By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor.
I guess I will defer to Pete Seeger’s lyrical talent to explain through verse the disappearance of our friends pejoratively referred to as “birthers”: that is, those who assert President Obama was born in Kenya and as such is ineligible for office due to not being a “natural born citizen” as required by the US Constitution.
Now that Mr. Obama is in the final year of his presidency, one would think that Birthers would be legions to storm forward and attack presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, who by his own admission and clearly established facts, was–are you ready for this–born outside the USA!
It begs of course the question…Where have all the Birthers gone?
For many recent years, there has been a great debate in some circles, often voraciously, speculating as to President Obama’s place of birth. The situation was not exactly diffused by what many regarded as the White House’s dismissiveness in proving his birthplace which of course led to the belief Mr. Obama had something to hide. But the opposite is true with Mr. Cruz.
The entire premise of the Birther’s position was that if it could be proven Obama was born in Kenya, then it was up to Congress or the Supreme Court to cast away his presidency. Surprisingly, despite Mr. Cruz’ admission and all other readily obtainable evidences available to the Birther’s need for evidence, no great numbers are sounding the clarion calls. They have seemingly disappeared while at the verge of their own victory: advocating that foreign born presidents are in contravention to the Constitution. Ted Cruz should be as fish swimming in a barrel.
Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to an American Citizen mother. He later emigrated to the United States. Sounds like a prima facie case for the Birthers! Yet, crickets is all we hear.
Where have all the Birthers Gone? Long time waiting.
There are many academics and legal professionals who draw a credible question as to what defines Natural Born Citizen as written in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, we don’t need Sheriff Joe or various other investigators to determine the birth place of Mr. Cruz.
Could it be possible that much of this mantra of protecting the office of the president from foreign influences is, in actuality, due to domestic political agendas? Unthinkable! I would have thought the Birther movement might have been apolitical. Perhaps I am wrong.
Where are the these true believers? I want to see a conspiracy theory turn out to be fact. But if this is the case it surely is a setback for these folks in that one of their favorite Raisons d’être atrophied away with regard to Mr. Cruz. Sad that such things have come to an end.
Give me that old time conspiracy!
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
@PaulCS
Here are the other two Obama school papers:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4zjTJUaf5vw/TL-a6RQAmoI/AAAAAAAAACU/weRgpWw5VE4/s1600/obama+lion+poem.jpg
and:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4zjTJUaf5vw/TL-asty6qOI/AAAAAAAAACQ/WlRqiLQgDnQ/s1600/obama+snake+poem+redo.jpg
It is possible that these were just a hoax, but I note the curious spelling of “poem” as “pome”, and that is something the young Obama also did. Who knows???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@PaulCS
I posted the airport audio above. I do not know if there is a video. But here is the link to the audio one, again. Ayers is approached by Jerome Corsi, who is not somebody I have a lot of respect for anymore, but nonetheless Ayers states several times that he wrote Dreams From My Baby Daddy:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/bill-ayers-confronted-on-obama-bio-confessions/
I guess smrstrauss expects people to read Ayers’ little terrorist mind. Personally, I think he was just being sarcastic. Plus, some Obama’s school papers have been uncovered! There are three of them. Here is the first one, and the other two are in the next comment because we can only do 2 links at a time:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4zjTJUaf5vw/TL9vAVd6Q1I/AAAAAAAAACI/7-sPzgWIk0k/s1600/obama+my+first+house.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So, there is a book called “Deconstructing Obama.” Are you seriously claiming that Cashill’s book analyzed the literary styles of Ayers and Obama’s book?
smrstrauss – ”
Along with many subjective observations from Mr. Cashill about stylistic inconsistencies between Dreams and three known written works of Obama, together with the stylistic consistencies between Dreams and William Ayers’ book Fugitive Days, there is discussion by Mr. Cashill of a quantitative observation made by a Mr. Southwest of 759 similarities between Dreams and Fugitive Days. Of these 759 similarities, Mr. Cashill categorizes 180 as “striking similarities.” One example set forth in his book Deconstructing Obama is a quotation from Carl Sandburg’s poem “Chicago” which correctly reads “Hog Butcher for the World,” and is incorrectly quoted in both Dreams and Fugitive Days as “hog butcher to the world.” The similarity here is not only the exact same misquotation, but of all the poems to quote, of all the authors to quote, of all the lines to quote, why this author, why this poem, why this line?”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_mathematics_of_dreams_from.html#ixzz43YxCJRVR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Jack Cashill Deconstructing Obama
And who, pray tell, did the alleged “deconstruction”—and can you show a link to it?
And, once again, Ayers said it SARCASTICALLY, and only sarcastically. There is no video in which he says it seriously.
O ye of little faith!
Re: “Conservative blogger”—sure sure sure sure sure.
Ayers said it SARCASTICALLY. He did not “admit it.”
smrstrauss – Ayers did admit it. Actually a deconstruction of the book proves it cannot be Obama’s, but it can be Ayers since it fits his writing style. This is why the change in styles between book 1 and 2: different authors. Obama is not the author of either.
smrstrauss – that is NOT the video I was speaking of. The one I was speaking of is of a conservative blogger who caught him in and airport and did a quick interview. He looks bedraggled. YOU need to find the right video.
Re: “Did Ayers admit to writing the book? Yes”
Answer: No, he did not admit it, and you lied when you said that he did. To “admit” something is to say seriously that you did it. But Ayers said it SARCASTICALLY. So, duh, he didn’t “admit it.” You did not say that Ayers said it sarcastically. You claimed that he said it seriously. That is a LIE—-and it was intended to fool people who did not take the time to look at what Ayers actually did say and the way that he said it.
@ John Smith.
Cruz MIGHT not be eligible. But Obama and Rubio certainly are. And we KNOW that Obama is because he was sworn in and the Republican Party did not object.
The Chief Justice of the United States swore him in after each election, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object. (Neither did Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or the Breitbart site or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin.
The reason is clear: (1) Obama really was born in Hawaii despite birther lies attempting to disprove it (and in fact the evidence for his birth in Hawaii is overwhelming); (2) EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
Cruz is even more ineligible than Barry Sotero. LOL
Squeeky Fromm said: “What if this was Dick Cheney, and he said, “Sure, we blew up the twin towers. Our companies needed a war to make us some money!” and then he later came back and said, “I was just being sarcastic…” I bet Democrats would be running the tape today to make Republicans look bad.”
Answer: But you claim to be a reporter, and a reporter gives all the salient facts, and among those facts is that Ayers said it sarcastically—-which the video shows quite obviously.
Equally importantly, it’s not your business to speculate that the Democrats would have used a sarcastic comment by Cheney against him and claimed that he really meant it. Unless they actually do it, it is not a FACT. Reporters give facts, not speculation.
BTW, the way that literary scholars try to determine whether someone write someone else’s book is to take sections of the writings by Ayers and try to match the phrasing and use of words in the Ayers quotations with those of Obama in “Dreams”—Birthers have not tried to do that (Now, I wonder why not???)
Paul C. Schulte.said: ” Obama has spent millions protecting his records.”
Answer: Obama has not spent a single PENNY on protecting one single record. That is simply a birther LIE. (Now, I wonder what the motive for birthers lying on that matter might be? Could it be the same as behind the lie that Bill Ayers “admitted” to writing Obama’s book?).
Re: ” We do know that even though he was on the Harvard Law Review, he was not selected by the professors but rather selected by his classmates.”
Answer: That is how it works.
Re: ” And he was elected editor of the Law Review after an 8 hour election process. ”
Answer: So? Woodrow Wilson was selected on the 22nd ballot of that year’s convention. (And who knows, maybe the current Republican Party may have to have multiple ballots in its convention.)
Re: “Having said all that, how he graduated with honors is beyond me.”
Answer: Of course it is beyond you. But it is a FACT—and you have shown that you dislike that fact (well, too bad for you.) BTW, the answer to how he got honors can be answered in two simple words: “Good grades.” That, and that only, is what is required.
http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/ocs/employers/hls-grading-policy/—which says that Magna Cum Laude goes to the top 10% of the class after the few Summa Cume Laudes.
Birthers: There is no there there. Anyone born to an American parent anywhere is a natural born American.
This clause is not at all about the PLACE of birth but the METHOD of birth! No one delivered by Cesarean section, epidural, suction, forceps, any pain killer or medication of any kind, an IV, oxygen mask, or with a medical person’s hands pushing or pulling before the head emerges is legally qualified to become POTUS. Only natural birth Americans are eligible. Natural childbirth: Look it up.
Paul C. Schulte said: “smrstrauss – William Ayers is on videotape not only admitting writing Obama’s bio, but moaning that he was not getting any royalties.”
Here is the video in which you CLAIM Ayers said that he wrote the book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfIZDYm0a54
YOUR lie, and it is a lie, is to imply that Ayers said it seriously. THAT is what you claimed. But it was not serious. (Note the smile. Note the laughter.)
smrstrauss – Did Ayers admit to writing the book? Yes. Then I did not lie. I reported the facts, I did not comment on the facts.
It is not hypocrisy that erased the concern for constitutional adherence, but futility.
The democrats have negated the constitution under Obama.
Just wait until you get Trump, with Obama’s new rulebook.
Good luck.
@Hkessenger
Uh, read it more carefully. The issue for me was not, “did Bill Ayers write the book?” but “did Bill Ayers SAY that he wrote the book?”
smrstrauss said it was a BIG LIE to say that Bill Ayers ever said it. Well, Ayers definitely said it. Personally, I think Ayers was just being sarcastic.
But, I would also argue that it is not unreasonable for someone to believe that Ayers wrote the book based on the fact that he said it numerous times. Just read your own link.
I wish I could recall the song, but I remember reading something similar about a singer who wrote a song, but when he first played it, he told the audience that it was an old folk song. Someone else recorded the “old folk song”, and IIRC, the author sued. IIRC.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm
1, March 20, 2016 at 8:27 pm
Hmmm. Well listen to Bill Ayers himself CONFESS ADMIT SAY AFFIRMATIVELY STATE that he wrotes Dreams of my Father:
He later says he was just kidding, but once again, to a conspiracy theorist type mentality, this is evidence.
What if this was Dick Cheney,…
tnash80hotmailcom
1, March 20, 2016 at 8:27 pm
“.., he let 9-11 happen on his watch”. Bush was in office less than 8 months when the SECOND Attack on the World Trade Center happened.
The first WTC attack was under “Clinton’s watch”, and came close to inflicting the same carnage as the 9-11 attack.
Paul C. Schulte.
1, March 20, 2016 at 8:56 pm
smrstrauss – what make you think the literary agent would not lie about a book that was already ghost written by a terrorist. The fix was in.
———————————————–
Smrstrauss, phillyT
In light of the above, i’d say you are wasting your time making sense.
“Po”…….you could try to factually challenge my statements, or do what you just did.
I will say you are consistent, anyway.
tnash, I was about to, until I realized thankfully that your comments were already fact-challenged, by no less than “facts” themselves.
As to the conclusions you derived from your facts, who am I to refuse you your conclusions? They are subjective after all.
Those are not “subjective facts” I stated, “Po”.
They are facts. Stick with your own beliefs if you like…for some, beliefs are a satisfactory substitute for facts.
My point exactly, Tnash.
Meanwhile, I never said yours were subjective facts, I said your facts were erroneous but your conclusions, though erroneous too, were still yours to offer, as they are subjective.
“Po” …..thanks for the parsing clarification. You repeat your claim that “my facts were erroneous”, then refuse to back up that claim.
I am familiar enough with your so-called “debating tactics” that it’s like watching a rerun for the umpteenth time.
Tnash, why not quote my exact comment where I supposedly said what you claim I said?
Putting your own words in quotations then assigning them to me does not qualify, rather it is at best an attempt at deception.
Paul
I went and looked up the definition of a dry drunk. Just for you. Because I KNOW how much you love getting other people to look stuff up. And I think the definition suits him perfectly.
From soberrecovery.com
“Dry drunk and the ‘dry drunk syndrome’ can be described as someone who fits one of the two following conditions. The first is someone who has given up drinking and drugging and not made any internal or emotional changes, they stay the same but the substance use has stopped. Or in the second case what was once someone abstinent and on a progressive path of recovery has slowly returned to chaotic and unrealistic thinking.”
See how perfect that is? Or maybe this is just potatoe potahtoe and we should let it be.
tnash–
You strung together a bunch of statement appearing to give Bill Clinton (it’s Clinton, not Clintin, by the way), a lot of credit for being lucky and a lot of blame for laying the groundwork for all the bad stuff that “happened to” George W. I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility. George W. got numerous warnings about the coming attacks and did absolutely nothing. And as time has gone by, we have found out there were more warnings given to him than originally known, yet his response was the same. He didn’t raise an alarm, didn’t get an emergency task force together, didn’t ask the FBI to work with other agencies. Nothing. No thing. So why not be a good conservative and let the blame land where it belongs. Bush’s failure to act on intelligence is one of the worst possible failures of any President.
phillyT – I have never heard the first definition of dry drunk and the second definition is closer, but it is usually when a sober person starts acting like he did when he was drunk.
Here you go people – the Bill Ayers story. I’m delighted to see so many believers – once again proving their insanity.
http://www.salon.com/2009/10/07/ayers_2/
PhillyT…..less than 8 months of Bush 43 to deal with Bin Laden /AlQueda, v. 8 years of Clinton to address the threat.
The favorable economic circumtances Clinton had from the start are well known to anyone who takes a look at what happened preceding his election.
The stock market starting crashing in March 2000, nearly a year before Bush 43 took office.
By any measure…..price to book, price to earnings, price to dividends…the valuations of the stock market were at alltime extremes.
That bubble….unprecedented….resulted in a substantial uptick in Treasury revenues.
In your view and the view of some others here, virtually everything that happened after Clinton and since Obama took office is Bush 43’s fault.
That belief is blindly partisan, and flies in the face of facts.
HKissenger – Bill Ayers misremembers the taping of his interview with the conversative blogger. It is available above. Salon either misquotes him or does not investigation of their own.
@PaulCS
I hope he apologizes to you. I don’t think he knew about the tape. Which gives a whole new meaning to “Putting On Ayers!”
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter