tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post1862142522187226072..comments2024-03-26T14:01:36.240-05:00Comments on Public Policy Polling: Romney and the BirthersTom Jensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06545052616714485196noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-3339307578886733572011-04-15T16:50:30.177-05:002011-04-15T16:50:30.177-05:00Obama Birth Certificate and School records
Why is...Obama Birth Certificate and School records<br /><br />Why is President Obama not disclosing his Birth Certificate and other Educational documents requested by the public and alleviate all talks about his eligibility to be the President of The United States of America?<br />Unless President Obama has something to hide, and providing the documents could be detrimental to Obama holding the office of the President of the United States of America.<br />Many employers require these types of documents in order to qualify for a job.<br />Why is President Obama who holds the highest office of the land in the United States of America should be exempt from providing such documents.YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767126980488136427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-27049673757924934192011-02-23T11:46:24.342-05:002011-02-23T11:46:24.342-05:00To all the “Chicken Littles” or should I say "...To all the “Chicken Littles” or should I say "Chicken Hawks" that keep saying that the sky is falling, and the Unites States will fail, never bet against the United States of America, we are coming back and you and the rest of you phonies are wrong!<br /><br />The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?Montananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-19085233114187480132011-02-21T17:02:08.492-05:002011-02-21T17:02:08.492-05:00BC:
Your comments on the nature of the mainstream...BC:<br /><br />Your comments on the nature of the mainstream media today have merit. The media, to sell airtime and advertising do spend way too much time on bogus and petty "celebrity news" and the like. Even Fox News channel will get into the act such as the latest Lindsay Lohan peccadillo's at which point I head for the nearest History or Science channel in response! <br /><br />As for your comments on Climate Change, if you are saying the coverage of it has been at least somewhat one-sided in favor of the man-caused CO2 causing global warming, then I agree. The mainstream media coverage of climate change science has been very one-sided in that regard! How many people who only get their news from mainstream sources would have heard about the climate-gate scandals? I have been surfing through a lot of science blogs, and have observed that the only remaining scientists who still believe the man-caused CO2 warming the planet theory are a small cadre of climatologist computer modelers. Geologists, astronomers and others have a much more varied range of theories, observations and conclusions in regards to the nature of climate change. The mainstream media always follows a template in how they cover stories and currently the template is that man is causing global warming, which is being more and more debunked as a valid theory, and that all birthers are nut cases. Also a blatantly false assumption.Bruce from Denverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894672269710581078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-17006882352637840662011-02-21T10:52:47.844-05:002011-02-21T10:52:47.844-05:00While it's all too easy to write off modern Am...While it's all too easy to write off modern American Republicanism as a refuge for the badly confused and not so bright, one has to wonder about where are all these people getting their "information." This is the year 2011, and we've had computers in the home and Internet access now for over 25 years, as well as an explosion in the amount of news available with the click of a TV remote -- so what's the problem? Too much information makes people dumb? Only newspapers are allowed to have real news and they have been dying out?<br /><br />Perhaps, maybe the real reason is both banal and insidious -- real, responsible news reporting and journalism fading in place of much more financially lucrative infotainment: media featuring more entertaining barstool-level opinionating, finger waving, heated arguing, the casual dropping of utterly unsubstantiated, and usually agenda or politically driven charges and claims, and whatever else it takes to attract a big audience and big money advertisers. And then mix in the new Wild Wild West of the blogosphere, and you have something akin to The Disinformation Age.<br /><br />The current Global Warming "controversy" for example is an utterly manufactured political one with no relevance to the scientific community other than being a colossal nuisance -- the core science has been pretty much settled for a while with only details needing to be still worked out. It's research, not politics, but would the average person watching & reading the average amount of "coverage" on TV and online know this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03317520923490797981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-75078265912050689022011-02-20T17:17:24.261-05:002011-02-20T17:17:24.261-05:00Here it is: http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazon...Here it is: http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/graphics/birthCertObama.jpgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-69676513027862343692011-02-18T12:21:21.714-05:002011-02-18T12:21:21.714-05:00Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father wa...Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was Kenyan.<br />This is a FACT. When a majority of the states make him prove his citizenship, then we will know.<br /><br />When the lies are truth, and truths are lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-81521571919166998332011-02-18T02:34:14.423-05:002011-02-18T02:34:14.423-05:00There is nothing wrong with with someone asking to...There is nothing wrong with with someone asking to see a stupid silly birth certificate to prove a person is qualified to run our country. NOW there is something wrong with the people who think asking to see the birth certificate is just crazy. Commie Idiot chris matthews is even asking for the bc.goinguplivehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18245972696681358826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-53414913116411647192011-02-18T00:32:40.387-05:002011-02-18T00:32:40.387-05:00Polls like these are worthless. Real scientific po...Polls like these are worthless. Real scientific polls don't wildly differ from other polls. This data is unreliable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-51686819748420141382011-02-17T23:20:14.278-05:002011-02-17T23:20:14.278-05:00To all the “Chicken Littles” that keep saying that...To all the “Chicken Littles” that keep saying that the sky is falling, please growup and get back to work.<br /><br />The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate, where is there proof you might asked? Up where the sun don’t shine, HA, HA, show some proof birthers or people will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?Montananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-9510156157367871382011-02-17T23:10:02.579-05:002011-02-17T23:10:02.579-05:00Yes, yes Wayne T and Bruce...we get it. You are sa...Yes, yes Wayne T and Bruce...we get it. You are saying that a natural born citizen is someone born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens. <br /><br />Although this definition of "natural citizen" is not given in the US Constitution, Bruce has explained, and quoted from another source, that the founders used the concept of "natural born citizen" as it was defined by Emer de Vattel. <br /><br />That's all good and well except that Emer de Vattel defined "natural born citizen" according to Swiss law 10 years after the ratification of the US Constitution. Consequently, the framers might have been aware of Vattel's contribution to the Swiss, but not until after the US constitution was passed and a president had already served a term. <br /><br />Since most of the US Constitution was based off of English common law (as opposed to a Swiss person's interpretation of Swiss law 10 years in the future), it is more reasonable to believe that the idea of "natural born citizen" used by the founders was based on that used in British common law--that is, a natural born citizen is any person born in the country, regardless of the parents' citizenship. <br /><br />So, while you think we're all just idiots who can't understand why we don't recognize "that both parents have to be citizens," the reality is that you are grasping at straws. The reality is that you are wrong, both historically and legally.Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02760589579733768013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-68453713138454909922011-02-17T18:57:46.854-05:002011-02-17T18:57:46.854-05:00@Bruce - Well, you have one thing right; I meant P...@Bruce - Well, you have one thing right; I meant Patriot Act about the 2% issue.<br /><br />You have a very delusional interpretation of 'natural-born' though. The Supreme Court ruled on that specifically in Minor V Happensatt, 1874:<br /><br />"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."<br /><br />They also ruled further in US vs Wong Kim Ark, 1898:<br />"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."<br /><br />So go right ahead and cite some crackpot's opinion column; the Supreme Court has the relevant opinion, and this is long, long since settled law. It does not matter whether one or both of his parents were not US citizens; it does not matter whether he might qualify for citizenship in some other country as well.<br /><br />It is a really clever tactic on their part to let the teatards make fools of themselves so publicly and help put all the rest of the right-wing idiocies like tentherism, climate change denialism, and anti-science dogma into the proper context.NRHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565160695480579309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-77276423533720607752011-02-17T11:58:37.573-05:002011-02-17T11:58:37.573-05:00It's at least refreshing to see that at least ...It's at least refreshing to see that at least one birther person knows & admits that he's stupid. Wayne T Inman of North Carolina, I salute you, and encourage you to instruct your friends on this subject to self-identify as stupid and uneducated -- truth in advertising is a virtue for sure!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-61370038777053212082011-02-17T11:04:14.383-05:002011-02-17T11:04:14.383-05:00@NRH:
1. "Natural Born Citizen" is a co...@NRH:<br /><br />1. "Natural Born Citizen" is a completely different legal concept and a higher standard, than being an American Citizen, so as I've said repeatedly in these posts, the 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with the definition of "Natural Born Citizen". I know this is complicated mate, so please try to follow along!<br /><br />2. I never made any comments whatsoever about the 2% of democrat poll respondents of this poll, so again you are confusing and getting wrong who is posting exactly what on these comments. Please pay more attention. Thanks.Bruce from Denverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894672269710581078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-1515324650722512402011-02-17T09:47:50.689-05:002011-02-17T09:47:50.689-05:00My name is Wayne T Inman from North Carolina, and ...My name is Wayne T Inman from North Carolina, and I'm one of the liberals so called nutty uneducated Birthers who strongly believes that obummer is not a natural born citizen. With that said it really bothers me that liberals are as stupid as they are. They should be barred from commenting on the birther subject until they go back to school and learn what a natural born citizen is and what is in the 10th amendment of the US constitution. I don't give a damn if obummer was born on top of the capital in Washington DC, his father was a citizen of Great Briton at the time of obummers birth, he was not a US citizen, only his mother was a US citizen, that means only one parent was a US citizen, are you liberals starting to understand yet? Any questions so far? So both parents must be US citizens in order for their child to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, other wise they are just a citizen, like obummer if he was born on US soil. Now, his parent don't have to be born in the US for him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, but they both must become citizens before he was born. Do you liberals follow this dumb, stupid birther so far? Any questions? Yhis makes obummer a fruad and O'riley a lieing left wing liberal who is just as stupid as the rest of you liberals are. I will go now.<br /> Wayne T Inman<br /> Stupid, uneducated BIRTHERAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-35491587141090968372011-02-17T01:04:56.001-05:002011-02-17T01:04:56.001-05:00obama was indeed born in Kenya and NOT Hawaii as h...obama was indeed born in Kenya and NOT Hawaii as he claims! After a short visit to Kenya with her purported husband, obama's mother was not immediately allowed to fly back to Hawaii because she was too close to her delivery date (airline regulations). Nevertheless, obama AT BIRTH was and always has been a U.S. citizen. obama's father was already married (kenya wife/wives) at the time of his purported marriage in Hawaii to obama's mother. Their purported marriage was legally 'VOID FROM INCEPTION' under applicable Hawaiian bigamy laws. Hence, certain U.S. laws were CONTROLLING in determining obama's U.S. citizenship at birth. Being that obama's unmarried mother legally met BOTH U.S. time-line residency and minimum age requirements prior to giving birth in Kenya, obama was automatically born a U.S. citizen! I didn't vote for obama in 2008 and I will do likewise come 2012.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-55769822583985678242011-02-16T23:44:47.152-05:002011-02-16T23:44:47.152-05:00Wikipedia is often wrong. Natural Born Citizen CAN...Wikipedia is often wrong. Natural Born Citizen CANNOT have dual citizenship at birth! <br /><br />From: The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”<br />by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br /><br />"As so many scholars and commentators have asked, what does “natural born Citizen” mean? Why did the Framers distinguish in Article II between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders trusted the occupancy of the Office of President to those born on or inhabiting the soil of or to those who naturalized in the Colonies or new States, all of whom belonged to the original citizen class because, even though they were born subject to a foreign power, they had evidenced their loyalty and attachment to the United States by fighting for the American cause in the Revolution. Also, for those born “natural born subjects” of the British Crown, through the Treaty of Peace of 1783, England absolved its subjects of the natural allegiance that they owed to it. But the Founders knew that there would be other foreigners coming to live in America in the future. The allegiance and loyalty of these future foreigners would not have been tested or even absolved in some manner as had occurred under the Treaty of Peace of 1783. The Founders feared foreign influence infecting the administration of the government. It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to General George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” (underlying in the original). Note that Jay wanted a “strong” check that would prevent a foreigner from becoming the Commander in Chief. Hence, any definition of “natural born Citizen” must provide our nation with the strongest check possible on foreign influence invading the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759). This law became American common law."<br /><br />So English common law is not applicable, nor is the 14th Amendment or clauses that are about American Citizenship. Admit it Dustin, you are wrong. Natural Born excludes dual citizenship as well as not being born here. De Vattel clearly applies in this case and your Wikipedia case law citation were all about American citizenship at birth cases which is a completely different subject. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period.Bruce from Denverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894672269710581078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-8651253083899455412011-02-16T23:06:31.767-05:002011-02-16T23:06:31.767-05:00DUSTIN! Wikipedia! LMAO!DUSTIN! Wikipedia! LMAO!Bruce from Denverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894672269710581078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-43107454892176302762011-02-16T20:52:53.236-05:002011-02-16T20:52:53.236-05:00Dear teatards: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
&...Dear teatards: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."<br /><br />Repeated: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."<br /><br />There is no requirement related to the citizenship of the parent. There is no exclusion for being qualified for citizenship of any other country. It's that simple.<br /><br />Speaking of simple, there's Bruce! Page 1 of the results: "PPP surveyed 400 Republican primary voters nationwide from February 11th to 13th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%." 2% of the sample claimed to be Democrats who vote in Republican primaries, so less than the margin of error. 2% (rounded) of 400 could be anywhere from 6 to 9 actual respondents depending on rounding. Within that range, only 3/7 can come out to be a figure that comes out at 42%. Therefore, there were 7 people who claimed to be Democrats who nonetheless vote in Republican primaries, and of those 7 people, 3 of them claimed to be birthers. So of a vanishingly small subsample of people who claim to vote in the other party's primary, 3 of them are birthers, or made a mistake giving their partisan identification, or were screwing with the survey. Stop the presses!NRHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565160695480579309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-84929582276132503912011-02-16T19:54:34.429-05:002011-02-16T19:54:34.429-05:00This is all so silly,he refuses to release his bir...This is all so silly,he refuses to release his birth certificate because it will show his mother was not married.Sailornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-54727581056591778942011-02-16T17:52:31.678-05:002011-02-16T17:52:31.678-05:00Dustin, thanks for the response. I guess that cros...Dustin, thanks for the response. I guess that crosstab is where the previous commenter got the 42% for Democrats. If I understand correctly, of the 400 respondents, 340 were self-identified Republicans who said they were going to vote in a Republican primary next year. Wouldn't the actual claim be "53% of Republicans...?" <br /><br />By the way, the 58% of respondents age 18-29 who believe Obama was not born in the U.S. heavily influences the numbers. (As does the 65+ crowd, at 55%.) Any ideas on why these two demographics have such high percentages, while those aged 30-65 are considerably lower?wordkylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549204377613217823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-52928351057403253262011-02-16T17:18:11.420-05:002011-02-16T17:18:11.420-05:00This is meant to distract from the real issue
1.65...This is meant to distract from the real issue<br />1.65 trillion dollar deficit this year.<br /><br />Anything to shift focus from the fact that Obama and the Democrats are a complete disaster for America, right?<br /><br />and forget the fact that most people in the muslim world think Obama is a muslim. Nobody ever mentions thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-73222140688548688072011-02-16T17:10:14.605-05:002011-02-16T17:10:14.605-05:00Hey, mindless minions. If you look at page 24 of ...Hey, mindless minions. If you look at page 24 of the full poll results (click the link at the end of the article above), you will find that 42% of DEMOCRATS think that Obama wasn't born in the USA. I guess that means that 42% of DEMOCRATS are insane, ignorant, moronic, nutty, retarded, far-right-fringe cowards, bigots, and above all, RACISTS who believe the moon landings were faked, etc., etc., yada yada. That's what you're saying. Did I miss any of your adjectives?<br /><br />The fact that this article focuses only on the Republican results and completely ignores the Democrat results shows just how nakedly partisan and biased this organization is, and how incredibly easily duped you mindless minions of the left are. Have a nice day!Patriot Actnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-1621856015998339572011-02-16T16:05:35.511-05:002011-02-16T16:05:35.511-05:00Bruce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_...Bruce:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States<br /><br />QED<br /><br />Wordkyle:<br /><br />The party question is self-identified, so people say they are Democrats or Republicans; it's not based on their actual registration. Also, in some states with open primaries, registered Democrats can vote in GOP primaries. Regardless, 2% of 400 respondents is 8 actual respondents, making the MOE on that subsample an astounding 35.7%--meaning that 42% of the almost nonexistent amount of Democrats who typically vote in Republican primaries could, in the actual population of them, be anywhere from 6% to 78%. Thus, you can take the results with anyone but Republicans in this poll and throw them out the window.Dustin Ingallshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00599131416393266722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-2313059228925620402011-02-16T15:54:59.676-05:002011-02-16T15:54:59.676-05:00I am a Democrat who votes, gives money, and works ...I am a Democrat who votes, gives money, and works for candidates. <br /><br />I question if Obama was born in the US. He needs to prove it and settle the stupid issue. <br /><br />If this was about Bush we would be all over him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-92193380489299826352011-02-16T15:35:43.212-05:002011-02-16T15:35:43.212-05:00Natural Born Citizen definition: (From Vattel'...Natural Born Citizen definition: (From Vattel's commentaries which was commonly used by the framers of the constitution, and is the only place other than the constitution where the phrase is commonly used. Blackstone refers to Native born Subject in his commentaries which may or may not be comparable.... )<br /><br />"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."<br /><br />So Obama having a British subject Father prevents him from being a Natural Born Citizen, which is a completely different thing than American citizenship, which is defined in the 14th Amendment which was passed to clarify the citizenship status of the newly freed slaves after the Civil War.<br /><br />Sorry Dustin, but you are confusing two completely different terms with each other.Bruce from Denverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894672269710581078noreply@blogger.com