-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Canadian PM: Keystone XL Pipeline “Absolutely Needs To Go Ahead.”
May 16, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Has Obama Done Sufficient Damage Control With The IRS?
May 15, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Liberals Surprisingly Re-Elected in British Columbia
May 15, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
I don’t know if Donald Trump will seek the GOP nomination. Quite frankly I hope he doesn’t because he really comes across as quite a buffoon.
This was especially evident when he was discussing President Obama and the birther issue with Bill O’Reilly last night. I couldn’t believe it when he said he had never seen a birth announcement. I guess that means he’s never seen an obituary either.
The objective for 2012 is to see that President Obama is defeated at the ballot box. So let’s say for argument’s sake that Trump is a presidential candidate whether as the GOP standard bearer or as an independent (because he can certainly afford that option.) I can’t see how Trump gets to the White House by questioning whether Obama was born in this country. Yes, of course, there are people who believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States and we know that those people aren’t going to vote for him anyway.
But what about the people who voted for Obama in 2008 but voted for Bush in 2004? What about the young people who cast their first vote for Obama and might now be having second thoughts? And what about first time voters who might be on the fence? You are not going to convince these people to cast a ballot for Trump if he insists on talking about where Barack Obama was on August 4, 1961. In fact, the more Trump talks about it the more he comes across as an unserious person who will ensure Obama’s re-election.
Whether we like it or not, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about ensuring there’s no second term then we would be wise to focus our attention on what Obama has said and done from January 20, 2009 onward.
Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head last month when she said questions concerning Obama’s birth were distracting and annoying. The same could be said for Donald Trump.
View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/31/trumps-birther-buffoonery
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.31.11 @ 9:56AM
Aaron,
Isn't it interesting? Sarah generally hit the nails on their heads.
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 11:25AM
Oh, come on! Who actually thinks he would win anyway? He adds to the debate.
The difference between a businessman and a politician: a businessman gets to the point with honest proposals to make business happen, not dance around issues and make hints with dishonest promises like a politician.
A.M. Mallett| 3.31.11 @ 10:17AM
Please, Trumpie, GO TO HELL AWAY!
Ivan| 3.31.11 @ 10:32AM
What are you afraid of? Trump showed his original birth certificate. A long form. Did Obama show his? Why didn't he? Is not that an interesting question for the media? He spent $2 million on legal battles to prevent the release of his birth certificate? Why, o why? Is not that worth of pondering? Anything fishy here? Why did not he spent $30 or $40 (instead of $2 million) to authorize the release of the document? Suppose Sarah Palin was hiding her original birth certificate. The media would be all over her. And you, the brave "conservatives" would, tail-between-the-legs, in five minutes denounce her and request her to release the goddamn certificate (and you would be right). But, not the dear leader Obama, no, no no. He is untouchable.
Pathetic.
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 11:39AM
That's horsecrap Ivan, as usual.
If I were running I would announce that I had spent 2 million dollars hiding my birth certificate and that I had no intention of showing it.
Hanover| 4.2.11 @ 5:14PM
That's pretty much what the Bamster did, except he doesn't have a BC.
rightasrain| 3.31.11 @ 10:34AM
It isn't really a question of where Obama was born. On that question, I'm agnostic. It's a question of why our president refuses to produce even the minimum documentation required to get so much as a driver's license these days. And why has he spent so much money sealing his birth and education records? No Republican would have gotten away with leaving these questions unanswered. The collective lack of curiosity of our journalist classes is truly mystifying. So instead of labelling me a kook or buffoon for simply wanting answers to a few basic questions about the background of the leader of the free world--answers Mr. Transparent could easily supply and put this whole issue to rest--why don't you do your job and start demanding some answers?
ACynic| 3.31.11 @ 12:31PM
Nothing mystifying about the "journalist" classes; they are simply the propaganda arm of the democratic party and any other left wing organization. Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the "press."
There is ample historical precedent for this; Izvestia and Pravda under Stalin et. al; Die Sturmer under Hilter and Goebbels et. al.
So, Obama has good company; as does the "press" in the USA.
Ivan| 3.31.11 @ 10:35AM
I have a proposal. Instead of using the left-wing propagandistic term "birther" we should say an "opener". Obama's birth record is sealed now, Obama refuses to open it, and anyone who insists on seeing his original birth record should be called appropriately an "opener".
While you who are not interested to see the document, and who believe to our Dear Leader, should be called "the sealers".
John Navratil| 3.31.11 @ 11:15AM
Ivan,
Precisely. A one-line power of attorney to the Hawaii A.G. would settle the issue that is germane as it is one of only three requirements for the single office of President. The purpose of a "natural born" President acting as Commander in Chief was to prevent any divided loyalties. Would a naturalized Russian, Italian, Japanese or German been an acceptable CinC during World War 2? Why the secrecy?
Martine STL| 3.31.11 @ 11:04AM
Yes, why doesn't he produce it and lay this to rest? And it isn't just the birth certificate. What about school records? No access to those. How about info on how the heck he traveled to Pakistan as a student? And, yesterday Drudge had a news story up about questions on whether his social security number is real.
I think we've got critical mass here.
Paul Clare| 3.31.11 @ 11:06AM
While I do not agree in pursuing the "Birther" issue, it cannot be dismissed for two important reasons:
1. To defuse the question would only take a moment to publish the actual certificate. So far there seems to be no trace to be found. Therefore, to fail to produce it casts a shadow on the eligibility.
2. Should it be proven that Obama was NOT born in the U.S. and therefore not eligible then everything he and his administration have done would be null and void. This would be a constitutional crisis of unprecedented proportion.
In Sum, based on the group behind and how much was glossed over or even falsified surrounding this president, the "Birther" question is a very important issue, but cannot become a distraction.
Sparky| 3.31.11 @ 11:22AM
My surmise is that the Prez is happy to keep this issue alive because anyone who raises it immediately gets painted as a wild-eyed buffoon. However, here is my sincere question: What possible reason would Obama's mother or grandparents have had to mislead the Hawaiian newspapers and government about baby Barry's place of birth? No matter where he was born, he was an American citizen, right? So why would they cook up a fictitious birthplace? Were they attempting to preserve the right of this half-breed baby to seek the presidency? It seems awfully, awfully unlikely. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 11:42AM
Sparky, you are right - most lucid people agree.
I think it is natural curiosity to see what he *is* hiding on that document. I doubt it is place of birth.
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 12:20PM
" No matter where he was born, he was an American citizen, right?"
Wrong. If Obama Jr was born outside of the jurisdiction of the US, his mother was too young to bestow U.S. citizenship on him.
As far as the birth notices printed in the Hawaiian newspapers is concerned, Obama Jr's family didn't place those ads in them. The two newspapers themselves did it as a public service. The information came directly from the Hawaiian Health Department's ledger.
Please consider yourself enlightend.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Chuck| 3.31.11 @ 11:32AM
Do not underestimate Trump especially the Romney campaign. He is gearing up for the NH primary. If Trump wins NH, Romney, the GOP frontrunner, coupled with defeats in Iowa and SC is kaput.
wally| 3.31.11 @ 11:42AM
Never underestimate Trump. Behind the blustery facade, he is still the smartest guy in the room. If he is serious about running, he will find a way to win.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.31.11 @ 11:47AM
The people who are telling you that Trump, Palin or Bachmann have no chance are the same group who told you how wonderful McCain was and we saw how that turned out.
Here's a tidbit about his social security number which has not and can not be explained:
There have been many playing junior investigator from the start," she jokes. "I don't know if they even have their decoder rings yet."
This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world's best-known Social Security number – 042-68-4425.
"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."
Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.
Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.
True to form, the left-leaning media set out to undermine the Social Security controversy and ridicule the investigators. Revealing, however, is the weakness of the response.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
Daniels also sent me a copy of Obama's Selective Service data. Obama appears to have registered on Sept. 4, 1980, a month after his 19th birthday. The form lists the telling last four digits of his "042" number, "4425."
This is the first use of the "042" number that Daniels could find. She is just not sure it is legitimate. Some have credibly argued that the Selective Service information was forged and backdated once Obama became a presidential candidate.
"They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card," Daniels adds, "because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."
Read more: Another look at Obama's Social Security number http://www.wnd.com/index.php?p.....z1IC0378mN
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 11:57AM
You are right to say "a tidbit" as there is evidence that there are up to six SS numbers he has used.
George S| 3.31.11 @ 11:49AM
How low do those planes need to fly? Can't you see the value of Trump forcing an issue that no other candidate will touch? All he has to do is keep pressing the line that Obama is hiding something and is ineligible to be President. Effective propaganda eventually becomes reality. You think Obama had any problems with Palin being blamed for Tuscon? But it would have been unseemly for him to personally say so. Just enjoy the ride; Trump is very good at it.
Paul McGrath| 3.31.11 @ 12:13PM
You nailed it, George. No legitimate Republican candidate for president can touch this issue. But Trump? He is wealthy and well-known and he isn't going to damage the Republican brand because he has never really been known for being one. (Plus, the chances of him being the Republican nominee are about a million to one.)
I love it. Keep beating the drum, Donald. Make 'em squirm.
Grzmlyk| 3.31.11 @ 12:36PM
I agree, George S.
So if definitive, unequivocal proof were found, say, in August of 2012, that Obama was born in Kenya, what would be the position of the birth-deniers?
I understand there is a huge faction of conservatives like Aaron saying that since Obama's already president, the constitutional issue of where he was born no longer applies. So never mind.
Kind of like if I stole Aaron's TV and set it up in my house. When the cops came, even if they could verify the serial number as belonging to Aaron's TV, I'd simply explain that, regardless of whose TV it originally was, it was set up in my house now, and possession is nine-tenths of the law. Buh-bye now.
No doubt the cops would tell Aaron he'd better go out and buy himself a new TV.
In the same way, the constitution doesn't really apply, I guess, if you've already transgressed its tenets. It's only a piece of paper, after all.
Trump IS a buffoon, and one of which I'm not fond. And he's about as serious about running for president as I am about undergoing gender reassignment surgery.
However, I've actually grown to like him MORE during this brouhaha because he's raised the issue - and stuck to his guns - when most feckless conservatives say, pish tosh! Who cares where Obama was born?
Let's lock our crazy relatives - the so-called "birthers" in the closet of the tottering GOP edifice right away - lest fine, upstanding liberals call us extreme, shall we?
Yeah, it's a losing issue; such is the zeitgeist. But that doesn't mean Obama has sufficiently answered these questions. Quite the contrary.
Doncha think there's a reason for that?
Paul Quatrochi | 3.31.11 @ 11:52AM
Donald Trump has entered a downward spiral- a virtual vortex- of human fatuity in this recent burlesque of 'branding' showmanship. Even a modicum of decency has been altogether abandoned-- forsaken --in this fatuous presidential bid. There is nothing sacred to Trump in this megalomaniacal quest to bring his 'brand' to the forefront-- forsaking any pretense of dignity, or seriousness so as to live in this Neverland of untruths and delusion. Trump is nothing more a shameless (and low quality) 'brand' to date-- a marketing machine selling cheap suits, steaks, cheap perfume and anything else that some unsuspecting fool approaches him about branding. He is no longer a builder, has no financial resources that have not been leveraged ad nauseum, and abuses the good sense of the American people with this vaudeville act he calls a "political life". Fred Trump, an unapologetic Jew from Queens would be ashamed of his son's self-aggrandized portrayal of himself as New York's 'fair-haired boy'- when he unabashedly and shamelessly is laughed at in NY society as a common whore-- perhaps he is NY's new Abe Hirschfeld for 2011-- clowning for the camera and playing to the press whose attention he has captivated with the certainty that a grotesque burlesque show is soon to follow. Mr Trump: please show a little more respect for the people of NY and America-- we know you are selling, but we are no longer buying.
Janice Bennett| 3.31.11 @ 12:49PM
Who died and made you the pretentious expert on all and everything? Your pronouncements are simply your opinion and mean nothing to me. I'm not impressed. Do big words make you feel more significant?
Paul Quatrochi PhD | 4.2.11 @ 9:19AM
Janice: No matter how you spell it, a blowhard is sometimes just a blowhard. I have the credentials to opine as I do, know Donald and know enough to know a fool when I see one.
Jonah| 3.31.11 @ 12:03PM
Freedom of speech. I have no problem with Trump exercising his. It's worth it to me just to see the Liberals' heads explode. Go Donald!
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 12:06PM
Since when don't Republicans believe in the U.S. Constitution? If Donald Trump is the only Republican with the cojones to stand up and defend the Constitution, as I am sure Reagen would have done given the same circumstances, then, yes, sir; I would be proud to vote for Donald Trump to be my president.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Khalid Al Mansour| 3.31.11 @ 12:19PM
You freakin cowards. This man was never eligible to this office. He knew it. The Media knew it. And ALL of Washington knew it. What part of the US Constitution do you suggest we ignore next simply because, "There are more important issues to pursue". Man, there is not a hot enough place in hell for you spinless people.
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 12:22PM
Well said.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Danae| 3.31.11 @ 12:21PM
Ok Arron I will keep this simple.
A Natural Born Citizen is one born under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States.
Now, how can a man born under the British Nationality Act of 1948, as Obama himself admits be a Natural Born Citizen?
Answer is: He CANNOT.
Natural Born Citizen = born of two parents who are citizens + born on our soil = Sole Jurisdiction of the United States.
This is the specific condition CHOSEN by the founders when they included the requirement in the Constitution for POTUS.
Now, wave the birth certificate around some more, because it is irrelevant where Obama was born. He was born under the jurisdiction of MORE THAN ONE nation. He was never, and could never have been a Natural Born citizen even if he was born in JFK's lap.
Yes, there is historical proof of this defination. it can be found below:
Wake up people, Trump is CORRECT. Obama is hiding something, he was NOT born under the sole Jurisdiction of the United States, and is hoping you keep looking for his long form instead of recognizing the importance of what I just stated.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, we do NOT have a constitutional POTUS or Government at this time. Obama should be removed from office immediately.
++++++++++++++++
The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.
(Please see this link for full context and a lot more links)
http://naturalborncitizen.word.....tionality/
Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality – as to American citizens – have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9. We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:
“MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE: I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son’s birth…
As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.”
Please take notice of two crucial facts. First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born. Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor. Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.
The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.
In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code. Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.
Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.
As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America. Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.
Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen. Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military. But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son’s eventual release from custody.
Lansing’s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations. In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.
As Secretary Lansing’s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US). And there would have been nothing the US could do about it. This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance. Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.
Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born. Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.
Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship. Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom. Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.
THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE
Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births. Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department. But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy. He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality. Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:
“I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible. As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey. The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized– which is not the case with Da Prato– for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment…
Italy * * * has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute. Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours…”
Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge’s thoughts were legally misguided:
“As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.
Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries… The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality. Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws…
…Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy. The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years. Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:
‘…Such children are born to a double character. The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father. (Moore’s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)’
…I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt… which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:
‘Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance. House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.’ “
Lansing slams the point home – which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State – that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka “dual fealty”).
For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President. Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.
But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that – not only does the US recognize dual nationality – we have “adopted” it as the law of our own country.
Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:
“For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States. This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.”
Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US. And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person’s release.
Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar. It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis. A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.
In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has “always” recognized dual allegiance and has “adopted” it under law. Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq. (…with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 12:37PM
Well said.
I have two other "proofs":
1. The record of all presidents and vice-presidents have all either taken advantage of the grandfather clause in Art II , or have had both parents U.S. citizens prior to their births, with the exception, as you say, of Chester A. Aurthur.
2. The historical affirmation of the natural born citizen given to us by John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, wherein he considered the proposed national law on citizenship as 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.
ex animo
davidfarrar
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 12:40PM
Thanks Danae. Aaron is afraid of being branded I guess. Most of the time it seems there are well educated commenters here on Spectator, and among them many who cannot deny what is an obvious truth because they may be branded a derogatory name by Liberals.
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 12:49PM
"... branded a derogatory name by Liberals"... and by Republican RINOs.
ex animo
davidfarrar
sly311| 3.31.11 @ 12:24PM
Is there anyone out there who could possibility be any, I repeat any, worse than BHO as a president of the erstwhile greatest country in the world??? Really. Does one think Trump could be a worse president than BHO. I DOUBT IT!!!
ari| 3.31.11 @ 12:50PM
yep, and that's why my spouse has spent the last month researching everything he can on Trump, and saying he'd vote for him today. b/c you know, only professional politicians can play this game. Get real. Americans are pragmatic and will use whatever material gets handed to them to get the right job done right. If that means a business-man, then so be it.
And, well, I had to go buy copies of the boys' birth certificates to get them into elementary school. They have baptismal records on file with church headquarters in another state. They have recommendation letters for school. That means my little pre-teenagers have more paper on them that that freakishly odd, desolated man in the White House.
Cuffs| 3.31.11 @ 12:51PM
Obama, a third rate man running a first rate country.
Here' a question: Did Obama's mother know
who the father was?
Let's all have kids and then abandon them.
Wow what a bunch of freaks!
Janice Bennett| 3.31.11 @ 12:55PM
Trump, whether he becomes a candidate for president or not, has made the question legitimate. Good for him.
talkradio55| 3.31.11 @ 1:26PM
It's disturbing to me that in a nation where you have to produce 2 forms if ID in order to write a check for $3, we could make a president out of a man with no ID of any kind. He has spent over $2 million to hide his birth certificate, we can't see his passport, his SS card, or any school transcript. Congress had hearings on whether McCain could run for president because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. Even though both parents were citizens and his father was there serving in the military. If we can waste tax money to investigate this, then why can't we ask any the man with no visible record of any kind? Even if Trump doesn't win, he will force the Republicans to take a stand on this and China and for that, I'm glad.
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 1:33PM
Aaron Goldstein wrote: "The objective for 2012 is to see that President Obama is defeated at the ballot box."
No, Mr. Goldstein, the object of the 2012 election is not to see Obama defeated -- that is the old style of thinking that got us John McCain as a presidential nominee. That is the old type of thinking that got the Republican Party looking no different than the Democratic Party -- it is the thinking of RINOS.
The object of the 2012 election is to put forward a candidate that represents the values this Republic needs to successfully meet the challenges of the next four years, period, win or lose -- that above all else is the party's responsibility. If that Republican nominee wins, all the better, if s/he looses, the electorate will need another four years to educate itself, as witnessed by the 2010 election.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Red Phillips | 3.31.11 @ 1:43PM
Aaron, the "birther" center of gravity has moved away from the dogmatic assertion that Obama was born in Kenya (which never made sense to me from a logistical or any other kind of standpoint, especially since it appears the marriage between Obama's mother and BO Senior was pretty much a sham) and is now more like "Something is amiss here" or "He is hiding something." These sentiments are very previlent. (The dogmatic he was born in Kenya faction remains but it is mostly people who were early believers and haven't moved on.) And these sentiments are expressed very nicely by the "Just release the long form (and other sealed records)" tack.
It is entirely appropriate for people to want to see the long form. This is the natural, intuitive, reflexive response. To not be curious about why BO won't just release it and what it might reveal requires a deliberate act of supressing inate curiousity. To what end? To avoid birther taint at all costs?
Trump needs to tread lightly here and avoid dogmatic assertions, but if he just continues to pound away with the "BO should just release the long form and put this controversy to rest" strategy, I think he could build up a lot of good will with a certain niche of people who are tired of "birther phobics," left, right and center, trying to supress debate. I say good for him for being willing to go where more timid folks fear to tread.
joesixpack31| 3.31.11 @ 1:45PM
Sorry to hear that Sarah feels questions concerning Obama's birth are distracting and annoying. If serious questions concerning US National Security, which this is, are annoying to Sarah, she should get out of the race. If she is trying to “morph” herself into a package more acceptable to polite society, country club republicans and RINO’s, she can forget 2012. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that with the election of Obama, the US has been victimized in the greatest “snake oil” scam in world history…contrived by its elitist ruling class. The "birther" issue is real and it aint goin away. Political elitists have bent Constitutional provisions to accomodate a black guy in the Whitehouse. However they didn’t have to choose a bloodsucking islamo-marxist. But they chose Obama and he is wrecking our nation. It’s time for accountability. We don’t need some ivy league “pinhead” pencil pusher like Goldstein calling the shots. By the way, the nation has many outstanding black leaders for the top job: Alan Keyes, Alan West, Herman Caine (sp?) to name a few. As a white guy, I rank these "head and shoulders" above entire GOP 2012 stable with only one or two exceptions.
CJohnson| 3.31.11 @ 1:47PM
Jackwagon: why not simply sub the Presidency out to the lowest bidder?
It is not an issue, it is a horrible problem. Fix it so it will never happen again.
Wayne | 3.31.11 @ 1:51PM
The only buffoon here seems to be Aaron Goldstein. He refuses to understand the issue, so instead he does Obamas dirty work for him. Why are you so keen in shutting up Trump. Afraid maybe he has a point, a point that you should have attended to for years maybe.
MadeinAmerica| 3.31.11 @ 2:06PM
The truth has no agenda, Aaron. Your article epitomizes all that is wrong with America today. Shame on you.
All American American| 3.31.11 @ 2:24PM
Yesterday I filled out a form to get my 15 y/o a work permit so he can work at a local nursery here in my State. Do you know what the very first line of the instructions said: I will retype it here, word for ever-loving word:
"The applican't ORIGINAL CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE must be presented in order to obtain a work permit."
Not only was it capitalized, it was also underlined.
So basically I need to provide my State more proof of my son's birth to get a work permit so he can water some plants and help old ladies load their potting soil in their cars than Obama had to produce to become POTUS.
And folks think that's OK?????
I think I will not submit his birth certificate and instead take a copy of his birth announcement from the local paper (yes we still have it) when I turn the forms in. When they refuse to issue him a work permit I will label them "birthers" and put the call in to Aaron and Sarah to come to my rescue.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.31.11 @ 2:28PM
Goldstein, you have sunk to a new low in intelligence. This drivel was pathetic and sad. Nobody spends millions of dollars to hide their information for nothing.
Just move along folks, nothing to see here...
DRed| 3.31.11 @ 2:39PM
Wow. You people have really outdone yourself today. Take a bow. All the available evidence indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yes, I know he has a funny name, and he's a Democrat, and he's, well, non-traditional looking as far as presidents go, but he's a natural born American citizen and is our president. If you want the rest of the country to take you seriously, you should move on.
The fact that it's Donald Trump, of all people, that has all you idiots spouting off your ridiculous conspiracy theories is even more amusing. Trump doesn't care in the least where Obama was born. He's not seriously running for president. He's just out there promoting the Trump brand.
Rebecca| 3.31.11 @ 3:03PM
Mr. Goldstein, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however inane. I would trust the intelligence of Donald Trump over you any day.
More over, Mr. Trump has vastly demonstrated his leadership abilities . .. . . . . I think many Americans will listen to what he has to say.
Jonah| 3.31.11 @ 3:06PM
What "available" evidence, moron? I just love the fact that Trump's accusations are making you Liberals poop your pants.
Watching Whoopie and Behag wet themselves the other day was enough fun to last me a long time.
Go Donald!
David Farrar | 3.31.11 @ 3:08PM
The key words being here, DRed: "...available evidence"...which, as far as I know has been Obama's published "Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" document -- prima facie evidence...the kind you would need to apply for a driver's license or a passport, or a Social Security card...But we are talking here about meeting constitional requirements to take the oath of office to the highest and most powerful position in the land.
Now within the time span of one week, Donald Trump has managed to do this. We are still waiting for Obama to meet the same standard.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Jonah| 3.31.11 @ 3:09PM
LOL! When Dred is telling us to "move on" you know we need to stay on it. Now Trump is saying Obama is a Muslim. I love it.
PattyMor| 3.31.11 @ 3:17PM
Sorry Mr. Goldstein, but your'e wrong. BHO should have to PROVE he is a natural born citizen. We should not have to guess, suppose, or "believe". Just because 50 Secretaries of States did not do their jobs properly (and were not required to), does not mean that this is not a legitimate issue. What rational persons spends millions of dollars to hide his birth certificate, when he could just produce it? And, what about all the other hidden records? What's the national secret behind his school records that he has to keep them hidden? Why did BHO study the Koran in Indonesia? His mother wasn't a Muslim. Was it because he was adopted by Sotoreo? Why did Barack travel to Pakistan, who did he meet with, what did he do while he was there, and where did he get the money to travel there? I have been all over the world and to six continents and not once did I travel to Pakistan. Not necessarily a normal destination for a poor student to go visit.
Trump has done the Republic an enormous favor by his in your face, prove your birth Mr. President. He has put the tele-prompter talking, Mr. speech making Barack back on his heels and on the defensive. You go Donald!!
tom| 4.2.11 @ 4:56AM
OBAMA II has already "proven" that HE is NOT an ARTICLE II natural born Citizen --by claiming a tourist/visitor to the United States(B.O. Sr) as his legal father
Jr was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom & Colonies . Furthermore, no evidence to demonstrate that HE has relinquished his British Citizenship has been brought forth. British Citizenship does NOT expire ; it must be formally renounced
DRed| 3.31.11 @ 3:19PM
Jonah, I'm not "pooping my pants", I'm laughing at you.
Jonah| 3.31.11 @ 3:35PM
Trump is publicly laughing at Obama and all of you Obamabots, DRed troll. It's worth the price of admission just to be able to watch Trump do a Birther takedown of Obama.
I love the smell of Liberal humiliation in the morning! Go for it, Donald.
Chaps your ass doesn't it? LOL
Oldefarte| 3.31.11 @ 3:38PM
Aaron, with all due respect, I'll disagree with you on this issue. Although it should not become a dominant issue, it still warrants consideration and is rightfully of some relevance. WHAT IF he was not born in Hawaii [or the US]? Are we to ignore the legal requirement that our presidents be born in this country? Do we simply use POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and say that since he's a good guy, and educated person of color, with a big bright smile, two great kids, and a wife that is now proud of her country, that he can still be president? If this requirement is moot, do we also say that there's no doubt that the federal government has powers under the constitution's commerce clause that are applicable to Democrats' healthcare legislation, so therefore there is no need for theSCOTUS to rule upon same? Maybe same-sex/homosexual unions should be also granted marriage rights also, huh? As baseball's Tommy Lasardo once proclaimed [in referrance to whether or not Pete Rose should be granted entry into the HOF], RULES ARE RULES [and that applies whether you're talking baseball or the requirements of the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES]!!!!!!!!!
tom| 4.2.11 @ 4:52AM
"NOT BECOME A DOMINANT ISSUE"?!
Are you kidding?
The usurpation of the Highest Office in the Land
IT'S THE ONLY ISSUE!
Bob Miller| 3.31.11 @ 3:49PM
Ideally, the topic would be addressed by private investigators, etc., and left alone by politicians unless something genuinely interesting turned up.
dick| 3.31.11 @ 3:58PM
Well, Mr. Goldstein, why do you think the president of the United States will not reveal his birth certificate. You must have a reason or you wouldn't call someone a buffoon or maybe you are just a jerk.
Jonah| 3.31.11 @ 3:58PM
Maybe Trump's hired PIs, too. That would be awesome. Until then, let the merriment at Liberals' expense continue apace.
Red Phillips | 3.31.11 @ 6:03PM
@ Danae,
I do not think that there are sufficient grounds (at least not that I’ve seen) to dogmatically assert that the constitutional phrase "natural born citizen" excludes people with dual citizenship at birth, but I do think it is a reasonable question. What we need is a serious scholarly enquiry by an originalist constitutional scholar to try and determine exactly what the Founders intended by the phrase. I have not seen anything like this, and if it exists I would be happy to be directed to it. Most of what I have seen goes immediately to statute law or case law. Statute law and case law are important, but what I am interested in is what the Founders intended. Did they intend to exclude people with dual citizenship at birth? It is not a simple question because times were different back then and all the apparatuses of the state that exist now that establish citizenship were not around then. Even birth certificates were not used then. I’m not certain that an originalist enquiry would produce a clear cut understanding, but it is certainly an enquiry worth making.
But this enquiry, which any conservative with the slightest pretense of constitutionalism or originalism should be extremely curious about, has not been made because it falls within some broad umbrella of birtherism and “reasonable” conservative are frightened to death of being tainted. So we are left guessing. Why doesn’t AmSpec, for example, commission an originalist enquiry into this question? Didn’t AmSpec aggressively pursue the Clinton Troopergate story? Have they now gotten squeamish
Quartermaster| 3.31.11 @ 6:07PM
Just release the long form. Nothing else is dispositive. Nothing else will settle the issue. The COLB and the Newspaper Announcement could both have been done without PBO being born in Hawaii.
Just. Release. The. Long. Form.
Jo| 3.31.11 @ 6:26PM
Obama.Can't.Because.It.Doesn't.Exist.
Bob K.| 3.31.11 @ 7:01PM
I don't understand why Mr. Goldstein isn't more curious about the President's background. Is it because he is a journalist as "A CYNIC" noted above at 12:31 PM?
We are all becoming cynics and this does not bode well for conservatism!
Who Cares?| 3.31.11 @ 8:23PM
Idiots are they who don't care about this issue with Obama not willing to show us his Birth certificate.
You disgrace conservatism!
For example, my husband is 59 yrs. old. He has lived in this country since he was 5 yrs. old. He came here with his parents who waited 10 years on a list in Canada after having escaped the Nazi camps in Russia during the war.
His name was on their papers. He never had papers of his own. He has all his life lived and worked here, got driver's licenses all his life. Now, we move to another state. They will not accept even his Birth certificate for a driver's license, but they tell him he is now considered a permanent resident, and no longer a citizen. He presented his Parents certified copied papers with his name on them and they turned him away. Now, he will not be able to drive until he "gets his green card!" Gee, maybe we ought to get Hernandez down the street to print us up a phony card (or 2), I mean, they do it~ why can't we? Oh that's right, conservatives go by the laws of the land. It's the Left that doesn't have to.
What an outrage.. that Obama can skate but we peons must go according to the ever expanding and encroaching new laws that these thugs make but don't have to abide by.
I wonder if they'll let me bury him here when he dies, or will there be yet another new law? Or will I have to take his body back to Canada?
burt| 3.31.11 @ 8:53PM
This Soros puppet has the most anti american and oddly foreign background of any President ever which has been carefully buried and ignored by the mostly Soro funded media groups and fellow radical anti american media drones.He was born to a unwed radical leftist/ anti american woman who supposedly marries this Muslim Marxist Kenyan who had two or three other wives in Kenya at the time. Her whereabouts during his birth have never been confirmed and the media is not interested in finding out. Then she ends up in Indonesia marries another Muslim who adopts this kid which in the real world means all of them are Muslim. Barry school records show he is a Muslim in Indonesia . Barry visits Pakistan to complete a trip down by Muslim boys entering adulthood. We have those photos which were carefully buried by the media .
Barry then goes to Hawaii and lives with her Grandparents who left Kansas because Grandpa and Grandma were socialists and did not fit in Kansas. The lefty Grandparents jump from Seattle to Hawaii . Barry uses his adopted name of his Muslim father but instantly Barry is no longer Muslim even though his Indonesian parents were but he converts back to a very Muslim name ?
Fast forward to 2008, Barry races off to a Hawaii to oversee Granny dying conveniently weeks before the election but his wife and kids don't bother to attend a service of this supposedly lovely Grannie who raised him ? But this same Globe trotting wife will wisk off to Vail for three days or drag her 50 plus pals to Spain on the Govt dime in a heart beat ? In fact, the entire quick weekend of Granny dying and swift ditching her and his past are done quite smoothly. Now ,the same media that tracked down a Army reserve secretary from 35 years ago to dig up dirt on GW Bush has no interest in this creepy Machurian Candidate ? Where are his friends from Grade School, High School, Colleges , who paid his college and law school bills ??
Why did the evil Axelrod have to create now Classic Astroturf term" birther" to smear anyone who asks the million dollar question ,"who the hell is in the White House ?" Don't plan on Comrade Katy, Diane, Brian , or Billy O"Reilly to investigating that question !
USSAlabama| 3.31.11 @ 8:54PM
Okay, O'Reilly has had his second segment with Trump and nothing he said 'snapped my head back' like he claimed would last night. Instead, these arguments are more cogent than ever, if anything.
KDW| 3.31.11 @ 9:06PM
When Sarah Palin was announced as Republican
V.P. Candidate in 2008, the liberal press was not
content to wait for her to release her personal
information. Reporters were sent up to Alaska
to pick thru Palin's garbage cans. Yet no one
in the liberal press finds anything amiss in the
President of The United States sealing off the
vast portion of his personal history?
The issue is simple. The President has spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent the
release of his birth certificate. Why would any
sane person waste this much money over
something supposedly as trivial as their birth
certificate? Only two answers come to mind:
-- Obama's hiding something that would
embarrass him, harm him politically or
show that he is a liar. None of these reasons
would help him in his re-election effort. OR
-- Obama is one really strange dude.
If the author's natural curiosity cannot be raised
over the ridiculously expensive lengths Obama
has gone to shield his birth certificate then
maybe he should seek another occupation. He
certainly can't call himself a journalist.
In no way does this issue help Obama. I'm sure
any talented opponent put up against Obama
can hammer him over his pitiful record in office
and his lack of transparency and honesty about
his past. I'd say his performance in office and his
past are somewhat connected.
PCC| 3.31.11 @ 9:20PM
Just getting a president who didn't go to Harvard or Yale would be a big improvement.
Jo| 3.31.11 @ 9:41PM
Hell, being an American citizen would be nice!
simon templar| 3.31.11 @ 11:49PM
Once again the issue is not whether you believe or do not believe this thing in the white house was born in the US but rather that he has not produced a legitimate birth certificate document and has spent millions in legal fees to avoid producing it and other documents pertaining to his past education and other events in his life that he refuses to reveal. WHY? Furthermore, why does he get a pass?
LoneStar| 4.1.11 @ 12:18AM
Goldstein, you are the Buffoon not Donald Trump. And i didnt like Sarah Palins answer either. And i am really beginning to wondor about O'Reilly.
JD| 4.1.11 @ 12:57AM
Is this the same American Spectator that covered/investigated probably dozens of Clinton scandals- many not covered by the mainstream media..?? Has the ownership of A.S. changed or ? It's been years since I've subscribed..many years. If the author of the article could answer the easy questions being asked here..it'd be nice. Otherwise..quit acting like a buffoon yourself.
Marc Jeric| 4.1.11 @ 1:40AM
Not so, Sir. Abu Hussein al-Nairobi, or in whtever Kenyan hellhole that marxist Muslim was born, apparently has good reasons for hiding not only his real burth certificate, but also the entirety of his scholarly record - in primary and secondary school, in Occidental College, at Columbia, at Harvard...Why? I think that his studies were paid by foreign student stipends.
Jo| 4.1.11 @ 1:51AM
I think he was a lousy student with a mediocre GPA, too. Too much nose candy.
e beck| 4.1.11 @ 2:51AM
I think Trump was refering to the Birth Announcement put in a Hawaii newspaper by his gradparents. It has been used as proof Obama was born in Hawaii. I see it as a plus Trump isnt scared to go at Obama. McCain was scared to death to playball with Obama. Did any Democrat denounce Chuck Schumer after being caught in a tele-conference with reporters, telling his democrat congressmen to call republicans extremist, and that was the talking point given to him by the party.
Dr J | 4.1.11 @ 5:14AM
You guys in the press have so little use for people who tell it like it is. Trump gets my fires burning in hope of a properly framed election...he says what those of us in the business community feel....that America is getting "screwed" by Obama, by the foreign powers and by those intent on control. Let him run both his mouth and his campaign...I didn't like him before, but I love him now, he has our voice and is about to to shout your media guts out.
Funny isn't it? The Donald has The people's voice.
Robert Laity| 4.1.11 @ 6:41AM
Obama has never BEEN the "President". Obama is a felonious fraud and a traitor to the US. Trump is doing a service to America. Trump respects the Law. Obama never has.
http://www.thepostemail.com/20.....ent-obama/
Robert Laity| 4.1.11 @ 6:46AM
US Veteran files Police Complaint against Obama.Obama stands accused of Electoral Fraud and Treason:
http://australia.to/2010/index.....itemid=271
Anita| 4.1.11 @ 11:13AM
Excuse me, but isn't it true that if a Muslim marries he MUST marry another Muslim. In other words, both of BOs parents were Muslim.
Zach Jones| 4.1.11 @ 11:26AM
Have you seen the following American Thinker article?
April 01, 2011
Obama, Donald Trump, and the Collective Unconscious
http://www.americanthinker.com.....e_col.html
It's nice - a coherent explanation of what has, to date, resulted in smothering the eligibility issue, creating fear in the minds of conservative politicians and judges. Thank you Donald Trump for tilling the soil. Planting the seeds of the pertinent questions is what I expect to come next.
I think Trump is doing a fine job displaying the Art of the Deal.
First, approach the subject with a common sense question. “What’s Obama hiding?”
Second, release a questionable birth certificate and wait for Obama’s supporters to react and raise issue of his mother’s citizenship.
Third, release his official birth certificate. ‘I have nothing to hide!’
Next, bring in a couple of other issues such as Bill Ayers claiming he wrote Dreams of My Father. Goes back to reinforce the question of “What’s he hiding?” It raises more questions about Obama’s honesty.
In the next few weeks or months, I expect Trump reveal what his lawyers have found about who can be a Natural Born Citizen.
Obama’s media supporters raised the issue of Trump’s mother’s Scottish citizenship.
The final straw will be for Trump to ask some court for clarification about if he is eligible to run. Trumps mother was naturalized before his birth. Because Trump was born in the US and both his parents were citizens before his birth, Trump is a Natural Born Citizen and is therefore eligible to serve as President.
If Trump does this, the media will be brought screaming and kicking to the issue of who can and can’t be a Natural Born Citizen.
A great example of the Art of the Deal!
Red Phillips | 4.1.11 @ 12:51PM
Zach, I honestly think you may be giving Trump more credit than he deserves. He definitely deserves credit for having the balls to raise the issue, but caution and clarity is essential lest you give the MSM and the fearful of taint conservatives an excuse to pounce.
The initial way he raised the issue by suggesting that Obama just appeared out of nowhere was a bit ham handed. But he is striking just the right note by simply asking Obama to realease the long form and imediately releasing his own.
If "birthers" (whatever that broad catagorization means any more) want to advance the issue, they need to avoid dogmatic assertions that can't be backed up (He was born in Kenya) and focus laser like on all the documents he is concealing and the entirely reasonable suspicion that he is hiding something.
A major problem with anti-birther hysteria is that it has quashed enquiry into other ancillary issue because they all fall under some broad catagory of birtherism which must be avoided at all cost lest the MSM and the fearful cons call you a bad name (like ... oh I don't know ... a buffoon maybe).
You mention two. The legitimate exploration of what the Founders intended by "natural born," and the near certainty that Obama did not write Dreams from my Father and that the most likely candidate for who did is Bill Ayers. (Obama would not be the first politician to use a ghostwriter, but this would be explosive because he explicitly stated he did write his books and he explicitly downplayed his relationship with Ayers.)
BTW, I'm not a huge fan of the American Thinker which leans interventionist, but they have been way out in front on the authorship issue and deserve praise for that.
tom| 4.2.11 @ 4:47AM
House Judiciary Com.Chaimanr~James Wilson 1866
"We must depend on the general law relating to subjects & citizens RECOGNIZED BY ALL NATIONS FOR A DEFINITION & that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States,EXCEPT that it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or reps of foreign Gov'ts are native born citizens of the U.S.
BO Sr-sojourner,personified,in the U.S.
sojourn-reside temporarily"
tom| 4.2.11 @ 4:48AM
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story -34 yrs on the High Court, "Father of Harvard Law~1834
Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A REASONABLE QUALIFICATION of the rule would seem to be, that IT SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE CHILDREN OF PARENTS, who were in itinere in the country, or WHO WERE ABIDING there FOR TEMPORARY PURPOSES....” –Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws Ch.III
Ivan| 4.2.11 @ 11:21AM
I think the logical structure of this problem is so obvious:
Either Obama has some other type of birth certificate apart from the COLB that has been published online, or he does not. If he does not have it, it is not clear then why he or his spokespersons do not say that openly: you know, those kooky birthers are crazy because the POTUS actually does not have any other birth document. But, that is not what were are being told. On the contrary, the governor of Hawai said Obama has a certificate. And Obama is spending a treasure to prevent the release of the document. And the only "argument" used to counter the requests to publish the long form birth certificate is "the birthers are crazy".
So, mr Goldstein, why Obama did not publish his existing birth certificate and why you are giving him a free pass?
MM| 4.3.11 @ 12:10AM
Perhaps Mr. Goldstein you can shed some light on why the certification letters from Hawaii for the 2008 Presidential election did not contain the usual and customary language. This perplexes me.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.....party.html