President Obama has already adopted or expanded many of the most controversial Bush policies on executive privilege, detainee treatment, termination of privacy lawsuit, and other matters. Now, he has adopted the identical position of Vice President Dick Cheney in seeking to withhold visitor logs to the White House.
While the Bush/Cheney fight to withhold the logs was denounced by liberals, there is relative quiet again over Obama’s position on the very same issue.
The Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present as well as a request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
There is again a sharp difference between President Obama’s rhetoric of transparency and civil liberties in government and his actual policies, here and here and here and here and here .
For the full story, click here.
Byrne wrote: “You need to reread Article II, Section 1:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Anyone born in the U.S. to[p] U.S. citizens is eligible to hold the office of President.”
This is more misinformation. Byrne needs to re-read the Constitution himself. It does not say that a person has to be born “to U.S. citizens,” in Article II, or in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else. He is importing his own words into the document.
It’s really interesting, having been away from the blawg for a week to peek in and see the same ol’-same ol’ crap, from arms length and, there, at a different perspective…
…BORING!!!!!!!!!
I recommend time off for any one who hasn’t ‘had any’ for a while.
Most refreshing!
There is a good discussion on the topic of Why doesn’t he show the damn thing at the Obama Conspiracy site at: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/#more-2682 Two of the posters are Hawaiians, and made interesting points:
QUOTE richCares says: not any more, my daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965, I recently requested a long form or vault copy. The answer was “We issue only computer-generated certificates of birth.” I did this on a speaker phone with a birther nearby, he didn’t believe it, they lied (he said). They gave same answer to an email request that I sent.
You can ask them if you wish: call 808 586 4533. (Birthers won’t call) UNQUOTE
QUOTE kupuna says: I’m part of a huge Hawaiian family & dabble in genealogy a little. As I’ve stated on other blogs, my genealogy file hasn’t spent so much time on my desk in years. I too called the DOH to see if there was any way I could get a copy of my long form, or of my mother’s “Standard Certificate of Birth” from the 1930’s. The answer is No. Fortunately, I already have my old green one, plus a microfiche of Mom’s she gave me in the 70’s. I was told “Don’t lose that because you’ll never be able to get a copy like that again.” I was also told that the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands now also accepts the short form, although that’s not updated yet on the webpage.
Yes, Birthers won’t call & they believe that all 1.3 million of us here in Hawaii are just “in on it.” UNQUOTE
So there you have it. People born in Hawaii cannot order the long form certificates. As the officials have said, there are no more long forms and short forms. Everyone now gets what Obama got, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth.
And that form is a “Certificate.” There is a great catch at ObamaConspiracy.org: The COLB says “CERTIFICATION” at the top and “THIS CERTIFICATE” at the bottom. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/when-is-a-certificate-not-a-certificate/#more-1899 [look at the last sentence].
Obama has produced a “Certificate” of live birth. According to the poster, it is now good for Home Lands. On its face, it is valid in any court proceeding. Under state law, it is the official record. The reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize in Tampa St Pete have verified it with state officials.
On a related issue, Byrne was very concerned about the dot matrix or laser border on the COLB, which is an ongoing birther myth, but there is a very long discussion of the many so-called experts who failed to prove forgery for all to read at the Obama Conspiracy site. Here is the Q&A on borders:
QUOTE c. The posted Certification of Live Birth has a different border than that shown on similar certificates produced around the same time by the office of vital records for the state of Hawaii;
False. This is discredited TechDude stuff. Images in the Internet show the borders are the same. It was also confirmed that Obama’s certificate image “looks like mine” according to a Health Department spokesperson as reported by Politifact.com. UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/alan-keyes-needs-a-good-lawyer/#more-1309
Byrne wrote: “You can repeat the same thing over-and-over again; that won’t make it so. The officials in Hawaii have not verified any of the information on the document presented by factcheck.”
Not true. The reporters who operate politifact.com at the St Petersburg Times sent the COLB to an official in Hawaii, and it was verified.
QUOTE Obama’s birth certificate (Really!)
By Amy Hollyfield
Published on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 5:46 p.m.
SUMMARY: For months we’ve been asking for a birth certificate to sort out rumors about Barack Obama’s real name. Confirmed by the state of Hawaii, here it is.
It hit our in-box just like the chain e-mail attacks that made us want it in the first place. It’s the final piece to a puzzle we’ve been sorting out for months.
“I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate,” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in a June 12, 2008, e-mail.
See it for yourself here.
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpghttp://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg
The birth certificate wasn’t available before because Obama’s birth state of Hawaii does not make such records public and the campaign did not release it.
Shortly after we posted this document on June 12, 2008, some PolitiFact readers questioned its authenticity.
“You have shown a Certificate of Live Birth — not a birth certificate,” one e-mailed. “There is a difference. Look at state laws regarding the completion of both forms.”
Another wrote: “I have serious doubts about the purported ‘birth certificate’ you were sent.”
To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.
Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records. UNQUOTE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/
See also their Final Chapter: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
“PolitiFact has won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for our coverage of the 2008 election.” That would include verification of the Obama birth certificate.
Byrne wrote that “He supposedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981. However, U.S. Citizens, traveling on a U.S. Passport, were prohibited from going to Pakistan.”
Not true. Travel to Pakistan by U.S. citizens was not banned in 1981: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
This factoid was caught at the Obama Conspiracy site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/open-questions/
The poster there had this to say: QUOTE
First the Travel Advisory’s true document designation is No. 81-33A. The 81 indicates the year issued and the 33A basically means its the 33rd release in that year of all Travel Advisory releases regardless of country or zone. The numbering sequence does seem specific to Travel Advisory’s only and should not be confused or numbered along with Travel Warnings or Consular Information Sheets (CIS). Note that it is not the 33rd issuance that is only specific for Pakistan. The prior advisories as well as the ones that followed for 1981 could be any nation or region besides Pakistan with no apparent numbering format being followed.
Second, don’t bother with the ”Department Publication M-264″ mentioned in the Advisory itself. It is an ongoing and frequently updated guide for visa and similar procedures issued for the benefit of travelers. It’s content has absolutely no bearing on the information given in the Advisory and is much akin to being a standard footer for all these types of State Department issued documents.
Finally somebody wrote “State 209063 – 8-7-81″ in the lower right corner at some stage of the transfer from film to image to PDF. I have no idea what it means other than the obvious date 8-7-81 (or maybe 8-17-81?) after State 209063. UNQUOTE
“If there is one thing I am not; it’s a sophist.”
Jim Byrne
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophist
3. A captious or fallacious reasoner
Actually you are, but Mespo has already dealt with that. I, on the other hand have been calling you a disingenuous poster and
as I’ve previously stated I’d wait around to see if you would prove me correct. It seems that you are doing so with your
birth certificate nonsense. However, just to be fair, something I trust you are unfamiliar with, would you also state that GW Bush’s election in 2000 was also flawed and ultimately stolen. This would at least show the even hand you profess to represent and might hold in abeyance the judgment
that you’re just another disingenuous troll of the Rovian persuasion.
AY asked the question: ”Now with that above. If we extend all the same Privileges to citizens of Puerto Rico, do you suppose we could ever have a president from PR?”
The answer is that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens and are eligible for the Presidency if they are age 35 or older and have had 14 years residency in the U.S. But residence in P.R. or the U.S. territories does not qualify as residence within the US for these purposes. Look at footnote 2 of this CRS Report:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf
AY:
Perfect translation except the fat lady already sang.
Mespo,
Does that mean it ain’t over til its over or you skinny white boys just gotta sit back until the fat lady has sang?
jin byrne:
““When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates”
************
While the jury is out on whether you are a sophist, there is little doubt your argument is clearly sophistry. And I might add to our Hellenistic precursor’s remarks, that it is also true that when the debate is over, it is the fool who wishes to compound his loss by continuing to pontificate when both his opponent and the audience have left the building. Toot-a-loo!
Sorry AY,
I meant to highlite the entire phrase.
or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
I don’t think anyone who was alive, when the Constitution was adopted, would currently be trying to become president.
Then again, it might apply to John McCain. :>)
Here is the link to my previous post, which gives some of the “details” of the “claims”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613
mespo,
Your argument –veiled in the guise of “questions”- is going nowhere. It is the product of obsessive minds and poor losers (in every sense of that word) and has been rebuked at every stage by serious people who have considered it. That you hold to it in the face of all the evidence, common sense, and propriety says much more about you and yours than the sophistry it represents.
Sophistry?
If there is one thing I am not; it’s a sophist.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates
AY,
Obama’s natural-born status is what has been questioned. Or, should I say the document used to establish such has been questioned. In addition to not being willing to release his original Certificate of Live Birth, he also (as FFLEO just pointed out while I was creating my post) will not release his college transcript. -For a President that is so gung-ho about transparency; he doesn’t want to be too transparent about himself.
He supposedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981. However, U.S. Citizens, traveling on a U.S. Passport, were prohibited from going to Pakistan.
“You do that in eighty countries,” Obama said, “You don’t know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa –knowing the leaders is not important — what I know is the people…I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”
———
AY said; “With your argument in place, no one other than than people from the original colony’s can be president. Why, because they were not in existence at the time?”
You need to reread Article II, Section 1:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Anyone born in the U.S. top U.S. citizens is eligible to hold the office of President.
Jim Byrne:
“You can repeat the same thing over-and-over again; that won’t make it so. The officials in Hawaii have not verified any of the information on the document presented by factcheck. -Obfuscation only works when the other side doesn’t get a chance to refute”
************
Your first sentence is great advice; the second–not so much; and the third, true, but inapposite here. You might as well debate Jesus’ ancestry, citizenship, and parthenogenesis. Your argument –veiled in the guise of “questions”- is going nowhere. It is the product of obsessive minds and poor losers (in every sense of that word) and has been rebuked at every stage by serious people who have considered it. That you hold to it in the face of all the evidence, common sense, and propriety says much more about you and yours than the sophistry it represents.
Okay,now that we settled that, how about these claims throughout the Internet.
Obama’s own ‘secrecy and backtracking on pledges are fueling a lot of the mistrust and concern. I am not taking a particular position and if anyone cares to comment, please do. Should these be open documents? Some speculate that on admission forms, Obama gives a different nationality and that he was a product of Affirmative Action and these docuements would reveal that information. Shucks, we even saw Bush’s grades and learned that he was about equal with Gore and Kerry regarding overall grades.
_________________________________
“There are standard records that ALL presidential candidates in the past have released.
The following records are MISSING:
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — “not available”
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
There is NO paper trail.
If Obama were being considered for a JOB at the White House, he would have to produce these records for a standard SECURITY CLEARANCE.
All of his records from his 8 years at the Illinois State Senate were destroyed.
Obama said that he did not have money to hire an archivist to protect them nor did he have space to store them.”
_________________________________
Vince,
Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii, one of the United States. The Certification of Live Birth is valid and by law “shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.” The officials in Hawaii have validated the Certification and the original records.
You can repeat the same thing over-and-over again; that won’t make it so. The officials in Hawaii have not verified any of the information on the document presented by factcheck. -Obfuscation only works when the other side doesn’t get a chance to refute.
McCain is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth to American parents, not by naturalization.
I disagree.
The phrase “natural born citizen” is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution by the word “or”. “Natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution other than its specific separation from the term “U.S. citizen”.
The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of “Natural born citizen” as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
John Bingham, considered to be the “Father of the 14th Amendment” confirmed the understanding and the construction that the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction. While speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, he said:”
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
– John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
AY,
Obama’s status is in question. Or should I say, the document produced to support his natural-born status is in question.
You are correct, in that he would be naturalized if born overseas to a mother that was an American citizen. However, there is a difference between being a citizen, and being a natural-born citizen.
John McCain was, as you correctly state, born in Panama. However, he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the United States. We occupied the land under treaty.–What one owns, one can sell. We couldn’t sell our little part of Panama. –Bear in mind, this is just my opinion on the issue, as the Supreme Court has never interpreted such. It did, however, eliminate McCain from my choice of candidates.
With your argument in place, no one other than than people from the original colony’s can be president. Why, because they were not in existence at the time?
Your misinterpreting Article II. You weren’t required to be born in the U.S. to be eligible IF you lived here when the Constitution was ratified, but anyone born after Sept 17, 1787 or June 21,1787 must have been born on U.S. soil -I’m not sure which date would be controlling- Adopted at Convention September 17, 1787 or -Ratified June 21, 1788, but I don’t think we’ll need to worry about that.
Now with that above. If we extend all the same Privileges to citizens of Puerto Rico, do you suppose we could ever have a president from PR?
I haven’t really looked into it, but I’m pretty sure Puerto Rico belongs to the U.S. –therefore, born in PR ok to be POTUS
Ah fu#@ it; who wants pie?
After all, what’s the constitution compared to the cult of personality?