"We do not have time for this kind of silliness"

President Obama’s response after being forced by Donald Trump to finally release his birth certificate:

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” he said to reporters after the White House released a long-form copy of his birth certificate. Potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stirred up the controversy in recent weeks by demanding Obama prove he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya.

“We’ve got better stuff to do.  I’ve got better stuff to do,” Obama said. “We’ve got big problems to solve, and I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them, not on this.”

He then hurried off to Chicago to tape an Oprah show and then on to New York to speak at three Democratic National Committee fundraisers.

No time for silliness.  Better stuff to do.  Big problems to solve.  Focus.

Any questions?

Massachusetts goes bold
Graves law
  • Re: Trump being a candidate – rm, Trump’s formed an exploratory committee. Which is a pretty clear declaration of his intentions to run – which is why Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Gingrich have all formed exploratory committees.

    http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

    So, if you want to pursue whether or not the Democrats have been as ridiculous as the Republicans, by all means include in your search candidates who have formed exploratory committees to run as Democrats.

  • See how liberal logic works there Jimbo

    Um, except that’s not how it works at all?

    For various and obvious reasons including:

    1) black people as a group have been historically insulted by being compared to other primates, whereas white people have not been.

    2) Even more to the point, GWB is not a race unto himself. Therefore, comparing him to a primate can hardly be racism.

    3) But even more to the point, we’re talking about negative statements and not positive ones such as you quoted. This is because negative statements show aggression and destructive intention.

    That’s how actual logic works, which is indifferent to either liberal or conservative ideologies.

  • retired military

    So Jim X you are saying

    a. Comparing Bush to a chimp isnt negative?
    b. Clamouring for Bush’s academic records isnt negative but clamoring for Obama’s is? Talk about double standard there Jim.
    c. Stating that becuase Obama was 50, and President that means that he is pretty intelligent is a positive but stating opposite things about Bush’s intelligence isnt supposed to be negatiove?

    Again you have an Obama administration official making a statement about Obama but yet that exact same statemetn apparantly didnt apply to Bush. But Obama is black and Bush was white. if the situation was reversed than your buds in liberalims Lee Ward and Woop would be crying racism till the cows come home.

    Now as to people having neagives said about them.

    about that faxed copy of Obama’s Kenyan BC. Where is it again?

    Again Jim. You like being able to play the victim card with Obama (poor baby has had to put up with more than any republican in 40 years (paraphrased)) BUT when I point out things which Bush went through that were far worse you want to say “but but that doesnt count”

    Thanks for playing Jim. I can see that double standard from a hundred miles away. Is it becasue Obama is black that you give him more slack for his perceived troubles (which he could have ended more than 2 years ago). Are you practising your own affirmative action there Jim? You do realize that affirmative action is nothing more than society condoned racism. You know racism dont you. Treating one race different stricttly because of their race.

  • retired military

    Oh and Jim

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

    LaRouche was a perennial presidential candidate from 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination

    Saying Larouche isnt a dem is like saying Bernie Sanders isnt a dem either. which he isnt he just convenes with them for Congress.

    So Obama has formed an exploratory committee. My my my. Again. You follow him a lot more than I do. Has he formally announced he is running. To be a CANDIDATE you have to formally announce your are running. Is he on any state primaries?

    Yep umm didnt think so.

    You got me on the zel miller quote though. But umjm last time I checked Zel was pretty much ostracized by the dems for what he said.

    Well you can always get one person to buck the trend.

    Now about all those evil nasty things which CANDIDATES have said about Obama. What were they again? I still didnt see them.

    :If it’s wrong to unfairly malign George Bush with false accusations that have no factual backing, then it’s wrong to do the same to Obama because it is wrong period. Whether or not Obama has been as badly maligned, should have no bearing on whether or not it is simply wrong.:

    So are you saying that all the dems who maligned Bush about 911 (truthers), using katrina to Kill african Americans, his NG records, etc all those were wrong correct?

    Becuase I dont think it is wrong to ask a candidate to prove they are eligible for the office they seek. I have to show a birth certificate to get a passport, ID if I want to buy beer (even at 50), etc. THere were quesetions about Obama’s birth certificate due to specific incidents surroudning his childhood. As i stated before. The best thing to do is shut them up. If it was me and they asked for my BC I would give it. If it was me and they asked for school records, Hey go for it. I aint trying to hide anything. Candidates for office FROM ALL parties should be doing the same.

    “I thought this was clear. The completely ridiculous notion that Barack Obama is not a US citizen – which he would be if he was born in freakin’ Zanzibar”

    As has been pointed out in the BC thread this was not clear due to the laws at the time. In fact you never showed me the pertinent law at the time to back up your case that IF he was born in a foreign country and only his mother was a citizen that he would have been considered a citizen. That is a point of order not saying that Obama was born in a foreign country. You made a statement but have yet to PRODUCE THE LAW IN EFFECT at the time to back it up.

    “Whether or not Obama has been as badly maligned, should have no bearing on whether or not it is simply wrong.”

    True but as I have pointed out. I havent seen any maligning. I have seen questions about his policies. I havent seen anyone saying he was trying to murder people from another race via natural disaster. I havent seen anyone state that he was part of a govt conspiracy to kill Americans on home soil to try to go after a world leader because that leader tried to asssasinate his father.

    As to degree of being WRONGED by the opposing party. I believe you set that standard Jim when you said “Obama has had to put up with more than any other candidate in the past 40 years” I paraphrased but as I said YOU SET THE STANDARD. I merely responded to the STANDARD SET BY YOU TO SHOW THAT STATEMENT WAS INCORRECT..

    Now if you want to withdraw that statement fine. If you want to stand by it then I expect to see that story about the GOP operative faking an Obama Kenyan BC and faxing it to fox etc etc etc.

    YOU SET THE STANDARD, Dont get pissed because I proved the standard THAT YOU SET was wrong.

    “I think what matters is what policies work well for America. Whether or not someone is “intelligent” is a side issue. it only matters so far as it appears to influence policy.”

    Well obviously President Obama’s advisor disagrees with you there.

    The LUnacy of which you speak

    “The completely ridiculous notion that Barack Obama is not a US citizen – which he would be if he was born in freakin’ Zanzibar, because his mom was a US citizen”

    That’s it. That is the lunacy that Obama has had to deal with. You mean the lunacy that he could have cleared up by strolling into the hall of records in Hawaii almost 3 years ago and cleared up if he had wanted to. Talk about self inflicted wounds. As to his being a US citizen if born in zanzibar I already covered that above. You havent shown me the law yet that backs up your theory. Not atht the theory is valid since Obama was born in Hawaii and we knew the answer to that one from the beginning. All that Obama had to do to end the lunacy of which you speak is to go to the hall of records yada yada yada. Again Self inflicted wound and you want to choose Trump as the standard bearer “presidential candidate”.

    BTW You stated lunacy which Obama had to deal with the from GOP CANDIDATES. Who other than trump? Last time I checked McCain didnt buy into the BC stuff. What other CANDIDATES are you referring to.

    Again and USING YOUR STANDARD I am still awaiting that faxed Kenyan BC from Kinkos.

  • retired military

    So Jim to capitilize.

    Your Standard

    1. “More luancy than any candidate in 40 years”

    On this side we have Obama who had 3 years to deal with this issue decisively and to put it behind eveyrone but the 1% to whom it will never die.

    Your proof – Trump’s accusations.
    You mentioned candidates but havent given another name.

    Your standard 2

    A PERSON would have been eligible for President if

    A. Born in 1961
    b. not born in the US and their Single US citizen parent was a woman and not overseas on any official US govt business.

    Your proof to date – None.

    My response to number 2 – Show me the law in effect in 1959 which would have covered the situation you described. You have failed to do so and I fully expect that you wont and will continue to ignore this statement.

    “My proof” that your number 1 is a false statement is as follows:

    Exhibit A.
    Obama had more than 3 years to deal with the BC. It originally showed up FROM HILLARY’s camp (not a republican by any means) during the primaries at least 6 MONTHS BEFORE One ELECTION and this time 2 years prior to another election.

    Exhibit B
    Bush Katrina stories. he blew up the levies, he used it to allow African Americsn to die, etc

    Exhibt C

    The Bush NG story which showed up less than 3 weeks before the Presidential election and ran on news stations 24/7 world wide. You even had the world renowned anchor (and staunch democrat) with 30+ years on the job stating “The facts are faked but the story is real”.

    Exhibit D
    The 911 Truthers.

    ——

    I rest my case there Jim. Nice playing.

    Now we can have an honest difference of opinion on the definition of “more lunacy” Jim but I think you are being a tad bit disengenous in this case.

    Oh and I would appreciate a response as to your feelings that it was wrong for the dems to hand out the Lunacy against Bush ref the above stories.

    BTW hattip to the author Rick. Excellent title for the thread.

  • retired military

    Capitilize should have been summarize

  • retired military

    Oh and Jim for a DIRECT accusation by a DECLARED CANDIDATE

    “DEAN: Well, it is, I have to say, because 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States” and int he same interview
    ” Now the president’s trying to make this into a war on terrorism. It is a war on terrorism in the sense that there’s certainly international terrorists in Iraq. The point is, there weren’t any to speak of before we got there. The president made a big error in judgment, and he’s now
    trying to combine what’s going on in Iraq with the war on terrorism.”

    So Dean is accusing Bush of sending US Troops into war, and the resulting death of thousands of troops and many more civilians on some kind of vendetta against Saddam Hussein, Not about 911 and not about the war on terrorism as Dean CLEARLY STATES that Bush tried to tack that on AFTER going into Iraq.

    I think that this of and by itself is a much worse statement against someone than than asking someone to show a long form of a BC.

    Oh and do we want to bring up the valerie plame deal where the Dems in Congress stated they wanted to see someone frogmarched to jail but when they found out that Bush and Cheney were not involved and it was Armitage who was against the war why they shut the hell up.

  • retired military

    John Edwards “

    “Today George Bush is laughing again. Over 1,000 Americans have lost their lives. Americans are being beheaded. Iraq is a mess, and they think this is a joke. It is clear they have no idea how to protect our troops, but they will do anything to protect their jobs.”


    Gee Jim

    Which would I rather be accused of

    Not being eligible for running for president because I havent shown the long form of my BC.

    OR

    Laughing at the deaths of over 1000 US troops and being willing to do anything to protect my job even if it means the troops dont get protected.

    Hmmm That is a tough one Jim. But I think that I would rather go with someone stating they need to see the long form of my birth certificate.

    Awaiting your response there Jim.

  • retired military

    Hey Jim

    Rememeber Rathergate. You know the one you are trying to say was less lunacy than asking someone to prove they are eligible to run for President.

    Yeah that Rathergate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381527/Donald-Trump-racist-Bob-Schieffer-attacks-Apprentice-host.html

    “A senior CBS news anchor today labelled Donald Trump’s campaign to raise doubts about President Obama’s school grades as an ‘ugly strain of racism’.
    Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer made the comments in the wake of Mr Trump’s calls yesterday for Mr Obama to release college transcripts ‘proving’ he had the grades to enter Columbia and Harvard

    Now Scheiffer is today what Rather was prior to Rathergate.

    Arent reporters supposed to ummm REPORT? FACTS?? instead of BEING THE STORY???

    Oh and regarding Obama’s academic records. Why did the Wash Post and other “news” organizations get Bush’s, Kerry’s and Gore’s academic records but they didnt get Obama’s?

    Why was it a pertinent news story then but not one now?

    And remember Jim. I am not a Trump fanboy. hell I dont even like him and wish he would get a freaking haircut.

  • So Jim X you are saying

    a. Comparing Bush to a chimp isnt negative?

    No, I’m saying that your claim that comparing Bush to a chimp is the same as comparing Obama to a chimp is ridiculous, because while the first is personally insulting, the second is not only personally insulting but also obviously and actively racist.

    b. Clamouring for Bush’s academic records isnt negative but clamoring for Obama’s is? Talk about double standard there Jim.

    That actually could be a double standard, if I had said anything at all like that. But I never even mentioned Obama’s school records, as I recall.

    c. Stating that becuase Obama was 50, and President that means that he is pretty intelligent is a positive but stating opposite things about Bush’s intelligence isnt supposed to be negatiove?

    I’m not even sure what kind of point you’re trying to make here? But no, that also isn’t near anything that I said.

    about that faxed copy of Obama’s Kenyan BC. Where is it again?

    I don’t know, because I honestly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

    Again Jim. You like being able to play the victim card with Obama (poor baby has had to put up with more than any republican in 40 years (paraphrased)) BUT when I point out things which Bush went through that were far worse you want to say “but but that doesnt count”

    No, what I’m doing is pointing out how the way Bush was treated actually wasn’t far worse. But instead you want to play the victim card first, apparently by claiming that Bush is a victim of reverse racism. Which is especially ridiculous because the only reason he got his position solely because of his famous dad.

    But believe what you want to believe.

  • LaRouche was a perennial presidential candidate from 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination

    If by campaigning you mean trying to be accepted by the Democratic party at all. But, from

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

    “Democratic Party leaders refused to recognize LaRouche as a party member, or to seat the few delegates he received in his seven primary campaigns as a Democrat.”

    So, come on. Really. LaRouche is no more a Democratic candidate than Fred Phelps is a GOP one.

  • Oh and Jim for a DIRECT accusation by a DECLARED CANDIDATE

    I’ll stop you right there.

    1. My problem isn’t with accusations against candidates or presidents. My problem is with accusations against candidates that are IN DEFIANCE of actual facts.

    2. EVEN IF what Dean said about Bush was so awful and terrible – that still doesn’t mean it’s right to also say awful and terrible things towards Obama, does it? Yes or no?

  • Which would I rather be accused of

    Not being eligible for running for president because I havent shown the long form of my BC.

    OR

    Laughing at the deaths of over 1000 US troops and being willing to do anything to protect my job even if it means the troops dont get protected.

    The quote you are referring to is probably about one of Bush’s jokes about the WMD not being found, or some similar tasteless and uncaring joke that Bush actually said.

    Obama, on the other hand, is being accused of things that he didn’t even actually say or do – such as lie about his birthplace, or participate in some sort of cover-up.

    Can you see the distinction between criticism for things that actually happened, and things that aren’t real?

  • You mentioned candidates but havent given another name.

    Sure. And you have yet to produce a single Democratic candidate who said something anything near as anti-factual and ridiculous as Trump said.

    That puts me one ahead. Catch up and I’ll produce more.

    My response to number 2 – Show me the law in effect in 1959 which would have covered the situation you described. You have failed to do so and I fully expect that you wont and will continue to ignore this statement.

    I thought you had actually read what was posted, re: the Federal law in 1952.

    It was posted by hccdbz, comment # 138 in “Birther Issue gets trumped.”

    vhttp://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

    if born outside USA.

    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such persons, was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

    As for this,

    Obama had more than 3 years to deal with the BC.

    And he DID deal with it. It’s not Obama’s fault that people refuse to listen to reason, and refuse to accept what was already more proof of citizenship that has ever been publicly asked of any Presidential candidate EVER.

    But whatever. Believe what you want to believe.

  • retired military

    Okay Jim lets wrap this up before we both need walkers.

    a. Chimp

    Comparing either person to a chimp is a negative. When you (As in YOU) state that it is worse for one person than for another you are IMO guilty of racism. Racism is by definition treating one person different based soley on their race.

    It isnt more wrong or right for either person. That is one reason why hate crime bills are a bunch of malarky.

    Faxed Kenyan copy of Obama BC.
    I was making a play off the Faxed copy of Bush’s NG records. In my mind that was a lot more LUNACY than this BC crap.

    The BC

    You state Obama showed blah blah blah. I have only answered that statement like 5 times. Go back through and read my answers basically it is if a candidate is asked (any candidate) they should produce it. I also stated that given the state of families etc that this is not the last time that this issue will come up. If Trump officially announces he better bring a freaking long form copy (or whatever his states equivalent is) to the announcement because someone is giong to ask for it. What is good for one is good for all. If you set a precedent by asking one than you follow through with eveyrone after that.

    “No, what I’m doing is pointing out how the way Bush was treated actually wasn’t far worse. But instead you want to play the victim card first, apparently by claiming that Bush is a victim of reverse racism. Which is especially ridiculous because the only reason he got his position solely because of his famous dad.

    a. Far worse is purely subjective on your part and mine. Which I stated earlier but you missed that. It is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

    b. You state Bush only got the position because of his dad. Gee Jim. Another subjective statement which you cant prove at all. Did his dad help? Yep. Cant argue that point but was it ONLY because of his dad, those years as TX gov didnt help at all huh. You seem to have no problem throwing purely subjective stuff at Bush but get all offended if someone asks Obama to show a BC.

    La ROuche

    Okay he wasnt a candidate.

    ——————-

    Okay Jim here is where I have an extremem problem with a lot of what you post.

    “1. My problem isn’t with accusations against candidates or presidents. My problem is with accusations against candidates that are IN DEFIANCE of actual facts.

    2. EVEN IF what Dean said about Bush was so awful and terrible – that still doesn’t mean it’s right to also say awful and terrible things towards Obama, does it? Yes or no?”

    Item 1. – You stated declared candidates. Then you said No no I dont mean declared candidates I mean accusations of candidates that are not actual facts.

    A. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. When you change the bar mid conversation it looks very very bad.

    candidates vs people thinking about being candidates vs people saying things with no basis in facts is but one example of how you have changed the bar about 4 times in this thread.

    SET THE STANDARD YOU WANT A REPONSE TO AND DONT CHANGE IT WHEN YOU GET IT.

    And once again. a BC IMO (and IMO any sane person) issue does not compare to the things which are NOT ACTUAL FACTS which were said against Bush.

    Plame affair
    Bush NG papers
    Reasons for invasions against Iraq
    Katrina
    laughing about the deaths of soldiers to save his own job
    etc

    Now when asked about the STANDARD for lunacy Jim you responded about the BC and ONLY about the BC.

    I mean come on Jim. Even if EVERY request for OBama’s BC was made out of pure and unadultered racism that would still not stack up against the crap that was thrown at Bush, crap which ARE NOT ACTUAL FACTS (again YOU SET THE STANDARD NOW DONT CHANGE IT).

    “that still doesn’t mean it’s right to also say awful and terrible things towards Obama, does it? Yes or no? “

    It doesnt give anyone right to say something terrible about Obama. BUT again TERRIBLE IS A MATTER OF OPINION. IN MY OPINION (and I am sure I am not the only one) asking a declared candidate for President to show their long form of a BC proving they are eligible to run IS NOT TERRIBLE if I am doing it for the purpose of ascertaining his eligibility.

    Plus you cast asperation on my Dean quote when a simple google would have found it. Do you think I am going to make it up?

    “The quote you are referring to is probably about one of Bush’s jokes about the WMD not being found, or some similar tasteless and uncaring joke that Bush actually said”

    No Jim it was in the middle of an interview that Edwards was doing. I give you a quote from EDWARDS ABOUT BUSH and you turn around and say “It is probably Bush’s fault that quote is out there” Yet you want to talk about accusing someone using facts. Try to following your OWN STANDARDS Jim and others may be more willing to accept your statement as valid.

    “Can you see the distinction between criticism for things that actually happened, and things that aren’t real?”

    WHy yes I can Jim. talk about Irony. I gave you something that actually happened and you made up an excuse for it . Try to think before you shoot yourself in the foot Jim.

    “Sure. And you have yet to produce a single Democratic candidate who said something anything near as anti-factual and ridiculous as Trump said.

    That puts me one ahead. Catch up and I’ll produce more.

    Actually I gave quotes from 2 different candidates and havent pulled Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out of the bag yet. STill waiting on you to fulfull YOUR OWN STANDARD.

  • retired military

    And Jim I put this in a seperate post specifically for the importance of this issue to you.

    Ref the law

    Nope I didn’t read it.

    But since you pointed it out

    one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such persons, was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.

    In September 1959, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu as the university’s first African foreign student.[25]l.

    Barack Hussein SR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS as I read the law which clearly states he must have been
    Living in the US NOT LESS THAN 10 YEARS and at least five of which after attaining 14
    And doing so PRIOR TO THE BIRTH .

    So you see Jim. In Baracks case he would have had to have been born in the US as his father had not been in the US long enough.

    “And he DID deal with it”

    He dealt with part of the issue. He didn’t deal with the long form until this week and he could have done so 3 years ago. He chose not to for politial gain and you are saying republican CANDIDATES (you still havent given more than one) are showing lunacy.

    —————-

    So Jim we have a stalemate as to the actual LUNACY question.

  • retired military

    Jim

    We have a statemate as far as the lunacy issue. You will concede that it is a matter of perception will you not?

    As I stated above. Please SET STANDARDS and stick by them. Say what you mean and dont change it time after time after time regarding what you would like the other person to produce to support their argument. You are by far not the only person guilty of this.

  • retired military

    Jim

    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/04/1944130/was-barack-obama-sr-eased-out-harvard-and-america-dating-white-women

    First, a little historical background: the elder Barack Hussein Obama arrived in the United States in 1959, via an exchange program known colloquially in Kenya as the “Tom Mboya airlift,” after the politician who sponsored it

    So Jim will you at least concede that it does matter where Obama was born to determine his eligibility since his father had not spent the prerequisite time in the US prior to OBama’s birth to satisfy the US law which YOU CITED.

  • hcddbz

    Jim X,

    Two points the location of BHO issue was a legitimate as INA of 1952 would have kicked in if his mother did not pass the residency requirements that the clause about married couple one parent being citizen and other an alien born outside the USA. (two citizens no issue, one citizen a service member less of an issue) If not married the child would need to be naturalized. So in this case location does matter.

    We did have one president that did do some forgery Chest Arthur that was found out after his death. So verification of facts is always a good thing.

    It was never a race thing it was circumstances of his birth. Just like Watergate it was not the crime but the coverup.

    2) The chimp thing was racist. If you ever read or Heard Louis Farrakhan hold the belief that the White Devil tried to steal the hard work of the Asiatic Blackman. As Punishment the white savages were turned into primates, but the devils found away to still steal all the hard work of the true master race the blacks.

    I bring the crap up because many in the press know this crap but since “Black cannot be racist” they humor him.

    As far as Trump goes he stated once he might run as an independent and then changed his mind and said he may run as Republican but since he not declared him self yet and has habit of changing his mind.

    Remember Trump said Bush was the Worst President in History.
    He was against both Wars
    He was for Universal Health care
    Prochoice

    So he was mini Obama a few years ago.
    Now he is claiming to be Conservative.

    Now

  • retired military

    Hcddbz

    I dont even think it matters if they were married or not at least according to the clause Jim reposted above.

    Look at that clause step by step.

    if born outside USA.

    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such persons, was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

    Okay IF BORN OUTSIDE THE US (Jim claims it doesnt matter if Obama was born in zanzibar or someplace outside the US. THAT IS THE STANDARD JIM SET.

    a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of – CHECK so we are talking about the same thing.

    of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States

    Check. Obama’s mother was a citizen and his father was an alien.

    who, prior to the birth of such persons,

    So now are talking about a period of time BEFORE THE BIRTH.

    was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions

    Okay Obama’s mother and father were both physically present in the US PRIOR to the birth (outside of the US which we are talking about)

    for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

    And then we have the JEOPARDY BIG X and wrong answer sound.

    Obama’s father had only been in the US for a bit over 2 years PRIOR TO OBAMA’s BIRTH.

    So therefore USING THE LAW WHICH JIM CITED – Obama had to have been born in the US to be a citizen and not anywhere else as Jim as asserted numerous times.

  • retired military

    Jim

    “1. My problem isn’t with accusations against candidates or presidents. My problem is with accusations against candidates that are IN DEFIANCE of actual facts.

    Oh you mean like the Bush NG story right.

  • hcddbz

    RM,

    Here are definitions for the act the document for you to refer to.
    Section III
    http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/%7Ecalda/Documents/1950s/McCarran_52.html

    The child must be legitimate.

    The term ”child” means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is-
    (A) a legitimate child; or
    (B) a stepchild, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred; or
    (C) a child legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or domicile, or under the law of the father’s residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation.

    My understanding is it is the Citizen that need to meet the residency requirement. The rest of section 7 states.

    (7) … Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent maybe included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph

    Sec 309 deals with Children born out of Wedlock.

    The provisions of paragraphs 3,4,5 and 7 of section 301
    … shall apply as of the date of birth to child born out of wedlock on or after the effective date of this Act, it the paternity of such child is established wile such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation…
    (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section a person born, on or after the effective date of this Act , outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother , if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such persons birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year

  • hcddbz

    So the thing that has always been funny is the true question about in or out the USA was the fact that BHO father was already married in Kenya.
    Are children of a Polygamist legitimate in US court system?

  • retired military

    Well after reading the stuff 4 times it appears that if Obama is considered Illegitamate then he would be considered a US citizen due to his mother being a US citizen.


    sECTION 309
    (a) of this section a person born, on or after the effective date of this Act , outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother , if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such persons birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year

    If he is considered illegitamate since his father had never divorced his first wife prior to marrying Obama’s mother a few months before he was born then it would appear he would be a citizen even if he had been born out of the US (which is as Jim States).

    If he is considered legitimate due to his mother being married to his father (an apparent bigamist) than he would have had to have been born in the US and not outside of it (as Jim states) to be oonsidered a citizen due to his father not having been in the US long enough.

    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such persons, was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

    Tell me if you are reading that the same way I am. If so it seems somewhat odd to me.

  • retired military

    “Are children of a Polygamist legitimate in US court system”

    And where they in 1961.

  • Rm,

    Comparing either person to a chimp is a negative. When you (As in YOU) state that it is worse for one person than for another you are IMO guilty of racism.

    Ok, you’re welcome to your opinion. But I don’t see how merely pointing out that something is racist, is itself racism. Which is effectively what you’re saying.

    I mean, it is a simple fact I’m sure we can both agree on, that some things are worse for some people because of how people view their race.

    As re: standards, my apologies if I was assuming standards which weren’t explicit. I know, the whole “ass u me” thing.

    If we’re going to dig in and study this, then here’s the standards I propose:

    1. Candidates or Politicians in office

    To be considered as representing either the Democratic or Republican party, the person quoted should be either:

    a) a candidate who has at least formed an exploratory committee AND been accepted by the party in question

    b) someone who made it into office at the Federal level. We can leave state senators and congressman out of it for now. Maybe governors too, actually, unless and until they run for Senate, Congress or the White House.

    c) someone officially speaking on their behalf which they have not fully repudiated. I.e. if someone’s campaign manager says “Mr. Opponent beats his wife,” and the candidate says something like “Certainly Mr. Opponent should answer these questions about beating his wife”, that should count as a statement coming from that candidate.

    2. Statements

    Critical or negative statements don’t count as lunacy if they’re just strong. So statements of opinion
    based on actual job performance or actual policy disagreements based on job performance, is fine.

    Statements that aren’t lunacy under this would be “Jimmy Carter was a stupid peacenik for not getting people out of the Iranian embassy quicker”, or “Reagan was a stupid actor for not arming our marines in Beirut”. (Both are just examples, I’m not starting either of those arguments just now.)

    But critical or negative statements which are based on theories that are not factual (i.e. “remote controlled 9/11 planes”), contradicted by direct evidence (“Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii”) count as lunacy.

    A possible third category is statements which assume guilt without evidence, even after impartial investigation (“Bill/Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered”) are a second category. So maybe let’s count them as evidence but not as strongly.

    How’s that?

    This is a larger project, so if you are interested in this perhaps we could take this off line from this article.

  • Alternately, you can tell me if you agree to those standards above, and then I can apply them to the Edwards quote, and then the Sharpton and Jackson quotes. Which, honestly, I’m sure are very crazy.

    Re: Natural born citizen – I’m reading it this way: the key point is whether Barack Obama’s mother qualifies him to be a US citizen even if he wasn’t born in the US.

    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions [let’s say, Barack Obama] of parents one of whom is an alien [Barack’s father], and the other a citizen of the United States [Barack’s mother] who, prior to the birth of such persons, was physically present in the United states or its outlying possessions for a periods totaling not less than ten years least five of which of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

    So yes, Barack Obama’s father was not born a US citizen, and was not in the US long enough to qualify as one himself at the time of Obama’s birth. But Obama’s **mother** was – which is enough to qualify her son Obama as a US citizen, no matter where he was physically born.

    Now, a possible very legalistic interpretation of this law would be that Barack’s mother may not have qualified as a full US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, because she was 18 then – and thus had only lived 4 years in the US after being 14 and not 5. But it appears to me that this definition is only applied if the person has lived outside the US at all – and from what I can see Barack Obama’s mother had never left the US until well after Obama’s birth.

    Snopes has a rather interesting review of this, including the fact that the citizenship of Hoover became something of an issue during his original campaign:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

  • hcddbz

    RM,

    It is but you have remember the MAN act. In the 30’s there was fear of white slavery. American women being kidnapped and sold into prostitution. There was also the problem that an American tourist might be attacked. So I believe this is the out growth of that fear. The child of such a Union was an American Citizen and afford all the protections there of.

    Also the act of 52 had lots of quotas. They want to make sure that marriages were legitimate esp when births occurred out of the country.

    Immigration law is fun thing with many competing interest, fears and misconceptions thrown into some good policy now and then.

    Having had to go throw it most of my life and trying to understand things it always been fun. Esp when you start reading the definitions they come u with.

    I the end the worst thing about this is. That if the media had ever bothered to research the INA of 52 and past races they would have seen the NBC thing did rear it head in the 1800’s. We could have had really good open and honest debate. Instead through the use of scorn and derision we are where we are today.

    The real question is allegiance. As president he is not just head of Government he is our head of state.
    We want someone who is proud to be an American first, last and always. Not a world Citizen, but an American who see the best in us and our leadership. Franky with the Cairo speech and NASA directive , it feels wrong and many people question is he really one of us? Say what you want about cowboys, but a COWBOY is American!
    A rugid individual who speaks his mind and will fight to for his rights. Someone who works by wit, charter and is plain spoken and does not put on airs. It was the Europeans who took Cowboys and made them negative as just brash un thinking people.

    An effeminate snob putting Americans down and apologizing seems to others European character.

    So I think his actions are what keep giving the subject life.

  • hcddbz

    Jim X,

    She di trave outside of the USA when she was 17 or 18. When she met the relatives in kenya. They did not like her because she was white. According to BHO wife.

  • retired military

    Jim X

    “Ok, you’re welcome to your opinion.”
    As apparently we both are as to description of Lunacy.
    “But I don’t see how merely pointing out that something is racist, is itself racism.”
    True. I didn’t say you were racist, I basically believe any “affirmative action” type things are inherently racist as it treats one race of people differently than another.
    “I mean, it is a simple fact I’m sure we can both agree on, that some things are worse for some people because of how people view their race.”
    Yes we can agree on it. However, we may or may not disagree that just because someone looks at something through the prism of their race means that they are right (or means that they are wrong for that matter). A good example is the PC “I am offended at X” . That automatically puts that person in a victim class. Well maybe I am offended at their being offended. Now what? We play the “who is most offended game”. Again the only sane option is not to play.
    Standards – Jim you “changed” them. I say that with the following in mind. Maybe it is my background. Military’s motto. Tell em what you are going to tell them. Tell em. Tell em what you told them. Performance appraisals are basically how well you did to the standards outlined. PT test, based on your exceding the standards. When teaching a class you give Task, Conditions and standards. Now whether or not you were trying to change the goal posts intentionally I don’t know. I doubt you saw it that way. Maybe it is your culture vs mine and the fact that the written word in forums like this is lousy for getting complex messages across. (and time consuming as well).
    For future discussions lets iron things out then. For this discussion I think we just have agree to disagree on subject of Lunacy. I need a bath after wading through the google links from last night. In the future we may need to pick a more definable and less subjective term to judge stuff on. Lunacy for one is not lunacy for another. It is like the racism and porn statements that BH and Otto were having a discussion about. Sometimes you see them and others don’t. As someone with a military background I am quite used to being asked to provide documentation X at the drop of a hat and I provide that documentation without question. For some, it is a lot bigger deal. Hell my wife knows my SS number better than she knows her own.
    In short. Candidates look good. Statements I have some issues with. You have surrogates making statements, etc. This one, lets iron out for later discussions if it appears there is a problem. As I told Bruce Henry. I have a viscous Sty in my eye and every time I blink it is like stabbing a pencil in it.
    Obama Hawaii – I have stated before, there was plenty of evidence to back up his claim. The stuff you said someone in similar circumstances about being born out of country appears to fall under the general category of “well what if the moon is full on the 2nd Thursday after the summer equinox. “ By this I mean who would have thought that nationality of a child born (outside of the US for our case) would be determined on the legal definition of “legitimacy” of that child when he has a father who is a bigamist and a citizen of a foreign country. And to add to the mix that child becomes President). You can’t make this stuff up. For the record I believe Obama meets constitutional requirements for President.
    Personally I honestly don’t want to continue this particular conversation as I don’t think it will resolve anything in either of our minds. (see definition of lunacy above).
    As someone with a military background I am quite used to being asked to provide documentation X at the drop of a hat and I provide that documentation without question. For some, it is a lot bigger deal.

    I like good spirited discussions. I don’t agree with a lot of what you say Jim but you are definitely cuts above folks like woop and Lee Ward. Well that wasn’t much of a compliment there but at least I tried.
    Later.

  • retired military

    Sorry the above post is smushed together. I did a cut and paste job from word so I could work on the response at work. (better grammer that way). guess I should have checked formatting after pasting.

    You may wnat to copy and paste it and put in some spaces for readability.

  • retired military

    Sorry about the double paragraph near the bottom as wel. Dman I need to need to Proofread when I cut and paste.

  • retired military

    Jim

    REf wether they law quoted applies to his mother or father. I believe it would apply to the noncitizen as that is whose loyalty wold be in question. Or it could apply to just the mother given the year and women’s status at that time, or it could apply to both. I just feel the stronger case is it applying to the noncitizen of the US. Generally citizens of the US wouldnt have much trouble meeting the time requirement where as noncitizens might.

    Even then you have the legitamacy issue thrown in with the bigamy involved.

  • hcddbz

    RM,

    is it not fun to play the immigration lottery. There another whole section on when the person is diplomat. In the end the questions are not as simple as the media and others would like. A good spirited debate is always fun.
    Jim X,

    As far as that article from Snoop there are actually special case for each of those items stated that are outside of the two articles sighted.

  • rm, appreciating also a discussion where we get to merits and talk about things in an interesting way, even without agreement. : )

    hccdbz, interested in the other cases for each of them; I’m sure the special cases in the applied law vary incredibly from the general principles laid out.