No, I’m sure a lot of rumors about Obama got started and were circulated during the primary season when no one cared what the Pubbies thought about the democratic candidates, other than they didn’t like them. My only question concerns if real Hilary supporters joined in on the birther stuff–my memory tells me that they did. If so, I’d think some of them (now Obama defenders) have confessed to yanking his chain maliciously because that’s just what one does in a political campaign.
I’ve never seen nor owned my “long form” birth certificate. Am I unusual in this regard?
I didn’t even now there were multiple kinds until this CT cropped up…
No, you’re not. My mother provided me with a social security card, but no birth certificate, so after I turned 18, I went downtown with my ss card, my church records, and my high school diploma (I don’t know if I needed all that, but I brought it), and ordered a new one. They gave me a short form, with even less information on it than found on Obama’s short form (no race of parents listed).
What was my mother hiding? Was I born in Kenya? Was my father Malcolm X? Am I Muslim? I may never know.
His mother was too young at the time of his birth to make him an automatic US citizen if he was born outside the United States.
In the case where a US citizen mother is married to a non-citizen father, for births between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child. This requirement is designed to prevent colonies of US citizens whose families have not set foot in the US for generations from developing in foreign countries.
President Obama’s mother was born November 29, 1942. President Obama was born August 4, 1961. It was mathematically impossible for his mother to have lived in the United States or its outlying possessions for five years after the age of fourteen at that point.
One can understand. For a man who seems so eager to reach compromises with his opposition and consistently harping on about bipartisanship, he has done nothing but camp on his position of being black. Couldn’t he have tried presidenting in whiteface ? Worn socks+sandals, or at least a battered and greasy trucker hat ? Has he ever even danced very awkwardly and off-beat ? No. No he hasn’t.
At this point he’s being black on purpose.
The background. Not that the origin matters anymore; it has a life of its own. And it ain’t goin’ away.
If he had been born outside the US, which he was not, he would have been grandfathered in by the change of the law similar to the affect that the change in the law on the citizenship of those born in outlying US posessions had on the natural born citizenship of John McCain.
As long as we’re living in fantasy land, y’know.
Thanks for the link, Elvis. It seems to show how the birther movement can be traced to genuine Hillary-supporters, not Republicans-in-PUMA-clothing. I wonder if people like Berg are still birthers, or whether they’ve denounced birtherism since their gal is serving as Secretary of State to the allegedly fraudulent candidate for President.
You’re referring to a group small enough to fit in a booth in McDonald’s. Birtherism almost immediately became a Republican wingnut operation, which comprises virtually all of its membership.
IOW it’s time for *you *to let that Hillary-hate shit go, too, friend.
You are confusing two different issues.
There was never any question that McCain was a US Citizen. The question surrounding McCain was whether he was a natural born citizen.
The change in the law that you are referring to was made in 1937. It granted citizenship to children of US parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904. The law specifically said that it was retroactive to 1904. McCain was born in 1936. So for one year he was possibly not a US Citizen according to the law in effect at that time. The question was whether the retroactive nature of the law also retroactively made him a natural born citizen. In any case, the specific law 8 U.S.C. § 1403 applied to children born in the Canal Zone and Panama, not to all outlying US Territories.
The (bogus) question raised concerning Obama was whether he was a citizen at all, not whether he was natural born. It is true that the current version of § 1401 reduced the residency requirement for parents. But, unlike § 1403, there is no retroactivity clause. The more recent changes did not effect the law in 1961 which required the citizen parent to have lived in the United States for at least five years after their fourteenth birthday.
But if you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
I hesitate to add this, but perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the term “grandfathered”? To say he was “grandfathered in” would mean that he was exempt from the new law and that the old law continued to apply.
Yes, you’re quite correct, I misused the term.
Fessed up to what? The correct belief that until now, President Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate had hot been released? What I want to know is: have any anti-birthers fessed up yet? Have any of those who insisted all along that the Certification of Live Birth released by the Obama campaign in 2008 was his real birth certificate, that there was no such thing as a “long-form” birth certificate, that the very concept was meaningless and nonexistent and concocted by lunatic conspiracy theorists, admitted that they were wrong? Not that I’ve seen.
I swear, there must be something in the water.
I’d call myself a “hopeful birther”. I knew that he most likely was born in Hawaii, but still hoped that he wasn’t and he’d be kicked to curb, more of a disgrace than he already is.
That being said, I am rather amused by how easily the anti-birther Obama supporters so easily dismissed the whole birther issue, when not even taking the time to find out what the actual arguments were.
Also, I disagree with labeling the birther movement a “fringe theory”. The most recent poll before he released the long form showed that only 38% of Americans said he was definitely born in America. That means 62% of Americans weren’t sure where he was born. That’s not fringe. That’s not just right-wingers.
Trump unable to produce certificate!
ETA: Apparently Obama’s actions didn’t totally help things.
[
](http://www.theonion.com/articles/afterbirthers-demand-to-see-obamas-placenta,6866/)
He wasn’t “most likely” born in Hawaii. There has never been any rational doubt about the issue.
There is no argument. There never has been any argument. The man was absolutely and certainly born in Hawaii. Again, there has never been any rational doubt about the issue.
And there are plenty of people, like me, who don’t support Obama yet are not buying into the fringe lunacy that is birtherdom.
Oh, it’s fringe, alright.
Does a mechanism even exist to remove Obama from office under such circumstances? I could picture him being ineligible to run in 2012.
Ten seconds into hearing the argument was all I needed to forever dismiss it. The arguments aren’t a fraction as interesting or challenging as you imply.
In order to accept the birther premise, after it was known he had already shown his birth certificate 3 years ago, you would have to be anti Obama, A Republican without principles, bigoted, or stupid.
The new one simply showed that the one he gave 3 years ago was valid and showed exactly what he said it did. It did not give any new knowledge that was needed to make a rational decision. It did not give anything new.
There was no reason for him to go through all that trouble. The birthers were wrong from day one.
Of course. Impeachment.
“Impeachment – it’s not just for b—w j-bs!”
On what grounds?