Maybe they are just desperate to get anyone to listen to them. I personally think something in rotten in Denmark over the birth certificate…if everything were kosher wouldn’t you just release it to the public and end the debate once and for all? Hey, did I use enough cliches?

if everything were kosher wouldn’t you just release it to the public and end the debate once and for all?
Posted by dwagner
2009-12-01 08:49:57

One would think. And someday obama will mess with the wrong person and that person will reveal what we all have been saying.

My take on the birth certificate is this:

1. The Secretary of State certified they saw the original long form, and that it is in order. Legally, that settles the issue of birthplace, even IF he was really born in Kenya. Besides, his Mom was a US Citizen, and that makes him a citizen by birth ANYWAY, end of story. Just because you’re vacationing in Paris when you go into labor doesn’t disqualify your kid from being President, nor should it.

2. OBVIOUSLY, Obama is hiding SOMETHING that is embarrassing ont he certificate: perhaps his religion is listed as Muslim, perhaps his father is shown as someone other than who we think it is, perhaps something else he’d prefer to keep private for political reason. On that score, the sheer lack of intellectual curiosity & supine position of the Press is astonishing: have we EVER had a President refusing to release even their birth certificiate, for Pete’s Sake? And college transcripts? And Master’s Thesis? And Medical Records? (Well, on that score, yeah, noted brother of cocaine dealer & owner of badly damaged sinuses Bill Clinton, actually).

Methinks all those documents probably indicate:

A. A history of more extensive drug abuse than Obama lets on,
B. The Won was a mediocre student let into elite schools on account of his color,
C. The Won was quite the radical Marxist in his college days (at least).

I could be wrong, of course, but then Obama could prove me wrong quite easily by just releasing some of those items.

3. But in the end, it NO LONGER MATTERS. He’s been sworn in, he’s the President, no one would vote for his removal even if he was born on freaking Mars. It’s time to let the birth certificate thing just GO. It just gives MSNBC ammo.

The current implosion of his Soviet-style so-called “healthcare” scheme, the coming Cap & Trade debacle, the incredible unemployment rate he’s causing thru his overheaded Great Depression rhetoric and threats of titanic taxation and deficits with no possible end except the utter collapse of the dollars… all those things are MUCH more worthy of discussion than this side issue.

According to legalzoom.com (Yeah, I know, but it’s as good as any source):

“…a child born in a foreign country with one U.S. citizen parent is entitled to American citizenship.”

They add:

Although the “citizenship by birth” rules have been complex, the February 2001 Child Citizenship Act (CCA) simplified the process. Now, a child who is under the age of 18, was born outside the U.S., and has at least one U.S. citizen parent automatically acquires U.S. citizenship upon entry into the country as an immigrant. No further paperwork is necessary. The parent may request a Certificate of Citizenship and U.S. Passport for the child if proof of the baby’s American-ness is desired.

Before anyone gets TOO excited, though, remember that Obama was obviously born BEFORE 2001. I’m not sure what the exact rules would have been when he was born. BUT, I seriously think that if a baby, like I said, was born under such circumstances could succesfully challenge the idea it could not run for President one day: effectively, it was born American. Besides, the constitutional intent of the ban was clearly aimed at ADULTS that, by virtue of not growing up in the USA, would not feel a natural affinity with the country.

It has been released, no one wants to believe it.
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-01 10:24:02

It has not been released. If it was you would have provided a link to a copy of it. A state official in Hawaii is the ONLY person to have claimed to have seen the real thing, and oddly enough, thats all that state needs to provide to prove legal citizenship.

Let’s get this out of the way first: the ad is faulty on its premise. US citizenship is not determined by a law made in 1758, nor by British law. Unless Obama was smuggled into Hawaii and the newspaper birth announcement falsified after the fact, he’s a natural-born US citizen. Possible dual-citizenship with Britain is moot unless after the age of 18 he served in the British military or civil service, formally renounced his US citizenship, or formally declared allegiance to the UK…none of which happened.

The birther movement has run its course and should be shut down, even if they did play a part in educating people about citizenship law. Obama should be embarassed about not releasing his BC, and there’s still a story about what’s actually on it, but it’s not an avenue to challenge his legitimacy.

As far as the monkeys, it’s quite a stretch to claim three monkeys clearly labeled “Congress”, “Courts”, and “Media”, as representative of Obama…especially when he’s realistically pictured himself underneath. The whole ad is stupid though.

…if everything were kosher wouldn’t you just release it to the public and end the debate once and for all?

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you here. To date, the issue has been more of an embarassment for those of us opposing the administration than for Mr. Obama. Why would he put to rest an issue that makes his opponents look paranoid?

It has been released, no one wants to believe it.
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-01 10:24:02

No the original long form has not been released, the one that has all the details the certificate of live birth doesn’t. But it would only reveals details about his father, his religion, or his mother that may he may not want known publically. It cannot show anything at this point that disqualifies Odrama from office.

I’m not birther, and at this point could care less, but I will not let lies continue unanswered.

I had the three monkeys with Bush’s face, wearing a Mexican hat. This was during the shamnesty time. I wonder if that is racist?

No, it is not racist. Mexican hats are not a derogatory symbol of Mexicans.

“I think you have to ask, Mr. Teach, how many times in the past have monkey images been used to slur blacks in this country as compared to whites.”

If you assemble all the printed and electronic media in US history, I’d be willing to wager that the monkey imagery produced to slander Bush is more voluminous than all used to slander blacks combined.

Ah, so that somehow makes it ok, then.

If you assemble all the printed and electronic media in US history, I’d be willing to wager that the monkey imagery produced to slander Bush is more voluminous than all used to slander blacks combined.
Posted by Mike_M

Bush is not a Black man.

I didn’t take Biden’s comment as him saying that most blacks were “dirty”. I thought that he meant “clean” as in “no baggage” whereas other black candidates like Jackson and Sharpton have had baggage. But it was racially insensitive nonetheless.

This ad’s main point is of course the three demon-heads you mention, but there is a connotation of racist imagery here. It has happened time and time again when it comes to Obama and his opposition. Do you really believe the people that made the ad didn’t think this would happen? Of course they did.

Moreover, Congress, the media, and the courts have investigated and ruled on this matter again and again. Its a myth that they have ignored this.

Obama has met the Constitutional standard for being natural born. Not some new strict standard. Not some standard pulled out of thin air. The standard according to our Constitution.

Yet another post calling attention to the “birther” arguement by saying we need to get past it?
Im loosing count of these posts. Figured it was covered well enough by John Hawkins when he brought it up a few times saying the same thing.
Always the same arguements “It must be true because a politician told us so” Vs “Umm we dont trust politicians, show us the legal document”
Meantime our esteemed fearless commander in chief who was educated in columbia… has no alumni who remember him… at all.
For someone who was president of the law review to have no one acknowledging he ever attended classes is kind of astounding?
Guess if there is ever any transcripts of his grades that will refresh their memories? Unless he conned his way through life in which case wont the egg be on all our faces?

No the original long form has not been released, the one that has all the details the certificate of live birth doesn’t. But it would only reveals details about his father, his religion, or his mother that may he may not want known publically. It cannot show anything at this point that disqualifies Odrama from office.

I’m not birther, and at this point could care less, but I will not let lies continue unanswered.

Posted by bthewolf
2009-12-01 11:20:35

Wolf,

Which President has released his official long form birth certificate? Did Reagan, Clinton, Bush? How about McCain? Did any of them release the OFFICIAL LONG FORM birth certificate?

How happy would you be if a shirtless Obama beach photo was slapped on the cover of Newsweek in reference to an article about him dithering on Afghanistan? Or how about the file photo of him with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? I suspect you’d see it as an attempt to trivialize him…which is exactly what the goal of using a photo of Palin taken for a running magazine was in a “hard news” (using the term loosely) piece.

Posted by Mike_M
2009-12-01 12:45:48

Palin has no room to complain about anything, the gal cant even get her quotes straight, I mean seriously how to you mistake John Wooden for a Navite American indian chief, ridiculous.

Wolf,

Which President has released his official long form birth certificate? Did Reagan, Clinton, Bush? How about McCain? Did any of them release the OFFICIAL LONG FORM birth certificate?
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-01 12:28:53

They were never asked to, except McCain, as there was never any question about their legal status.

Exactly right. The “See-No-Evil-Hear-No-Evil-Say-No-Evil” monkeys are hardly a new creation. They have a long history of being used as a reference for cover-up. At no point in history have they ever carried racial overtones.

To be perfectly accurate about it, the images of the three monkeys have been found in cultures in Africa, the Middle East and throughout Asia for perhaps as long as 9,000 years. I was able to find a reference on a “three monkeys” collectors website to the images being found on the island of Cyprus dating from at least 9,000 years BCE. But the origins of the image of three monkeys and the attendant teaching of ‘see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” are lost in the mists of time. What can be said about them, however, is that they are an enduring image and an enduring teaching which comes to us from a much earlier time in our history.

And now the leftists want to tell us we can’t use it, ’cause it’s racist. F*ck that. The image and the teaching was here long before the feckless leftists who’re doing their best to Winston Smith our history and language.

To be perfectly accurate about it,
Posted by martinhale
2009-12-01 13:11:05

If you were going to be “perfectly accurate” you would give as much ‘historic and cultural’ weight to the fact that Black people have been pointedly compared to monkeys and chimps in the USA. This is the arena we are discussing.

“If you were going to be “perfectly accurate” you would give as much ‘historic and cultural’ weight to the fact that Black people have been pointedly compared to monkeys and chimps in the USA. This is the arena we are discussing.”

Posted by Realpolitik

Actually the discerning reader would have figured out that Mr. Dalasio and I were both referencing a specific monkey image, namely the three monkeys depicted in the ad in question. In your twisted English, that’s the “arena” we were discussing. You’re now invited to butt the f*ck out of a conversation which didn’t involve you in the first place.

Of course it is, but that’s the beauty of it as I said on my first post. They claim ignorance all-day when they know what they did.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-01 13:50:51

Classic conservative style, what not us, pathetic, their ilk all should have to suffer.

Interesting that you quibble about Biden’s remark, Dvega. Just imagine that McCain had said that. Yup, you and the rest of the left would be pitching a fit, calling it a blatant example of racism. Typical double standard.

I would take the Left’s melodramatic cocnerns over “racism” much more seriously if they had even once felt similar concern over those infamous Condi Rice cartoons.

Can it be that their outrage over perceived racism is selective?

I’ve never worked out how monkeys are racist, I really do not get that one. There’s absolutely no connection between monkeys and racism in my mind or experience.

And birthers are almost as silly and idiotic as truthers. Who the media treats with kid gloves and the left tends to shrug at.

Thanks for admitting the monkey ads are racist.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-01 15:09:20

I fail to see how my post admitted any such thing.

Even if they WERE racist, I failt to see how that would “prove” anything beyond casting the people that made them were idiots.

Niether I nor anyone here made those ads, so you’re really just shadow boxing, guy.

“I’ve never worked out how monkeys are racist, I really do not get that one.”

It goes something like this:

1. Evolution theorizes that all humans are descendants of a branch of monkeys.

2. Somebody engages a liberal in an intellectual argument with a monkey involved somewhere.

3. Monkeys are racist and so are you, because anybody winning an argument with a liberal is a racist, along with anything ancillary to the argument.

Vega while it wouldn’t surprise me this was done just to drum up controversy I doubt it. Anyone silly enough to spend money on a big time ad about the birth certificate issue probably isn’t subtle enough to come up with something they figured the media would leap all over.

The three monkeys denying reality is a pretty classic and very well-known and commonly used image. I think that’s probably all that went through their minds.

And maybe they’re like me because unlike the left, apparently, as Dr Feelgood notes: I don’t see blacks when I see monkeys, or vice versa.

Maybe the point has already been made, but why when leftists see monkeys do they think and say “black people”?
Posted by Dr_Feelgood
2009-12-01 16:09:19

http://tinyurl.com/yhoklfq

“Historical racist images and books dehumanizing African Americans in the 19th and early 20th century relied heavily on the Negro-ape metaphor, which was used to stereotype Blacks as lazy, dim and aggressive. Such dehumanization and animal imagery have been used for centuries to justify violence against many oppressed groups. The images have disappeared from popular culture and from most people’s memory. However, after completing six studies, we found strong evidence that Black-ape linkages still influence people subconsciously and impact their judgment particularly in the case of African American suspects and defendants,” said Goff.

Its all about context.

I agree. And in the context of this ad, the three chimpanzees are clearly not associated with Obama and/or black people in any way, since they are explicitly labeled “Congress”, “courts”, and “media”.

Of course, since you immediately associate black people with lower primates, I can understand why you might reach a different conclusion.