While Barack Obama has released his birth certificate, there still seems to be unanswered questions. Jerome Corsi (the man who added the verb "swiftboated" to the American lexicon) shares his thoughts the day after the release of this document.
As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.
Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.
Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961."
"Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 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 French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . ."
It will be interesting to see if enough people in this country are sufficiently interested in pressing the issue. Maybe, or maybe not. We'll see.
I would only like to add that in my opinion, it wasn't really so much Donald Trump that forced Obama's hand in this situation as it was the Oklahoma legislature and Jerome Corsi's upcoming book set to be released in a couple of weeks.
I would like to throw out a question for discussion? Why didnt Obama release this document any sooner? If I had to venture a guess I would say elitism and a sense of entitlement. What are your thoughts?
18 comments:
"The last two months, though, have been less fun. With his poll numbers diving and people wanting to be mad at him, President Obama decided to come out today.
Today is as good as any. He had more important information to stomp on–you know high level placements like Leon Panetta at the Defense Department whose first goal is cutting the budget. And even more interesting, David Petraeus moves to the CIA.
Even Politico questions the timing:
To say the timing was curious is an understatement — Obama thoroughly stepped on the news that he was nominating a new secretary of defense (Leon Panetta) and CIA chief (Gen. David Petraeus) by making an announcement that he could have made any time in the past two years or in the near or distant future.
Details. Andrew Malcolm elaborates:
So, here you go. Talk amongst yourselves about this birth certificate thing. While the president and his wife fly Air Force One all the way out to Chicago for the singular purpose of repaying a syndicated television show host who helped them in the crucial early campaign days of 2007.
And then, while you’re still poring over the certificate and the silliness of the entire issue, the president will be flying Air Force One all the way back to New York City tonight for not one, not two, but three Democratic fundraisers. Including one that costing attendees more than 35G’s.
To demonstrate his equanimity, Obama will also likely make a joke during those remarks about the silly birther issue, which will make him seem like a good-natured victim of these superficial clowns who’ve been chasing him to do what he well knew all along they would want him to do lo these many months.
Tah-dah!
What did President Obama talk about to the press today? His birth certificate. He could have stopped the nonsense at any time. He didn’t because it served his purposes" Link
Well, you can't confuse me with a supporter so you're still good on this one. But the Nordyke's and Jughead's were both signed by the mothers on the seventh. Presumptively, they were typed to order at that time as well and it's just a matter of who got in the office earlier on that day.
Or to put it differently: Who was the more motivated and responsible mother?
It seems that Stan over at Atheism Analyzed has some misgivings about this document that I hadnt previously noticed. Link
Check out the date here and the certificate number here when viewed with greater magnification.
I probably fit the label of "birther" because I have not been satisfied that B. Hussein Obama has been willing to settle the birth certificate question from the beginning. With this document's appearance, I share misgivings with others as to its authenticity. However, some of the discrepancies do not seem important in the least.
But whether the Constitution has been violated and leftists forced a spurious president on the unthinking masses is not as important as his policies and procedures. Most important is that his president should have his political career overwith in 2012.
I think it's evidence of an even deeper conspiracy. It's all so suspicious.
Elitism and entitlement sound like the likely culprit to me, or as my husband simply said "arrogance."
Let's keep that between just you and me Foghorn. Because if my black wife, (who is also an immigrant btw) ever finds out, I'm TOAST.
No, I don't believe that it's racism that motivates these wackjobs...it's the fact that he's a democrat.
That automatically makes him a target in the eyes of the religous right. All this manufactroversy is, is an extra opportunity to try to get rid of a Democratic president. If he was white, they wouldn't have this extra (though entirely bullshit) chance to knock the guy out of office.
Do you think that maybe, just perhaps, it's because he's freakin' wrong? Some people blame the so-called "religious right" (a.k.a. "poisoning the well" and "hasty generalization" fallacies wrapped together) because they cannot win the battle of ideals. The majority of the American public does not consider itself "liberal", and prefer Conservative ideals. You know, work instead of living on handouts &c.
So it's worth considering that Obummer is a bummer after all, that people detest his socialist policies and the alleged, convenient scapegoat of the "religious right" has nothing to do with it. What a concept!
And when people questioned whether or not Chester Arthur was a natural born citizen, were they considered racist as well? Link
With Stan & Stormy on side, with you & other 'luminaries' at the helm, the intellectual vanguard of the religious 'Right', in the good 'ol USA, sweeps all before it....
Give yourself a break, JD.
Your 'right-wing' posturing, er..., 'powerhousing', is no more that powderpuffing, downwind.....
Mixing up your silly beliefs with your sham politics ain't gonna get you nowhere.....
Religious & political absolutisms are dead. Only deadbeats grasp at ideological straws-in-the-wind, unable as they are to formulate anything for themselves....
The mind boggles at the utter meaninglessness of some people's lives.
Happy hunting!
"The mind boggles at the utter meaninglessness of some people's lives."
That's why they become full-time trolls when they're allowed Internet privileges in the institution.
PuddleBringer!
Speaking for yourself, are you?
You've got nothing to say, & say it with all the aplomb & assurance of a schoolboy still feeling his oats!
Let's put it this way: JD, for all his phony bravado, at least tries to make a go of it with the limited tools at his disposal; you, on the other hand, are so self-absorbed that your grip on reality is as weak as your sense of self.
I doubt the noise in your head ever gives you a moment of peace.
And youre calling him self absorbed. Pot Kettle Black.
If you offered up substative arguments in leiu of scathing criticisms I think I would fall off my chair.
Please JD.
While you're not the sharpest mind I've ever encountered, you're by no means the stupidest either.
So let me explain something to you...
It's not really that difficult to understand: self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-centred, self-involved narcissists (not to belabour the point) don't read, show little empathy for others, & are emotionally immature. Such are the facts.
I, on the other hand, have always been a voracious reader: ergo, whatever faults I may have (too many, I'm sure, to mention), being self-absorbed ain't one of them.
However much you may be set in your ways & inflexible in your thinking, to accuse me of being self-absorbed is a feint not even you could justify, or sustain.
So why make a play of it, unless of course your natural penchant for doublethink, as evidenced by your beliefs, colours every aspect of your life, nay thinking?
While I think you're loopy, the extent of your dis-integrated personality is no match for the likes of Stan (aka Name) or PuddleBringer, both of whom are completely beyond the pale.
Why don't we leave it at that, then?
We all have our crosses to bear: no point in over-burdening ourselves, is there?
Snicker. Giggle. HAHAHAHAHA!
Let me help the self-absorbed Two Horns One Tail:
"I, on the other hand, have always been a voracious reader: ego."
Of course, I am no match for a professional troll who gets Internet privileges in the Institution, I have my moments.
Snicker.
Stormbringer:
So it's worth considering that Obummer is a bummer after all, that people detest his socialist policies and the alleged, convenient scapegoat of the "religious right" has nothing to do with it. What a concept!
What a load of bull. You've obviously never bothered to read or are choosing to ignore all the idiots from your side: People such as the folks at wingnut daily, the forums like rapture ready, the televangelists, the commentators like Cal Thomas, people like Rush Limbaugh who called this recession Obama's even before the man got into effing office, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, etc all of whom are either religious or are pretending to be.
Then of course, there's the teabaggers and the Repubs who more or less constantly pay at least lip service to the religious in your country, etc.
You know, if you bothered to actually think you'd have realized that if you had just said that it's not just the religious right behind this, you'd have had a much stronger case, but you said that the religious right had NOTHING to do with rejecting Obama. All I had to do was bring up a few examples to shoot you down.
Besides, overwhelmingly it is the religious right who attack Obama, just as they automatically attack any Democrat who gets into, or runs for president of your country.
"Socialist Policies"? Huh? The man is a 90's style conservative. That health care plan that you idiots fought against as too "socialist"?
All of this is to say that Obama's position commands the center of the political spectrum.
The Republicans' second measure is the lack of Republican support. It's true, no Republican supports Obama's plan. Republicans like Bennett site this fact as ipso facto proof that the plan is extreme. This definition inherently rules out the possibility that Republicans are opposing a moderate plan out of some combination of partisanship and ideological extremism. Suppose Obama decided to embrace the Republcian proposal as his own, and then every Republican subsequently abandoned the proposal, making it a Democrats-only plan. (This may sound ludicrous, but it happened in 1994.) By the Republican definition, the lack of GOP support would prove that Obama was supporting an extreme proposal.
Obama hasn't undone anything that Bush has. Yet he's "socialist"?
Speaking of fallacious attacks, how about what you just said about "liberals" and "living on handouts"?
Post a Comment