This is just sad..

Well.

The email and article is just sad. It’s a SPAM email that is referencing a fake media source. No credence to a chain SPAM email. It’s FAKE, but you knew that!

Click bait, just like the SPAM email is intended to get your eyes on it.

Article must be like “fishing with a bobber”. You know, where we look to see what fish..I mean readers will make that bobber begin to dance or submerge into the water with a view, read or bite.

Besides me, let’s see who else chomped on the hook.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi = The Douche Trifecta

Well put, Razor.

One of my sisters sent this to me a few weeks ago, asking what I made of it. It had already passed through hundreds of hands, probably millions, since it started circulating in April. I found this on snopes.com about it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

Here’s a more recent fabrication: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp

These people simply will not stop with the lies.

I am sure that many people, like myself, get around 50 bogus emails every day. Why does this one deserve prominent coverage? Take one guess? Yes, because it can be used to smear conservatives. I haven’t met a single person on the right who is worried about Obama’s birth certificate. But I do meet people everyday scared about his trillion dollar spending spree. The Left knows it can’t defend this irresponsible squandering of trillions of dollars borrowed from the Chinese, so it tries to change the subject and pretend that the criticisms of Obama are related to his birth certificate, his skin color, etc.

Get real. The Democrats will get hammered in the coming November election, and it won’t have anything to do with the President’s birth certificate.

felixw:
This was to smear conservatives? Why do conservatives whine about every single thing under the sun and have such a persecution complex? Oh WOE IS YOU?

So the Dems will lose in November. Big whoopie do, because it has never happened like that in history, has it? Can’t you just be happy and look forward to it instead of complaining?

So you’re saying that no one should ever complain about anything? Sounds good to me.

Conservatives post lies and smears daily it is all they have.

As for spam emails. Yahoo is garbage for beginners as is spy-prone AOL, for those who are tech challenged.

Move to Google’s gmail and you’ll rarely, I mean RARELY see a spam email.

This isn’t even a new story. Snopes debunked this long ago. It just shows the GOP can’t think of anything new to do, which is why they have no suggestions except to try to block things from progressing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

This pitiful attack on Obama doesn’t matter, because the Big Two (parties) are both in the pocket of the Federal Reserve getting paid to produce *the illusion* of democracy. The parties may have some surface differences, but trust me it’s all superficial. When it comes down to it, both are continuing to support the illegal (unconstitutional) occupation of Iraq, war in Afghanistan, now in Yemen thanks to some stupid 23 year old being patsied into lighting his own leg on fire… anyone with any common sense knows that explosives have to be contained within something in order to cause an explosion, otherwise they’re just flammable. Having a pouch of powder in your pants is not an explosive and never could have brought a passenger plane down.

BUT it was enough for Congress to table the Patriot Act renewal which means now it lasts indefinitely, instead of illegal-search-without-a-warrant expiring at midnight. Read
http://www.legitgov.org/northwest_bomb_plot_oddities.html

phillydrifter says:
January 2, 2010 at 7:58 pm

Ooooh… Conspiracy theories. Gotta fight against the “new world order,” right?

Quick question… is Michael Jackson still alive? I figure that’s something CLG talks about too…

Sadly, there are some conservatives that do believe the birther bullcrap, and are so far-right that they also believe Snopes is a left-wing site, which probably partly explains why these stupid chain letters just won’t die. But – I’m sure there are also democrats acting like extreme right-wingers, perpetuating these wild ideas in order to smear and get a huge “LULZ!” at any right-winger who actually buys this schlock. The non-left really do need to stop with the chain letters, now…Because they’re shooting themselves in the foot every time they believe and pass on these hoaxes.

I’mNotBlue: Do you have anything significant to add or are you just flinging poo like the monkey you are?

it’s not a f*cking conspiracy. The GOP impeached Clinton over a blowjob. The Dems not only allow Bush to declare an illegal war, but once they take majority of Congress they fail to impeach him.

Are you REALLY that stupid?

phillydrifter says:
January 2, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Hehehe… monkey.

Give me something serious to talk about, not lunatic ramblings and we’ll see.

phillydrifter says:
January 2, 2010 at 9:43 pm

it’s not a f*cking conspiracy.

That website you linked to seem to think so.

The GOP impeached Clinton over a blowjob.

Actually, they impeached him because he lied under oath. There’s a difference, you know. Perjury… blow job… perjury… blow job… yeah, not quite the same.

The Dems not only allow Bush to declare an illegal war,

Illegal? As in what, exactly? What law was broken here to make it “illegal?” And by what authority?

…but once they take majority of Congress they fail to impeach him.

Yeah, the problem with impeaching someone, is you need an actual crime first… not a “strong dislike.” I know I know… “illegal war” based upon non-laws… but here in the real world, non-laws don’t really apply.

Perhaps it’s all part of the “New World Order.” HA!

happy New Year guys

There are two completely separate issues with regard to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to the presidency. The first issue is reflected in the bogus news story which you cite here. The news story is completely false and it’s based upon a conspiracy theory that somewhere there exists a document that will show that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. This argument is as salacious and tempting as conspiracy theories go, but its perpetuation in the media serves Mr. Obama well. Why? Because it distracts thinking folks from the other issue with regard to eligibility: when Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii his status was governed by the British Nationality Act (according to fightthesmears.com).

As much as they decry the ludicrous nature of it, Mr. Obama’s defenders want you only to see the wacko Kenyan birth certificate conspiracy, and to forget about the other, which is an unsettled question of constitutional law.

Mr. Obama was born British and Kenyan when he was born in Honolulu because his father was a British subject and a Kenyan citizen. Mr. Obama is not a US citizen by virtue of the nature of his birth, but rather by statutes. The framers of the Constitution intended to prevent a person whose status was governed by a foreign sovereign from becoming President of the United States. This was the essence of the natural born citizen requirement. Why else would they provide an exemption from this requirement for those who were merely citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution regardless of place of birth. If natural born citizen is merely jus soli, and if the presidency was available to those who were merely “born here”, then why does the exemption from the natural born citizen requirement not mention place of birth? Under the Constitution, an Irish born citizen of New Jersey at the time of the adoption of the Constitution would have been eligible to the presidency (see William Paterson as an example). (George Washington and Barack Obama have the same flaw when it comes to natural born citizen: both were born British. GW is the only one of the two who is exempt from the natural born citizen requirement.)

So, the wackos continue to advance the crazy theory that somewhere there is a document that indicates that Mr. Obama was born elsewhere, and Mr. Obama’s defenders are all too willing to continue to discuss this issue, too. Perhaps some day, maybe long from now, objective thinkers will be able to separate the issues and examine his being born British, and the intention of natural born citizen, without tainting it with the wacko Kenyan birth certificate conspiracy theory.

DCBikerJohn:
President Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr, was a Kenyan native. Kenya was still a British colony and part of the UK’s diminishing empire by the time Barack Jnr was born. Obama Sr was therefore a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1948, which also governed the citizenship status of his offspring.

Barack Jr was born on August 4th 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, and as such was both a US citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) because he was born to a father who was a UKC subject.

However, the boy who became president lost his British citizenship when Kenya formally gained its independence from Britain on December 11 1963.

He had dual citizenship of Kenya and the US until the age of 23, when Kenya’s constitution stipulates Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan nationality.

Unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, they are no longer seen as citizens of Kenya.

As Obama did neither of these things, his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1984, leaving him in possession of full US citizenship.

Mr. Byerly: The US Constitution is interested only in his circumstances at birth. Whether or not he is a natural born citizen of the United States is unchanged by events subsequent to his birth. As you correctly point out, his status at birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain.

The US citizenship which Mr. Obama acquired upon his birth in Hawaii is due solely to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. A natural born citizen of the United States does not require the 14th Amendment to claim US citizenship because he/she is born in the country of parents who are its citizens. A natural born citizen is naturally a citizen because at birth no other jurisdiction applies.

You guys, anyone born in the US is a “natural-born citizen.” That’s because we have what’s called birthright citizenship (a concept some far-right folks are opposed to, but most normal people think is a key to this country’s great diversity and strength). Anyone born in US territory is an American citizen and eligible to be president (once they hit the other criterion, 35 years of age). That even includes John McCain, who was born in Panama, then under US control.

Katekilla, what is the intent of the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a natural born citizen?

Oddly enough, this post doesn’t consider the possibility that the email is a “false flag operation”, sent by a BHO supporter in an attempt to discredit his opponents.

For those who’d like to learn the facts of this matter, I’ve got over 100 posts about this issue.

Despite issuing numerous challenges, I have yet to find even one person who can find anything false, misleading, or illogical in any of my coverage.

Readers of this site are urged to try to find even one single thing I’ve gotten wrong in any of my coverage. And, the reader is urged to analyze any replies: as in all past cases, those replies will simply be ad homs from people who didn’t even bother to try to understand my angle on this story (or who aren’t capable of understanding it).

DCBikerJohn says:
January 3, 2010 at 7:28 am

There are two completely separate issues with regard to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to the presidency.

No there is not John. He was born of his mother who was an American citizen on American soil. He is a native born citizen. Period. End of discussion. That’s the way its been for the whole of our history.

The US citizenship which Mr. Obama acquired upon his birth in Hawaii is due solely to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. A natural born citizen of the United States does not require the 14th Amendment to claim US citizenship because he/she is born in the country of parents who are its citizens. A natural born citizen is naturally a citizen because at birth no other jurisdiction applies.

Really, DCBikerJohn? Can you cite law to support your assertions? You’re in effect arguing that citizenship, or at least the “natural-born” variety thereof, accrues based on parentage rather than location of birth. (i.e., you’re arguing that jus sanguinis trumps jus soli.) Obama was born in a U.S. state, so he is therefore a natural-born citizen. My justification for the above is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (which purpose I read to exclude naturalized citizens from eligibility to certain high offices), and 8 U.S.C. 1401, which spells out who exactly is a citizen at birth. (§1405 goes further and spells out the citizenship status of those born in Hawaii.) There’s also subsequent case law, including the Slaughterhouse Cases. Whether or not Obama had other citizenship at birth does not imperil his U.S. citizenship or natural-born citizen status.

I fail to understand your distinction involving the Fourteenth Amendment. The effect of excluding it from operating in this circumstance — which is bizarre — would be to leave the Dred Scott decision in place, which would bar the descendants of slaves from citizenship or eligibility to office. It’s moot with respect to Obama, as he’s not a descendant of a slave, but are you seriously arguing that descendants of slaves — most black Americans — are ineligible for the Presidency?

David has it right, except that it doesn’t even matter that his mother was a citizen. Born on American soil = US citizen. Period, full stop. “Natural born” means that the US president needs to be a citizen by virtue of being born here, as opposed to being a US citizen by other means (ie, naturalization), which is why Arnold Schwarzeneggar, though a US citizen, can never be president.

Aren’t the people promulgating the ‘Birther’ conspiracy theory from the grassy knoll, the same ones who were trying to find a way to circumvent or change the Constitution and its requirement that the POTUS be American-born, so as to advance Arnold Schwarzenegger’s claim to the top job eventually?

Ten points to the astute observer who can identify one difference between the US citizen-by-birth Obama, whose legitimacy is doubted by so many conservatives (not a tiny fringe — it’s nearly half the registered Republicans in some Southern states), and naturalized citizen Schwarzeneggar!

Let’s see, we have those on the far right that for some reason believe something is going to fall out of the sky and prove Obama was born in Kenya. (Quinn & Rose)

Then there are those on the far left that don’t want this story to die, because they believe it will help them somehow secure victory in the future. (David Schuster)

As the world turns.

DCBikerJohn-
The reason for the exemption is that without it, none of the Founders– or in fact anyone BORN before the ratification of the Constitution– would have been elibible for the Presidency- because they were born under the control of the British sovereign, and were considered British citizens. The reason it doesn’t mention place of birth is that the Founders were all born on what WOULD be considered American soil, but was BRITISH soil at the time of their birth.
Also, you fail to mention the President’s mother- as though HER (natural-born, even) citizenship did not automatically transfer to her natural-born son- why is that?

Hillbilly Skeleton wrote:

Aren’t the people promulgating the ‘Birther’ conspiracy theory from the grassy knoll, the same ones who were trying to find a way to circumvent or change the Constitution and its requirement that the POTUS be American-born, so as to advance Arnold Schwarzenegger’s claim to the top job eventually?

Not a chance. Nobody who thinks there is a likelihood the birther suits will make progress is a fan of Schwarzenegger, who campaigned as a Milton Friedman fiscal conservative and has governed like Gray Davis, the liberal Democrat who was recalled as R-Nold was elected. The deficits that he’s run up in order to remain politically viable before his re-election campaign has devastated the Golden State probably worse than Davis would have!

Schwarzenkennedy is a prime example of why there is a conservative revolt within the GOP: “Moderates” like Arnold hang on to their supposed red-meat principles until they face their first strong challenge from the left and the media (six of one, half-dozen of the other). Then they fold like a house of cards and talk about “pragmatism” and “getting beyond politics,” always pressuring key Republicans to cave in (hello, Abel Maldonado!)

Hey, Coscarelli: I eagerly await the breathless article about the email tax proposed by Congressman Tony Schnell.

Sweet! Do we get to debunk the “This chain has been going since 1888″ email next?

See the complete Birther Scorecard here: http://tiny.cc/BirtherScore . They have quite the track record!