Loading ...Sarah “The Barracuda” To Talk Radio Host Rusty Humphries In Interview: Show Me The Obama Birth Certificate
She’s polling high in popularity surveys, she’s got a hot new bestseller called “Going Rogue”, she’s not ruling out a bid for the Oval Office in 2012 and yep — she, too holds a few doubts about whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama was REALLY born on United States soil…
HUMPHRIES: “Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked (around 9 minutes into the video above).
PALIN: “I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. … — The Politico
Hmm. Alrighty then…
Longtime readers know I’ve defended my former classmate from Wasilla, Alaska on a few items regarding her intelligence. For example, I stuck up for her when folks were making fun of the notion Mrs. Palin didn’t know Africa was actually a continent hosing multiple nations due to one of her many interview gaffes. Unfortunately, with this new “birther” nonsense, I must rethink my position on whether or not “Palin intelligence” could just be an oxymoron after all.
Folks — will somebody please direct Mrs. Palin to FactCheck.Org — an independent (not “liberal” as many claim), equal opportunity lie detector so she can inform herself about Mr. Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status? Please? Somebody? Anybody?
It’s funny in a way. Even right wing bloggers and pundits (Michelle Malkin comes immediately to mind) are screaming “leave it alone” on the birth certificate issue. Why? Because such nonsense makes their Grand Old Party appear FOOLISH and even desperate. Most of these people can read and have the mental capacity to sort through the rhetoric and the facts, particularly when it concerns something as important as presidential qualifications and they would rather focus on the REAL issues at this time. Issues such as “What REALLY happened on that fateful night in Orlando with Tiger Woods, his family and his misteress(es?)?”
Here we go again — just more proof of the fact Conservatives are easily frightened than are Liberals…
***
Other notable blogger reax: Our good friend Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice offers a huge blogger reaction roundup of his own; Ron Chusid of Liberal Values offers a thoughtful commentary on the topic; Allahpundit of Hot Air (Right) even takes a few moments to chastise Ms. Palin, call it “another gaffe“; Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish (also Right) chastises his fellow Conservative bloggers for attempting to allow The Barracuda some wiggle room to spin herself out of her so-called “gaffe”…
She is blowing the dog whistle of racial politics very loudly here.
As a Black conservative, I am saddened to see her promote racialist views. I hope she provides greater clarification; she has done a disservice to all children of immigrants.
The GOP is losing me to the far right fringe more and more. They must distance themselves from Palin if they want any chance of regaining their standing as colorblind public servants, a la Ronald Reagan.
Guns, how hard would it be for the former junior senator from Chicago to put all this to rest and totally discredit the “birthers?”
Just release one little document. (be nice if he released his college records too while he is about it). Anyone else who was questioned quickly produced records, why not the fully transparent guy? As the saying goes, if you have nothing to hide….
@Joe Lovell, But Joe… my friend… don’t you respect states rights? Hawaii has a certain law in its books concerning birth certificates and if you’ve read the FactCheck stuff, and if you’ve read far-right Conservatives’ writings on the topic, all of this has been put to rest. Just ask Michelle Malkin. You CAN’T be any further to the Right than she and nobody makes more fun of the “Birthers” than she either. Doesn’t that mean something?
@The GTL™, True, true, HI does have its own laws. But…BUT…the individual has ultimate control of that info (and what do the laws in HI have to do with his college records and works?), and he could end the national distraction, right?
Of course, I don’t really think that there is anything nefarious to find. On his B/C that is. No telling what might be found in his college papers. I think we could learn a lot about his thought processes and real philosophy from them.
But I think he needs the whole ‘birther’ thing to continue. Notice how whenever things start going against him that some fringe left talking head like Humphries asks a slightly right of center name about it? Which then distracts from the real issues.
How is that racist? I think it’s nonsense, but explicitly racist?
Is the assumption that a white candidate with exactly the same history wouldn’t be a target for this kind of idiocy? I think you don’t give Obama Derangement Syndrome enough credit on political grounds alone, there’s no need to drag race into it.
Also, to be precise, the question was “would SHE make it an issue?”
The answer was “she doesn’t have a problem with the PUBLIC “rightfully” making it an issue”, which is a side-step.
She could either be agreeing that she actually believes the issue is real, or pandering by saying that she feels the public, if they have a perceived concern, is right to continue making it an issue until they are satisfied.
Neither interp actually says she’d raise the issue herself, which was the freaking question. Which is mealy-mouthed, evasive crap from someone who wants to be a leader versus a run-of-the-mill politician.
I’m enjoying her replacement as Governor.
Natural Born Citizen
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.
Now the part … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution … is a grandfather clause for themselves.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut…stitution.html
Now many think a natural born citizen mean being born in the U.S. This is not the case. When the founding father wrote the Constitution the interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen was well understood …
THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Doc…tel.htm#I-§212
I want to emphasis parents is plural. It is a known fact that Obama father was a British Citizen when he was born so thus he could be born next door to you or present a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii it would be irrelevant. Only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen not both so he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The President being Commander –In– Chief, the founding fathers wanted be the highest standard of Citizenship be applied to insure to the best of their abilities that the President would have full allegiance to the United States.
Now let’s take a look at the 14th amendment section 1
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.
Again they use citizen not Natural Born citizen.
So Thus …
The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:
- “natural born citizen”, but only with regard to eligibility
to hold the office of President
- “citizen” to those born in the United States via the 14th
Amendment
- “citizen” to those naturalized in the United States via
the 14th amendment
IMHO you would need a Constitutional Amendment to change the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Yet I have some more for you … Take a look the following …
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
Now maybe you understand why the MSM jumped all over Palin. They are scared to death.
Updated link to:
THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.txt
So does that mean I can’t be President, as I was Cesarean-born?
I submit that for a good portion of the birthers, there’s nothing that “just” needs to be done to satisfy their doubts. They believe he’s not an American and no evidence, not what’s been provided thus far or what could potentially be provided would change that opinion. If the president were to “just” produce his birth certificate (which he’s not obligated to do), to whom would he have to produce it to quell concerns? That’s merely one issue to consider among several.
@Steve,
Again no need to produce birth cert….
Natural Born Citizen
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.
Now the part … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution … is a grandfather clause for themselves.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut…stitution.html
Now many think a natural born citizen mean being born in the U.S. This is not the case. When the founding father wrote the Constitution the interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen was well understood …
THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.txt
I want to emphasis parents is plural. It is a known fact that Obama father was a British Citizen when he was born so thus he could be born next door to you or present a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii it would be irrelevant. Only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen not both so he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The President being Commander –In– Chief, the founding fathers wanted be the highest standard of Citizenship be applied to insure to the best of their abilities that the President would have full allegiance to the United States.
Now let’s take a look at the 14th amendment section 1
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.
Again they use citizen not Natural Born citizen.
So Thus …
The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:
- “natural born citizen”, but only with regard to eligibility
to hold the office of President
- “citizen” to those born in the United States via the 14th
Amendment
- “citizen” to those naturalized in the United States via
the 14th amendment
IMHO you would need a Constitutional Amendment to change the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Yet I have some more for you … Take a look the following …
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
Now maybe you understand why the MSM jumped all over Palin. They are scared to death.
@Steve, There we go — from our resident lawyer. Thankya, Steve, for weighing in as always
Show me the “REAL” Barack Obama birth certificate with signatures and official seal. If not, Barack Obama has something to hide!
What is it that you are hiding from the public Mr. Barack Obama?
I will question the intelligence of anyone “NOT” asking this question. People, he is the President of the United States of America and we should have access to the “REAL” information about the guy.
@Ron, Once again this is another event that has been Alinskiezed by the left into
BIRTHER…anyone who wants Obama to produce a birth certificate has been.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Anyone who simply wants Obama’s birth certificate displayed for all to see is met with rule 5.
RIDICULE anyone who says anything about it.
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Here we see a birther post by a known blogg.
Notice the amount of people that Im not familiar with posting on this site today?
Raise a din….Ridicule. Isolate the enemy. Polarize them.
In other words….Alinskize the debate and shame them into SILENCE.
Americans will not be silenced in their dissent!!!
Show me the birth Certificate Obama. Or forever walk the White House shrouded in doubt.
Off subject here, but I had to pass this on:
Michelle Obama Wore Clothes to Light the Christmas Tree
Which, when I read that sent my evil little mind into the gutter with sub heads and text.
“FLOTUS NIXES NUDE NATIVITY – goes against centuries of tradition! Was heard to say “I’m wearing clothes because I just don’t look good in black.”
Someone REALLY needs to work on their skills at wording headlines.
Read more: Michelle Obama Wore Clothes to Light the Christmas Tree — The Cut http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/12/michelle_obama_wore_clothes_to.html#ixzz0YpO9hgKk
I’m not sure why, but this thread brought back memories of upinsmoke.
@Steve, LMFAO Steve!!! A few threads lately remind me of upinsmoke, frankly
@The GTL™, What is upinsmoke?
@Doomed, It was a great movie featuring Cheech & Chong!
Oh, and UpInSmoke was also a commentator here for quite awhile, too
this is very funny we all know how smart she is
Other things the former junior senator doesn’t want the public to see:
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 release – 1 page doctors statement
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — Not available
8. Illinois State Senate records — Not available
9. Law practice client list — Not released
10 No articles published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. (nothing published? Wow! That is very unusaul)
And, where are the people who knew him growing up? Notice how there aren’t any friends who knew him back in the day? Like in high school or college?
And why was Michelle ‘asked’ to give up her license to practice law? Yep. Quesions, questions, questions. But no answer from Mr. Transparency. Oh well, it was only a campaign promise, after all.
@Joe Lovell, Yes and were all insane, retards for demanding the same kind of release of information that Dan Rather lost his CAREER over. Look at the demands people made from Cheney over how he simply made the decision on their energy policy.
Look at the demands for information by the left from the government including nearly every Bushy ever born and yet gigantic, glaring gaps in our POTUS resume remain unchallenged.
Oh other then Alinsization of anyone wanting this information. Your all redneck, Biggoted hicks who wear white sheets to bed every night for wanting to KNOW important information about your ELECTED LEADER.
In my mind he walks the halls of the White House in doubt because My theory is simple.
When all those college records were ever released we most likely would find that he applied to all these colleges using the fact that he WAS NOT an American citizen and thus falling into a differing category to get into these most prestigious institutions.
There is a smoking gun behind this mans records or he would simply release them…YOU KNOW>>>LIKE HILLARY DID.
Does that make him NOT an american? Prolly not…but what it ultimately will prove to Americans is he is nothing but another lying politician out for power and a buck. Lets just hope he doesnt turn up in an Airport stall playing footsie with someone as well.
This is why he has a staff of lawyers whose job it is to keep his records under lock and key. Just Imagine GTL what you would be writing if this same information was being withheld from the American Citizens by George W. Bush or Dick Cheney using the same tactics.
I know…another example of PISSING ON THE CONSTITUTION.
@Doomed, Student aid? Foreign student status? Poor grades?
What do we really know about him? Born in HI (we are pretty sure), to a white woman married (?) to a black man from Kenya. Raised by white grandparents, schooled in Indonisia (at a time when US citizens were prohibited), educated in various colleges in the US. Famous for voting “Yeah Im here” in the IL legislature, didn’t do much in the US Senate.
Where are his childhood and college buddies? Why no “Yeah, I knew him, we used to …” stories?
Sarah Palin is a woman with a very strong character and personality that is why i like her. ~
The biggest smoking gun may be Obama’s trip to Pakistan when he was about 21 years old. At that time, U.S. citizens were not allowed in Pakistan. The best information available indicates that Obama traveled there on an Indonesian passport, and while claiming Indonesian (NOT U.S.) citizenship status. (It is not unlikely that his college records show the same)
So what you would have is Obama, after reaching the age of majority, claiming the Indonesian citizenship that was bestowed upon him by his stepfather, and denying his U.S. citizenship status – all this as an adult, not as a minor.
The well documented fact that his stepfather registered him in a Muslim madrassa in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen would have enabled him to obtain a passport as an Indonesian. And his willingness to denounce his U.S. citizenship status correlates with his current and obvious disdain for the U.S. and her citizens and their preferred way of life.
But, the Supreme Court has already ruled (albeit unofficially, but they tipped their hand) on challenges to Obama’s citizenship. They said that he was ‘vetted’ by the American people when he was elected and that they would not overturn a national presidential election on that basis.
So for all practical purposes, the case is closed, even before it is opened.
@Fandb, The absoluetely sad part of the election of Barak Obama is that he is going to push back not only the future election of any black man or any woman for decades.
Why?
Because he is woefully unprepared. The economy is collapsing around him and he is marching off to STockholm promising to further punish American industry and productivity with staggering promises of policy change based upon LIES and COOKED science by liberals with an agenda whose aim and goals are to simply move jobs from industrialized nations to developing nations.
CAP and TRADE….equals new taxes….equals rising prices along with national healthcare…equals corporations relocating to devolping countries in a worldwide economy to better make a profit and to maintain its ability to compete….What part of this progressives dont get is now very clear.
They DO GET IT… and that is precisely their aim and goal. We’ve all been fooled by progressive’s into actually believing they cared about America and Americans. They don’t.
If the average man on the street AGW crowd actually knew what the real agenda of AGW was all about they would be more opposed to it then conservatives.
Obama had a JUDGEMENT intead of EXPERIENCE………
Hows that working out for you guys??
There are critics of Sarah Palin but in my opinion she is also a very good politician and she also did some good projects in Alaska.
`