to happen with it and so just move on and concentrate on getting him voted out, There is a better chance of getting the sorry sob impeached then to get his records – and it appears that won’t happen either.
Report Post »Claire22
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:38amJust move on? If he‘s supposed to have a valid birth certificate to be President that’s the way it is. This pair of ears in the white house is DESTROYING our country. The American people deserve clarity on this. I support Michele Bachmann but disappointed she’s side-stepping the issue when asked.
Report Post »1stzookid
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:29amPolitical Correctness at work again.
she states “its not her job or anyone else” that is not true. It was someone’s job and they had to be an Obama follower, oh but I was not thinking I’m not politically correct…….
Yes the issue is very important. Because, the last 2 years of Obama and Cass Sunstein and Bush have put our nation on the brink of total collapse. And everything he has done to destroy America will be void, including Obama Care, take over by the EPA which has decided that we don’t need FUEL, telling what you can eat FDA regulating so that we will starve because of our corn going to FUEL instead of food. etc, etc……………
Report Post »Obama Snake Oil Co
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:29amSounds like the witch hunt will continue until the liberals find an angle. Desperate times, desperate things…
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:28amAsking the POTUS if he has a birth certificate is about as effective as asking him to affirm that he is qualified to hold office! And we know how THAT went!
Report Post »Bigliardi
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 1:58pmI for one am tired of gutless Republicans telling me what I can say and what I cannot….Michele Bachmann is kinda geeklike in some of her pronouncements…I am convinced more every day that she will fall by the wayside as a candidate for POTUS…..
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:26amIf the media wants an answer to that question then go to the source
go to the source
go to the source
go to the source
harass Obama with this question relentlessly until he answers.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 5:10pmNo, keep asking the prominent Republicans. Ask all of them! Make each of them choose between embracing reason and losing the primaries or embracing lunacy and losing the general election!
Report Post »psst
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:25amNope. We won’t stop. The Smoke is just tooooooo thick.
I was on Malking’s site a few minutes ago. A poster said “LAST WEEK” Hawaii changed it’s laws that they will no longer issue LFBC, only the short electronic copy that Soetoro have ben brandishing around.
I don‘t know if that is true about Hawaii changing it’s laws on issuing LFBC’s last week.But if true,
Even Pepe LeP (h)ew could not stand the smell.
If Soetoro is illegal, all this crap he’s signed off on will be null and void.
While I’m not a Trump (his conversion to pro-life and anti-gun control seem to be too opportunistic) fan, I appreciates that he has big enough ones to not be cowed by the MSM.
Looks like Bachmann is throwing some of the Tea partiers under the bus.
Report Post »Ya know. The republican party worked long and hard to earn the name Stupid Party.
Like the Bone-man 100B reduction then 69B then 38 B that turned into really a few paltyr millions.
Yes siree Bob. A lot of republican pols have really big ones. Sherlock Holmes is still trying to find them w/ his supa dupa magnifying glass.
Chicago Ray
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 1:32pmShe does all of a sudden sound a little more like she‘s been co opted by the Mainstream GOP er’s on Crapitol Hill like happens to almost every person who gets up there. Frankly at this point the only Tea Party people who’ve stayed entirely true to their campaigning convictions are Rand Paul, Joe Walsh and Sarah Palin and Demint..
The first sell out was that idiot up in Mass, Scott Brown. While not a real Tea Party candidate he burned his GOP bridge with this book and his votes.
The rest have already jumped ship to get on the DC party scene A list.
I will say in their semi defense, these Marxist leftist thugs can beat you down. I fight em every single freaking day toe to toe online over on THEIR WEBSITES along with this singing to the choir stuff, been at it in one way or another since 911 and these people are by far the most dangerous and unhinged we’ve ever seen in this country.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 5:13pmYes Bachmann is throwing you under the bus. Turn against her like petulant children! Make every Republican in the country afraid to be less crazy than Trump. That’s how to beat Obama next year. Go get them!
Report Post »uffdaubet
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:24amWhy would BHO want this question to go away? His lap dogs are barking this at each and every GOP prospect. The closer to the center the one can move the “right fringe” line, the more centrist he can appear without losing his nutty left.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:58amBHO (or whatever his name is) doesn’t want the question to go away!
It helps make his case that a large part of his opposition is looney-tunes.
Report Post »showmerancher
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:23am“Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs…”
So the “Gang of six” is under pressure to get a budget deal…
Yesterday I prattled on about July, second quarters earnings, etc…effect of Japan earthquake…
China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have announced that they plan on moving away from the U.S. dollar as a trade medium of exchange…
The dollar is sinking against world currencies…
Today the Wall Street Journal reports that “US Hurries to sell GM stock”… it is in a great hurry to divest itself of its GM stock, selling it at a loss that will cost
taxpayers $11 Billion… why do that, unless you know something… probably something not good about the stock market?
CNBC is reporting that China is warning the U.S. to protect its creditors…
Hannity and others reporting that Republican leadership are saying that they will not oppose the raising the Debt Ceiling despite the fact that only 16% of Americans
favor it. This after some secret meeting with Turbo Tax Timmie. What did he warn them about… what do they know that they aren’t telling? Why are Republicans
caving…again? Are they just being their normal sell-out selves, or is there something else requiring that we’ll have to have the ability to borrow more money
quickly? But will there be any lenders if that is the case?
Saudi Arabia announced they are cutting oil production, citing a glut of oil on the market just as gasoline hits $5.00/gallon in Washington, D.C…is there really a
glut on the market now, or are they expecting one to happen shortly due to drastically decreased demand?
It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
You know how I feel as if I’ll never come back
It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack
You taught me all the things the way you’d LIKE them to be
But I’d like to see if other people agree
It’s all very interesting the way you disguise
But I’d like to see the world through my own eyes
How’s your 401K?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:22amWE NEED TO CHANGE THE MESSAGE BACK TO WHAT IS WAS ORIGINALLY WAS .
this isnt so much as where he was born, as it is if he was eligible to run to begin with
was he born in hawaii? maybe, but no definitive LEGAL proof submitted
were both his parents U.S. citizens? NO
did he lose his citizenship when he was adopted and moved to indonesia? maybe
did the government in indonesia require attending students to be citizens of indonesia during barry’s time there in school?………………yes
did he regain that citizenship he as required by indonesian had to give up? no one knows
how did he receive foreign student loans if he was not a foreign student?
what visa did he use to go to pakistan when it was illegal to do so ?
THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY EASIER QUESTIONS TO ASK THAN WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII…………………..WHO CARES ……………..ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION FIRST!!!!!
Report Post »plainolamerican
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 1:51pmUnfortunately and unmistakenly immoral the fact as I see it is. Both the Rebloodlican and Democrip gangs are doing everything they can to HIDE the truth from WE THE PEOPLE not for national security, not for economic security nor for fear of violent race wars. The most dispicable security they are doing this for is job security and only job security. What answeer WILL they give when this is proven and WE THE PEOPLE ASK WHY THEY DID NOTHING?
How low can they go? They are not scrapping the bottom of the proverbial barrel they are reaching under. As are their lap dogs in the lamestream media. Although many are in OB-non‘s care even those that aren’t say nor do nothing because having him there to bash brings in the ratings which equal dollars.
However as a Christian I will leave them with one as positive as I can be about them note.
When they go to that special level of HELL for those trying to push, pull and drag this nation that GOD shed his grace upon into the dustbin of history, they will not be alone…
Report Post »Red herring
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 2:34pmThis birther stuff is all ridiculous. A lot of this is pointless to argue because of a common misconception of the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the constitution. The birth location is not the only criteria that determines natural born citizenship. My son was born in Belgium and he can become President of the United States, because he was born to a US Citizen and is entitled to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth. It says so on his U.S. issued birth certificate. He is not a naturalized citizen, but a natural born citizen. Obama could have been born on Mars for all I care (could be true!), his mother was a US citizen. Let’s stop chassing this red herring and stick to the important topics!
Here is the most recent consensus on the subject:
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states–
Report Post »Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth”.
swigs
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 3:25pm@Red herring
Natural Born Citizen= Born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory.
Jus solis et jus sangris…..anything less makes ones loyalities to land and land of the fathers questionable.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 5:26pmWere both his parents U.S. citizens? Doesn’t matter. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen. Did he lose his citizenship when he was adopted and moved to indonesia? No, because he was a minor he can reclaim it just by returning and living here as an adult. Did he regain that citizenship he as required by indonesian had to give up? Yes, he was never not a citizen under the laws of this country. How did he receive foreign student loans if he was not a foreign student? He didn’t, that’s a fib from a two-year old April Fool’s Day hoax. What visa did he use to go to Pakistan when it was illegal to do so? It was not illegal to go to Pakistan at that time.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 8:46pm@Chet Hempstead
“Were both his parents U.S. citizens? Doesn’t matter. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen”
Oh really?….then whats the point of having ones parents citizenships/nationalities listed on birth certificates?
Last time I checked the USA is still a sovereign nation and the COTUS is the Supreme Law of the Land. Anyone born here maybe a citizen depending on circumstances but in order to be a “natural born Citizen” one must be born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 4:11amA natural born citizen is anyone who was born a citizen instead of being naturalized as one. You can find lots of flakes on the internet who say that isn’t true, but you will never find an actual law or court decision that says it, because there are none.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 9:10am@Chet Hempstead
Well then, by your definition how can you say what it is?
Answer this…what compelled John Jay to have the NBC clause entered into the COTUS? The term “citizen” by itself is use repeatly for members of Congress. The only exception with a distinction for eligibility is clearly made for POTUS.
Might it have something to do with foreign mischief, to overthrow our Republic?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 2:56pmWhat compelled John Jay to have the NBC clause entered into the COTUS?
Who cares? That’s what it says “natural born citizen,” not “natural born citizen whose parents or both citizens too” or “natural born citizen who’s never lived in another country” or “natural born citizen who didn’t have an option of choosing to be a citizen of another country instead.” All it says is natural born citizen and all the nuts on all the websites on the whole internet are never going to get a court to interpret that phrase as meaning something different when we’re talking about the President then what it means in the context of every other law, regulation and court decision of the last hundred years.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 4:04pm@Chet
“Who cares?”
========================================
The Founders cared enough to have it written in the COTUS.
Report Post »That’s good enough reason to question those who are not US “natural born Citizens” seeking to hold the highest office in the Land. Then again a One World Order Progressive wouldn’t care about the sovereignty of the US or the exceptionalism of “We the People”.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 6:22pmI don’t claim to be able to red the minds of dead people. If you want to talk about what John Jay meant by a natural born citizen you’ll have to show me his own words on the subject. (Time saving hint – all the Federaliist Papers on the Executive are by Hamilton who never mentions the natural born citizen clause or shows any sign of giving a hoot about it.) Even if you do and it confirms your opinion about his intent you will still only have a decent theoretical argument, it will make not one whit of practical difference unless you take it to the Supreme Court and convince them to use it as a reason to overturn US v Wong Kim Ark, instead of continuing to stupidly insist that the Court did not establish a definition for natural born citizen under which the country has been operating for almost half its history.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 9:10pm@Chet
“I don’t claim to be able to red the minds of dead people. If you want to talk about what John Jay meant by a natural born citizen you’ll have to show me his own words on the subject.”
IOW you don’t know. Obviously you don’t know the history of the US and how it came to be. You obviously haven’t a clue about the founders concerns regarding foreign influences which would have only served to overthrow the Republic. The library is full of books on the subject and it’s free.
You wrote;=”…it will make not one whit of practical difference unless you take it to the Supreme Court and convince them to use it as a reason to overturn US v Wong Kim Ark…,”
Well it appears you‘re the stupid one since you can’t differentiate between what it means to be a “natural born Citizen” and a British subject. You also must be prone to ADD since I‘ve repeated told you Kim vs Wong doesn’t re-define NBC since it has always meant born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory. All US vs Wong did is define citizenship for those Chinese immigrants born here after the ratification of the 14th inspite of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The part you Progressive One World Order Commie Socialists don’t comprehend is …. and pay close attention….the 14th never in any way shape or form changed altered or modified the COTUS A2S1C5 eligibility requirement for POTUS.
All you have is misleading information and circular arguments at re-defining what IS is. Try again.
Report Post »Or….. open a good book.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 12:09amI‘ve repeated told you Kim vs Wong doesn’t re-define NBC since it has always meant born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory.
Yeah, you have. But you’ve never been able to answer the simple question – says who? You can’t point to a law that says this. You can’t point to a court decision that says it. You can’t point to the words of the founding fathers to prove it. You can’t show that you have any source for this supposed fact that you are so sure of except for other loonies on the internet.
Well it appears you‘re the stupid one since you can’t differentiate between what it means to be a “natural born Citizen” and a British subject.
Yeah I can, a British subject is anyone born in England or an English colony. A natural born citizen is anyone born in the United States. That’s what it meant when the Supreme Court turned to the English Common Law definition of a natural born subject to find a definition for a “natural born citizen,” a phrase that appeared in the Constitution but is not defined in it.
All US vs Wong did is define citizenship for those Chinese immigrants born here after the ratification of the 14th in spite of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
If they are citizens because they are born here, not because they are naturalized, then they are natural born citizens. That’s what it means.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 12:48amOops! In my last post I should have written that a British subjject is anyone born in the United Kingdom or a British colony. I would not want anyone to think that I am as sloppy with the facts as poor Swigs.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 9:53am@Chet
“Yeah, you have. But you’ve never been able to answer the simple question – says who? You can’t point to a law that says this.”
There you go again pretending to know what you’re talking about. The issue in US vs Wong was never about what the definition of NBC is. That‘s the part you’re making up. Once again I’ll repeat it for you since you obivously have some form of handicap….The term “natural born citizen” never needed defining since it has always meant born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory. How do I know this? Except for the founders who had themselves grandfathered in for eligibility for POTUS they all had one thing in common. They were all born of two US citizen parents. The only exceptions occurred twice when Chester Arthur born to a foriegner and Odumba born to a Kenyan father and we only have his word he was born in HI since he made sure all his records were to be kept secret his first day in office..These men are not “natural born Citizens” required by COTUS.
You wrote=”If they are citizens because they are born here, not because they are naturalized, then they are natural born citizens. That’s what it means”
All natural born citizens are citizens not all citizens are “natural born Citizens”. Those Chinese babies could never be eligible for POTUS any more than they could be king or queen of England if they were born British subjects. What you are proposing defies what is customarily accepted as a governing principle in the natural law of nations.
There are four types of citizens here in the USA, natural born citizens, native born citizens, naturalized citizens and dual citizens. By virtue of the 14th all are treated equal before the Law with one exception……. only a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible for POTUS according to COTUS the Supreme law of the Land.
You have not been able to show, demonstrate or prove how or where the 14th in any way shape or form altered changed or modified the elibility requirement for POTUS.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 1:41pm“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Minor v Happersett 1874
That’s the Supreme Court over 85 years after the Constitution was ratified and almost 25 years before US v Wong Kim Ark saying that the definition of a natural born citizen was NEVER a settled issue, people were still arguing about it. They also made it clear that they regarded native and natural born citizen as synonyms. All the internet loonies who tell you that they are two different things are lying. You are either natural born or naturalized.
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
US v Wong Kim Ark 1898
That’s the Supreme Court finally settling the issue. I realize that your miserably poor reading comprehension skills allow you to deny that this proves that I am right and you are wrong. You will probably once again fixate on the one word “subject” with the intensity of a house cat hypnotized by a shining object. Even if you can’t grasp the meaning of a whole sentence or series of sentences, ask yourself this – why would an American court even be talking about the definition of a natural born subject if it WASN’T because they were trying to define a natural born citizen?
I have the actual words of two Supreme Court decisions on my side. What do you have? Where did anyone ever write down this “fact” that you are so sure everybody always knew? If nobody ever wrote it down, how do you know it? Were you there? Do you know it firsthand because you are over two hundred years old? Or are you just reading the minds of dead people again?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 2:28pm“How do I know this? Except for the founders who had themselves grandfathered in for eligibility for POTUS they all had one thing in common. They were all born of two US citizen parents.”
This is not logic. They had more than one thing in common. They were all men. This doesn’t mean a woman can’t be President. Until Obama they were all white. This doesn’t mean you have to be white. They were all born in states of the U.S. This doesn’t mean that someone born in a territorial possession can’t be President. They were all Christians. But the Constitution specifically says it’s not a requirement.
“They were all born of two US citizen parents” doesn’t prove that this is an actual rule unless you can show me the rule.
Report Post »swigs
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 7:31pm@ Chet
Once again you proved yourself to be a insignificant ignoramous.
I asked for a simple answer to a basic question and you post 14th Amendment cases which have no bearing on the eligibility issue.
You wrote=”I have the actual words of two Supreme Court decisions on my side. What do you have? Where did anyone ever write down this “fact” that you are so sure everybody always knew? If nobody ever wrote it down, how do you know it? Were you there? Do you know it firsthand because you are over two hundred years old? Or are you just reading the minds of dead people again?”
Tell you what I don’t have is your answer to that basic question I asked repeatedly. Re-read all my posts on this thread.
You wrote=”This is not logic. They had more than one thing in common. They were all men. This doesn’t mean a woman can’t be President. Until Obama they were all white. This doesn’t mean you have to be white. They were all born in states of the U.S. This doesn’t mean that someone born in a territorial possession can’t be President.”
Again re-read my posts on this thread. I don‘t expect you to understand anything logical so I’ve made it easy even for a high school drop out to understand. If anyone man or woman is born to a Kenyan father, they are also Kenyan and not eligible for POTUS.
You wrote=”“They were all born of two US citizen parents” doesn’t prove that this is an actual rule unless you can show me the rule.”
It’s conclusive evidence with the exception of those grandfathered into the eligibility clause all POTUS (Chester Arthur and Odumba not) were born of two US citizen parents on US jurisdictional territory. The NBC term used in the COTUS has not been changed altered or modified in any way shape or form by the 14th Amendment. No SC definition will ever be needed cause up untill now the country hasn’t been overrun by subvertives.
Your childish attempts to divert, obfuscate and misinform makes it clear you either are a useful idoit for the Progressive subvertives or a reincarnated sewer clog.
Since it doesn‘t seem likely you’ll respond with anything honest or genuine I’ll leave it up you to do your homework and find a corner in a round room somewhere to keep yourself busy.
I’m off this thread.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 22, 2011 at 11:37pm“I asked for a simple answer to a basic question and you post 14th Amendment cases which have no bearing on the eligibility issue.”
“Tell you what I don’t have is your answer to that basic question I asked repeatedly. Re-read all my posts on this thread.
What question are you talking about? I did reread all your stupid posts, and I did see a few questions that I considered too pointless to bother to answer, but none that you asked more than once. Do you know what a question is?
“The NBC term used in the COTUS has not been changed altered or modified in any way shape or form by the 14th Amendment.”
I never said that it had. What I claim, and what is obvious to anyone who knows how to read, is that the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the term natural born citizen meant anyone born on United States soil regardless of the citizenship of their parents, and that this was what it had always meant according to the laws of this country at the time of the writing of the Constitution and ever since then.
Report Post »showmerancher
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:21amWe actually (believe it or not) might have some bigger problems. From my post on FOX:
“Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs…”
So the “Gang of Six” is under pressure to get a budget deal…
Yesterday I prattled on about July, second quarters earnings, etc…effect of Japan earthquake…
China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have announced that they plan on moving away from the U.S. dollar as a trade medium of exchange…
The dollar is sinking against world currencies…
Today the Wall Street Journal reports that “US Hurries to sell GM stock”… it is in a great hurry to divest itself of its GM stock, selling it at a loss that will cost taxpayers $11 Billion… why do that, unless you know something… probably something not good about the stock market?
CNBC is reporting that China is warning the U.S. to protect its creditors…
Hannity and others reporting that Republican leadership are saying that they will not oppose the raising the Debt Ceiling despite the fact that only 16% of Americans favor it. This after some secret meeting with Turbo Tax Timmie. What did he warn them about… what do they know that they aren’t telling? Why are Republicans caving…again? Are they just being their normal sell-out selves, or is there something else requiring that we’ll have to have the ability to borrow more money quickly? But will there be any lenders if that is the case?
Saudi Arabia announced they are cutting oil production, citing a glut of oil on the market just as gasoline hits $5.00/gallon in Washington, D.C…is there really a glut on the market now, or are they expecting one to happen shortly due to drastically decreased demand?
It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
You know how I feel as if I’ll never come back
It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack
You taught me all the things the way you’d LIKE them to be
But I’d like to see if other people agree
It’s all very interesting the way you disguise
But I’d like to see the world through my own eyes
How’s your 401K?
Report Post »showmerancher
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:27amI apologize for the double post (below)… apparently I have a ‘twitchy’ mouse hand or something today.
Report Post »Candertwin
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:21amThe point is, Obama is a good lair. Period. What he says is anything that people want to hear so he can get elected. If Obama says he was born there… It means nothing. (he probably was, but you can’t take his word for it.)
Report Post »arnash
Posted on April 23, 2011 at 8:06amHe probably wasn’t, because if he was then he would have possession of his birth certificate because he would have needed it to get several things, like a passport. Are we to believe he got a passport without one? No. So we are left to believe that he doesn‘t show his BC because he doesn’t have one, and could have been using an Indonesian passport, which he also will never show. One can ask that he show at least one of them because he has at least on of them.
Report Post »Iowa_man
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:20amThe only way the POTUS is going to show his birth certificate is if it truly becomes a liability. Right now he is using it to his advantage to take credibility away from those who oppose him. As long as it is challenged correctly, directly and fairly, it will become a liability and we may see the real deal. MB did not say that its a non issue, she said it was not just an issue for republicans. The Donald is doing a great job banging away at the issue. More power to him.
Report Post »Inmyopinion
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 11:37amWhat makes you or anyone think we will ever see the “Real Deal”? Birth Certificates can be forged by anyone with power. Do you not think the POTUS has this kind of power? This issue only begets more adversity and distain for the Republicans. Trump is no friend to the Republican party. Beware!
Report Post »powhatan
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:20amI still want to see proof. Or want to know why he will not prove it. He has lied about almost everything else, why believe him?
Report Post »Otto Von Bismarck
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 6:34pmBecause if you were shown ironclad proof, if Jesus Himself descended from the Heavens and declared in majestic tones, “This man is 100% qualified to be the President,” the Birthers would still find a way to declare that evidence fraudulent and continue on their misguided tilting at windmills.
The single greatest cause of the Republican’s defeat in 2012 will be a combination of ignorant Birthers and willfully ignorant Tea Partiers.
Where have all the intelligent right-wingers gone?!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:19amIt’s all so very silly. Some republicans run from the question like a scared puppy. Why? As the messenger, you can control your message. When asked, just say you’re waiting for the Marxist to release his official BC. You don’t have to say anything further. Put the pressure on the M-squared (media/Marxist) to answer the question. Only one person can really answer the question, anyhow.
Report Post »hern_dog
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:15amabout time someone demands the media to stop asking that question, the media knows they’ll get the “birther” remarks if they ask the birther questions therefore creating a “radical” view of republicans but really it‘s not an issue for republicans it’s just republicans have the honesty and integrity to answer a tough question like that–that should be the media‘s main focus that republican contenders unlike obama won’t beat around the bush and give honest answers
Report Post »psst
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:52amCreating a radical view of republicans? Ya gots ta be kidding w/ that line.
Report Post »The MSM have ALWAYS created a radical view of republicans., long before Soetoro even arrived here.
Ya never ever heard through these many many Moons that republican wants grand-maw not just to eat Fido’s food, but eat Fido .
Republicans wants to starve kids , kill the sick, put the insane in the gas ovens blah blah.
Ya thunk if we would only stop “axing” Where’s the LFBC ? the MSM will start to love republicans or conservatives (not necessarily synonymous)
Hell, if republicans or conservatives would appear on the MSM w/ a Bible and a Koran in each hand and swear that Soetoro was born in Hawaii and that he’s really qualified to hold office and afterwards said con or republican to prove that this is so,would behead himself/herself ,then the MSM would love.
conservatives or republicans.. Ain’t neva eva gonna happen, even afternity.
Redd
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:13amTake a commie dunham at his word? Try the latest signing statement. Bachmann just dropped several rungs on the repub candidate ladder.
Report Post »jackrorabbit
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:38amYup, number two to die. Santorium went down first can’t remember what he did, and she may as well save her money, since a lot of the Republicans in Iowa have this exact question.
Report Post »felina g
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:42amCheck Drudge……….new book coming out…………PLUS……………..
Check this out……..lots of info
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/madsen1.1.1.html
Don`t let other issues get derailed. That is what the Libs want !!!!!!!!
Report Post »psst
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:55am@JackRo
Report Post »Yep. I agree w/ you on that.She blew it.
W/o acting like Mz Monica.
Exorcist
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 10:01pmBachmann’s wrong in saying she took what Obama said about his birth. He’s no credibility at all, not only on the “big fish” policy issues but on the “non-issue” birth certificate which he cannot or will not produce. No sensible man would take the words of someone who when asked, refuses to produce his ID.
But I heard her saying, don‘t just ask only the Republicans for Obama’s birth documents (Obama has misguided America to perceive the issue when he openly said on TV “I‘m not worried for it’s a problem for Republicans” ) but keep pressing Obama himself to go to the clerk of Court to get hid documents, if any, legally certified.
For the moment, I’d like this team::
Report Post »Trump for President (gutsy and candid) and Palin for V.P. (faith and values)
West for Secretary of States (many Commies to be thrown out from the Department)
Beck for Secretary for Departments of Education
sleazyhippo
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:12amShe has been coached and is acting rational.
Report Post »RED-DAWN
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:11amThis guy is like a severe disease, in the end it does not matter where you contracted it. The question should be WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO CURE THE PROBLEM?
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 1:29pmOnce again you ask the correct questions @REDDAWN, you make quite a habit of that I think.
Additionally, you are clear and concise, wish I had that talent, but I digress.
“you are given a Spirit of courage and not of fear.”
Report Post »Exorcist
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 8:59pmTo break open the birth-gate is the cure for the Obama-syndrome.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:11amI agree. They should start asking Democrats about the missing birth certificate. This should be a bi-partisan issue. It’s NOT ONLY Republicans who want to see it.
Cemoto78
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 10:10amWe need to make sure Obama is on the unemployment line in 2012, plain and simple. This guy is destroying this country along with all his Marxist, socialist, and terrorist friends.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 11:27amI agree with CEMOTO78
& Bachmann , is this the best you can come up with ? “If he says he was born there, he was born there.”
Report Post »So from now on we don’t have to show any documents we can just say “I was born here” is that what you want Bachmann ?
A lot of illegals will vote for you .
its_time_to_arrest_our_government
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 1:43pmwe ned to make sure the next line obamas standing in is the prison chow line. along with anyone who refused to look into this matter. this is the problem in this country we take lieing polititians word for the truth. its time we started standing up to these judges and polititians who dont do the job we elected them to do. weve gone far too long beliving the lies we are fed. its time to wake up america!
BocaBaby
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 2:31pmRobert in CA-I agree with you! I do like Michelle B., but this is only proof to me that she is not courageouse ENOUGH to be POTUS. Like someone above said, she has been coached, and is acting ‘rational’.
Whether you agree that he was born here or not, OR you simply think we should move on……I am looking at the people who have the COURAGE…..I MEAN STRONG COURAGE…NOT SOME COURAGE like Michelle does have……………………
but someone with true COURAGE, AND IS TOTALLY UNAFRAID NOT JUST OF THE FAR LEFT EVIL EMPIRE, BUT SOMEONE WHO IS UNAFRAID FROM ALL OF THE RINOS IN THE GOP. I watched Michelle in this interview and also the one on FOX last night-which btw were SLIGHTLY different.
I would NOW NOT vote for her, because as much as I think she is WONDERFUL…….I DO NOT BELEIVE SHE IS CAPABLE OF BEING TRULY UNAFRAID, AND THAT SHE WOULD NOT BACK DOWN TO A LOWER LEVEL GROUP SUCH AS KARL ROVE……..EVEN THOUGH HE DETESTS HER.
I only see true strong courage in Donald Trump and Sarah Palin (and much more so in him btw-to her credit, up to this point he hasnt been a battering ram to the media)
TRUMP 2012……………EVEN BETTER TRUMP-PALIN 2012
IS IT JUST ME OR ARE THERE ANY OTHERS OUT THERE THAT ARE NOTICING EVER NON-ANCHOR CONSERVATIVE MOUTHPIECE ON FOX IN THE EVENINGS—-STARTING WITH BRETT’S PANEL ARE EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE POCKET OF ROMNEY………………………………………KRAUTHAMMER, AND EVERY OTHER ONE FROM DANA PARINO, TO ROMNEY’S STAFF WORKER, TO THE OTHER LADY…THAT STATE’S UP FRONT, “MY HUSBAND WORKS FOR ROMNEY AS A CONSULTANT….JUST THOUGHT I SHOULD DISCLOSE THAT”………………………THEN THEY EACH AND EVERY ONE, SNARKY AS CAN BEEN, CONDESCENDINGLY DECRY THAT NO ONE IS WORTHY OR CAPABLE OF BEING ELECTED,……………..EXCEPT FOR haley barbour and of course ROMNEY-puke puke puke…LOL
seriousely, does FOX OR ANY OTHE THESE LOSER PANEL PEOPLE THINK WE FELL OFF THE TRUNIP TRUCK YESTERDAY?????? LAST ELECTION, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE DID ALL THEY COULD TO TRY AND DEGRADE MIKE HUCKABEE-WHO IN MY OPINION IS HEAD AND SHOULDER’S ABOVE ANY OF THEIR CHOICES(which they are PAID$$$$ to have), and once Mccain chose Palin, again they were all foaming at the mouth wile undermining her every chance they could get.
and NOW…….they and FOX think we don’t see this?????????
I am starting to think that I would vote for anyone…..as long as they are not endorsed by Karl Rove, and Charles Krauthammer(who I used to respect both…….but in my opinion they are so much like the others who can and have been bought$$$$$$$)
I beleive the next few weeks will be so entertaining, when we get to see mr. rove explain how Trump’s numbers are STILL doing so well.
TRUMP 2012
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 20, 2011 at 3:00pmPeople who think Trump is a conservative haven’t paid atention to him over the years. He is an opportunistic salesman and you are the mark. He supported the Kelo decision. He supported Government healthcare, was pro-choice in 2000, and supports gun restriction.
You people are like Pavlovian dogs salivating at his mention of the birth certificate. There’s nothing there, except a diversion from the reall issues that we can use to beat Obama. That’s why Obama loves this. That’s why the media love to focus on it.
You are their unwitting puppets.
Report Post »eric6161
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 2:09pmWhy say Obama? Why not say whom we need? I prefer that Obama is defeated in 2012 but should Hillary run… she would be equally as bad as Obama is.
Bachmann in 2012! or
Allen West in 2012! or West/Bachmann in 2012.
Let’s think positive thoughts…
Democracy is the tyranny of the 51%
Report Post »LetFreedomRing
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 10:32pmWe won’t be able to get rid of Obama if we keep being labeled kooks because so many Republicans are apparantly birthers! He’s produced the certified copy of his birth certificate. It’s the same legal document I provide to verify the location of my birth. What more proof do we want? I actually wish Michelle Bachman had answered the question like this, “He’s got a certified birth certificate issued by Hawaii. End of story!” The sooner we get off this issue the sooner we can bring back the credibility of all conservatives. It makes us all look like a bunch of idiots!
Report Post »