Aug 05 2009
Birthers Helping President Obama & Liberal Democrats Dodge Responsibility For Their Policy Failures
 
The Birther fools out there are making any real opposition to the failed liberal policies of President Obama and the liberal old guard in Congress a laughing stock.
The angry-mob style protesters who have infiltrated town halls around the country are the non-organic product of “tea-baggers,” “birthers,” and the conservative fringe, two Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday.
Speaking outside the White House after meeting with President Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York both dismissed the significance of boisterous protesters who have been interrupting Democratic lawmakers’ events.
“It is a small fringe group,” Schumer told the Huffington Post, “and if we let a small group of people who want to monopolize the conversation and not listen to the facts win, you may as well hang it up.”
To make a resounding argument Obama and his liberal friends have royally screwed up the economy with their government run stimulus disaster does require a modicum of credibility. No matter how sane and logical the argument, it doesn’t carry weight when the person or group making it are rightfully seen as clowns.
I mean seriously, who in the hell is going to believe any thing Al Franken says is serious, thoughtful or important?Â
Only other clowns.
The failed policies that Obama and his fellow liberals inflicted on this country for generations to come are serious, very serious. The lunatic conspiracy idiots are clowns and forgers – the two discussions should not be combined. But the GOP let this brain damage spread throughout its ranks unchecked, allowing those same liberals who screwed up to blame the birthers – who are clearly a fringe group – for any and all counter arguments.
By doing so these clowns are allowing Obama and the liberals to escape responsibility and be free to do more damage.
Only the far right could screw up as bad as the far left. Ugh – where is the sanity and maturity?
[…] the democrats for allowing their liberal leaders to go crazy and make a mess of things. Of course, there are opportunities galore for the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of […]
The only reason this nonsense is kept alive is that the Dems. and their allies in the media need a foil against the Reps. and Ind. They know that both have lost their credibility with the majority of the american people. I have not heard one credible person inside the republican party that supports these wack-jobs that MSNBC keeps putting on their air or the media allies that will follow up and ask Gibbs during his B.S. Pressers. It really is funny that when the head of thr RNC states this is crap, and calls Pres. Obama by his official title he gets no response from the minion press, you know the game is on by the DNC.
I have done some searches on this Democratic media blitz and they are keeping the “birther†issue in the air and in the center as much as they can. They wrote the playbook on misdirection and disruption and it is a perfect smoke screen for them. We need to apply pressure and keep them accountable on the real issues……their complete policy failures.
One needs to remind them that this birther movement was started by the Hillary Clinton supporters and pushed by the Hillary Clinton supporters.
Yeah, there may be some far right-wings involved in this birther movement but we see many conservative bloggers and commenters saying the same things that Mark just said above.
If you are bothered by the BC issue, then I suggest not blogging on it. Let it die a natural death.
Besides, if it isn’t the BC issue, the Dems would find some other issue to deflect from what they’re doing. Or they’d make one up.
However, the voters don’t seem to be distracted. In fact, they appear to be informing themselves on BO’s agenda as evidenced by the seething anger on display at town hall meetings. Whether the Dems recognize this anger or not is irrelevant.
…
AJ, Stacy McCain has a better argument.
The birth certificate business may or may not be true. But in either case, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt…and even if it were, the odds of getting it acknowledged in court and Obama ejected are vanishingly small.
Calling people ‘clowns and forgers’ does not win arguments. Pointing out that this is Very Bad Ground on which to fight DOES win them.
[…] to preserve the vision of America as a land of hope and opportunity that he was taught in school. Birthers Helping President Obama & Liberal Democrats Dodge Responsibility For Their Policy Fail… – strata-sphere.com 08/05/2009 Â The Birther fools out there are making any real opposition to the […]
Mike M – the birthers are idiots. You want to keep Obama and the Dems in power by ‘respecting’ these fools then go ahead. They have demonstrated they are not ready to be leading voices except for the march of the lemmings over the rightward fringe cliff.
Katie,
The only problem I have with Birthers is how they make Obama look smart. Other than that I could care less.
[…] Obama’s born identity: Claims that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate are getting out of hand, Birthers Helping President Obama & Liberal Democrats Dodge Responsibility For Their Policy Fail…, and What Birthers Really Want To Say […]
AJ,
.
The service sector report from the Institute for Supply Management came out.
.
It looks very bad:
.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/08/ism-non-manufacturing-index-shows.html
.
Short story, the economy is still going down.
.
We have not seen the bottom as of July 2009.
.
This was a something I got from a friend that applies here:
.
.
The indicia to look for is private capital investment. Economic growth comes from capital investment beyond that required to renew existing capital stocks, and almost all such investment is just to renew existing capital stocks even in boom times. Plus complicating factors such as population growth and whatnot.
.
And it’s not merely private capital investment at this point.
.
Note how government spending, at all levels, on new capital investment (aka public infrastructure) has pretty much ceased. AFAIK, every single new capital investment indicator is negative and there are no signs whatever of this turning around in the next year.
.
.
This point cannot be stated enough. The American economy, both private and public, are going through a period of DISINVESTMENT.
.
Structurally, jobs that destroyed now will not come back for a long, long, time. Not until the deficit in capital investment is made good and new capital investment is made on top of it.
.
Which brought up this point from my same friend:
.
.
The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have not yet learned the size of the hole they are in, and insist on digging it deeper. I see no chance of the economy getting better until they stop pushing policies that threaten private capital investment.
.
Bill Clinton would not be making this mistake. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Today’s Democrats simply will not address the economy, and it will be too late for them to finally getting around to it by 2010.
.
.
Obama and the Democrats were elected to fix the economy. The first thing they did was lard their special interests, the second was Cap & trade in the House and now the third thing is Health Care/Scare.
.
Whatever else happens, Obama and Congressional Democrats won’t get to seriously addressing the eonomy until November 2009 at the earliest.
.
IOW, when Obama comes up for re-election:
.
Mr. Obama, I know Bill Clinton, and when it comes to the economy, you are no Bill Clinton.
you will find that the obama employs what is called mis-direction against any target
that could be your so-called birth people
but if they all disappeared tomorrow then he would just move on,
maybe bloggers, such as yourself who says things he does
not like. there is a hotline now for reporting bad people?
like flag at whithouse . gov?
the target is not chosen on merit
any target will do so if all the birth people take your advice then
it willjust be someone else
maybe the crazys whomade the joker poster
i fear we are all the targets of the future
You miss the point. The U.S. Constitution has been breached.
——————————————————————————–
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Now the part … or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution … is a grandfather clause for themselves.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitut…stitution.html
Now many think a natural born citizen mean being born in the U.S. This is not the case. When the founding father wrote the Constitution the interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen was well understood …
THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Doc…tel.htm#I-§212
I want to emphasis parents is plural. It is a known fact that Obama father was a British Citizen when he was born so thus he could be born next door to you or present a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii it would be irrelevant. Only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen not both so he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The President being Commander –In– Chief, the founding fathers wanted be the highest standard of Citizenship be applied to insure to the best of their abilities that the President would have full allegiance to the United States.
Now let’s take a look at the 14th amendment section 1
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again they use citizen not Natural Born citizen.
So Thus …
The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:
– “natural born citizen”, but only with regard to eligibility
to hold the office of President
– “citizen” to those born in the United States via the 14th
Amendment
– “citizen” to those naturalized in the United States via
the 14th amendment
Take a look the following …
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen†of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen†– the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen†– Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen†was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.†Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizenâ€, it just says “citizenâ€. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born†= “natural born†argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizenâ€. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen†is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen†requirement for POTUS.
As for Obama being born in Kenya, I did not give it much thought since he is ineligible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. However, the way in which the MSM are going after Orly Taitz, using Saul Alinsky tactics, that she may right. No they are not using it to divert attention. They are in panic mode. Actually, they went ballistic when Orly released the Alleged Obama Kenyan certification of Birth which tells me it’s real. The bottom line is that document is now part of her lawsuits & we will find out, God willing. Finally you missed the point. Of course Obama & the Left polices are so radical that now we see a backlash. However, you cannot play around with the Constution. This short sighted mindset has now opened up a Pandora’s Box. So it’s not the Birthers but those who let the checks & balances fail that brought this on.