US
Now Rev. Franklin Graham Questions Obama’s Birth Certificate: ‘Why Can’t He Produce That?’
- Posted on April 24, 2011 at 8:33pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Via HotAirPundit:
(h/t Mediaite)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 563 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 386 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 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 386 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 315 Comments- 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 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 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 (290)
Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:15pmCome on No-Drama-Obama! Stop trying to make us chase you.
Report Post »pakaeboiboi
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:14pmWOW!!!!! Islamabad Amanpour ….. actually let this video get to the internet public …… boy this girl is losing the sharp edge on her editing scissors …..
Report Post »Don
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:11pmI am not puzzled by the Obama resolve to NOT show a birth certificate. Mostly because he evidently has something to hide. Maybe it is not that he was not born in the US. It could be something else but he is hiding something. That is very clear. I am puzzled by those who think he should not have to provide it. Not supporting disclosure is advocating circumventing the constitution. What exactly is hard to understand about that? Anyone who thinks he should not provide it should explain why. O’Reilly, Beck and many others on other news outlets should provide the reasoning.
Being critical of those who think the certificate should be made public, is belittling the constitution itself. Franklin Graham is right, the controversy is easy to resolve just show the birth certificate.
The man (Obama) is a compulsive liar. Most of us know that now, consequently why should we believe anything he says.
Report Post »donh2
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:06pmThe reason even “ conservative ” media mavens like Beck spike this issue is because Obama is a member of the BUSH fraternity of fascism . This video at the 1:10 mark proves Donald Trump’s accusation that Karl Rove OWNS Obama and put him into office. One of Rove’s whitehouse deputies was a classmate of Obama and helped elect Obama Editor of the Harvard Law Review… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ielyhbi3lVY
Report Post »PaulAnn
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:04pmThere was an article by Benjamin Shapiro this week saying that we are not so interested in his birth certificate or questioning where he was born, but are very concerned that he is so un-american. Where did he get his ideas from and why, if he is an american, he feels this way.
Report Post »My answer to all of that is that he was raised by a socialist mother and surrounded himself with socialist/marxist all of his life.
looseyloo
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:43amIt may be because he is so un-American that more people are starting to ask, “Why doesn’t he just show the certificate ?”
After all, what President has ever been so involved in agitating fellow citizens; his campaign organization bused thugs to Wisconsin, he has deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the AZ illegal immigrant law, he intentionally lied to all of us about what was in the healthcare bill…He is not just taking the political side of issues– he is ridiculing and demeaning ordinary citizens when he accuses doctors of performing amputations to get a bigger payday, or when he ridicules the Tea Party.
There is something very un-American about him, and it might just be that he is not American. If he would just show the BC, we could explore other reasons for his hostility to this country.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:59pmThat stupid woman should have known Franklin Graham cannot tell a lie.
Report Post »Myresponse2010
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:56pmIn the end, Obama can kiss any re-election chances goodbye even if he could show a birth certificate (which he can’t). The socialist liberal press talks about it so much trying to damage the republican party that it has tainted Obama. He just won’t get the votes next time around, it isn’t going to be there for him.
And that leaves the door open for a Hillary run, and run she will, count on it. The Clinton machine will be back like the terminator and crush the Obama cult for good.
I, however, will vote for the republican in any case.
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:54pmI think he’ll show it one week before the election. By then it’ll be too late to verify it
Report Post »Emudude
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:01amHe can‘t show what he doesn’t have. Unless his excellent (sarc) forges a beauty like his Severely Flawed Selective Service Card from the United States Post Office (USPO). Note the USPO became the USPS in 1973 and his Form is Dated 1981, but Obama‘s Idiot Forgers didn’t know that. Plus, the date Obama supposedly signed it was 24 Hours Prior to the USPO verifying his information. In Real Life, you get handed a BLANK Card. You Fill it Out at the Post Office. They Verify your info with a Simple I.D. Check, and then Stamp the Card to mail it off. Obama’s Card was Pre-Stamped 24 Hours before he filled it out.
Report Post »miles from nowhere
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:53pmWhat next an illegal alien with terrorist ties becoming President of the US, oh excuse me we already have one, ( Obama) !
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:25amBirthers
Report Post »Americans have no right to know the guy that has his finger on the nuclear trigger. The man should have his privacy. This would be akin to doing a background check on someone watching your kids. How silly and racist.
Bobert
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:49pmThere are two open issues regarding whether putative President Obama is eligible to be President. One is place of birth. Consider that in all the law suits filed against Obama and others on the place of birth issue, including the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress law suit (which also argued that regardless of place of birth, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother), Obama never once produced any birth certificate (neither his Certification of Live Birth known as the COLB nor his long-form, hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth) for the court which would have put an end to the birth place issue. Why did he pursue a legal strategy (e.g. standing, political question, and other justiciability defenses) which only worked in the short term rather than just produce the birth certificate which would finally end the birth place controversy?
Why spend so much private and public money and resources fighting the same issue over and over again? Even now, over two years after the 2008 election, we see the same place of birth issue raised in various contexts. It has risen in the military context with LTC Terry Lakin, who is serving 6 months in federal prison for defending the Constitution by wanting to assure that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We see it in ObamaCare litigation. Now some states are also moving to require proof of birth as part of a presidential candidate’s requirements to get on the ballot. Officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures report that 10 states already have some sort of requirement to prove eligibility.
So, there is no end to the issue of Obama’s place of birth. Should we not blame Obama himself for this issue still existing? After all, the Constitution says that he must be a “natural born Citizen.” Is not the burden on him to satisfy that requirement? The question of where Obama was born is not a distraction, for it only takes 10 minutes and $10.00 to resolve (the amount of time and money needed to produce his real birth certificate).
Why has Obama allowed this issue to continue unabated? Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama, i.e., fighting jurisdiction (standing) and raising any other justiciability defense? Why have they fought so hard to prevent any litigant to have discovery so that a copy of the birth certificate could be obtained? Why have they to this day never produced a copy of any birth certificate in any court which would have put an end to the birth place issue not only in that court but in all other courts present and in the future?
While the courts have not been too kind to the “birthers,” why has not one court even mentioned the fact that not one court in the whole nation has yet to see Obama’s alleged birth certificate?
But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Assuming that he was born in Hawaii and also assuming that his parents are who he says they are, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?” At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which under that same law and by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
The U.S. State Department has confirmed that Obama was born with dual allegiances. Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, “Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 given that his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963. Upon independence, Obama became both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982 [sic should be 1984], and solely a U.S. citizen after that.“ The entry ”The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State.
Report Post »carnifex
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:14pm@Bobert
I’m sorry logic and law will not be allowed in this discussion. Any who question the one are racist,haters, nutjobs, or some combination thereof, so in keeping with this finding please cease all logical arguments on this thread, and lets everyone put on our tinfoil hats to prevent the Fed from beaming subliminal homoerotic images into our heads. Thank you, that is all.
Report Post »psst
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:47pm@Carnifex.
Report Post »Bobert is gonna get Beck awfully pi$$ed off posting crap like that.
Ya do know, Beck and his bud, babbling billO have virtually guaranteed Soetoro meets and surpasses the smell tests.
I have no idea who smelled him for Beck, but babblin billO said the communist prof. Lamont Hill smelled him (Soetoro ) for him.
Tea Party Conservatism
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:02am@ Bobert
You’ve mentioned the reason why, in your own post without realizing it. Obama wants the focus to be on the BC because he controls the issue and is betting he won’t be compelled to produce by any House member or any court. The BC issue diverts attention away from the irrefutable fact that he is not eligible for a host of reasons. Those focused solely on the birth certificate issue alone, are asking the wrong question.
Birth certificate speculation, if unwisely isolated from other equally disqualifying facts, becomes a dauntless diversion without a subpoena. Obama is still ineligible even assuming retention of U.S. citizenship allegedly by Hawaiian birth, pursuant to his Indonesian citizenship following his mother’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro who then adopted him. Obama’s foreign biological father precluded his being a “natural born citizen” required for eligibility by the Constitution, meaning born on American soil of parents who are each a U.S. citizen.[1]
Again assuming he is a U.S. citizen, he is further disqualified by dual citizenship for also being born a British citizen pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya.[2]
1. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., “The House of Representatives Definition of ”natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the U.S.” Natural Born Citizen, March 2011
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/
2. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace.” WorldNetDaily, April 01, 2010.
Report Post »http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:20amTea Party Conservatism
The article by Leo D’onofrio deliberately distorts the views of the Supreme Court by presenting an incomplete and out of context quote from the decision of Minor v Happersett 1874. A more complete version of the passage tells a very different story:
“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.”
Note that the Court says that the definition of a natural born citizen was NEVER a settled issue, but rather a continuing subject of argument, that they clearly state that they are NOT ruling on whether or not American born children of non-citizens are natural born citizens, and that this case predates US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, which finally settled the issue. (See above passage in response to Bobert’s first post on this thread.) Note also that the Court clearly regards native and natural born citizen as synonyms in direct contradiction to Mr. Donofrio’s later claims to finds some mysterious hitherto unknown difference between the two.
As for little fragment presented in Mr. Donofrio’s other post, that too predates US v Wong Kim Ark, which stands as the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject, and, therefore, the law of the land.
Report Post »Tea Party Conservatism
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:43am@ Chet Hemphead
Your assertion that US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, “finally settled the issue” is incorrect.
The holding in Wong Kim Ark (1898) did not state that one made a citizen by the 14th Amendment (1868), was also a “natural born citizen” but in fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he deferred on that point to Minor v. Happersett (1874).
That should tell you that while being a citizen is a component of being a natural born citizen, they are not the same thing.
As for Minor v. Happersett (1874), what the court said is:
“‘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.’
This is very clear, one component of a natural born citizen is being “born in a country” and the other is “parents” and “citizens” with added emphasis that both are plural: “it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents (plural) who were its citizens (plural), became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
While being a citizen is a component of being a natural born citizen, they are not equivalent. It is clearly stated and well understood that a natural born citizen is one born on U.S. soil of parents who are each a U.S. citizen!
This is a wealth of other evidence supporting this as well.
However I presume your fatally flawed arguments, no doubt rooted in desperate socialist sympathy with the usurper Obama, are meant to hold back the rising tide of public awareness about his multiple eligibility disqualifications. Perhaps both you and he, would be better off if you would restrict your feeble aspirations to the duplicities of mounting generational debt being good and the calming delusion that his alleged citizenship is all that matters.
However even if one mindlessly excuses the nonexistent long form vault birth certificate, rejects the fact that a COLB is not a birth certificate, forgets foreign testimony that he was born in Kenya, and neglects the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution; Barry Obama Soetoro is still disqualified by dual citizenship for being born a British citizen pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya.
If that’s not enough, there’s his additional disqualification for foreign citizenship pursuant to acquiring Indonesian citizenship following his mother’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro who then adopted him, meaning he may in fact be an illegal alien!
Report Post »Bobert
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:44amYo Chet:
In Wong Kim Ark, the court’s holding avoided the natural born citizen issue by steering widely clear of it in the conclusion. Won Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, so they punted as follows: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt. The Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t. And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”.
There as been absolutely ZERO Supreme Court cases overturning the Founders definitiion of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requiring the President to be born on US soil to two parents that are both US citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Sorry – you lose (again).
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:29pm“There as been absolutely ZERO Supreme Court cases overturning the Founders definitiion of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requiring the President to be born on US soil to two parents that are both US citizens at the time of the President’s birth.”
That’s because there is no definition in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 or anywhere else. There was never any written definition in any U.S. law, code or court decision until U.S v Wong Kim Ark. And yes they did establish that natural born citizens include U.S. born children of non-citizens, because natural born just means native or by virtue of birth. They assumed that anybody who knew how to read would understood this, and except for a few internet loonies, that has been the case.
The only reference to Minor v Happersett in Justice Gray’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark is when he quotes it as saying “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” The Minor v Happersett decision carefully avoided endorsing the idea that the Law of Nations definition was the final and exclusive definition of natural born citizen, and the US v Wong Kim Ark decision put to rest the idea that the Law of Nations was the legal system in this country at the time of the passage of the Constitution by quoting Smith v. Alabama to the effect that:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
And followed up with quotes from many other authorities to the same effect, and even more quotes stating that under English Common Law, as opposed to the Law of Nations status as a natural born subject was dependent on place of birth, not parentage. Oh yes and they didn’t forget to cite authority for the idea that: “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Report Post »Tea Party Conservatism
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:54am.
In 1866 John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”[1]
This definition was unchallenged during the heated debates ongoing at the time. The House floor is certainly the proper place for such debates but no objection was raised among the members, the consensus being that each agreed with the definition. In fact, the House of Representatives definition of a natural born citizen as one “born on U.S. soil of parents who are U.S citizens” still stands today, 145 years later.
The House of Representatives definition of a natural born citizen was affirmed in 2008 by Senate Resolution 511:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”[2]
It’s interesting to note that former Senator Obama was a Cosigner of SR-511. Even assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama’s Kenyan father precluded his being a “natural born citizen” as required for eligibility to serve as President by the Constitution.
1. Library of Congress, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, Page 1291, 1866.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
2. SR-511, Opencongress, 5/10/08
Report Post »http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text
Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:21pmSince 1866 is before 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, it doesn’t matter what anybody said back then. Like I said if you think they ruled wrong, you should show this quote to the current Court and get them to overturn a precedent that has stood for over half of our history, and then nobody whose parents aren’t citizens will ever be able to run again.
The resolution on John McCain was meant only to cover his situation, not to limit the definition to exclude people whose eligibility had never been questioned.
If you look up the full text of the resolution you will find that:
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Obama was a cosponsor of the resolution! Do you really think he would help write a resolution that a non-idiot could misconstrue as ruling that he himself was ineligible?
Report Post »carnifex
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:48pmI started out believing there was nothing to this story, but as time has gone on I question his citizenship. Why seal so many records unless there is something to hide? That’s the question the anti-birthers will not answer. I can see the birth certificate. Fine, you like your privacy. I can respect that. But every record from birth till now? you don’t want to show that perfect attendance star you got in second grade? Or the third grade spelling bee ribbon? Or your college work that you HAD to publish? And its the very first thing he did as president!! He didn’t call his mom and grandparents. He didn‘t call his ol’ buddy the bomber to crow about his new oval office. He didn
Report Post »t even take time to take a pee. The very first thing he did was say to himself “Man *****‘ youse gots to seal yo’ records b‘fore summon’ sees youse was born at 8:17 a.m. Mans I could lose my street creds if dat got out” And yes I used the patois to be insulting because that’s how I feel, insulted.
Bobert
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:46pmThe Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“Vattel”), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation’s values and safety at heart and no devided loyalties. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution that anyone who was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President. But for anyone born thereafter, they built in extra protection for the nation by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be a “natural born Citizen.”
While a “citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Vattel, Sections 212-217. NOTE: Born on US soil (which I think Mr. Obama was) to TWO parents that are US Citizens at the time of birth (I’m thinking Barry is going to fail this test since he states that his father is Barack Obama Sr. – a British Citizen at Barry’s birth). This is what Barry is really hiding.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:47amThe Supreme Court already heard this argument back in 1898, and they didn’t buy it. It was argued by the losing side in US v Wong Kim Ark. The court ruled that English Common Law, not Vattel’s Law of Nations established the definition of a natural born citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution and ever since then, and that, therefore, anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of their parents was a natural born citizen. You may not agree with this, but it is the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject, it has never been overturned, and it is the law of the land.
“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.”
Report Post »US v Wong Kim Ark 1898
littlesnt55
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:13amWong Kim Ark was erroneously decided. It is a travesty! Go to Justia.com and read the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fuller and you will see just how wrongly decided it was. He lays it all out. The Supreme Court has been known to revisit issues but it takes a case of real importance to do so. It is not much comfort to know they now have a card carrying member of La Raza sitting on the bench! I would love to know Judge Napolitano’s take on the issue. Thanks to Wong we have an illegal invasion crossing our borders and a fraud in the WH. If we try to amend it back to what it should be, they could still declare it unconstitutional but they would have a very mad and very active public outcry on their hands. And seriously the reasoning was totally flawed and a clear misapplication of the 14th amendment.
Report Post »Bobert
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:40amI refuse to allow the Obots to misqote the Wong Kim Ark case. In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark: ” ‘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) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc . In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“ For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of whether each person was a “citizen”. But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor. And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Arkwas a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”. There’s a clear distinction being made by both the Minor court and theWong Kim Ark court between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”. And both holdings were willing to say that the person was a “Citizen” but no more than that. They carefully evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen”. Justice Gray covered all of this ground in Wong Kim Ark thoroughly, but at the end of the decision he refused to state that a person born in the US to foreign parents was a “natural born citizen”.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:28pmStuff and nonsense. There was no reason for the Court to even mention that “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” in the Minor v Happersett, except to make sure that no one ever made the mistake of assuming that they were ruling on whether or not they agreed with this. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
There was no reason to discuss the English Common Law definition of a natural born subject in the US v Wong Kim Ark decision if they weren’t trying to define a natural born citizen. They considered the definition that you keep quoting, and deliberatley and specifically rejected it in favor of the English Common Law definition which included citizens born of non-citiizen parents, and ruled that “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.”
“There as been absolutely ZERO Supreme Court cases overturning the Founders definitiion of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requiring the President to be born on US soil to two parents that are both US citizens at the time of the President’s birth.”
That’s because there is no definition in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 or anywhere else. There was never any written definition in any U.S. law, code or court decision until U.S v Wong Kim Ark. And yes they did establish that natural born citizens include U.S. born children of non-citizens, because natural born just means native or by virtue of birth. They assumed that anybody who knew how to read would understood this, and except for a few internet loonies, that has been the case.
You are employing circular logic. You are claiming that a natural born citizen must be born of citizen parents, therefore, any definition of a natural born citizen that says that a natural born citizen does not need to be born of citizen parents is not a definition of a natural born citizen.
Report Post »Bobert
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:29pmSo Chet, you are telling me that the Framers would have had no problem, the day after they all signed the United State Constitution, with a Presidnet ruling them 35 years later that had a Mother that was a U.S. Citizen and a father that was a former British general and remained a British citizen after the war (and continued to serve for the British army)? If your answer is “YES” you are dumber than you appear.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ever ruled on this issue of “natural born Citizen” in the context of Art II, Section 1 – it would be a case of First Impression. You and I can argue all we want about old Supreme Court cases and what they MAY or MAY NOT mean, but it all simply boils down to the Letter between John Jay and George Washington and the intent of the Framers (and much as you or I may or may not like that “intent” over 200 years later).
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:42amThe U.S. Supreme Court has never ever ruled on this issue of “natural born Citizen” in the context of Art II, Section 1 – it would be a case of First Impression.
They ruled on what a natural born citizen is. It doesn’t matter if the case was directly related to the presidency or not. A legal term means what it means, it doesn’t mean one thing in one law or court decision and something else in another place. A natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen by birth rather than naturalization. The Supreme Court said that Englsih Common Law defined that term as it was used in the United States at tehtiem of the writing of the Constitution and that it included anyone born in the country regardless of parentage. You might think that they ruled wrong, too bad. They’re the Supreme Court and you’re not. Tell it to the current Court and convince them to reverse a precedent that has stood for almost half our history, and nobody whose parents aren’t both citizens will ever be able to run again.
So Chet, you are telling me that the Framers would have had no problem, the day after they all signed the United State Constitution, with a President ruling them 35 years later that had a Mother that was a U.S. Citizen and a father that was a former British general and remained a British citizen after the war (and continued to serve for the British army)?
That’s a ridiculous question. If the father was still in the British army, he wouldn’t be here after the war. If the child was conceived during the war the kid would fall under the “alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born” exception to the natural born citizen definition, but he could still run for President under the “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” exception to the natural born rule. He probably wouldn’t win though, and that is how they could express whether or not they had a problem with it.
Report Post »donh2
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:41pmNice to see a true man our courage QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS a serious issue Glenn Beck has chosen to mock and cower away from . Very unfortunate that a man who has built his reputation on truth , honor, and respect for the constitution would shirk away from the duties of verifying an office holder meets legal eligibility . The media is not only allowing personal privacy to be used as a shield to cover suspicious if not fraudulant deeds….. They are actively participating in a criminal conspiracy against the American people by running a man to man full court prevent defense on behalf of Obama.
Report Post »TheVOR
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:36pmI am an American citizen, who has a job. On my first day of work at my job, my employer required that I provide certain documents. Among these documents was, my birth certificate, my passport, etc… I provided these documents, and if I hadn’t I would not have been allowed to start my new job with this employer. There are certain legal requirements to be President of the United States of America. Therefore I would expect that ANYONE elected to that office would meet those legal requirements and provide the necessary documents proving they met said requirements. So, since it is our country’s president, I would expect that through freedom of information We The People would be entitled to see the appropriate documents. Quit maligning the people (we are the employer of the President) who are requesting what they are entitled to see, and show us the documents, and get on with the important business of leading the country. It should NOT be that hard. And, a question for someone who knows for sure….Has President Obama spent millions of dollars to keep certain records of his sealed? Please answer this question only if you have an answer based on facts.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:15pmWell said.
Report Post »The potus should try to get a drivers license here in Florida…Proof of residency and Official Birth Certificate are among the things required to get the license.
captaincameron
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:40amNow that’s a good point. BHO had to fill out an I-9 and somebody had to review those documents within three day’s of employment. While these documents don’t necessarily require a birth certificate, what documents did he submit?
Report Post »Doug-a-Hole-Diggin-out
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:35pmI don’t care where he was born, I don’t like his socialist policies.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:52pmme neither…he isn’t going away till inauguration day 2013 anyway
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:51amWe need him gone, and those of his ilk, well before 2012.
Report Post »davegail
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:01amI do care where he was born, but that will not get him out any time soon if at all. You’re right.. Nov 2012 is our quickest way to rid ourselves of him and his socialist cohorts.
Report Post »Emudude
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:35pmOnce again, absolutely NOTHING is going to done about the NBC/BC problem while Obama is in Office and has control of America. He is in charge of the Justice Department, Congress, the Pentagon (All Military), and every other Federal, State, and Local Governments. He and George Soros have taken steps to Ensure that he will have another 4 Years after the 2012 Elections. We will be stuck with him until 2016 or longer. These Issues will not be resolved while he is our King-Emperor-Sultan-Ruler.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:34pmLet’s strip a couple ideas to their core and compare their potential legitimacy. 1) “Birthers” – Those who question why an Official Birth Certificate has never been displayed for a sitting POTUS.
Report Post »2) “Truthers” – Those who believe a formerly sitting POTUS was
Complicite in the 09/11/2001 terrorist attacks on America. Which idea reasonably deserves attention?
riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:50pmI’ll put it this way…and i’m going to catch all hell, just watch….I know that 9/11 was not perpetrated by muslim terrorists…all 3 buildings went down by controlled demolition….the evidence is beyond overwhelming…and I’m no lefty…and I’m not crazy.
Report Post »carnifex
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:01pm@rise and shine
Either you ARE crazy, or you don’t pay attention. Next you’ll tell us that “never in the history of the world was there fire hot enough to melt steel” ala Rosie the riveter O’donnell.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:04pmSorry RISE, If you’re not Lefty or Crazy, you’re just Stupid. Sucks to be you.
Report Post »Grandmadar
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:05pmSince you didn’t mention which idea more deserves your attention, I will ask. What do you think?
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:08pmGRAND, sorry, you’re going to have to figure that one out for yourself. Sorry for the migraine.
Report Post »marine249
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:09pmI think you are trying to pull leg.
here pull my finger
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:13pmriseandshine: I watched a series of videos last week that literally left me floored. Although I‘ve been a birther since day 1 I’ve always maintained that I have not studied 9/11 out enough to really make an informed decision; however, after watching those videos I can assure that there is much more to 9/11 than meets the eye.
The amount of foreshadowing which Hollywood did is just incredible.. These videos showed clocks in about 2 dozen movies which had come out before 2001 and they were all set at 9:11.. ? lol Coincidence?? Maybe but I doubt it. I‘m not ready to dive in yet on the truther side but like I said I’m convinced there’s much more there than meets the eye.
I mean are we all comfortable with a DHS now? Is this now acceptable in America? I hate it with a passion and can’t even really comprehend that it has been implemented.. No one even questions it any longer. Like it’s just a part of being an America now? lol Wasn’t it Patrick Henry that said give me Liberty or give me Death? I believe we need a little more Liberty in America and a lot less Security.
A few weeks ago my mother n law made the comment that “Innocent people have nothing to fear at the airports.. what’s the big deal.. they can pat me down anytime..” I about had a conniption.. I imagine she probably got that idea from FOX news!
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:15pmYou call me stupid yet you haven’t even did any basic research for yourself. I voted for Bush..and his dad..and I love Ronald Reagan…I’m as conservative as they come…I’ll just leave it there. This isn’t doing any good anyway
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:18pmMan, I am absolutely disgusted by the independent thinking abilities of Glenn Beck followers. I overestimated most of you by at least an order of magnitude. Please, do the Constitution a favor and stop pretending to support, defend and uphold it. Whatever Glenn is up to after Fox, immerse yourselves in it and leave the serious issues to the sane and intelligent.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:20pmriseandshine: Look at the anger which your response generated. People won’t even analyze the facts they attack you with great emotion.. I don’t get that. In every nation there has been many false flag operations. Why does everyone think America is beyond it? Is America so special that we can do no wrong?
Report Post »Listen to and take the advice of your hero GB.. Question Boldly!
MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:22pmRISE, you aren’t just stupid, you are a functionally illiterate rube. Were you to be confronted with the results of the volumes of research I have done, your frontal lobe would implode, leaving a void about the size of a BB.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:27pmThank you, TECH
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:30pmTECH, so, you’ve led me conveniently (and not by mistake) back to my original point: By your logic, those who react to “Birthers” claims with strong, immediate and angry emotion should be taken as evidence of the legitimacy of the claims. Thank you for playing into my hand, as I knew one of you would, sooner rather than later.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:33pmmodel82A1…You’ve did all that research and you still buy it?….I’m sorry
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:43pmRISE, what the hell are you still doing in a country that you absolutely believe is guilty of that which you are alleging? (and don’t give me some BS that “It’s still worth fighting for….”) If that which you allege is true, you are completely powerless. Get our while you still can. (which you won’t, because, at the end of the day, what you really are is a Coward. Worse, you are a Coward who wants to pretend to be Heroic.) You’re right about one thing, you are Sorry.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:47pmLOL WOW three TROLLS talkin to each other lol
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:09pmMODEL82A1: Not only do I think they are capable of 9/11, I believe that we are going to see something on a scale similar to the 20th century Soviet because simply put the very same people are at the top.
Report Post »To flee or fight.. Don‘t think the thought hasn’t went through my head numerous times. For starters I don’t think there would be any place to run to and besides my family would never leave. I do not believe enough fellow Americans will ever awaken in time to see the gravity of the situation at hand.. There are too busy concerning themselves with tax cuts, healthcare, and bombing Arabs to ever think seriously about what has been done to our Constitution. Don’t get me wrong, healthcare is worth fighting for but I still believe our Constitution is the biggest issue.. Beck and others agreed this past Friday that no one has following our Constitution for decades and that if people were forced to follow now there would be civil unrest? lol Probably true. But back to the basics. I believe that the current Shadow Gov’t in America is pure EVIL.. Capable of well what GB pointed out that Bill Ayers group was planning?
APatriotFirst
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:03amriseandshine
And my damn lying eyes never saw those planes crash into the WT buildings either.
Report Post »Dagger82
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:34pmRev Graham says it the best way we know how – the President of the United States could immediately quell this question if he simply displayed a birth certificate. Not a certificate of live birth, articles published in newspapers, or anything else that’s not listed on the I-9 form that verifies US citizenship. The more he (President, no less) avoids that act, the more suspicion is incurred.
Simple as that! I’m not a “birther”, I’m just a citizen who obeys the law.
Report Post »grannyjojo
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:46pmAmen and amen! “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess”
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:33pmENOUGH with the birth certificate! At this point it really is a moot point. This country is in the shlitz house and sinking fast. I guess keeping this birth certificate BS is doing what BO wanted it to do in the first place; keeping us occupied and not paying attention to the real point THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THIS COUNTRY.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:29pmDon’t worry. All this will be settled when Jerome Corsi publishes his great new book proving that Obama is an alien from outer space who landed in Roswell, NM.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:27pmSomehow I think that Corsi’s new book will end up proving Obama right. I don’t know why but thats how I feel . Thats why I’m not looking forward to that book.
Report Post »Who knows :D
veruca salt
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:22pmHere goes the Blaze again. What’s this… 3 to 4 real birther stories after Glenn made his anti-birther rant last week. What is it going to be, Glenn? You say you are against the birther movement, choosing to accept with meekness instead of questioning with boldness the legitimacy of Obama, yet your website continues to keep this going by running more stories. Talking out of both sides of your mouth, Glenn?
Report Post »carnifex
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:56pm@ veruca salt
As annoying as your name sake. Why do you assume that the good people of the blaze march in lock step with Mr. Beck? If you had ever paid attention to what HE says as opposed to Media Matters talking points you would know that Glenn has always welcomed the free expression of ideas, even ones he opposes. I know its hard for a liberal to understand the principle, but I assure you, most, not all , but most, here on the blaze feel the same way.
Report Post »WHITE LOTUS2x
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:19pmVeruca….. the Blaze covers a wide variety of stories. This is an interesting story in that the son of a Religious Leader respected around the world is expressing his feelings on the refusal of producing a birth certificate. I didnt hear anything that made me think he was a birther. Lotus.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:05amCarnifex, in your rush to label and insult me, you apparently didn’t take the time to comprehend my post, my friend. In addition, you went terribly off-topic. Glenn wants us to be historians, so if you look at the history of this topic on the Blaze, you would know that roughly 10 days ago, there was a story posted here concerning Glenn telling his listeners to stand down on the BC issue and he was immediately trounced by the majority of the good people who read the Blaze. Since then, stories in that same vein have been non-existent, and the Blaze, an extension of Beck and his ideals, has been posting a “show us the BC” story every couple days. This isn’t a free exchange of ideas – are you really shocked that Graham wants to see the BC? It would have been much more of a news story if Graham said “stand down on the BC issue” given his staunch conservatism. Glenn is smart enough to know his audience and he’s now giving them what they want after stepping on it in the recent past. This is damage control, my friend. With the upcoming loss of his show and the loss of many of his major radio markets, he can’t afford to lose or alienate more supporters.
Report Post »sooner12
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:22pmThe issue can be resolved easily. Somehow, I think Obama is keeping quiet about it because it puts the Republicans in a poor light. I say just let it (the birth issue) go and don’t even entertain the questions from the leftist media.
Report Post »mtncougar
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:40pmThe leftists are counting on us to “let it go” due to the trumped up “lunacy” idea of the question. Don’t allow them to control the conversation with their ridicule.
“To explain Obama’s unexplainable secrecy regarding his birth records and even education records and passport information, the media came up with this template: Obama in his political genius is merely toying with the racists who have the audacity to ask for his basic information. The more they ask to see his “birth certificate” the crazier they appear.”
“Eventually the tide will turn and even more people will realize that the Obama records issue has been framed entirely backwards by the media.”
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/110124
Who’s being used by the leftists? It’s not the birthers. It’s those who have bought into their plan, and have NOT RESEARCHED the issue. It’s amazing how little people “in the know” actually know.
We Natural Born Citizen Advocates are WAY AHEAD of the pundits in this area…their knowledge is superficial.
[Former CIA agent] Clizbe says, “Americans have a right to be concerned about whether Obama was born in the United States. There’s a constitutional mandate that lays out exactly the qualifications for any president. In the past, the press has served as vetters for these issues. But this time around, the press hasn’t come through. President Obama needs to be vetted. What exactly is in his background, who knows? But he hasn’t been vetted. The birth certificate is just one tiny issue in a much larger vetting question.” (NEWSMAX)
This is only a distraction if someone doesn‘t think there’s anything to it.
If someone knows this is a BIG DEAL with tons of credibility behind the question, how can anything else possibly be more important? Get this imposter out of the White House and all those other issues pale in comparision.
p.s. Don’t forget to pre-order your copy of “Where’s the Birth Certificate: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President” by Jerome Corsi. It’s already number one on Amazon, my sister said.
Report Post »looseyloo
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:51amYou must be new to this. The leftists have been calling good citizens racist or ridiculing them (As in calling them “birthers” in a derogatory tone) forever– that is how they have gotten people to shut up.
Well, we aren’t going to put up with that any more. Obama works for us. We have questions about his qualifications under the Constitution, and we are making what is a very reasonable request…Please show us the birth certificate. Obama could settle this in a minute, but he refuses. Why would you assume he would spend $800k on lawyers to keep us from seeing the BC ?
It is a reasonable request. We will not just slink away because some of you think he is being too clever by half. We don’t fall for that stuff any more. You should wise up, too.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:07amIt does not put the Republicans in a poor light!
Report Post »The Progressives are TRYING to put us in a poor light because THEY KNOW he’s a FRAUD! Rather than reveal that fact, they are pointing fingers at us for questioning who the hell he is!
Zeus In A Speedo
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:49amI’m assuming obama/soetoro traveled abroad before he was potus? In order to travel abroad, sen. obama/soetoro (or community organizer obama/soetoro) would have had to get a NOTARIZED, AUTHENTIC COPY OF THE BITH CERTIFICATE in his passport application.
If potus soetoro won’t provide it, how come the House of Representatives don’t subpoena the Department of State for any and all passport applications for barry soetoro or bho?
Report Post »shotzie
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:21pmwish we could have seen what Christiane (sp?) said after that!
Report Post »TennesseeConservative
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:20amThats not important, be a good little drone and shake your head yes, when the govt. says so. Now we have Beck and others saying the same thing. We are stupid, just accept it, and move on.
Report Post »Killa From Wasilla
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:20pmLOL, the blind leading the blind.
joefboschsr
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:11pmnot the blind leading the blind, the mainstream media is leading the debate
Report Post »Mister_Bill
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:44pmNo, the fox eluding the hunters. This will be the reason put up to take over the Country under Marshall law. This is plan B, else he will use it to take the high ground in the election and show it right before the documentation cannot be refuted. Either way we are working with a devious conniving Community Organizer.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:28am@Killa from Wasilla ~
Report Post »Everyday that you can wake up free, it’s going to be a great day. Unfortunately, Obama/Soetoro is doing everything in his power to see that does not happen. That is his agenda.
looseyloo
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:34amWhen you were typing that, did you really think it was an untelligent comment ?
You probably have wasted a lot of your time , as well as the time of others, ridiculing those who think that the president works for us. You likely have used the “birther” term to try to demean someone.
Yet, the simplest and most direct manner of ending all of this would be for Obama to just show his birth certificate.
Oh, sure, wiseguys like you will tell us Obama is so smart he is just letting the conservatives, birthers, et al, make fools of themselves. He is just so clever that way, you will tell us.
But we are American citizens, we have a constitution, and the request is not particulary burdensome– no more than going on ESPN to fill out his basketball brackets.
Since you are so clever, please tell us why we have no right to see the president’s birth certificate– and why Rev, Graham’s solution to the issue is so out of line. Go ahead, smart guy.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:17pmTell me it aint so…Franklin a Birther too?
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:23pmRev. Graham your father gave me a ride when I was in Montreat College. I believe like you…The potus should show the papers NOW!
Report Post »JOHNNYROTEN
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:24pmyou say that like it’s a bad thing……………….I don’t want to know where he was born, just who was his father and what was HIS citizenship……..
Look up “Natural Born Citizen” and why it in the US Constitution
Report Post »Revere1
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:30pmSounds like more grist for the birther mill. Trump must love this! http://www.elephantwatcher.com/2011/04/why-is-trump-unlikely-to-win.html
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:31pmThe term, “birther” is an Alinsky ridicule tactic. Graham’s statement is reasonable, that all Obama has to do is show the damn thing. Why Obama won’t do it, is what has people tearing their hair.
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:35pmHe didn‘t question Obama’s place of birth. He questioned why he doesn’t/can’t produce his birth certificate. That is all he did.
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:37pmI know jeannie…same with truther
Report Post »CatB
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:39pmScares you Obamatrons doesn’t it … that people of SUBSTANCE are coming out and questioning why he can’t provide documentation .. not just of his birth but his NAME, his adoption and citizenship and many more other questions … Social Security number?
Using the term “birther” is having less and LESS power each time it is used … especially against people of known character and not just “citizens”.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:42pmWhy do these lefty yappers always bring up Obama’s BC issue but only with conservatives ?
Report Post »Why bring up the issue if it has no merit ?
SoylentGreen
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:49pmThe birther thing is merely a distraction, a red herring. People need to focus on the unconstitutional war in Libya and Project Gunrunner if they want to defeat or unseat BHO.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:57pmAwesome. Keep it up! Show your papers Obama. Not the one that Hawaii has issued that is accepted everywhere of proof of citizenship, not the birth announcements in the newspapers.
This is a huge issue! Why have the lame stream stopped covering it? Let us stand united, at put forth a candidate isn’t shy about addressing the birther issue head on! Then, after he or she wins the Republican nomination, let the go on to win the Presidency!
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:01pmMaybe Beck Huckabee Rove and other Neo-Cons will unload on Franklin Graham now? lol
Remember his birthplace is only the beginning of the issues surrounding his birth certicate and his records.
Report Post »Cymry
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:03pmThe in-eligibility of barry soetoro is not going away. It will be revealed that barry is ineligible to be potus. I think glenn, et. al. (republicans ) that are saying there is nothing to it are basically seeing beyond the ouster of barry from office and the expected onslaught of civil turmoil which they (sic) don’t think the country can handle. Well, that begs the question: which is more important, 1. Following the Constitution, or 2. Breaking the Constitution because of what you think “might” happen? I choose #1.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:06pmSoylentGreen
Report Post »The birther thing is merely a distraction, a red herring. People need to focus on the unconstitutional war in Libya and Project Gunrunner if they want to defeat or unseat BHO
—————
If its a red herring, BHussain should personally intervene as the CinC and get Lt Col Lakin out of jail.
If BHussain has any sense of shame that is .
As for focussing, I believe patriotic Americans can walk , think , talk and chew gum at the same time.
It suits the Sore@$$ – WH narrative that Americans are stupid and conservatives are ignorant. Thats why the MFMedia want to portray all conservatives as “ birthers ” and “ birthers” only . It doesn’t ,atter what the reality is, MFM+MM have a story to tell and they are sticking to it
1959
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:09pmHe’s not a birther, just answering the question posed to him; his respnse was quite appropriate.
Report Post »Brasil2520
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:10pmTo CATB
Hehe, that was good stuff “people of substance”
These days to be a person of substance you have to pander to blacks and Hispanic’s.
I guess I’m not a person of substance, and don‘t won’t to be one !
CATB, did you ever see the movie, The Birth of a Nation
Report Post »I was telling GINSBERG about it, on that McDonalds beating video from two days ago, the “Update” one.
If you didn’t see it, it’s on – hulu, it starts off slow but gets better, the movie is remarkably good for a 100 year old movie, it had the vision to anticipate today’s black problem in America, rape, murder, interracial marriage, riots, blacks in government . . . you know all the “Beauty of Diversity” stuff.
techengineer11
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:15pmCymry: I believe that is exactly what’s going on.. They’d rather not deal with the implications of it because it would result in civil turmoil on a large scale.
Report Post »theonefromabove
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:18pmI agree with Graham on this issue.
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »Tea Party Conservatism
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:27pm.
Birth certificate speculation, if unwisely isolated from other equally disqualifying facts, becomes a dauntless diversion without a subpoena. Obama is still ineligible even assuming retention of U.S. citizenship allegedly by Hawaiian birth, pursuant to his Indonesian citizenship following his mother’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro, who then adopted him. Obama’s foreign biological father precluded his being a “natural born citizen” required for eligibility by the Constitution, meaning born on American soil of parents who are each a U.S. citizen.[1]
Again assuming he is a U.S. citizen, he is further disqualified by dual citizenship for also being born a British citizen pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya.[2]
A Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” or COLB that Obama allegedly posted on his campaign web site, is not a “Birth Certificate.” Long before statehood in 1951, HI casually provided a COLB even to children brought into the state up to a year old, based on unverified birth information given by the requesting resident family member. Unlike a birth certificate, a COLB lacks the physician’s name, signature, hospital details and other essential information necessary to confirm birth parentage, time and location. His mother could have born him abroad, returned to HI and then easily received a COLB, but not a birth certificate.
The overly touted birth announcement in the local paper is insignificant; it simply means that the information was also provided to the paper by the family or the State following the issuance of the COLB, for routine casual inclusion.
Former Hawaii “Senior Elections Clerk” Tim Adams has signed an affidavit swearing, “Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”[3]
In addition, his Kenyan paternal step grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama, has said she was present at the hospital when he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. This is supported by audio tape of the telephone conversation and a sworn affidavit by the American missionary who initiated the inquiry.[4]
Kenyan Minister of Lands and Member of Parliament, James Orengo, in March of 2010 while debating the Kenyan constitution stated on the official record, “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”[5] The record also reveals that no member rebutted his statement.
Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., his Excellency Peter Ogengo admitted during a live radio interview on WRIF in Detroit, that Obama was born in Kenya and that the location of his birth is “already an attraction” and when asked if a marker may be built there he replied “it will depend on the government, it’s already well known.”[6]
Ambassador Ogengo soon afterward retracted his live statement, possibly under duress from Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who claims to be Obama’s cousin. Raila Odinga is infamous for causing violent political unrest following the December 2007 presidential elections in Kenya, resulting in approximately 1,500 deaths and over a half million people displaced by the election violence, before Odinga was eventually placated with the position of PM. This was offered by presidential incumbent and election winner Mwai Kibaki as a compromise to share power in hopes of ending the violence by Odinga’s socialist supporters.
All this occurred subsequent to Obama visiting with Odinga in Kenya, where he reportedly gave Odinga nearly one million dollars along with providing political advice and openly campaigning for his murderous socialist cousin.
The struggle for freedom in many places around the world today often results in defenseless people being slaughtered by tyrants. All you need do to retain your freedom, is demand your elected representatives honor our Constitution or vote them out. Please do so!
1. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., “The House of Representatives Definition of ”natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the U.S.” Natural Born Citizen, March 2011
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/
2. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace.” WorldNetDaily, April 01, 2010.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
3. Tim Adams, Hi Senior Elections Clerk, “Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate” WorldNetDaily, January 24, 2011.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401
4. Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D., “Did Obama’s grandmother say he was born in Kenya?” WorldNetDaily, October 16, 2008.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107524 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWcD5OHm08
5. James Orengo, Kenyan Minister of Lands and Member of Parliament, “Kenyan Official: Obama born here” WorldNetDaily, April 11, 2010.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=139481
6. His Excellency Peter Ogengo, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., “Kenya: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama born in U.S.” WorldNetDaily, November 26, 2008.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=82060 better audio at http://deridderteaparty.ning.com/video/kenyan-ambassador-admits-obama
GIDEON612
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 10:51pmI believe that the question is very appropriate.
After all only U.S. citizens are required to show theirs all over the place. Illegals don’t have and you are looked down upon or even break the law for even asking them to.
Report Post »getalong
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:11pmI have no problem being a so-called birther. Why can’t Obama show his birth certificate? I have mine in my dresser drawer. Go Trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »ltb
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:13pmAnd the drum beat gets louder… WHERE’S YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE BARRY SOETORO, WHY HAVE YOU SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TRYING TO HIDE IT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHY DID YOU CHANGE YOUR NAME TO BARRACK OBAMA?!?
Report Post »getalong
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:16pmIf Obama is found to NOT be a citizen of the United States and is impeached for fraud will that make all his hair brained policies non-binding. I can’t wait for the day when all Czars and Obama pack up there boxes and leave the White House!
Report Post »NYSTREETKID
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:31pmdoes this now make Beck a neo-con too? will he tell mr.Graham to“just shut up”. This is going to be fun to watch beck tear in to his benifactor’s son. P.S Obama just show the damn thing on air in your hand with the state seal. that it. what is that 5min from CNN?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:37pmThat will be a good day in America, GetAlong!
Report Post »I-HATE-THE-WORD-DISENFRANCHISE
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:43pmLast I checked the president is required by the constitution to prove he was born on American soil. Let’s see it bho. Just because your parents were anti-american nut jobs doesn’t exclude you from being president, so you have nothing to fear.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 11:55pm@banjarmon:
Report Post »“Rev. Graham your father gave me a ride when I was in Montreat College. I believe like you…The potus should show the papers NOW!”
__________________
Hey Banjamon…seems ol’ Billy really got around…when he was a traveling preacher in the Appalachian mountains he had dinner at my Grandma’s house…she really thought a lot of him but chewed him out for not preaching baptism as a part of being “saved”…
Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:20amI don‘t give a rat’s rosterium WHO he is, WHERE he was born, WHO his parents are, WHETHER he’s a Christian or a Muslim, or WHAT his nationality is.
I DO CARE that congress will get off their butts, admit that he was not vetted, and tell Obama/Soetoro that he has committed treason, a felony, violated his oath of office by not protecting and defending the Constitution AND that he must either RESIGN or FACE Articles of IMPEACHMENT!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:24am@jzs
Posted on April 24, 2011 at 9:57pm
Awesome. Keep it up! Show your papers Obama. Not the one that Hawaii has issued that is accepted everywhere of proof of citizenship, not the birth announcements in the newspapers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Not the one that Hawaii has issued that is accepted everywhere of proof of citizenship,….”
A fraudulent or genuine CertificaTION of live birth is not the same as a Birth Certificate.
The SHORT FORM of my Birth Certificate has more information on it than Obama/Soetoro’s COLB.
Report Post »Professional Infidel
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:39amI’m not Trump, and I’m not Graham, I’m a “Professional Infidel” and I want him to “Shut us up” easy to do. Me! ya, I Want to see it!!
Report Post »freeus
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:17amUnlike no other, Barry has been given a pass on just about everything.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:18amDo you want to know what I’m sick and tired of?? Even if you don’t, I’m going to tell you anyway. I’m sick and tired of people trying to make us look like a dumb ass if we question whether the president has a birth certificate or not.
Report Post »Who’s going to look like the dumb ass if it ever comes out that he was born in Kenya?
But it will probably be like “who really killed John Kennedy” or even “Did Clinton really have sexual relations with that woman”? The press and the pundits will supress the real truth.
BetterDays
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:20amWant to hear something funny? over at Huffpoop post they want to see Jesus’s birth certificate, and they call us crazy………..I haven’t laughed so hard in years.
Report Post »Dear Franklin, nice going son, love yer PA.
Enuff Zenuff
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:34am.
Calling our failure to certify Obama’s qualifications to be president merely a “distraction” overlooks the massive fraud perpetrated on the American people by the left. When the most sacred and fundamental questions like “Are you legal to vote? (asked of voters)“ and ”Are you eligible to run for president?” go unanswered, then we are handing our country on a golden platter to those who block our legitimate need to know the answers to these questions.
The question of Obama’s eligibility was raised even before he was nominated; yet the MSM did everything in their power to crucify the questioners. Simultaneously the Democrats responsible for ensuring eligibility on every state’s ballot buried the question – with the Hawaiian Democrat Party (knowing they could not prove he was born there) merely certifying that Obama’s eligibility to be on the Hawaiian ballot was based upon his having been nominated as the candidate at the Democratic National Convention!
If that isn’t evidence of fraud, then pray-tell, what is?
We cannot allow the corruption in our nominating and voting system to be acorned (undermined). Voting is the most sacred right we have yet it is often treated like the least important. We are losing more of our liberties with every election. Glen Beck and others are wrong on this one. Yes, the other issues are important too, but until we address the MASSIVE fraud by the MSM-Democrat Party establishment, what point is there in negotiating anything else?
Obama’s eligibility must be established in a manner that any court would require as a standard of proof – and not just by taking the Democrat party’s “word” for it. They worship Saul Alinsky’s book (dedicated to Lucifer) that teaches everything you need to know about how to lie effectively. Progressive Republicans (RINOS) have been far too easy on this subject because they do not want to be held to any standards of integrity either – so they let the left slide because they hope it gives them cover… but the taxpayers are getting screwed by both.
We need to clearly define what the founding fathers meant when they required the President (alone) to be a “Natural Born” citizen. It was obviously an important requirement or they would not have bothered, yet by every possible interpretation I’ve ever read, Obama has not been certified, and probably cannot be…
The direction Obama has taken our country makes one wonder how the founding fathers could have known that it was an important requirement; but Obama is all the proof we need that the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
The Bible says that if we cannot be faithful in the little things, then we cannot be trusted to be faithful in the larger things. If the Democrats and MSM cannot be faithful to our constitution in such a simple task as establishing proof of eligibility, then we have no hope to expect Obama and the Democrats to be faithful in larger matters – so why worry about TARP and Healthcare and budget battles if we cannot even agree on something so simple as proof of eligibility to be president? We should have put a stop to the election until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.
Consider this! Lee Harvey Oswald is a man who was famous for only two days of his life – from the day JFK was assassinated until the day LHO was also assassinated… A large part of his young adult life spent behind the very secret iron curtain… yet investigators have amassed over 600 photographs of him throughout his life. We know more about Lee Harvey Oswald and who all his friends were – even behind the iron curtain – than we do about the man sitting in the oval office acting as the President of the United States! If that doesn’t scare you, then you’re not paying attention to the important things. The question of eligibility matters just as much (if not more than) all other questions!
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:37amA COLB is not a birth certificate. Learn the difference, people.
Also, the first “issuance” of the recently-printed COLB for Obama had the certificate number blacked out, and lacked a seal, and lacked a father‘s place of birth and mother’s place of birth (both of which appear on other Hawaiian COLB of the same format). If this information hadn’t been submitted, then those fields would have appeared, but been blank. The second “release”, the photo of the form with creases and a seal that doesn’t match the official Hawaiian seal, shows a certificate number that doesn‘t match up with the date of Obama’s birth date. A pair of twins who were born a day after Obama had certificate numbers that preceded his. So, its reasonable to assume that, even if Obama’s COLB was issued by Hawaii in 1961, it was filed as an “unattended birth”, of which there were 78 in Hawaii in 1961.
If you look at the original “scan” release, you will notice that there is visual artifacting around each instance of text, indicating the use of photo-editing software. In some places, the stationary pattern behind the words completely disappears in between bits of text. This indicates image tampering.
But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Obama forfeited his natural-born status when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:02am@BetterDays
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:20am
Want to hear something funny? over at Huffpoop post they want to see Jesus’s birth certificate, and they call us crazy………..I haven’t laughed so hard in years.
Dear Franklin, nice going son, love yer PA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is funny!
Progressives are so IG-NERNT that it’s really pathetic. Think about it — There were no birth certificates when Jesus was born. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Goose egg.
And, then when the CAIR executive showed his arse and asked Allen West WHERE in the Koran (they don’t know how to spell, and I don’t care!) it says that Islamic Muslims are out to kill Americans, West had to point out to him that America wasn’t here yet when the book was written.
“Try being informed instead of just being opinionated.” That’s my message to Progressives!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:08amI would have thought they would have corrected the headline by now!
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:09amOFF TOPIC:
I don’t know that anyone here will be interested in this…but thought I’d post this and share what I’ve learned:
Over the past few months I’ve had several conversations with ‘kids” who work at my local grocery store, the corner feed store where I buy my hay, the boy behind the counter at Walgreens, etc. When I ask them how they are doing, I usually get the same response. They too are having very hard times making ends meet and so much so that they often must room with a half a dozen other young kids in order to be able to rent an apartment and still have enough money left over in order to buy their groceries.
Darn, this isn’t the way it was when I was their age. These kids practically have to take out a loan to be able to pay for their auto insurance, that is, if they are lucky enough to own a car! It makes me sad! This is a travesty!
So, I began searching the web to see what I could find out about the state of our youth all across the country. Found the following…it is interesting:
American Dreams Ephemeral to Youth (Def. of ephemeral=lasting a very short time…I had to look up the definition)
http://www.albanyherald.com/opinion/headlines/American_Dreams_ephemeral__to_young_120172424.html
“Life with no direction is mere existence. Life with a dream of a better tomorrow, however, is living.”
The above Albany Herald article referred to a poll that was conducted by the AP and Viacom. So, I searched for more info, particularly because of who had conducted it and of course I wanted to find out who was funding it…
How the Poll Was Conducted:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/21/2178467/how-the-poll-was-conducted.html
“The Associated Press-Viacom Survey of Youth on Education by Stanford University was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from Feb. 18 to March 6, 2011. Further along in the article you will learn that Stanford University’s participation was made possible by a grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Interesting on two counts…1) Bill & Melinda Gates for one, and 2) the study was done out of Stanford University…for those of you who may not know, Rachel Maddow is a graduate of Stanford University…nuff said about that!
The following is a link to the list of all AP 2011 polls:
Note that the name of the poll is: Youth Study from high school to unemployment! Interesting title, huh?
http://surveys.ap.org/
Here is the actual survey…there are many things interesting about this survey, but the very fact that they are sorting out Black and Hispanic youth specifically seems more than a little interesting to me!
The AP-Viacom Survey on Youth Education-March 2011
http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-Viacom%20Youth%20Study%20Topline.pdf
Given the direction that Obama seems h*ll bent on taking this country, it is no wonder, being the die-hard Marxist that he is, our youth are of particular concern to him.
This is ALSO one of Glenn’s personal goals…to reach out and touch our youth before it is too late!
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:24amThis is the story that just won’t die. Have you asked yourself why that is?
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:54amThe issue we Americans have with Obama is this one : Why doesn’t he release his birth certificate and end this controversy? Why?
End the controversy Obama. Now.
And show we the people the respect we deserve. For once.
Report Post »avenger
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:03amwhy would owe bama want to solve the birth myth….it keeps the focus off the real agenda …which is the destruction of the USA republic ! wake up people before it is too late ….
Report Post »Koolaiders
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 7:21amThe fanatic far right wing “birthers” are making fools of themselves. Obama has produced his certificate of live birth which is derived from his birth certificate. The Hawaii governor has authenticated it, and the the Bush-era Federal Govt was happy with it to allow him to participate in the ‘08 election.
Even Trump does not have his original — he has a hospital record framed on his desk, not his birth certificate.
Even nuts like Bachmann and Beck think ‘birther’ is a non-issue.
Y’all show your fanaticism by pursuing this nonsense issue. What’s next? You want evidence of the after-birth?
Report Post »Koolaiders
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 7:25am@ENUF
“We know more about Lee Harvey Oswald and who all his friends were – even behind the iron curtain – than we do about the man sitting in the oval office acting as the President of the United States”
——————————-
Read Obama’s books and the dozens of biographies with pics. You’ll see there is a alot more than Oswald.
You far right wing birthers sound more idiotic by the minute.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:42amJust listen to what bHo says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
He said it himself so if the Birthers are wrong bHo is at least a liar.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:26amKoolaiders: Which one? The one which made him famous written by his fellow Commie Bill Ayers or the other not so well written one probably done by Barry himself?
Report Post »Speaking of drinking the koolaide.. damn, I‘ms surprised that your parents weren’t knocked off down in S America w/ your buddy Jimmy.. You are the epitome of the term Koolaider!
StonyBurk
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:48amLOL– the 0 claims he was born in Florida-says he can’t wear his birth cert on his forehead-problem is we have a written Constitution and the terms used had a specific meaning when they were adopted-and the Constitution ought be understood by the meaning of the terms used what it was adopted-not by evolution. Thus unless the 0 can “prove” he was born of parents who were both citizens-it remains an issue for debate. As for his Christian faith–only God can judge the heart–and his future– but we are given the guidance “the tree it known by its fruit.He acts more like an atheist, more like a reprobate–more like a Muslim than any President I’ve ever considered.
Report Post »RightWrite
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:00am10-4 agree
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:12amShow the Doc’s and lets Move On !!!
Report Post »enough with the Stupid B.S…..
BocaBaby
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:34pmI am sooooooooooo dissapointed in GLEN BECK……………………
I thought you started the BLAZE, so that we could get journalism, that was void of hype, and propaganda???????????????????????????
SO WHAT THE HECK???????? YOU CANNOT EVEN REPORT THAT FRANKLIN GRAHAM IS POSSIBLY IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING TRUMP?????, But you want to put him in the category of birther??????
Then you want all of your Christian audience to be impressed with you telling us about the meetings with his father?????????????????????????? Honestly, I thought based on listening to you for the past year, you were above the hypocrisy of the media.
Now when YOU don’t like the candiate of Trump, you and your organization refuse to print that someone as influencial as Franklin Graham, who is doing incredible, wonderful things through Samaritan’s Purse, and his father’s organization, never taking the glory for himself, you or your editors from The Blaze CHOOSE to be just like any propaganda website. And I bet in your heart of hearts you believe that you are OKAY, and WELL above the fray of a HUFFFINGTON POST.
It is very sad to be decieved in thinking that you are somewhere, where you are not.
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:53pm.
@Koolaiders
“Read Obama’s books and the dozens of biographies with pics. You’ll see there is a alot more than Oswald.”
I‘ve studied Obama and I’ve studied Oswald, and there’s no comparison. Read “The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald” by Robert Groden and you will see that we know far more about Oswald – including all his friends in the Soviet Union, his roommates, Civil Air Patrol classmates, Long Form Birth Certificate, Passport application, gun license applications under assumed names, etc. We even know his landlords and landladies’ names.
With Obama, we have multiple social security numbers (unexplained), multiple names, no passport applications, no college applications, no transcripts, few friends and roommates from his college days, conflicting statements about his birth location, (including his grandmother saying on video that he was born in Kenya).
What I’m saying is that Obama sits in the most powerful seat in the world yet he remains a huge mystery to many of us – using his power to lock up his records, while the MSM beats the drum for him (refusing to investigate, yet they send dozens of investigative reporters to Wasilla Alaska to investigate a harmless mom who just wants to do what’s right for her state.)
Why is it we know less about Obama than we do about a nobody who was only ‘famous’ for two days of his life? If that doesn’t scare you then you need to pull your head out of your Kool-Aid bowl.
No need to lecture us – we get it. You progressives hate this country because it wasn’t based on giving out free rides to people who choose to think of themselves as “victims”. You’re willing to lie, cheat, and obfuscate to be able to get the benefits of freedom without having to do the work. Terribly sad. Your tinkering won’t succeed here any better than it did in the Soviet Union. You will spread nothing but misery (not wealth) and will destroy what little is left of the best system of government that mankind ever created.
Report Post »VanPastorMan
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 3:15pmNo he isn’t. He didn‘t say he thought Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. He just made the point that Obama could nip this in the bud if he just showed the stinking paper.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:14pmThis is a man of God, and a man of truth, and yet he is unconvinced, and so am I…it would be so easy to dispel the issue, but he cannot, because he does not have a LFBC, it is as simple as that. You also noticed the Reverend said our country is in BIG TROUBLE, that just goes to confirm everything I’ve been saying. And to all of you who think the birth cert issue is no big deal – FU!!!!
Report Post »thinkinghuman
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:50pmPeople say the birther thing is a distraction and we should focus on more substantive things like Constitution. Umm, the whole birther thing IS about the Constitution?
I think its just common sense to question with boldness. But Beck mocks this one thing. How come?
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:01pmGOODBYE BLAZERS – THIS WILL BE MY FINAL POST! It has been great getting to know you all spiritually and intellectually. God speed to you all, in Jesus Christ we live.
@JZS and the rest of your liberal progressive communist union islamo-fascist trollers – WHEN the SHTF because you can only tax and spend, you will be gnashing teeth, hungry in the belly and still sick in the head, because you all are too stupid to realize these things:
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life!
Greed is the folly of the fool!
Your control over my life, ends at your front door!
Religion is not about killing people!
Leftists – you should hope and pray to your toasters, that we don’t run across each other, when there is no rule of law left because our Country was ruined by the likes of you, and your lies and your immorality!!!!
I blame you lefty dimbocrits for what this country has become and for bankrupting it, AND I know it will be you people that will be woefully unprepared and will come to my house to steal from me – BEWARE that would be a BIG MISTAKE!!!!
I sign off to do final preparations to help my family survive the coming storm, spending valuable time blogging with the communist liberal-union-mudslime trash is a waste.
REMEMBER I will NEVER start a fight, but I DAMN well will finish it! I wish no violence upon anyone, but bring it to me and I will defend with malice!
God Bless America – home of the Brave and land of the FREE! Down with failed socialism, communism and mohamedism!!!!!!
LONG LIVE AMERICA the BEAUTIFUL!!!
Remember the Alamo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »oldoldtimer
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:55pmEnough already! Obama show your birthcertificate or resign. The chioce is yours. You can resign because you are not qualified to be POTUS or we will impeach you for the same reason. There is no way Obama is a natural US citizen. Even he admits his father was Kenyan traveling on a British passport. That alone disqualifies him.
Report Post »LovingAmerica
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 9:43amThe problem for Mr. Obama lies not in where he was born but how he applied to Harvard and Occidental for “free” educations. His school transcripts and information have been hidden as well. When he wants a free education from the United States, he applies as an international student from Kenya. When he wants to be the President of the United States, he was born in Hawaii.
If this is what he is hiding (and no one spends millions of dollars in attorney fees to keep his birth certificate a secret from the American people) this man belongs in PRISON.
May God richly bless Rev. Graham and his world-wide charity organization, Samaritan’s Purse. He is doing so much around the world to assist those in need.
Report Post »Ammaof3
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 9:43amI’m with the Rev. Mr. Graham. This is one problem that Obama could solve, easily. Just produce the paperwork and put an end to the speculation. What’s the big deal? He’ll have to produce it at some point in his life, we all do…..
Report Post »