April 27, 2011
White House Exposes Leftist and Media Big Lie

In finally releasing President Obama's birth certificate, the White House has conceded what many of us have known all along: that the countless times the left and the media asserted that we had seen Obama's birth certificate were all lies.

To those who merely watch MSNBC, they may be startled to realize that Obama hadn't released his birth certificate until now. Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews and the rest have been falsely asserting otherwise for years. Don't hold your breath waiting for apologies or retractions, though.

And the release comes pretty close to confirming what I've long suspected: that Obama didn't release his birth certificate all this time just to get some of his opponents, and various conspiracy theorists, riled up. He could've released it a long time ago, but chose not to. Granted, maybe Obama is merely excessively belligerent, and refused to release it because he felt he shouldn't have to, but we're often told -- and I mostly believe -- that Obama is a dispassionate pragmatist, so that story doesn't seem likely. What's more likely is that he didn't release his birth certificate simply because Obama himself wanted to make his birth certificate an issue. He succeeded.

This is demonstrated by White House statements, such as: "This whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said. But the discussion is "crowding out the debate" on more important issues and is a distraction, he added. So, as long as it hurts Obama's opponents, you don't release it; when it hurts your agenda, you release it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at April 27, 2011 06:33 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Who cares where Obama was born? That little bit in the Constitution was put there to keep Alexander Hamilton out of the White House, and Hamilton has been dead for centuries. I say let's amend the Constitution to maek this little clause more realistic.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 27, 2011 06:57 AM
2. The birther thing was a cynical, exploitive ploy that started in the Hillary '08 campaign (according to liberal pundit John Avlon) . It was effectively pushed along by the Obama camp once they realized its usefulness.

By the same token it has to be admitted that a large group of right wingers swallowed it hook line & sinker.

Anyway Trump has now come out with his Obama-grade-coverup story, which can fill the same role as birtherism if needed. Pretty much the same narrative there.

Posted by: travis t on April 27, 2011 07:18 AM
3. Birth Certificate? Obama has finally released his Birth Certificate? Who is to say that his Birth Certificate is not a Forgery? After all, any honest up front individual would have released his Birth Certificate a long time ago and not have waited years to fulfill the requirement that he is to prove that he is a natural born Citizen. Yeah...I know the game-play is that it was purposely concealed to hurt Obama's opponents. What a Laugh! Anybody, that believes that Crap is an Easy Believer who is either a Liberal or who has a lot of Liberal blood in his veins.

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 07:18 AM
4. --Politically Incorrect: Then get up and take steps to change the Constitution. And while you're at it, get all your buddies together and change those parts of the Constitution that will dissolve American sovereignty-- just to be thorough.

Posted by: TacomaBlizzard on April 27, 2011 07:27 AM
5. Yes, the evil genius created the grand conspiracy so that folks like Pudge could identify yet another grand conspiracy when the birth certificate was "released".

"He did it to make us look silly!" just sounds petulant.

Posted by: Hook, Line, Sinker on April 27, 2011 07:32 AM
6. P.I.: yes, liberals commonly believe the rule of law doesn't matter. But us conservatives think it does. I agree the Constitution should be changed, but I believe it should be followed in the meantime, because the rule of law matters.

travis t: yes to all of it.

Daniel: if you have evidence it is a forgery, present it. Otherwise, I have no reason to think it is. ALL presented evidence OF ANY KIND points to Obama being a natural born citizen. NO evidence OF ANY KIND has been presented that points to another possibility.

It is true that if Obama were honest, he'd have released it long ago. He pushed this lie because it was useful to him. No doubt. But that he is dishonest is not evidence he isn't a natural born citizen. If you cannot provide evidence to support your insinuations that Obama isn't a natural born citizen, you are just as bad as Obama on the honesty scale.

HLS: um, they admitted it. I quoted it, even. They'd been milking this "controversy" for political gain all along. This is not a secret, nor even is it debatable at this point. Stick your fingers in your ears all you like but you won't change the facts.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 07:57 AM
7. How does this explain the millions paid to "hide" personal data? Something fishy. If he was a real man, he would have released it long ago.

Posted by: Harry on April 27, 2011 08:11 AM
8. Harry, you saying he is an alien and not a human?

Just joking! Just joking! But, I agree with "why not release earlier".

I'm glad Trump 'smoked' it out earlier rather than later.

Posted by: swatter on April 27, 2011 08:41 AM
9. Pudge...There are all kinds of questions dealing with the question of Obama's credentials. For you to say, "ALL presented evidence OF ANY KIND points to Obama being a natural born citizen and NO evidence OF ANY KIND has been presented that points to another possibility"...is just, plain WRONG! Let's get Real! I will not go into the volumes of details that have been presented over the years and currently, as well since, this fraud of announcement and presentation of his Birth Certificate. However, it is common knowledge that he has spent millions not to have his Birth Certificate exposed until now. How come? Do you think that they were hoping that the question would fade away and yet, it only got worse to where they were forced to present their Forgery?

Yeah...It was said to hurt his opponents. What a Laugh! It is obvious that his failure to release his Birth Certificate, in a timely manner, has brought far more ire/anger against Obama than, any harm to his opponents. Do you think?

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 08:43 AM
10. A quibble: The document released today is not Obama's birth certificate. His birth certificate is the official state document released in 2008 that follows federal code of regulations of what a birth certificate needs to contain and certification from the state. What was released today is the document the hospital provides the state to document the birth. It also does release any new information that hasn't already been documented, to the dismay of the birthers, which is why it was unnecessary to release it at all. Everything including what would have been contained on the hospital record has been public knowledge for a few years. Pudge, you are just creating more controversy because you don't like the man. Give it a rest.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 08:46 AM
11. Obama always has been and always will be the little man behind the curtain, almost as good as P.T. Barnum at putting on a show for the "useful idiots". This has all just been a very long, three- year show that has served as a distraction from the real damage he is doing.

Posted by: katomar on April 27, 2011 08:52 AM
12. Daniel: There are all kinds of questions dealing with the question of Obama's credentials.

None that suggest he is not a natural born citizen, no, there are not.


...is just, plain WRONG!

False.

But I'll bite: give ONE example. Just one.


Let's get Real!

Exactly.


I will not go into the volumes of details that have been presented over the years

Just one.


However, it is common knowledge that he has spent millions not to have his Birth Certificate exposed until now. How come?

I don't know that. I've heard it, but I don't know it, and have seen no evidence of it (and because of the fact that his certificate is protected by Hawaiian law, it doesn't pass the smell test). But if true, I already gave you one possible reason: because it benefitted him politically to do so. Can you not read?

But EVEN IF he spent that money, and EVEN IF we couldn't come up with a good reason why he would do that ... so what? That DOES NOT imply he wasn't born here. That is not "evidence" of any kind. Questions are not evidence, they are questions. Evidence is what you uncover while investigating questions.


It is obvious that his failure to release his Birth Certificate, in a timely manner, has brought far more ire/anger against Obama than, any harm to his opponents.

Nonsense. Only some of the people who are already opposed to Obama are angered by any of this. The people who love Obama, or are not firmly on one side or the other, OVERWHELMINGLY think that you "birthers" are idiots and that there are no legitimate questions about whether Obama was born in Honolulu. And they are right about the latter; the former is more subjective, of course.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 08:54 AM
13. Baloney.

If anyone born in Hawaii contacted the state and requested a copy of their birth certificate, they would have received the same document that Obama presented in 2008. That document was a legal birth certificate that is sufficient to obtain a driver license, passport, or anything else that depends on proof of birth.

The document released earlier was a birth certificate -- no lie.

If Republicans want to make themselves look like fools pushing this birther nonsense, that's on them. It's not up to Obama to save them from their own stupidity. And they look pretty stupid today. But not as stupid as folks who whine about Democrats for standing by and allowing Republicans to make asses of themselves.

Posted by: scottd on April 27, 2011 08:56 AM
14. I've always taken the president at his word that he was born in Hawai'i; however, I've also taken him at his word that he is not eligible to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen. He is a native born citizen because his mother was a citizen; however, because both parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, he is not a natural born citizen.

He was born a dual citizen - of the US and Great Britain.

Check out
The House of Representatives Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" = Born of citizen "parents" in the US.

Here are a couple of excerpts:
----------
Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

"As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth." (The term "to-day", as used by Bingham, means "to date". Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
----------
John Bingham, aka "father of the 14th Amendment", was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
----------

In both instances, the emphasis was on the fact that the individuals being discussed were born of parents who were both citizens at the time of their births.

For those who would argue that the US does not recognize dual citizenship, check out
The State Department Has "Always" Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Here's more info:
Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

It's going to be interesting to see how this all works out.

Posted by: Douglas Aldrich on April 27, 2011 08:59 AM
15. tc: The document released today is not Obama's birth certificate. His birth certificate is the official state document released in 2008 that follows federal code of regulations of what a birth certificate needs to contain and certification from the state.

You're wrong.

The document released today IS his birth certificate. The other document is, by Hawaiian law, legally equivalent, but NOT his birth certificate.

This document is the certificate of live birth. The birth certificate. The previous document was the certification of live birth: a separate, later, document that certifies that the certificate exists and says what the certification says.

Everyone on all sides of this -- including the White House, the Birthers, and the State of Hawaii -- agree that what was released previously was not his birth certificate. It was legally equivalent, but not the actual certificate.


What was released today is the document the hospital provides the state to document the birth.

Yes: the birth certificate.


It also does release any new information that hasn't already been documented, to the dismay of the birthers, which is why it was unnecessary to release it at all.

Legally unnecessary, true. But whether a document from the time of his birth, as opposed to one created many years later, is "necessary" as proof to yourself, is up to yourself.


Everything including what would have been contained on the hospital record has been public knowledge for a few years.

You're not making a point by saying this.


Pudge, you are just creating more controversy because you don't like the man.

You're a liar. I am mostly just saying what is factually true: that the left and the media have lied for years by saying Obama released his birth certificate; and that Obama intentionally chose to not release his birth certificate until now. And I strongly suspect based on the evidence -- including the White House quotes that claim it! -- that the reason why he didn't release the birth certificate is because it was "good politics" to not do so (those are their own words).

For you to say I am "creating" controversy by pointing out these facts and quoting the White House's explicitly stated motives makes you look stupid, tc.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 09:01 AM
16. scottd: Baloney.

False.


If anyone born in Hawaii contacted the state and requested a copy of their birth certificate, they would have received the same document that Obama presented in 2008.

Correct.


That document was a legal birth certificate ...

Incorrect.


... that is sufficient to obtain a driver license, passport, or anything else that depends on proof of birth.

Correct.


The document released earlier was a birth certificate

Incorrect.


no lie.

Incorrect.


If Republicans want to make themselves look like fools pushing this birther nonsense, that's on them.

You're a liar. It's not "birther nonsense" to note the fact that Obama didn't release his birth certificate until today.


It's not up to Obama to save them from their own stupidity.

True, but it's up to the voters to decide whether it was becoming of a President to intentionally exploit the "controversy" by refusing to release his birth certificate.


And they look pretty stupid today.

Birthers do, yes, but I don't think they look stupider today than yesterday. I had no reason to think Obama's actual certificate had information different from his previously released certification, and unless you did -- and you say you don't -- then why would birthers look stupider now than before? That can only be possible if you had any doubts.


But not as stupid as folks who whine about Democrats for standing by and allowing Republicans to make asses of themselves.

You're lying by saying it's "Republicans."

But you lie all the time, so this is nothing new.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 09:12 AM
17. Here are some questions already on the Internet about Obama's Birth Certificate:

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the "Date Accepted by Local Reg." four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama's reported birth.

• In the "This Birth" box there are two mysterious Xs above "Twin" and "Triplet." Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document's right side?

• Finally, the "Signature of Local Registrar" in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document's Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled "Ukulele".

Plus, a few more comments:

I already see the flaws: RACE OF MOTHER: Caucasian. RACE OF FATHER: African. Well since when is African a race? In 1961 the RACE was N E G R O This shows that this is a counterfeit document.

Obama has another birth certificate in Kenya. See it here... www.wasobamaborninkenya.com.

THIS IS A FORGERY. It doesnt take a degree in Photoshop to see that much of the text was copy/pasted onto an image, some of the typewritten (or apparently so) text is WHITE around and inside, where the rest is not. Thats obvious without magnifying the image. Also, the bottom statement 'a copy of an existing record' is either false, or the statement that the B.C. was lost was a lie. This cannot be an abstract of a record that doesnt exist, or, the "record that exists" is not a B.C. but some collection of data in a file somewhere. too convenient.

Someone posted that the Hawai'i certificate should say Territory of HI is wrong. The certificates do list "State of Hawai'i. His 'handlers' must have used Eleanor Nor***'s posted certificates to create a forgery. Did this come from the hospital or from Obama? I was born in 1966 and my birth certificate looks like it was soaked in tea, this is pristine, must have come from HI, took a long time. The weird thing that glares at me is the certificate number 61 10641.... hmmmm, I am assuming the births are cataloged in order. Well, Mrs. Nor***'s children were born AFTER Obama, the following day... but her children's numbers are 61 10637 and 61 10638.... so on August 5, 1961, they assigned certificate numbers out of order for her children. .. with lower numbers????? forgery in my opinion.

Pudge...I could go on and on but, why bother.

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 09:17 AM
18. Douglas: I've also taken him at his word that he is not eligible to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen

You're lying. He never said that.


because both parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, he is not a natural born citizen.

That's not what the law says, in fact; on the contrary, there is no significant law differentiating between natural-born and native-born. If you had a statute or quote from the Constitution, you'd supply it. You do not.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 09:18 AM
19. Daniel: 17. Here are some questions ...

What part of "questions are not evidence" do you not understand? I sometimes think you are actually incapable of reading.

NONE OF THAT IS EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. You're exposing yourself as retarded.


I already see the flaws: RACE OF MOTHER: Caucasian. RACE OF FATHER: African. Well since when is African a race? In 1961 the RACE was N E G R O This shows that this is a counterfeit document.

False. You're an idiot. Whether or not YOU consider "African" a race, you have provided NO REASON OF ANY KIND for us to think that someone else -- Obama's mother, or someone at the hospital who filled it out -- didn't think it was a race.


Obama has another birth certificate in Kenya.

I don't care. Unless I have reason to suspect that the one in Hawaii isn't real -- and there is NO EVIDENCE that it is not -- then I don't care.


THIS IS A FORGERY.

You're retarded.

You've provided NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND.


the statement that the B.C. was lost was a lie

There was no such statement. You're a liar.


Well, Mrs. Nor***'s children were born AFTER Obama, the following day... but her children's numbers are 61 10637 and 61 10638.... so on August 5, 1961, they assigned certificate numbers out of order for her children. .. with lower numbers????? forgery in my opinion.

Yes, because you're an idiot. Birth certificates are not filled out in order of birth. My kids' had their paperwork done a day or two after birth, when the hospital staff and us got around to doing it. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that they got to Mrs. Nordyke before Obama's mother. That happens all the time.


Pudge...I could go on and on but, why bother.

I agree. You COULD go on, but as you have utterly failed to provide ANY evidence, and you only keep proving you're an idiot, you have no reason to continue.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 09:28 AM
20. That's Right, pudge...We should Blindly accept Obama's Birth Certificate as being Genuine. After all, when has Obama and company ever LIED to the American People? Nuff, said.

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 09:52 AM
21. He was born in the United States - I am far more concerned where his ideas and policies were born - as they resemble nothing that I associate with America.

Posted by: Borderland on April 27, 2011 10:08 AM
22. Good comment...Borderland.

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 10:22 AM
23. Pudge,
As to the question of why not release earlier, per post by Mark Thompson on League of Ordinary Gentleman blog, Hawaii state cod subsection 338-18(a) makes it illegal for anyone to copy or issue a copy of the vital record except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of Health.

That is to say, by the second of the two subsections, Obama was free to view the vital record, but by the first (above), he was not allowed to make copies and distribute the original vital record. This is why the letter requesting the waiver to allow him to do what he did today.

It wasn't simply a question of asking for a copy. Blaim Hawaii state law, if you like. I think it is good that vital records are protected and can't just be willy-nilly distributed.

As far as your final comment in your response where you show your childish side (again with the lying bit -- it gets rather old). It was Republican lawmakers (many, not just a few)that have allowed this issue linger by constantly not stamping down the issue when asked whether they believed the President was born in the US. Their typical response was well if he says he was or even there may be something to the rumors. While not embracing the fringe, they allowed it to fester until a point when the clown/showboat Trump has brought it to the forefront and allowed it to potentially damage the nominating process.

Even today, you have WND (the leading voice of the controversy) still running with the topic and shifting gears, like the constitution requires both parents being American and that Obama somehow lost his citizenship while in Malaysia. WND is not a leftist and mainstream media you claim is promoting the story. Corsi, is not a left wing author who is promoting this stuff. So, in this case, your statement is false. Please evaluate statements as true/false or opinion and skip the childish lying bit.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 10:22 AM
24. Pudge, you stated that I am lying because he never said he was not eligible. (There's no need to be rude.)

I was not lying, but rather, I based that conclusion upon what he DID say.

He stated that his father was not a citizen. That made him a dual citizen - which makes him ineligible.

While there may not be any major court cases concerning the difference in types of citizen, there is information available in the Congressional record. The links I provided outline a little bit.

I seem to recall reading that when the Consitution was written, the differences between naturalized, native-born, and natural-born citizens were well known so no additional clarification was necessary.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: Douglas Aldrich on April 27, 2011 10:27 AM
25. Douglas: Dual citizenship is such only as far as it is recognized. For instance, the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship under any circumstances. It recognizes only American citizenship for people who were born abroad to American parents, while the country of birth may well recognize dual citizenship, such as in the country of my son's birth, Croatia. Anyway, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's eligibility. The question is whether he was born in the U.S. or not. And the fact that people ARE STILL discussing such intricacies only indicates that useful idiots are looking in the direction Obama wants right now, rather than at the deficit, spending, jobs, foreign policy, the dollar, take your pick.

Posted by: katomar on April 27, 2011 10:52 AM
26. Please God, let this finally shut up those crazy conspiracists.

Obummer blinked - whoop-de-do.

Best headline(so far) Certificate of Live Presidency

... On the other hand, this event also diminishes Obama's stature. He can complain about sideshows and carnival barkers all he wants, but he bought a ticket to the circus, and he's sitting in the VIP row. The President who vanishes completely during the important debates of the day made this the only matter he wants to address with the American public, in between fund-raisers. In fact, he dashed out of the Birth Certificate press conference with unseemly haste because he's got three more fund-raisers to attend today.

...The action Barack Obama took today will be one of many that damages his re-election prospects. What he really needs to display is a Certificate of Live Presidency.

Bingo!:
The Press Conference We Didn't Get
Some things the President doesn't want to talk about.

The long form birth certificate: political winners and losers

It doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or his Mama pushed him out in glass encased toliet smack in the the middle of Wall Street. While it would diminish his already diminished honesty, there is not one judge nor politician in the country who has the courage to commit career suicide to hear a case to remove him. He was sworn in and we are stuck with him.

Can we move on to more important hings like the fact that this Obummer is flushing this country down the toilet?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 11:08 AM
27. Kudos to Trump for getting under the skin of the thinskinned one and smoking out his long form birth certificate. The only reason Obama wanted to keep it under wraps was to deflect from his record as POTUS, which by anyones standards, has been pretty awful.

Now it's up to a Romney/Pawlenty ticket in 2012 to get this nations car out of the ditch and back on the road to prosperity.

Posted by: RIck D. on April 27, 2011 12:36 PM
28. Where is Donald Trump's long form birth certificate? I haven't seen it.

Donald Trump's mother was a Scottish immigrant(*GASP*), why is no one is questioning his eligibility to be President? (my guess, racism)

GOP should really work on that JOBS thing they promised the American people and not Barry's birth certificate,

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 12:54 PM
29. Daniel: Did you, know that if you; play Obama's birth certificate. Backwards on;,; a record player, you'll, hear "Vincent Foster is dead"?

Pudge: While I'm perplexed as to why Obama didn't release this longer certificate earlier (I assume there was a way around the law tc cites), I do think the controversy has hurt him overall. Anything that made him seem less American than McCain cost him votes. I agree that the continuing controversy has made the birthers out to be the loons they are, but overall I think Obama loses whenever people wonder whether he's as American as they are. And if the controversy were helping him, why would he release this now when the birthers are at their most idiotic?

Posted by: Bruce on April 27, 2011 12:55 PM
30. Can we move on to more important hings like the fact that this Obummer is flushing this country down the toilet?

Come on Ragnar, Barry's just cleaning up the mess that Bush Co. left behind. You know, those two wars, massive unchecked spending, tax cuts for the rich, enormous deficit, real estate bubble followed by an economic recession.

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 12:59 PM
31. GOP should really work on that JOBS thing they promised the American people and not Barry's birth certificate

This 'obfuscate the subject' comment is a perfect illustration of why liberals should not be allowed to vote until they have passed a basic civics class.

The GOP is in chrge of one half of one third of government. Whatever they pass has to be approved by the intractable democrat senate who says no to every/anything the GOP proposes and the veto pen of the Obummer.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 01:02 PM
32. Obviously, polling data indicated it was time for it to be released, because Trump had brought the issue to the forefront and cause more Americans to doubt it, merely because he kept beating that drum, even though he believed he was born in the USA. Obama capitulated (over an utterly stupid thing) and came forward with it. He was hoping to
get more mileage out of the birther movement.

Even though I don't support Trump for POTUS, I agree with him that now it's time for the Weasel in chief to show his college records !

Posted by: KDS on April 27, 2011 01:04 PM
33. Obama refused to release it to everyone else for years but when Trump wants it, Obama bows down and complies. Is TRUMP POTUS? The leader of the free world has been TRUMPED!

Posted by: TRUMPED on April 27, 2011 01:08 PM
34. Cato,

Ragnard would say a Democrat is "flushing the country down the toilet" even if the stock market was up big, Oil companies are making huge profits, taxes are at historical lows..

Wait...

Posted by: Robert on April 27, 2011 01:09 PM
35. GOP should really work on that JOBS thing they promised the American people and not Barry's birth certificate

Furthermore, it wasn't the GOP pushing this insane narrative, it was the nutty outliers ... like Chris Matthews

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 01:09 PM
36. @28

"Where is Donald Trump's long form birth certificate? I haven't seen it. "

Hey Moron - Is Donald Trump the president of the United States?

Posted by: Marx on April 27, 2011 01:11 PM
37. Daniel: That's Right, pudge...We should Blindly accept Obama's Birth Certificate as being Genuine.

You're a liar. I never implied that. I stated quite clearly that you have NO REASON to believe or suspect it is NOT genuine, and until you do, you should shut up.


Douglas: you stated that I am lying because he never said he was not eligible

Correct. You said he said this. He did not. You, therefore, were lying.


There's no need to be rude.

There's no need to lie.


I was not lying, but rather, I based that conclusion upon what he DID say.

False. You said he said something he did not say. You drew your conclusions that he is not a natural born citizen based on what he did say, yes; but you claimed he SAID he was not a natural born citizen, which he did not do.

You lied.


He stated that his father was not a citizen. That made him a dual citizen - which makes him ineligible.

That is not the law, that is your interpretation of what you think the law SHOULD be interpreted to mean.


While there may not be any major court cases concerning the difference in types of citizen, there is information available in the Congressional record. The links I provided outline a little bit.

Correct, but as all of us know, what is said by Congress.


I seem to recall reading that when the Consitution was written, the differences between naturalized, native-born, and natural-born citizens were well known so no additional clarification was necessary.

Perhaps, but again: a. that remains your interpretation, and not what the law actually says; and, b. Obama didn't say what you asserted he said.


tc: As to the question of why not release earlier, per post by Mark Thompson on League of Ordinary Gentleman blog, Hawaii state cod subsection 338-18(a) makes it illegal for anyone to copy or issue a copy of the vital record except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of Health. ... Obama was free to view the vital record, but by the first (above), he was not allowed to make copies and distribute the original vital record

False. Part (b) says that Obama can get a copy, and nothing in that section prohibits him from providing that copy to anyone. If we take the interpretation you provide, then Obama would be forbidden from disclosing any information on his own birth certificate to anyone. It makes no sense. No, the copies they are referring to in that section are copies that have not yet been released to private citizens under subsection (b). Obama getting a copy is covered under (b), and (a) does not forbid his providing the copy to anyone, only from an official issuing a copy to anyone not covered under (b).

Think about it: you're saying the phrase "issue a copy" applies to Obama, but that phrase has no meaning in personal transactions. If I have a legally obtained copy of my own record, giving it to the press isn't "issuing a copy."

The bizarre confusion here is in that once you have your own record, OF COURSE you can do whatever you want with it ... there's no need to put that in the law. Indeed, it would be illegal (hello First Amendment) and irrational to forbid you from copying your own documents.

This is very straightforward: only certain people can request their records. That's it.

But EVEN IF your interpretation made ANY sense -- which it doesn't -- it doesn't change a damned thing, because he could have requested this waiver a long time ago anyway.


It wasn't simply a question of asking for a copy.

False.


again with the lying bit -- it gets rather old

Your lying gets old. Shrug.


It was Republican lawmakers (many, not just a few)

You're a liar.


that have allowed this issue linger

I don't dispute that a few, not many, Republicans have allowed this to linger. I said nothing about that. I only pointed out the fact that Obama wanted this to continue. Whoever on whatever side has played a part in perpetuating this nonsense doesn't argue against my point at all (indeed, it only strengthens it).


Even today, you have WND (the leading voice of the controversy) ...

WND is not a leftist and mainstream media you claim is promoting the story. Corsi, is not a left wing author who is promoting this stuff. So, in this case, your statement is false.

Um. You didn't provide any evidence pointing to any statement I made that is "false." Which statement are you babbling about, and in what way is it false?


skip the childish lying bit

Shrug. Stop lying.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 01:14 PM
38. Come on Ragnar, Barry's just cleaning up the mess that Bush Co. left behind. You know, those two wars, massive unchecked spending, tax cuts for the rich, enormous deficit, real estate bubble followed by an economic recession.

When does the Obummer get to take responsibility. Oh gee, it's only been 2 years, 3 months, 7 days and doubling the debt. Isn't it time he wore big bopy pants and took some responsibility? Or is it just the credo of the left that it's ALWAYS someone else's fault?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 01:16 PM
39. tc, oh one more thought: the law you cite also covers the certification of live birth, which Obama released in 2008 ... without a waiver.

Seriously, your claim just makes no sense.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 01:18 PM
40. Obummer countdown

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 01:25 PM
41. Hey Moron - Is Donald Trump the president of the United States?

When he announces his run and wins Iowa/NH I hope you start asking the same question you asked Barry. Where's his Birth Certificate, since his mother is Scottish that should make him a Native Citizen and not a Naturalized Citizen and therefore make him ineligible for the office (at least according to the birther loons).

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 01:31 PM
42. When does the Obummer get to take responsibility. Oh gee, it's only been 2 years, 3 months, 7 days and doubling the debt.

Bush Co. had a full 8 years to screw the country up, did a pretty good job of it too. We're still in those two wars, housing market is still in bad shape, deficit is still trough the roof, we're still in a recession. Now that Obama has to pass a budget it's now his problem. By your prior reasoning Obama's doing a pretty good job (i.e. no terrorist attacks on US soil since taking office), stocks are up, people are getting back to work, exports are up, profits are up, now if we can just get companies and wealthy individuals to pay taxes we'll be in good shape come 2013 when Obama swears in for his second term. =)

BTW, the current crop of GOP candidates looks worse than ever. Good luck getting the Tea Party loons to vote for the only qualified candidate, Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 01:42 PM
43. Pudge @39
Here is the link to the article I referred to. It isn't MY interpretation I was stating but the author of the article.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 01:48 PM
44. We know you lefty's are desperate for this subject to stay on the front burner so that the nation doesn't notice that the only thing the Obummer does well is campaign, fund raise and run out of the country when the going gets tough. It tickles us that you stupidly and so easily believe we are too stupid to notice. Please continue the narrative while the grown-ups fix the mess the liberal Obummer cult has made.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 01:55 PM
45. Cato: Where is Donald Trump's long form birth certificate? I haven't seen it.

I don't care.


(my guess, racism)

You will convince no one but yourself that some on the left wouldn't have done the same thing to a GOP President under the same circumstances.


GOP should really work on that JOBS thing they promised the American people and not Barry's birth certificate

You're a liar, Cato. They ARE working on that. The GOP has had nothing to do with any birth certificate nonsense. You hear almost no one in the GOP -- except Trump, who isn't really a part of the GOP in a significant way -- talking about this, not just now, but ever.


Bruce: While I'm perplexed as to why Obama didn't release this longer certificate earlier (I assume there was a way around the law tc cites)

I am not perplexed by it. :-) But, as noted, tc misinterpreted the law: it would be unconstitutional and irrational if it meant what tc said, it also would apply to the document Obama DID release, and he could've gotten a waiver before even if one were required. There was no need to get around it, as demonstrated by the release of his certification of live birth in 2008.


I do think the controversy has hurt him overall.

I agree with you, at first, maybe, but now, no. Without the "birther" nonsense, the Tea Party would be merely anti-poor; now they are also racist nutjob conspiracy theorists. (In public perception of many, I mean; I think this perception is nonsense.)

Besides, even if it hurt him more than help him, that doesn't mean they didn't think it wouldn't.


And if the controversy were helping him, why would he release this now when the birthers are at their most idiotic?

Excellent question, and I think the answer is in that he thinks there's diminishing returns in letting it drag out, and that pulling out the certificate NOW would be a greater benefit.

I suppose it's also possible he really thinks that this is a distraction preventing real work from getting done. I don't think Obama is a horrible, malicious, person; I don't think he will do anything to win elections; I think he wants to accomplish things. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Boehner asked Obama to release his birth certificate so they could all focus more on the upcoming budget stuff, and that Obama did so in a show of cooperation.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 01:55 PM
46. tc: the incorrect interpretation IS yours. I didn't imply it originated with you, but you held to it and claimed it as true. And it's very clearly wrong.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 02:02 PM
47. We're still in those two wars, housing market is still in bad shape, deficit is still trough the roof, we're still in a recession.

Under the Obummer: THREE wars with raging confusion over policy in Libya and 'Me too' of the Bush policy.

The housing market is in FAR worse shape and getting worse with each passing month.

The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office.
TODAY, THIS HOUR, THE US DEBT IS
$14,330,243,685,946 under the Obummer
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The recession is worse: the dollar has lost more than 20% of it value, gas is up 108% under the Obummer, while the Obummer is cheerleading and promising oil to foreign countries and celebrating high prices here, food prices are skyrocketing, (CELERY up 54 cents in last month!), the GM boodsoggle is so bad that now the governmet wants to rid itself of its stock at a loss while Ford who never took Obummers $$ is making record profits, foreign countries and journalists are mocking the Obumer (and by the way which is worse being mocked because you get tongue tied or mocked when your supposed to have the golden tongue?)

And the stockmarket up? - yep partly because the Obummer is propping it up with his quantitative easing and mostly because he's falling in the polls and Wall Street is celebrating.


Keep blaming Bush.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 02:08 PM
48. Pudge @46
Huh???? or What you talking about????
Either the author of the link is right or wrong. How does my restating his though make him right and me wrong?
OBTW, I will take the author's word over your interpretation. You offer no evidence why the first section of the code should not be interpreted as the author states.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 02:14 PM
49. Pudge...You state: That I have NO REASON to believe or suspect that his Birth Certificate is NOT genuine? I have given you numerous reasons and your answers are simply False, Lying, Idiot. You don't address the reasons given, you just, attack the commenter. How noble and fair minded you are. In Truth, you are an egotistical, self-important, never can be wrong, arrogant, boorish ASS. You have been very quick to call names to people who have different opinions rather than, debate the substance of their opinions.

Posted by: Daniel on April 27, 2011 02:36 PM
50. tc: Either the author of the link is right or wrong.

As I've said repeatedly, he is wrong.


How does my restating his though make him right and me wrong?

I never said he's right. I said he's wrong. And so are you.


OBTW, I will take the author's word over your interpretation.

Of course you do. But you look very foolish for it.


You offer no evidence why the first section of the code should not be interpreted as the author states.

You're lying. I gave many a lot of evidence, in fact: that there's no reason for it to be interpreted that way; that it means you can't supply a copy of your own birth certificate to other people for identification (such as for a passport); that Obama already violated your interpretation in 2008 when he released his certification of live birth; that it's blatantly unconstitutional as it constitutes a prior restraint violation of the First Amendment; etc.

That you say I provided no evidence makes you look completely retarded.


Daniel: I have NO REASON to believe or suspect that his Birth Certificate is NOT genuine?

Yes. Well, perhaps I should amend that: you have PROVIDED no reason to believe or suspect it.


I have given you numerous reasons ...

And I completely shot down every one, without fail.


You don't address the reasons given

You're a liar. I'll recap a few here.

You said that the fact that the document states the race as "African" instead of "Negro" "shows that this is a counterfeit document." I noted the unassailable fact that whether or not "African" is a proper race, that doesn't imply someone at the time didn't believe it was the proper race to put on the document.

You said the fact that certificate numbers were not in order of birth means it is a "forgery in [your] opinion." I noted the unassailable fact that hospitals do NOT fill out birth documents in order of birth.

So, your assertion that I didn't address your reasons is another lie.

I bother pointing this all out so that it makes sense to everyone when I say that you are banned from further commenting. You are useless. Go away.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 02:46 PM
51. You're a liar, Cato. They ARE working on that. The GOP has had nothing to do with any birth certificate nonsense. You hear almost no one in the GOP -- except Trump, who isn't really a part of the GOP in a significant way -- talking about this, not just now, but ever.

So Michelle Bachman & Newt Gingrich are not a members of the Republican Party? LOL! Last I checked both were contemplating running for President on the GOP ticket. Heck even Rush Limbaugh was pushing the birther story.

You are dead wrong on this one Pudgy. =)

The housing market is in FAR worse shape and getting worse with each passing month.

I don't know banks seem to be making huge profits off of foreclosures, easy to do when they were the ones who benifited from the problem in the first place. Housing bubble/collapse was created under (you guessed it) President G.W. Bush. Now when the Gold/Silver bubble collapses you can blame Obama as that one is his fault. =)

the dollar has lost more than 20% of it value, gas is up 108% under the Obummer

Last I heard a weak dollar is excellent news for US exporters, you know the ones which help reduce the trade deficit. The value of the dollar has been steadily declining since the middle of the Bush Administration who purposely lowered it to boost exports. Gas is up, gas is down, who cares...it's a free market. President has no control over the price of gas other than control of the US Oil Reserves.

food prices are skyrocketing, (CELERY up 54 cents in last month!

So you suggesting that we should abandon the free market principles for price controls? Your idol Ayn Rand would be rolling in her grave at such a suggestion, shame on you!

journalists are mocking the Obumer

Now your suggesting we repeal the first amendment? What kind of Republican are you? Psst, journalists mocked Bush too (Nu-cu-lar), they even mocked his VP after he shot his hunting buddy. What else is new?

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 02:49 PM
52. Pudge,
Regarding my statement "It was Republican lawmakers (many, not just a few)that have allowed this issue linger by constantly not stamping down the issue when asked whether they believed the President was born in the US."

See this article that goes over some of the long history of Republican Congressmen and Senators trying to have it both ways on the issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/birther-roundup-reactions-to-president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate.php?ref=fpb

I am not making up stuff out of thin air and you have not basis to infer my intent from things I have stated here today. I will be waiting for the apology (for lying statement).

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 02:49 PM
53. Pudge,
To add to my post @52, here is a classic statement from a Texas Republican legislator that sponsored a birther bill their (like in Florida, AZ, and many other states, all by Republicans -- at least Brewer in AZ knew the bill was way out of line).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/27/birther-legislation-in-texas-still-a-go.aspx

Long form not legitimate because of title, give me a break. That is like the quote earlier where the certificate wasn't legit because it didn't include a footprint. It as if people think the only correct form is what they had been issued when they were young. This is the very reason the State Department formalized what the document it would accept had to contain and why states now only issue the short form. Otherwise, it would be a smorgasbord of forms out there.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 02:54 PM
54. So, just read the letter from Obama's lawyer. The "waiver" request is only asking for a waiver of the normal policy of providing the Certification of Live Birth in lieu of the "original birth certificate." Period.

The letter notes the "Department of Health's longstanding policy and practice to provide only the 'short-form' version" and says that "[w]aiver of the Department's policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy birth certificate publicly available," but the waiver is only for providing the original available to Obama, not for what Obama does with it once he gets it.

"The Department's policy" being waived is in providing the "short" as opposed to "long" form certificate to Obama. That's it. Period.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 02:56 PM
55. You're a liar, Cato. They ARE working on that. The GOP has had nothing to do with any birth certificate nonsense. You hear almost no one in the GOP -- except Trump, who isn't really a part of the GOP in a significant way -- talking about this, not just now, but ever.

So Michelle Bachman & Newt Gingrich are not a members of the Republican Party? LOL! Last I checked both were contemplating running for President on the GOP ticket. Heck even Rush Limbaugh was pushing the birther story.

You are dead wrong on this one Pudgy. =)

The housing market is in FAR worse shape and getting worse with each passing month.

I don't know banks seem to be making huge profits off of foreclosures, easy to do when they were the ones who benifited from the problem in the first place. Housing bubble/collapse was created under (you guessed it) President G.W. Bush. Now when the Gold/Silver bubble collapses you can blame Obama as that one is his fault. =)

the dollar has lost more than 20% of it value, gas is up 108% under the Obummer

Last I heard a weak dollar is excellent news for US exporters, you know the ones which help reduce the trade deficit. The value of the dollar has been steadily declining since the middle of the Bush Administration who purposely lowered it to boost exports. Gas is up, gas is down, who cares...it's a free market. President has no control over the price of gas other than control of the US Oil Reserves.

food prices are skyrocketing, (CELERY up 54 cents in last month!

So you suggesting that we should abandon the free market principles for price controls? Your idol Ayn Rand would be rolling in her grave at such a suggestion, shame on you!

journalists are mocking the Obumer

Now your suggesting we repeal the first amendment? What kind of Republican are you? Psst, journalists mocked Bush too (Nu-cu-lar), they even mocked his VP after he shot his hunting buddy. What else is new?

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 02:57 PM
56. @41

"When he announces his run and wins Iowa/NH I hope you start asking the same question you asked Barry."

Are you really that dumb? Yes, I guess you are. Trump will never run, never intended to run. He has a hit show on NBC and his contract is up for renewal. Do you really think it a coincidence Trump is going to announce his decision on the finale of the show?

P.T. Barnum was right - YOU are proof!

Posted by: Marx on April 27, 2011 03:06 PM
57. tc: I am not making up stuff out of thin air

Yes, you are. You say it's not a few, but many. Your evidence is less than a dozen Republican legislators. Who do you think you're fooling?


Long form not legitimate because of title, give me a break.

What are you babbling about now? No one in here said anything about a title. And indeed, I never said any document from Obama wasn't legitimate. You're lying. As usual. I saw only ONE person in here saying any documents from Obama about his birth were not legitimate, and I banned him for his incessant unreasonableness.


Cato: So Michelle Bachman & Newt Gingrich are not a members of the Republican Party?

You're a liar. I never said SOME Republicans weren't talking about the birth certificate; I was saying YOU were wrong for claiming that the party, as a whole, was focused on the birth certificate.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 03:06 PM
58. So you suggesting that we should abandon the free market principles for price controls?

Nice try. I have suggested no such thing.

What I have suggested ... screw it... I'm downright saying it: Obummer and his idiotic policies are causing inflation as we haven't seen since that other worthless suit in the 70's.

That poor sucker, Obummer - when things get tough (as they are now) he reverts to type: class warfare, racist anti-American church, Oprah, and campaigning.

And he's managed all 4 in just the last 3 days.

Admit it, you are secretly hoping the suddenly missing Hillary challenges the Obummer... gee, I wonder if that had anything with his birth certificate side show today ... you do know her last campaign was the source of that stupid rumor...

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 03:22 PM
59. Pudge @54
The waiver was to make copies and release to the public. That is what the Mark Thompson post stated. Thompson also stated that part b of the law only allows for seeing the original. Without the waiver, a copy could not be made available, even to Obama. Read the Thompson post again.

Pudge @57
Um, Pudge, it was in the linked article I was referring to in my post @53. It was made by the Texas lawmaker who sponsored the Texas birther bill. I never stated that it was someone here.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 03:27 PM
60. I'll quote your idiotic sentence back to you...

The GOP has had nothing to do with any birth certificate nonsense. You hear almost no one in the GOP -- except Trump

The GOP is made up of it's members, many believed (and likely still continue to believe) that Obama is not a US Citizen. While the leadership has always been impartial to the issue several elected members of the current House of Representatives and a former Republican Speaker of the House all have brought up the birth certificate issue. It's not limited to Trump.

I was saying YOU were wrong for claiming that the party,

Maybe you should be more clear Pudgy, cause that's not what you said. Looks like you are the liar. =)

Trump will never run, never intended to run

He's run before and he'll run again. The fact that he's leading in the polls seems to be a pretty good indicator that he'll run. I doubt he'll stick around for the whole show. Regardless he's got all the money in the world to spend to sit around and be the spoiler candidate.

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 03:31 PM
61. "He's run before and he'll run again. The fact that he's leading in the polls seems to be a pretty good indicator that he'll run. I doubt he'll stick around for the whole show."

Wrong. Donald Trump has never run for president. You are a liar and a moron. Simply kicking around the idea in public is not running for president. Regardless, he snapped his fingers and the weak Democrat POTUS jumped.

Posted by: Lenin on April 27, 2011 03:46 PM
62. Pudge,
I read your comments on Mark Thompson's blog post. Where I feel you are in error is with the assumption of what can be done once an individual has information. The "short-form" is made available to individuals for express purposes of providing to others (like to get a driver's license, apply for passport, etc.). The "long-form" however is a state-owned legal document and not property of the person of reported on the document. It would be like a police report on you or I. It is a restricted distribution document that remains property of the state and they can determine what it can and can't be used for. I my government days, it is similar to unclassified-sensitive information (like Audit reports). Most documents like this, while they can be distributed have certain rules that go with distribution, specifically to redistribution. I am only guessing, but it makes sense that state vital records would fall under such a category. In essence the state always owns the copyright of the document and can control its distribution. Just as you can't copy a book and distribute it state "restricted" documents also have distribution limits. This isn't a FOIU type issue.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 03:54 PM
63. Obummer and his idiotic policies are causing inflation as we haven't seen since that other worthless suit in the 70's.

Yes, inflation is happening. I also agree that the current rise in inflation is Obama's fault. But inflation is a lot better than deflation. It's no where near as bad as the 70's. I don't expect it to last, once the QE is done and the Fed raises interest rates inflation should ease back to normal levels.

When things get tough (as they are now) he reverts to type: class warfare, racist anti-American church, Oprah, and campaigning.

Class warfare? When did suggesting that we end subsidies to oil companies become class warfare?

Church? So attending a church on Easter Sunday built by freed slaves is anti-american? I bet you sympathize with your fellow Republicans down in Mississippi who feel inter-racial marriage is anti-american as well. You really are a disturbed individual Ragnar.

Oprah? Bush went on Fox, Obama goes on Oprah, Presidents like to appeal to their target demographic (Fox being angry white men, Oprah being sympathetic women). Either way they both know they will get softball questions.

Campaigning? Like no politician running for re-election has ever done that before. At least he's not relaxing on some dude ranch down in Texas.

Admit it, you are secretly hoping the suddenly missing Hillary challenges the Obummber

Hillary Schillary, she may have started the rumor but the GOP were the ones who took the ball and ran with it. They even worked to to pass laws in some states (like Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Georgia) based on it. Heck even some small minded GOP dimwit from Florida even introduced it as a bill on the US House floor (2009 - H.R. 1503).

BTW, I think Hillary is doing a fine job as Secretary of State. =)

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 03:58 PM
64. Cato@28: Where is Donald Trump's long form birth certificate? I haven't seen it.

Guess you haven't looked very hard or don't listen to the news. Once it was pointed out to him that what he provided wasn't his official birth certificate, he did produce it. Here is what the LA Times on March 29, 2011 calls "his [Trump's] actual birth certificate".

Posted by: It Takes A Village To Convene A Grand Jury on April 27, 2011 04:07 PM
65. This Fox News report provides background on the actual document, which is in a bound book.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 04:08 PM
66. Here is Obama's response to Pudge's question (indirectly) via his appearance on Oprah today. To me, it sounds like he thought what he had done was sufficient, but realized that due to Trump (plus AZ bill, etc) this wasn't going away. I think Sullivan (and Pudge) are correct in still asking why did it take so long (i.e., why not ask when this first came up for a waiver). Of course, one is not supposed to negotiate with terrorists.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 04:12 PM
67. Lenin @61
Trump tried to get the Reform Party nod against Pat Buchanan several years back. That is more than just making noise.

Posted by: tc on April 27, 2011 04:17 PM
68. Class warfare: "BLAME THE RICH"

Church? "Now Jim Crow wears blue pin stripes ... and he doesn't have to wear white robes anymore, because now he can wear the protective cover of talk radio, or can get a regular news program on Fox. He doesn't have to wear his white garments anymore."

Oprah? Fox NEWS vs girlie fluff TALK show

Campaigning? "We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve." as he jumped on his plane for Oprah and fund raising and campaigning.

I wonder exactly when he's going to get to those problems we have to solve... he's campaigning/golfing/playing basketball/fundraising against a yet to be decided opponent 18 MONTHS ahead of an election. He must be really worried... unless as I've said he simply defaults to his comfort zone when he's cornered like a democRAT.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 04:32 PM
69. Congratulations!
"Obama wanted to make his birth certificate an issue" and YOU could not possibly help yourself in supprting his Kenyan-Muslim jujitsu move.
What else can explain this post?

Funny how your line of thinking is just like that of Karl Rove's.

Your parents must be proud!

Posted by: Zin Rosenbaum on April 27, 2011 05:09 PM
70. tc: The waiver was to make copies and release to the public.

False, as I demonstrated clearly.


That is what the Mark Thompson post stated.

Yes, and I quoted the waiver, and he is wrong. They asked for a waiver of the policy of providing only the "short form" certificate. That is it. Period. It was only about which document to receive, and nothing else at all. It had nothing to do with distribution, except that as his reason WHY he wanted the "long form," he said it was to distribute it. But the waiver was unrelated to any policies regarding distribution.


Thompson also stated that part b of the law only allows for seeing the original.

No, you're incorrect. It is also for getting a copy of the original, not merely for seeing it, and Thompson doesn't dispute this.


Without the waiver, a copy could not be made available, even to Obama.

No, you're wrong. That's not even remotely in the law. And again, Thompson doesn't say that at all. You are clueless. Indeed, it says explicitly "The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."


Where I feel you are in error ...

Your feelings are irrelevant.


... the assumption of what can be done once an individual has information.

Except that this is clear: the assumption of the Constitution is that when I have information, it's mine to do with as I please. Period. There are some exceptions, but not when it is MY information about ME.


The "short-form" is made available to individuals for express purposes of providing to others (like to get a driver's license, apply for passport, etc.). The "long-form" however is a state-owned legal document and not property of the person of reported on the document.

No such distinction appears anywhere in any law that has been provided. You're inventing it, or puking out what other people have carelessly, without evidence, invented.


It is a restricted distribution document

No, it's not. You're making it up out of thin air.


Here is Obama's response to Pudge's question (indirectly) via his appearance on Oprah today.

As if anyone will believe that? His own spokesman said today that NOT releasing it has been "good politics."


Cato: The GOP is made up of it's members

Yes. And?


many believed (and likely still continue to believe) that Obama is not a US Citizen

Where "many" means "far, far less than half." Yes. And?


While the leadership has always been impartial to the issue

False.


several elected members of the current House of Representatives and a former Republican Speaker of the House all have brought up the birth certificate issue.

Yes, a tiny minority have.


It's not limited to Trump.

I never said it was. You're a liar.


that's not what you said

You're a liar.


Trump will never run, never intended to run

You incorrectly attributed this to me.


The fact that he's leading in the polls ...

... is not an actual fact.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 05:11 PM
71. Zin, are you always this dumb?

I am not making it an issue, I am commenting on how Obama made it an issue. Yes, the discussion moves around and back and forth, but ... so what? You didn't actually make a point. I know you think you did, and that's what's so sad.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 05:12 PM
72. Me: While the leadership has always been impartial to the issue
Pudgy: False

Read it an weep, liar:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/trump-honored-newsmax-poll/2011/04/27/id/394331

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/elections/2011-04-27/poll-three-way-race-gop-nod?v=1303909958

Yes, a tiny minority have.

A tiny minority of Republicans and several state governments made up of Republicans still represent the GOP.

While I think you are wrong Pudgy, it's still better than being a radical socialist and closet racist like Ragnar. =)

Posted by: Cato on April 27, 2011 05:39 PM
73. Obama CIC. Criminal in Chief. Impeach the bastard already.

Posted by: Crusader on April 27, 2011 05:40 PM
74. The "short-form" is made available to individuals for express purposes of providing to others (like to get a driver's license, apply for passport, etc.) ~ tc

Not according to Dan Pfeiffer today, tc.

From MSNBC website:

Pfeiffer said the birth certificate handed out to the press today was the same document that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request their birth certificate and the same one they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver's license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. "It is a legally recognized document."

So he's acknowledging that the short-form COLB that Obama stiff armed the public with was insufficient to obtain the documents you mentioned. You're directly contradicting Obama's press secretary with the above statement, tc.


"We're not gonna be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers." ~ Barack Obama 4/27/11

The irony in this statement is that only one clown kept this 3 ring circus going for as long as it did. And unfortunately for Democrats, that clown wasn't Donald Trump.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2011 06:00 PM
75. I see. The President is responsible fof 51% of those likely to vote in the Republican primaries to believe in the birther conspiracy. And you're helping out by commenting on how Obama made it an issue.

Your parents musf be so proud!

Posted by: Zin Rosenbaum on April 27, 2011 06:06 PM
76. I see. The President is responsible fof 51% of those likely to vote in the Republican primaries to believe in the birther conspiracy. And you're helping out by commenting on how Obama made it an issue.

Your parents musf be so proud!

Posted by: Zin Rosenbaum on April 27, 2011 06:07 PM
77. The Obummer and you lefty pets are desperate for the GOP to have a front runner/candidate. YOU are perpetuating the GOP narrative, YOU are trying to make a frontrunner.

We are in no hurry. Unlike you we won't be sold a pretty suit nor an accomplished teleprompter.

I do not believe for one moment Donald Trump is going to run for/be the GOP nominee. However, he is now in the political spotlight and with 57% of his political donations going to democrats, with his praises for Pelosi, with his social liberalism, it would be an absolute kick for him to challenge the Obummer as a DEMOCRAT.

Regarding the Obummers birth certificate, it is more a damnation of the MSM who managed to completely ferret out every single minuscule fact/gossip/whisper about Bush's, Palin's and even Kerry's school history, medical history down to and including searching their garbage cans. Yet they simply shrugged when it came to the Obummer. With Obummer's abject failure of leadership perhaps they should have dug a bit.

The poor sucker is lost: he was never qualified, never had real world experience, is clueless on economics and even the ONE thing of which he claims to be an expert, the US Constitution, he either is ignorant of it, doesn't understand it or is willfully ignoring its words. The Obummer is a great campaigner and he reads his cue cards well - which is about the best you can expect of a community organizer. Alas, our communities are organized: we call them STATES.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 06:32 PM
78. Rick D.: Not according to Dan Pfeiffer today, tc.

Then Pfeiffer is wrong. It is the "short form" that everyone gets when they request their birth certificate. They do not regularly give out the "long form" unless specifically requested, which is what Obama did this month (and would have done long ago, except that he wanted to keep birthers like Daniel stirred up).


So he's acknowledging that the short-form COLB that Obama stiff armed the public with was insufficient to obtain the documents you mentioned.

That's incorrect. The "short form" is absolutely equivalent to the "long form" in every legal context.

Either you read an old story, or MSNBC made a mistake, or Pfeiffer did.


Zin: I see. The President is responsible fof 51% of those likely to vote in the Republican primaries to believe in the birther conspiracy.

I never said, or implied, any such thing. You're a liar, and you will be banned if you persist.


Cato: Read it an weep, liar

Wow, are you REALLY that dumb? The Newsmax has no scientific value whatsoever: it's opt-in and it doesn't take significant precautions to prevent repeat voting, which means the sample is absolutely useless. Its not a "poll" in the sense that we all use it when we talk about things like Gallup polls and so on (unless you mean the Gallup cell phone poll, which is similarly useless).

The other poll I'd have to look into more, but no, Trump is not leading, but in a tie, by its own claims.


A tiny minority of Republicans and several state governments made up of Republicans still represent the GOP.

You're a liar. You need a majority of the GOP, or a majority of the leadership of the GOP, to represent the GOP.


a radical socialist and closet racist like Ragnar. =)

You're a liar.

Posted by: pudge on April 27, 2011 06:46 PM
79. a radical socialist and closet racist like Ragnar.

I personally love when they prove they have no argument, no facts. I love the vindication and I love even more the absolute high the triumphant giggles it gives me.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 27, 2011 06:53 PM
80. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do."~ Barack Obama, earlier today

tc @ 66- Here is Obama's response to Pudge's question via his appearance on Oprah today.~tc

Apparently appearing regularly on Oprah does not rise the level of silliness for the President, but it does for the majority of us. Especially when the rest of his day included 3 fundraisers for the 2012 election campaign. I'm sure the out of work voters will be happy to hear he's got "better stuff to do" than improve HIS economy.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2011 07:12 PM
81. Just as an aside...wow, pudge you haven't lost your knack for generating mucho posts. Way to go...and way to keep it interesting. :)

Posted by: Duffman on April 27, 2011 07:45 PM
82. Gee. It only took president teleprompter three years and a million dollars or two in legal expenses to produce his long form birth certificate. What a "transparent" guy. Why, he's the bestest, most transparent president evah!!

Posted by: Attila on April 27, 2011 08:52 PM
83. The birther controversy has been squeezed for all the political juice it can provide, so now the Left resurrects the "you're a racist" meme for not doing full obeisance to the empty suit in the WH.

Posted by: FurryGuyJeans on April 27, 2011 09:04 PM
84. @67,

Trump tried to get the Reform Party nod against Pat Buchanan several years back. That is more than just making noise. Posted by tc at April 27, 2011 04:17 PM

There is no requirement to be a US citizen to TALK about running for office, just to hold office. So once Trump gets elected, you can demand a birth certificate. OH WAIT - HE HAS ALREADY REVEALED IT

Posted by: Stalin on April 28, 2011 06:06 AM
85. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) born of Irish immigrants
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) English Mother
James Buchanan (1857-1861) Irish Father
Chester Arthur (1881-1885) Irish Father
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) English Mother
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) Canadian Mother

Oops. I guess all their presidencies were illegal.

Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on April 28, 2011 06:06 AM
86. Joe, I should note you are only responding to one person here, Douglas Aldrich.

And even then, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson -- being born before the adoption of the Constitution -- were explicitly exempted by the Constitution's natural-born requirement ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...").

So don't be dumb, Joe: it's completely obvious that Jefferson and Jackson are exempt.

As to the rest, the question Douglas raised was not about where the parents were from, but whether the parents were citizens. That said, Arthur may not have even been born in the U.S., with a father who wasn't an American citizen, which, yes, puts him in exactly the same boat as Obama (except there's no evidence Obama wasn't born in the U.S., even though some people believe it, whereas there's some evidence maybe Arthur was born in Canada).

I think it's silly: to me, if you're born to an American parent, or are born in the U.S. to a mother legally in the U.S., you should be considered an American. I think distinguishing between types of Americans (natural born vs. whatever) is silly. I think we should amend the Constitution to change "natural born citizen" to "citizen for at least 25 years."

But I also think that the people on the left who have been lying about and exploiting this are worse than the dummies like Daniel on the right who can't help themselves.

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 06:46 AM
87. Pudge,
"I think we should amend the Constitution to change "natural born citizen" to "citizen for at least 25 years."

Totally agree that there needs to be a change. People may argue over exact change needed, but the current definition relies on a series of late 1800's court case (and English Common Law) as its explanation (like US vs Wong Kim Ark).

Posted by: tc on April 28, 2011 08:54 AM
88. Pudge,

Got any actual proof for you over the top blog title?

People call the Certificate of Live Birth a "Birth Certificate" all the time. The "Birth Certificate" released yesterday is called a "Certificate of Live Birth" in its very title. The one release 3 years ago is as legally legitimate as the one released yesterday.

Liar! (Wow it really is easy to write like you)

Posted by: Robert on April 28, 2011 09:55 AM
89. Robert: Got any actual proof for you over the top blog title?

For what? That leftists and the media's been lying? You really need specific examples? Kinda sad. If you say specifically what you want proof of, perhaps I can oblige.


People call the Certificate of Live Birth a "Birth Certificate" all the time.

Yes, however, Obama never released a "Certificate of Live Birth" until yesterday. So what's your point? As I noted, he released his birth certificate -- his "Certificate of Live Birth" -- yesterday.


The "Birth Certificate" released yesterday is called a "Certificate of Live Birth" in its very title.

Yes. That's what I said: he released his birth certificate yesterday. Keep up!


The one release 3 years ago is as legally legitimate as the one released yesterday.

Yes, again, try to keep up: that's what I said (not in the text of my post, but in several comments, and it's what I've said many times over the past couple years).


Liar! (Wow it really is easy to write like you)

Not really; you see, when I say someone is lying, I specifically identify a statement they've made that is a lie, and I explain why it's a lie (unless it's self-evident). You didn't do any of that. You said the "blog title" is a lie, but you don't say what your problem with it is, and then you simply recap some things I've already said.

You suck at this, Robert!

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 10:07 AM
90. Bush Co. had a full 8 years to screw the country up, did a pretty good job of it too. We're still in those two wars, housing market is still in bad shape, deficit is still trough the roof, we're still in a recession. Now that Obama has to pass a budget it's now his problem. By your prior reasoning Obama's doing a pretty good job (i.e. no terrorist attacks on US soil since taking office), stocks are up, people are getting back to work, exports are up, profits are up, now if we can just get companies and wealthy individuals to pay taxes we'll be in good shape come 2013 when Obama swears in for his second term. - Posted by Cato at April 27, 2011 01:42 PM

GDP: 1.8%... Economic Growth Slow as Inflation Measure Spikes Up

GDP: Economic recovery stumbles

JOBLESS CLAIMS 429,000... More people applied for unemployment benefits
More people requested unemployment benefits last week, the second increase in 3 weeks

Dollar sell-off intensifies... Dollar Loses More Ground

The 9 places where inflation is crushing us

WAL-MART: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'...

Come on cheerleader tell us how wonderful things are in Obummer's land of rainbows and unicorns!

Or are you willingly and cooperatively held hostage to truth and facts by your Mizaru, Kikazaru, Iwazaru sycophant ideology?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 10:24 AM
91. Oh it just gets better - Please, please. PLEASE, Pudge can we have vidcam to see our pet lib heads explode?

Study: MSNBC and CNN Covered 'Birther' Issue Far More Than Fox News

As it turns out, one was 35 times more likely to hear about the birther issue on CNN or MSNBC than on Fox News during the week of April 11 through 17, when Obama was touting his budget. The cable network most often railed against as the birther-enabler was least likely - by far - to even mention the issue.

/snicker

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 10:32 AM
92. Ragnar, the odd thing to me is that anyone would think it was otherwise. It's MSNBC and the left that constantly rails against "birthers," and everyone else who says, "yeah, those people are out there, but let's talk about productive things, mmmmmkay?"

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 10:59 AM
93. Ragnar,
But it was the WND head that took out billboards, constantly gave airspace to the nutjobs, and has Corsi as one of its regular writers. The main stream media was covering the media like WND (and Drudge at times), not so much the story itself. They were also covering Trump raising the issue (why one may ask would they waste the effort). The main stream media is at fault for not calling the WND's media to task for tabloid reporting.

Also, you can't rule Fox News out, Hannity did cover the story on several occasions and also Beck. The sane ones like Shep would have nothing to do with the story, and O'Reilly called out Beck on one of his wild fantasies. Huck also called out Beck. This is what the mainstream media should have done. There first question should be is where is the evidence, and report that these wannabe media outlets are blowing smoke.

Posted by: tc on April 28, 2011 11:51 AM
94. Yep the nuts at WND perpetuated this nonsense for profit. I would posit they are more nut than conservative.

Yep, Hannity covered it, O'Reilly decried it, Shep cheerleaded for his Obummer and Beck ... I believe his position has always been that the Obummer reveled in this controversy because it took the focus off the damage he was doing elsewhere: Glenn Reacts to Obama's Birth Certificate Release: Watch the Other Hand - April 27, 2011

Glenn Beck on birther issue: 'Dumbest thing I've ever heard'
Claims controversy is political 'dream come true' for Obama - January 04, 2010

Glenn Beck Goes Against Real Conservatives on Obama Birth - September 29, 2010

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:26 PM
95. Alrighty, 'Rags' is having fun with links today!

YOOHOO, Cato - pay attention, babe!

We'll start with the certificate...

The Real Obama Birth Certificate Scandal

I now admit that Mr. Obama was not born in New York. My theory about him being created in an IBM laboratory has been debunked. I figure Alfred E. Neuman mated with IBM hardware, creating the computer that is our leader. It would explain the lack of empathy and emotion. Maybe IBM had a satellite office in Hawaii. Donald Trump should keep his investigators in Honolulu.
...So let's congratulate Mr. Obama on his mixed gender, 100% American heritage and get back to what really matters. His policies are dreadful.


Lack of birth control shows how lost president is.

He is the president of the United States, for God's sake. And yet he allowed himself to become a supporting player in someone else's reality-TV show by whining about how he could only get the time of day from the broadcast gods by talking about his birth certificate.

Obama still lacks accomplishment, but he's no longer untested

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:33 PM
96. We'll move on to his 'better things to do'...

With no opponent and barely 558 days left, Obama has already become Campaigner-in-Chief

Why do it on Wednesday and drown out the more desirable orderly transition story of crucial national security staff changes (Robert Gates out at Defense, Leon Panetta in as replacement and Gen. David Petraeus as the new CIA director). Those and other changes will be officially announced this morning.

But perhaps the perspicacious Melissa Clouthier came the closest to a pinpoint explanation over at RedState: It's an understandable part of the country's ongoing falling out of love with the once-worshipped Obama:
It is easier to ask outrageous questions about the President than it is to admit making a mistake about electing him to begin with. It's easier to believe you're deceived than to make a stupid decision.

'Better things to do' Obama goes to NY to fundraise
Meanwhile, former president Bush bikes mountain trails with wounded warriors.


No time for 'this kind of silliness'?


Mr. Obama holds the highest office in the land and promotes himself as a constitutional lawyer yet views the eligibility of his elected position as "silly". What else does he view as silly and simply not worthy of his time to consider as serious? Perhaps the Constitution itself? Perhaps even his oath of office?

When Mr. Obama came before the cameras (yet again) to make a momentous announcement, it was not that he had made headway into solving the horrific problem of our national debt. It was not to give honor to our nine citizens fallen in battle in Afghanistan or to offer condolences to the victims of multiple tornadoes. It was not even to promote his already launched second term campaign. Mr. Obama stood before the camera and the gathered press to inform them that he views the requirements of a presidential candidate as a thing not to be taken solemnly.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:35 PM
97. Now on to the Obummer economy ...

'SuperMariObama'


Obamaflation Arrives

Obamaflation has arrived, and this is what it looks like.

Milk. A gallon of skim. At the local Giant in Central Pennsylvania:

January 11, 2011: $3.20
February 28, 2011: $3.24
March 6, 2011: $3.34
April 23. 2011: $3.48

That would be a 28 cent rise in a mere 102 days, from January to April of this year. The third year of the Obama misadventure.

"He's proven that someone can deserve a Nobel Prize less than Al Gore."

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:40 PM
98. And now to the inevitable and oh so predictable Bush blaming...

"This surely is one Bush comparison that the Obama team wishes to bury,"

"[I]n 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP," the Standard & Poors economic analysis firm noted this week in a critical report of the Obama administration's descent into debt. "[I]t ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover."

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:42 PM
99. and finally weirdo lib stuff that just struck me as hilarious ... and sad...

Young and stupid - yep, the squatters of liberalism
Only Age Demographic To Favor Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan Are Those 18 to 29 Years Old


Liberal Death Panel
Harvard Law Prof to Justices Ginsburg & Breyer: Retire Now Before You Drop Dead During Republican Administration

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 12:46 PM
100. I've havign way too much fun watching Ragnar tying herself up in a tizzy to prove I'm wrong with articles from conservative news sourced like NewsBusters. May as well be quoting headlines from the Drudge Report since they're more accurate.

Like this one from Drudgy (hey wasn't Bush POTUS in 2008)::
Dollar drops to lowest since 2008...

and for Pudgy:
RASMUSSEN: Trump 19% Romney 17% Huckabee 15%...

LIARS!! =)

Posted by: Cato on April 28, 2011 01:09 PM
101. Cato: RASMUSSEN: Trump 19% Romney 17% Huckabee 15%...

Leading in a poll is not "leading in the polls." It's the only poll he's leading in, except for a Dem-run poll (and without that poll, which I discount because it is obviously a terrible outlier), he wouldn't be leading even in the average.

(Of course, NONE of these polls are valid anyway, since they ask people who they prefer among people they mostly haven't even heard of yet, let alone heard from. But that's a separate issue.)

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 01:58 PM
102. I'm always leary of people with the "that should be changed" in the US Constitution. If you want "it" changed, there are ways for you to initiate the process, albeit difficult to actually carry out. We only have to look at the 18th (prohibition) and 21st (repealing prohibition) amendments to see the pitfalls of using short-sighted thinking when changing the document the founding father's gave us.

Personally I don't have a problem with the "natural-bron citizen" clause. I say change it or shut up.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2011 02:24 PM
103. Rick D.: I'm always leary of people with the "that should be changed" in the US Constitution. If you want "it" changed, there are ways for you to initiate the process ...

And ALL of those ways start with people saying "that should be changed." :-)


Personally I don't have a problem with the "natural-bron citizen" clause. I say change it or shut up.

Except you have to talk about it before you can do it.

Personally, while I think it should be changed, I don't care enough to work for it. I'll support it if someone else does the work, though.

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 02:38 PM
104. what you accuse obama of doing is smart politics and what I would have done in the same situation. I would have waited longer in fact and released it during the campaign in the hopes of my opponent being a birther in hopes of discrediting the opposition.

Posted by: chris on April 28, 2011 02:56 PM
105. I've havign way too much fun watching Ragnar tying herself up in a tizzy to prove I'm wrong with articles from conservative news sourced like NewsBusters. May as well be quoting headlines from the Drudge Report since they're more accurate.

Pity poor sycophant lemming - you didn't read the quotes or percentages did you? Or even bother to READ the article, did you? Let me help you out:

That data was gathered by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, which also calculated those numbers for cable news coverage during that week.

You're welcome.

You seem not to be able to distinguish partisan opinions with FACTS.

And isn't it just too funny that when you quote Huffington and KOS it's always undeniable gospel, yet anything rebutting any of your lemming narrative has to be right wing bias nonsense?

Nice try.

Pity poor sycophant lemming.

AND while we're at it...

Don't Mean To Be Rude, But The Economy Sucks

The perception is that everything's just fine: The continuation of a solid if unspectacular recovery that began in the summer of 2009. Stocks continue to rise. Corporate profits continue to boom. The unemployment rate continues to tick down. Wall Street continues to coin money.

But the reality is that the recovery has never been strong and that many key metrics have recently turned south--despite the fact that the government still has its foot stomped on the stimulus gas.

...But the bottom line is, the economic recovery is not going well. It's going badly. And the recent signs suggest that it may be about to get worse--just as the Fed's latest emergency stimulus measure (QE2) begins to run out.


Zombies - aka, sycophant lemmings

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 03:02 PM
106. chris: what you accuse obama of doing is smart politics ...

Perhaps.

... and what I would have done in the same situation.

You speak poorly of yourself.

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 03:17 PM
107. Ragnar,
What the heck are you on today??

Posted by: tc on April 28, 2011 03:48 PM
108. It seems unlikely that using Desperate Housewives stars and Oprah to help pull the country out of the ditch he likes to remind us we're in will work much longer. It may be optimistic, but there's mounting evidence that the American people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors.

/snicker

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 03:49 PM
109. Ragnar,
What the heck are you on today??

A new, little known anti-inflammatory, analgesic med - antiCATObiotic :)

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 28, 2011 04:16 PM
110. PI says "That little bit in the Constitution was put there to keep Alexander Hamilton out of the White House..."

That makes no sense. Although Hamiliton was not born in the Unitied States (he was born in the Caribbean), he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted--having come to New York to attend college before the Revolutionary War.

Here is the relevant section of the Constitution:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

Posted by: Bill H on April 28, 2011 05:02 PM
111. Mr. Obama is clearly a weak and divisive leader. The DNC is trying to circle the wagons by painting Trump or anyone who wants his college transcripts released as bigots along with the maggots in the MSM.

Where is the outrage ? When the POTUS or the Democratics get in a fix, they resort to playing the race card. They project themselves so predictably as the racists - merely by obsessing with it.

Posted by: KDS on April 28, 2011 08:57 PM
112. tc @ 93:
The main stream media is at fault for not calling the WND's media to task for tabloid reporting.

You're kidding,right? The "main stream media" commits tabloid reporting on a daily/nightly basis. Of course, your liberal filter is able to mininterpret their "news" as a dissemination of facts and not the biased opinion it actually is.

This is what the mainstream media should have done.

Can I assume that means actually vetting a presidential candidate back in 2008 and before? I would agree. Obama should have been vetted properly and without bias by the lame stream media, but that never happened.

There first question should be is where is the evidence, and report that these wannabe media outlets are blowing smoke.

McCain showed his birth certificate, why was then candidate Obama too think skinned to do the same? If anyone is blowing smoke in this issue, it's been the President and the complicit lap dog media that jettisoned him to the position he currently (and hopefully briefly) holds. Obama speaks of sideshows and carnival barkers, yet he's the purveyor of exactly that behavior. Everytime I see the man, the term "Glib" comes to mind.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2011 09:12 PM
113. To those who merely watch MSNBC, they may be startled to realize that Obama hadn't released his birth certificate until now.

He did that in 2008. As has been covered extensively here, the document he released in 2008 is the document required by the U.S. government to issue a passport; it therefore is the "birth certificate" required to identify a citizen. Your birther-borne confusion in no way shows that reality-based citizens are lying on this point.

For the document released this week, he had to apply for a special waiver, which was granted only because many (Republican) persons were questioning his citizenship. It should be pretty obvious that if such a document were indeed the "birth certificate" required for identification purposes, most Hawai'ian citizens could not legally identify themselves as Americans.

But, who cares? Even you admit it's a distinction without any legal difference:

The other document is, by Hawaiian law, legally equivalent,

I do like how he was doing something bad by doing nothing. By not saving birthers from themselves, he was doing something nefarious! (Tell us again how we liberals expect too much from our government!)

Posted by: tensor on April 28, 2011 09:21 PM
114. tensor: He did that in 2008.

Incorrect. His birth certificate was not released in 2008, but only this week, in 2011.


it therefore is the "birth certificate"

It is the legal equivalent of the birth certificate, but it is not the actual birth certificate, no.

If you want to quibble over whether you can call it a "birth certificate" because it is legally equivalent, whatever: it's irrelevant. The point being made -- which everyone with half a brain understands -- is that he didn't release the original, and that the reason why he didn't release it is because, as his spokesman said, it was "good politics" not to.

When someone said he didn't release his birth certificate, it was true: they meant he didn't release his original actual birth certificate. Someone who countered "yes he did release it" was therefore wrong, even if they want to try to justify calling the certification a "birth certificate," because it wasn't the document they were talking about.


Your birther-borne confusion ...

You demonstrated no confusion on my part, and you're a liar by saying anything about what I've said is "birther-borne." I've argued more -- and more effectively -- against "birthers" than anyone here (and the only real birther who regularly trolls this site, I've banned multiple times, including in this discussion).


For the document released this week, he had to apply for a special waiver, which was granted only because many (Republican) persons were questioning his citizenship.

The part about it being granted only because of questions is speculation. Indeed, my reading of Hawaiian law says they must release it upon request: 338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof. Not that it matters.

Regardless, your claim that it is about Republicans is a lie. LaRouchie birthers are Democrats, and many other birthers are unaffiliated conspiracy theorists who have no natural home in either party, and most Republicans aren't "birthers."


It should be pretty obvious that if such a document were indeed the "birth certificate" required for identification purposes, most Hawai'ian citizens could not legally identify themselves as Americans.

No, because, as I've said many times, and as Hawaiian state law makes perfectly clear, it's the legal equivalent. Don't be stupid. Either one can be used for identification. But only one is the actual, original, birth certificate in fact, and the other is merely a birth certificate equivalent in law.


But, who cares?

Lots of people, obviously.


Even you admit it's a distinction without any legal difference

I don't "admit" it, I assert it, and have done so for years. It's part of the points I've made.


I do like how he was doing something bad by doing nothing.

Then you're either a liar (which you are) or obtuse. I explained it very clearly.

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 09:44 PM
115. Either one can be used for identification. But only one is the actual, original, birth certificate in fact, and the other is merely a birth certificate equivalent in law.

And that difference is significant because...?

Seriously, have you ever applied for a passport? What the birthers (wrongly) called the "short form" is the birth certificate: it suffices for obtaining a passport -- in other words, for proving the applicant was indeed born in an American state, and therefore, under our laws and Constitution, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Or, are you now proposing that Barack Hussein Obama is President "in law, but not in fact" of the United States? If not, why bother to draw this meaningless distinction?

Lots of people, obviously.

Like Republican-controlled legislatures passing birther bills. But they don't represent Republicans, because shut up, that's why.

Posted by: tensor on April 28, 2011 10:17 PM
116. tensor: And that difference is significant because...?

Because one is the original, actual, birth certificate, and one merely purports to represent the contents of the original. What's amazing is that there's nothing for you to NOT get. You're being deliberately obtuse.


What the birthers (wrongly) called the "short form" is the birth certificate

Hey stupid, Obama's OWN LAWYER called it the "short form" in her correspondence to the State of Hawaii.

And again, no, it is not "the" birth certificate. At best, it is "a" type of birth certificate. If there is a "the" birth certificate, it would obviously be the original document.


it suffices .... for proving the applicant was indeed born in an American state

Damn, you're just completely stupid: NO ONE here has said that it is not legal proof. I've said over and over for years that it is legally equivalent. You're arguing against no one. It's a straw man.


Or, are you now proposing that Barack Hussein Obama is President "in law, but not in fact" of the United States?

Have you stopped beating your mother? Nothing I said, in any way, implies anything that has anything to do with Obama's legitimacy, nor have I ever in any way, implicitly or explicitly, questioned his legitimacy. You're a damned liar, as usual.


If not, why bother to draw this meaningless distinction?

It's not meaningless, as I demonstrated. One is the original, and the other merely reports the contents of the original. It's like proving your citizenship with a passport: yes, it's legal proof of citizenship, but the document itself doesn't actually contain any evidence of citizenship: that's in the documents used to get the passport in the first place. Same thing with the certification of live birth: it does not contain evidence of birth, it merely references another document that contains that evidence. So some people want to see the evidence -- the birth certificate -- the certification is based on.

More power to them; what do I care? My only interest is in getting the facts straight and in stomping down the various lies of the birthers and the leftists. I couldn't care less if someone wants to see this document or that; it's the conclusions they draw and assertions they make that interest me.


But they don't represent Republicans

Maybe in their states, they do. At large, they certainly don't.


because shut up, that's why

Because they're a minority. It's pretty obvious to people who aren't you.

Posted by: pudge on April 28, 2011 10:40 PM
117. in other words, for proving the applicant was indeed born in an American state, and therefore, under our laws and Constitution, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.~ tensor

Not legally. Being born here does not equate to being a natural born citizen. Parental citizenship also factor into the equation. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the legal precedent we should be upholding and not "what should be" as some would prefer.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 28, 2011 10:49 PM
118. The USA today poll results indicated only 38% of americans were certain Obama was born in Hawaii.
Sounds like the majority of Americans had doubts about president teleprompter's birth location.

He and his acolytes spent three years in office fighting requests to disclose his certificate of live birth. Even "tingles" over at MSNBC called for president teleprompter to disclose his certificate of live birth.
The majority of Americans will realize the clown could have settled the issue years ago but chose not to do so. As a result, the guy is rapidly exhausting his supply of credibility with the country.

Posted by: Attila on April 29, 2011 06:18 AM
119. Attila: 119. The USA today poll results indicated only 38% of americans were certain Obama was born in Hawaii. Sounds like the majority of Americans had doubts about president teleprompter's birth location.

A rational person -- a scientific mind -- has doubts that the universe exists at all. Saying someone has "doubts" or isn't "certain" is irrelevant; the question is what you believe despite your doubts or lack of certainty. And I think the number that believed he wasn't born here to be pretty small.


The majority of Americans will realize the clown could have settled the issue years ago but chose not to do so.

Yes, obviously. It was, as his spokesman said, "good politics" to not release his (original) birth certificate.

Posted by: pudge on April 29, 2011 07:28 AM
120. Birth certificate isn't Obama's only secret
White House aversion to transparency undermines good government
...Perhaps the biggest secret in the Obama administration: What is the president's golf handicap? He's played 65 rounds in two years, so is his swing improving? Or, does he force staff aides in his usual foursome to let him take presidential mulligans?

The fact that Mr. Obama did his own dirty laundry reminds that this president has no inkling how to act presidential. Standing at the podium over the seal of the presidency, he claimed, "We don't have time for this silliness." He then flew to Chicago with Michelle to tape the Oprah Winfrey show and attend three fundraisers. It's not as if he didn't have more important news to discuss such as the appointments of Leon E. Panetta as secretary of defense and Gen. David H. Petraeus as CIA director, Middle East turmoil or America's multiple wars.


Quote of the day, "Obama's crowning achievement" edition

Obama's greatest victory of the entire past year -- his crowning achievement for the past twelve months in the most powerful office in all the world -- is his celebrated triumph in successfully producing a common form of secondary identification.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 29, 2011 11:13 AM
121. Ahhh, I see we're back to Ragnar being the sheeple of the right-wing fringe media. You know, you really should try thinking for yourself sometime instead of posting other peoples prose. =)

Posted by: Cato on April 29, 2011 02:13 PM
122. Get a grip Cato, I use them to disprove your babbling with the facts they have gathered.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 29, 2011 02:37 PM
123. To those who merely watch MSNBC, they may be startled to realize that Obama hadn't released his birth certificate until now.

He did that in 2008. As has been covered extensively here, the document he released in 2008 is the document required by the U.S. government to issue a passport; it therefore is the "birth certificate" required to identify a citizen. Your birther-borne confusion in no way shows that reality-based citizens are lying on this point.

#113 - more obfuscation about the birth certificate - yep. Ignorance is bliss and dangerous. Even Oprah wondered out loud about why he waited 2 -1/2 years until finally ponying up the long form (the only one that really counts).

So, what's your excuse besides being an in-the-tank leftist who wants to protect your spineless leader who could have cleared this garbage up 2 - 1/2 years ago, but no he wanted to be obstinate. Finally, the Trumpster agitated him into releasing it...bwahahahaha

Posted by: KDS on April 29, 2011 02:44 PM
124. So, what's your excuse besides being an in-the-tank leftist who wants to protect your spineless leader who could have cleared this garbage up 2 - 1/2 years ago, but no he wanted to be obstinate.

Question marks are your friend. For example, you could have written: "Why did the most powerful man in the world, one of the busiest men in all of history, not go out of his way, to save his most bitter and intractable opponents from looking exactly like the absolute fools that they all are?" See, when you write a good question -- and that includes a question mark! -- it pretty much answers itself.

Finally, the Trumpster agitated him into releasing it...bwahahahaha

Actually, birther site WorldNetDaily had just paid Corsi a lot of money for a book predicated on the idea that President Obama had not released the hospital's document. Now that he has released it, the book is (even more, and obviously) worthless, and Farah and his wingnut-birther buddies will lost a huge amount of money. Not even a right-wing mass buy to put the (promptly-mulched) copies onto the bestseller lists will save it now. Pretty cool strategy on President Obama's part, I'm sure you'll agree.

Finally, in what sense is the matter "settled"? Everyone with a brain recognized Obama's birth certificate when he released it in 2008, as showing he was eligible for the Presidency he now holds. The TPM link above shows birthers now running from their long-mouthed promises to accept the hospital's document. Want to bet that that the Republican party has just as many birther supporters in a year as it does now?

Posted by: tensor on April 29, 2011 07:12 PM
125. So, what's your excuse besides being an in-the-tank leftist who wants to protect your spineless leader who could have cleared this garbage up 2 - 1/2 years ago, but no he wanted to be obstinate.

Question marks are your friend. For example, you could have written: "Why did the most powerful man in the world, one of the busiest men in all of history, not go out of his way, to save his most bitter and intractable opponents from looking exactly like the absolute fools that they all are?" See, when you write a good question -- and that includes a question mark! -- it pretty much answers itself.

Finally, the Trumpster agitated him into releasing it...bwahahahaha

Actually, birther site WorldNetDaily had just paid Corsi a lot of money for a book predicated on the idea that President Obama had not released the hospital's document. Now that he has released it, the book is (even more, and obviously) worthless, and Farah and his wingnut-birther buddies will lost a huge amount of money. Not even a right-wing mass buy to put the (promptly-mulched) copies onto the bestseller lists will save it now. Pretty cool strategy on President Obama's part, I'm sure you'll agree.

Finally, in what sense is the matter "settled"? Everyone with a brain recognized Obama's birth certificate when he released it in 2008, as showing he was eligible for the Presidency he now holds. The TPM link above shows birthers now running from their long-mouthed promises to accept the hospital's document. Want to bet that that the Republican party has just as many birther supporters in a year as it does now?

Posted by: tensor on April 29, 2011 07:13 PM
126. Hmm the guy that criticizes for punctuation has no patience...hence the double post...

We've already agreed that World Nut Daily was pushing this story for profit. That seems to not be enough for you. I wonder why. Somehow though, I doubt that oh so busy guy the Obummer concerned himself with foiling their publication.

I think the more common and reasonable reason is that he and his policies (together and individually) are steadily and consistently sinking in the polls while Trump's were on the the rise with his noise-making. This issue was the Obummer's until it wasn't. Further, with major shifts in his 'team', with the devastation of tornadoes, with Syria falling apart, with gas prices rising daily he humiliated himself with a press conference on his birth certificate. Yep, Trump played the tune with the notes Obummer gave him and then the Obummer danced the jig.

Can we move on now?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 29, 2011 08:07 PM
127. Ir's about time someone in the spotlight start vetting the community organizer in chief and Trump will continue that mission. The maggots in the media are unbelievably covering for him. Leftists like tensor, bruce and cato don't like to face that fact. it's time to learn the truth about this secretive president, who has shown incompetency worse than the last president.

Birthers will no longer be a factor in 2012, to Mr. Obama's chagrin. However, what this story did was take the attention off of the internal damage he continues to inflict to this country with his Chavez-wannabe seditious approach.

Posted by: KDS on April 29, 2011 08:57 PM
128. Obama Blinks
With the production of an apparent birth certificate at long last, Obama shows that he can be pushed up against the wall by an opponent willing to play rough.

Please Lord, let this be the beginning of the resurgence of real men and the beginning of the end of metroboys... like the perpetually bowing Obummer.

Our pet libs should have known it was a problem when some lefty media sycophant (David Brooks) was all aflutter about the crease in Obummer's pants:

That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks's mind. "I remember distinctly an image of-we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant," Brooks says, "and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president."

/gag

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on April 30, 2011 12:26 PM
129. Already the internet is full of stories claiming the long form birth certificate is a forgery! I wish this would all just die a quick death. The birthers insist on displaying how just plain dumb they are. I mean, really, what are they hoping to accomplish, impeach Obama? Do they really, truly not realize that would result in a President by the name of Joe "Duh" Biden? Let's just move on to 2012. With Obama's actual miserable record on everything except for fundraising, he won't be hard to defeat.

Posted by: katomar on April 30, 2011 12:30 PM
130. With Obama's actual miserable record on everything except for fundraising, he won't be hard to defeat.

Posted by katomar at April 30, 2011 12:30 PM


He shouldn't be hard to defeat but if they nominate the caliber of candidate as was done in 2008 and ignore the tea party influence - they could easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So far, Trump is the only one who has risen to the occasion of vetting Mr. Obama. Unless there are other real candidates who show some leadership and resonate well about contrasting what they will do differently to reverse the corrupt statist regime, they will lose. The election in 2012 is a referendum on Mr. Obama. The previous track record of the RNC does not give me reason for much optimism - hope I am proven wrong.

Posted by: KDS on April 30, 2011 09:47 PM
131. Campaign slogan...

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot.


Liberal heads exploding in 3, 2, ...

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 1, 2011 09:56 AM
132. I usually don't post in Blogs but your blog forced me to, amazing work.. beautiful ...

Posted by: agent immobilier quebec on May 3, 2011 02:19 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?