Obama's Birth Certificate

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

What incredible silliness.



From:

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

FactCheck.org: About FactCheck.org

As I've said, I don't know the facts on this but it will at some point be resolved. It seems that objections are everywhere and an impartial judge has to decide this form the nsake of the constitution. Why just believe factcheck? Some question it. But I can see that this blind obsession with Obama prevents any form of impartiality. I prefer to see how the Berg suit comes out.

Factcheck.org credibility in question

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Why hire this lawyer if all one has to do is ask for a birth certificate?

Interesting argument. The implication: Obama must be a fraud and unqualified to serve as President just because he hired a lawyer.

Is it possible to respect the Constitution without appreciating the need for due process?

Can we safely assume lynchings were justified when the accused sought legal representation because the very fact of their wanting to get legal representation would have been proof of their guilt?

Hiring a lawyer is incriminating in your worldview, Nick?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Interesting argument. The implication: Obama must be a fraud and unqualified to serve as President just because he hired a lawyer.

Is it possible to respect the Constitution without appreciating the need for due process?

Can we safely assume lynchings were justified when the accused sought legal representation because the very fact of their wanting to get legal representation would have been proof of their guilt?

Hiring a lawyer is incriminating in your worldview, Nick?

I imagine you would hire a lawyer rather than show your driver's license so as to prove to a trooper and the court that you had one. Of course it is an insult to show it but surprisingly some would just show it rather than hire a lawyer so as not to have to show it for as long as possible. This may be your way as it appears to be Obama's. It isn't mine. I'd rather just show my license.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I'd rather just show my license.

How will we know it's not just a clever forgery?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

How will we know it's not just a clever forgery?

If in question an impartial judge would decide. Obama could never understand the simplicity of this or perhaps something is not legit.

[kiwimac]

I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to to smear Barack Obama's good name.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to to smear Barack Obama's good name.

Well i'm not sure he has a good or a bad name. But I expected the insidious racism that goes hand in hand with a certain type of mind frequently at home in the republican camp. I still think Obama a Trojan Horse for a republican party that had no other way to win except this.


tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well i'm not sure he has a good or a bad name. But I expected the insidious racism that goes hand in hand with a certain type of mind frequently at home in the republican camp. I still think Obama a Trojan Horse for a republican party that had no other way to win except this.


tao

Obama is a shill for the Republicans?
{Now I've heard it all...}

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to to smear Barack Obama's good name.

I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to elect their candidate even at the expense of openly destroying the potency of the constitution, or that which assures the contiued ability to make free choice possible. Classic "The end justifies the means." Some value only there view of the "right" end and others know the value of preserving the legitimacy of the "process." We have all chosen our ways and it does seem obvious that "the end justifies the means" is the way of the near future. Kill the goose laying the golden eggs. Take what you can and run. Hey, why not?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Um, the lawsuit was filed by a Clinton supporter. Can't blame this on the 'right wing...'

Actually, the lawsuit is not the issue. The issue is an internet rumour to the effect that a judge ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. That rumour is repeated in the opening post: "Judge orders Obama to produce birth certificate." The rumour is false. No such order has been issued.

Apparently the rumour was promoted in part by means of an e-mail stating in unambiguous terms that Mr. Berg had gotten the court to side with him and ordered Obama to produce a copy of his birth certificate. Here it is:

On September 29, 2008 US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, the federal magistrate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in the matter of Philip J. Berg vs Barack Hussein Obama, he has been ordered to supply:

1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and
2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship;
3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."

The rumour about the judge's order is false, but this hasn't kept wingnuts from using the rumour as a point of departure for attacking liberals for their supposed willingness to sidestep the US Constitution in order to ensure that Obama's presidency won't be jeopardized.

I see this rumour as a fairly typical example of the RW road show. It's the usual double whammy - attacking a prominent liberal Democratic leader or misrepersenting an issue and then, for good measure, throwing in some half baked negative characterizations of Democrats/liberals as a group. It's been done before and this rumour doesn't exactly improve on past peformance.

The basic idea was to substitute rumour for an actual court finding in order to undermine Obama's stature. The rumour was shored up by right wing websites that pictured an unsigned and undated version of includes a draft order prepared by Mr. Berg that was submitted along with other material when Berg responded to a motion to dismiss. The proposed order is not an official court document. It has been falsely represented as such on right wing web sites.

Obviously this extrajudicial approach to finding Obama guilty of something is very hard to reconcile to right wingers' tendency to portray themselves as though they are defending the Constitution and, as a corrollary, as though they are honoring the sanctity of legitimate legal/institutional process. It's embarassing posturing. It is totally ridiculous for anyone to arrogate personal integrity while at the same time trying to undermine Obama's stature by, for example, concluding that Obama must be a fraud and unqualified to serve as President just because he hired a lawyer.

Nick writes:
I am endlessly surprised at the depth some people will go to elect their candidate even at the expense of openly destroying the potency of the constitution, or that which assures the continued ability to make free choice possible.

How can right wingers avoid the impression of phoniness and hypocrisy when they invoke the constitution in such a blatant hoax? For anyone to try to substitute rumour for an actual court finding shows no respect for the Constitution - at least not with regard to the importance of due process.

Selectivity with respect to legal principles confirms the devious nature of the appeal to the legal authority of a judge who hasn't even acted on the matter in an attempt to add source credibility to a falsehood.

This hoax is an instance of frauds alleging fraud. It bespeaks the kind of second rate propaganda dressed up as journalism by which conservatives are burying themselves.

[Nick_A]

Netti seems to have this need to avoid the obvious no matter how foolish avoiding it appears. Again, all Obama has to do is produce the documents and it is over. Yet he doesn't. Anyone would wonder why something to be proud of would be hidden at all cost including the cost of a lawyer.

As you know, the link I posted on the OP soon died. Now the explanation comes in the new link. Rather than me commentating on it I invite you dear reader that hasn't been Obamasized to read it and hopefully you will see that there are many loose ends.

The qualifications for the presidency are basic to the constitution and if anyone respects it, they must respect these qualifications. If you prefer sleazy political techniques to hide the truth it is your way. My concern is for those that still realize the necessity to respect the basics of the constitution even if it interferes with personal goals. If you do you will agree that it is necessary to clear up these loose ends.

So here is the updated link and the curious impartial reader will see how much is still unclear but worth clarifying. I hope it does not disappear also.

Jon Christian Ryter -- DNC joins Obama to block Berg suit

[seattlegal]

Speaking of wingnuts and baseless accusations, have you read this thread? I think it highlights just how far many people will stretch logic and credulity to support a cherished viewpoint, and grab onto flimsy arguments that they want to be true, and then chant them over and over again until people believe them to be true without examination? I wouldn't say that this is just a 'right wing' phenomenon. There are plenty of examples in this thread to show just how widespread it is.

[arthra]

OK Wait a minute here.. If Obama was born in Oahu whose to say Hawaii is a bona fide state of the union? Have you seen the original docs that support it?

On Nov. 23, 1993, The United States apologized for illegally overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii, and recognized the inherent sovereignty and right of self-determination of native islanders.
Needless to say, a lot of shady events took place between Jan. 17, 1893 and Aug. 21, 1959. Hawaiian sovereignty is still a hot issue in the islands to this day and likely will be for as long as the United States flag flies over Hawaii.

Source:

Aloha News Network

So a lot of shady events have taken place between 1893 and 1959..

- Art

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

So a lot of shady events have taken place between 1893 and 1959..

- Art

Good thing he was born in 1961 then.

[arthra]

Yeh, and

Barack Obama could become the first Hawaiian born President of the United States!

- Art