Comments on: Gibbs on Birthers’ Theories: “You Couldn’t Sell This Script in Hollywood”

By: EdwardCliffj

EdwardCliffj — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:38:08 +0000

Hey all members – I am a brand-new participant on this here forum therefore I reckon I would do best to say a few things about myself. Umm, I’m 28 years of age, male, and I enjoy reading politics in my college. I for sure anticipate eagerly chatting with all you people… Bye for now

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:17:31 +0000

How is it that Robert Gibbs hasn’t been told, or hasn’t cared to remember that the guy from World Net Daily who asks him the birth certificate questions does not have “LISTENERS”?
Mr. Gibbs must think that World Net Daily is a radio station.
Does he know the difference between “talk radio” and conservative web sites? It appears that he doesn’t.

By: smrstrauss

smrstrauss — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:01:05 +0000

Re: “Do some research, educate yourselves to what Natural Born meant back in 1787 when the Founding Fathers added it as a requirement for the office of POTUS. Added it when they themselves were not eligible to be President under their new requirement, Natural Born. They had to add “unless you are an US citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, in order for the first 10 Presidents to hold office being none of them were Natural Born American Citizens.”
It is YOU who should do the research as to what the law was at the time of the Constitution.
Your reference to the first 10 presidents not being Natural Born Citizens is simply wrong. The laws in the US colonies were that anyone who was born into a colony became at the moment of birth BOTH a citizen of the colony and a subject of Britain.
The Declaration of Independence took the subject part away, but it did not take the citizen part away.
And all of them were Natural Born citizens of the colonies at the time. Natural Born simply meant that they were born in the colony regardless of the number of parents.
So, why did they add the part that allowed people who were born before the Constitution to still become president even though they were not Natural Born? Because they wanted to allow at least one very important person who was NOT born in a US colony to become president–Alexander Hamilton (He was born in another British colony, the island of Nevis, but that did not count as one of the 13 of course.) So that is why they inserted the clause. They did not worry about themselves, they all were Natural Born Citizens.
As to the allegation that to be a Natural Born Citizen you must have two US parents at the moment of birth. That is simply not true. The law at the time of the writing of the Constitution was that Natural Born simply meant born in a colony regardless of the number of parents who were citizens.
And that is why such prominent Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

By: Constitutionalist

Constitutionalist — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:49:46 +0000

The answer is very, very, very simple.
My six year daughter understands it.
This is not a difficult concept.
Release the damn birth certificate and move on.
What’s the problem?

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:19:51 +0000

RE: WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL
From what I have read, the laws at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth were less clear with regard to citizenship. Yes, we have the 14th Amendment, but if that was passed to apply to other historical circumstances.
Nevertheless, if they were to analyze “birther” arguments, in their effort to put the issue to rest, then they would address ALL salient points with regard to Barack Obama, Sr.’s citizenship and the “wild rumors” in that regard.
They don’t. Which tells me that they are really appealing to the political crowd, saying in effect that this could really hurt us Republicans.
They miscalculate because this is not merely a political debate. This is not Republs and Dems having an ideological arguments.
This is a legal argument. Politics seems to be driving the decisions of the ruling class, but there are plenty of us out here in America who could care less about the two wings of the political party scoring points against each other.
Before there were political parties, there was a nation. To the nation is where my loyalties lie.

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:08:43 +0000

“a liar”

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:05:47 +0000

Your comments about video are interesting. Last night on O’Reilly’s “talking points” he showed a montage of the town hall meetings. Then commented that insults and personal attacks should not be used.
Then I watched his montage again – aside from the man calling his representative a lier, the rest of the “attacks” were legitimate questions or comments about HEALTH CARE.
With regard to the “birthers” debate – it must be part of the “bell curve” that a certain portion of the population is highly susceptible to being swayed by propaganda. Both camps are out in full force.
It is the rest of us in the middle who will decide these debates. At least that is what I hope.

By: L.N. Smithee

L.N. Smithee — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:48:31 +0000

Regarding comparisons of “birthers” with “Birchers” — The Obamanoids are dishonestly hiding behind “birthers” to avoid talking about the devils in the details of the Dem healthcare bill.
In that laughable “GOP Mob” ad from the DNC, they didn’t use that AWESOME video footage of Sebelius and Specter standing in stunned silence as they are taken down several pegs by a taxpayer shouting that they couldn’t be trusted with one-seventh of the economy if they couldn’t run Cash for Clunkers. No, instead, the Dems used that woman holding up her birth certificate and demanding to know of a GOP congressman why he hadn’t taken up the cause.
Come to think of it, that sort of screws up the narrative of that spot — the Dems want to defend GOP legislators against its own “mob”? That’s noble of them!

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:45:52 +0000

L.N.Smithee
You’re the exact type of person that I was talking about. Your arguments are measured, clear, logical, and entirely reasonable.
You don’t seem to be a racist, right wingnut, conspiracy kook. Clearly, you are none of those things.
I’ve said this type of thing in several comments: if I were accused in a court of law, and innocent. I know what type of person I would want on the jury.
I would be happy to have you there.
Would I want Robert Gibbs there? No way!

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:35:42 +0000

It has been interesting to follow posts and comments over the past 4-6 weeks. “Birthers” seem to be distilling their arguments. Those arguments are clearly more analytical and reasoned than those presented by Obama’s defenders. The words from the Wall Street Journal do the same thing, but in Mr. Obama’s defense.
Is the WSJ editorial written in its entirety below?
It is an interesting analysis, but they make some faulty analogies: Bush and Clinton’s parents were clearly US citizens who were not traveling to foreign countries during their childhoods or at the time of their births. If you want to make an analogy, talk about John McCain, not George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Second, their comparison to the John Birch Society may be valid, but WSJ also misses the point in that the essence of this argument is not one of a dark-cloaked conspiracy. That is not necessary.
When we apply for school or a driver’s license or even a passport, we are required to clear HURDLES. We clear them with the documents most readily and most frequently available to us. It’s possible to meet legal requirements consistently for many less important positions in our nation.
However, to become the president of our country, there is a bigger HURDLE to jump over, i.e. you must pass the “natural born citizen test.”
The highest office should require the most stringent compliance.
Mr. Obama must understand that because he was a professor of Constitutional law. The fact that he chooses to ignore this sacred distinction, shows that he does not share the respect and reverence for the Constitution that millions of his fellow citizens do.
What a shame.