The Obama-is-not-a-Citizen Lie

Over the coming weeks and months, we will have an opportunity to decide what kind of opposition we will be. Count me firmly in the camp against the kind that pulls this kind of crap:

The Supreme Court Monday rejected one case contending that Obama is not a "natural born citizen," as the president is required to be under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The case, referred to the court by Justice Clarence Thomas after Justice David Souter had rejected it, argued that because Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, at the time a British colony, the president-elect was born with dual citizenship.

Another case, filed by Attorney Phillip J. Berg, effectively contends that Obama has outright lied about having been born on American soil. The high court has yet to rule on that argument.

Obama's mother was American, so he is a natural-born citizen -- period. At least according to every mainstream interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause. And a more restrictionist interpretation (limiting it only to those born on American soil) would have disqualifed John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone), Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona before it became a state), and George Romney (born in Mexico City) from the presidency. Full disclosure: I speak as someone who falls in this latter category -- I also think the Constitution should be amended to allow for immigrants who have been here for at least 25 years to run for President.

The Obama citizenship smear hasn't gained traction in mainstream conservative circles, but this is exactly the kind of stunt the left will use to tar all conservatives and silence legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies. We need to be vociferously calling out people who traffic in this nonsense.

Scandal stories didn't get much traction during the campaign, so if we are smart, I am hopeful we won't see a repeat of the '90s opposition to Clinton, which was primarily scandal driven, and tarnished the Republican brand so that only Bush's big-spending conservatism could save it. Which is got us in the pickle we are in today.

Willingness to move this sort of the story will be a major dividing line between the last right and the next right.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Thank you. What does it say about Justice Thomas

that he encouraged this nonsense.

that he's a git.

I, as a freedom loving liberal, would take ten Scalias on the court rather than one Thomas.

Thomas is a lilly-livered coward who didn't deserve to take one step closer to Brandeis and all of our fine justices of the past.

I agree

Staying out of the gutter makes for a more credible opposition. There is plenty to work with on legit issues.

I'm not sure Thomas needs to

I'm not sure Thomas needs to worry about "credible opposition." He's already viewed by most of the legal intelligentsia as a pygmy (unfairly so, in my view). At that point, why not shake things up a bit? He's not going to make any friends anyway.

And while I share your admiration of Scalia, RisingTide, I do have to ask in what universe a man who takes a case as universally unpopular as the one we are discussing and actually puts his name to introducing it could ever be called a "coward." Wanting in judgment, perhaps, but "coward"? There you lose me.

laugh it up lady.

;-) it would appear my rhetoric has outstripped my argument.

As I'm a man...

And your injunction was addressed to a woman, I will refrain from laughing at your expense.

feel free to laugh anyhow

I sure as hell did!

Justice Thomas did NOT support this case

 Each person obviously is entitled to his or her opinion of Justice Thomas's performance on the Court.  However, the comments here assume that Justice Thomas supported the case challenging President-Elect Obama's citizenship.  Simply put, he did not.

Here's what did happen.  The petitioner (Donofrio) filed an emergency motion asking the Supreme Court to stay the meeting of the Electors on December 15 pending some kind of resolution of Donofrio's claims that Obama is not a citizen.  Emergency motions generally are referred to the Supreme Court Justice assigned to the circuit in which the case originally was brought.  Because Donofrio had filed his lawsuit in New Jersey, his motion was referred to David Souter, the Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit (which includes New Jersey).  Justice Souter opted to deny the stay motion without referring the matter to the Court.  When a single Justice unilaterally denies a motion like this, the Supreme Court's rules permit a petitioner to resubmit the motion to another Justice.  Under this rule, Donofrio submitted the motion to Justice Thomas.  Justice Thomas could have denied the motion unilaterally (as had Justice Souter).  Instead, he referred it to the full Court.  This is a very common practice and does not mean that the referring Justice supports the motion.  Indeed, sometimes it is done to permit the full Court to put its stamp of approval on a denial of the motion.  That may well have been the rationale here.  In any event, at its conference last Friday, the full Court unanimously denied the motion for a stay.  See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf at p, 1.  

In short, Justice Thomas did not support a stay.  He voted against it.  

wtf? kos ran pieces saying that this was a

once in ten years sort of deal. (and they were quoting from legal scholars)

no it ain't saying that he likes the petition. but it is saying that he graced it with more attention than people generally do when they're being tossed something that someone else already turned down.

Just Look At The Record

 The referral to the full Court may not be common, but a case relating to the eligibility of the president-elect to serve is a big deal.  And by referring the matter to the full Court, he gave all nine justices together a chance to say "no" with one voice, making a much stronger statement than any one justice could make alone.

Perhaps the people at Kos were concerned that Justice Thomas would try to push this case.  Now that the ruling is out, we know that the opposite is true.

I'm sure they were ;-)

but purely from a propaganda point of view, letting it drop after Souter had said no, would have less air wasted on it, on all sides.

For some things, you give them attention and they suck up everything in the room.

Again, this is just my opinion.

kos?!?! LoL, there's your problem right there

Referring it to the full court doesnt mean squat, except maybe a consideration of a live issue at stake and/or a desire to let the full court take a position.

Even if you put on your full-bore tinfoil hat and think Thomas wanted it heard, consider this possibility: That Clarence Thomas, as a fellow African American, might be more than happy to make clear that Obama is a full-bore American citizen and clear the air.

oh, don't worry, I've considered that possibility

I just don't find it terribly credible.

Not that I know the man, so I'll reserve judgement, unless he decides to explain himself, which he probably won't.

he probably just wanted to put it to sleep

He figured that if the Supreme Court didn't take it up - people would keep throwing it out there.

It doesn't take too much time for the court to shoot it down - and then it's done.

Sure, some of the tinfoil hat crowd will still believe it - but the vast majority of people will consider the case closed.

Also the Challenge of the Internet

Agreed; but also think it will be the challenge of the internet to evolve past being a rumor machine.  Certainly, some evolution is evident, but it's still a medium ripe for rumor and conspiracy theories.

Agreed

The fringe of the GOP accused Clinton of just about everything from rape to murder.  It made it very difficult for the mainstream of society to take us seriously.

That said, that sort of nuttiness coming out of the blogs from DailyKos to Matt Stoller hasn't stopped the Democrats from taking them seriously.

We simply need to be willing to shout down the lunatic wing of our own party when they rear their ugly head.  You have done a good job doing exactly that.

Soren hasn't.

voter intimidation from an Obama observer? Please, people.

Yes, he was in uniform. Uniforms are good for crowd control (not that I suspect he was doing any of that).

 

If the Republicans had thrown a TENTH of what they threw at Clinton at BUSH, I figure we might have just uncovered some pretty serious corruption.

Kos and folks get taken seriously because they don't tell lies (yes, some of the commenters are a bit crazy. but investigative reporting is the reporter with a muckrake.), and they've got a lot of influence.

Rush and folks get taken seriously, even when they're lying or blatantly misleading, just because they've got a lot of followers.

Politicians know influence.

leftist liars and the lie that they dont lie

Kos and folks get taken seriously because they don't tell lies

That's a laughable lie itself. Two words. Trig Palin.

And a thousand more smears from the dkos sewer.

maybe I'll write the book "leftist liars and the lie that they dont lie".

 

as I said, investigative reporting...

you do get some things that are actively sensationalized.

As for me, I think Palin's decision on her daughter's marriage is far more questionable. But nobody in politics is going to run on that.

Daily KOS is a broken clock...

...and while we all know that even a broken clock will be right twice a day, we also know that the rest of the day, it's completely wrong. 

The amusing part about The Daily KOS community is how much tender loving care, attention, nurturing and OCD-style interaction they give to information simply because it's their brand of information, and not because it's even remotely credible. And yes, when our team goes down that road we should be re-routed back to reality immediately.  Of course being re-routed back to reality is not always easy when perception is reality, but that's a philosophical discussion for another time.

Back to the topic at hand.  My favorite analysis of this topic is from David Horowitz, who's my favorite Leftist-turned-Conservative.  David Horowitz is what happens when an SDS member finally grows up.  I think his opinion piece at Townhall nicely supports Patrick's points and then some:  Obama Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives Need to Shut Up about the Birth Certificate.

sensationalized ....

The normal English word for what the Kos kiddies did is smear, or slander.

Sensationalizing is overplaying a truth. They spread and ugly and dispicable lie.

"I think Palin's decision on her daughter's marriage is far more questionable."

I understand, you dont want Bristol Palin "punished with a baby" and prefer the abort and forget route.

duplicate post, deleting

 

)

Obama is not a citizen? What

Obama is not a citizen? What does it mean? Mike from jamorama software

answer

Mike, Barack Obama is not a  "natural born" citizen. Regards, Irina from dating blog

then you don't understand at all.

I object to putting rapists in positions of authority, something that happens with distressing frequency in extremist religions due to a sort of natural selection.

I do not believe in forcing a child to marry a baby's father, merely because it will further her mother's political career or religious views. If we did that all the time, we WOULD have brothers marrying sisters (and no, this is not a slippery slope argument. it does happen, if somewhat rarely).

Do you really believe that they committed libel? If so, why do you think she didn't sue?

Do bear in mind that opinion does not count as libel nor slander, and also the concept of qualified priviledge (not certain how much freedom of speech you'll give to the blogger as journalist concept, but they seem to do a better job than the news media)

additionally, as I'd make the point, the statements count as truth for the meaning of the law, as they were statements that someone might reasonably hold the idea that they were true, and were not published with malicious intent, but rather with a good faith effort that believed they were true.

Couldnt Agree more

I mean really?!?!?  If this is the argument people are making then we are SOL for a long long time.  Get over it.

Lets bring legitimate arguments to the table about why he should not be president in 2012 not this type of garbage.  It sounds like the "I am smarter than george bush" argument the left used in '04 and we all know how well that worked out for them. 

Horowitz slammed this today on NRO.

And David isn't exactly afraid of courting controversy. For all that he's pretty extreme sometimes, Horowitz has a pretty good nose for when people are going off the reservation.

With regard to Marcos Malitzas, the man is an unbalanced political hack who deserves to have very unpleasant things happen to him (full disclosure, I work for a defense contractor and have some buddies who worked contracts in Iraq, so I have a personal problem with somebody saying contractors in Iraq essentially deserve to die, as Malitzas did in 2005). He doesn't do investigative journalism, muck-raking or anything of the sort. Yes, he is a hellishly effective fund-raiser and recruiter, but let's not legitimize the views of people who support the killing of Americans doing their jobs in a war zone shall we? This use to be beyond the pale for the pre-McGovern Democrats, from what I've read about them.

Kos was probably not talking about your friend

unless your friend is an ex-military man currently being DRAMATICALLY overpaid by contractors to do what you would THINK would be the military's job, but which our own state department does not consider them qualified for.

Kos is a propagandist.

Do you worry about the military industrial complex?

I think that saying that he actively supports it -- as opposed to "I said a stupid thing" is probably taking it a bit far. That's about as fair as saying that Rush Limbaugh supports Killing all the Democrats at the Democratic National Convention in a big fat riot.

When you say that Kos is a "propagandist"

Well, then, do you mean that he's a Central Intelligence Agency propagandist?  Just checkin'.  :^)

Thomas

 The case, referred to the court by Justice Clarence Thomas after Justice David Souter had rejected it, argued that because Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, at the time a British colony, the president-elect was born with dual citizenship.

I have the upmost respect for Clarence Thomas and his rational.  Perhaps he referred the case so that it could be heard, properly thrown out, and help to minimize the contunuation of the kook fringe urban legends?  Whatever his reason, I have no reason to believe it was for malicious purposes.  The kooks will get their day in court and will later have to shut the hell up.  I agree, I wish they wouldn't pursue this at all but remember, Berg is a liberal that was supporting Hillary not a Republican or a Conservative and we should not allow anyone to associate this with Republicans or Conservatives. 

This goes back to what I have been argueing for; not allowing others to difine who we are!  This must be a central part of our media and social strategy and I don't hear enough chatter on this subject.

www.twitter.com/dpeterson329

why do you respect thomas?

... curious here.

Respect for Justice Thomas

 I'll take a shot at your question.

I respect Justice Thomas because he is an intelligent jurist who decides cases with integrity, applying a consistent judicial philosophy.  Much more often than not, I agree with him.  But not always.  

Many people, particularly those who are not lawyers and who do not read actual Supreme Court decisions, have come to believe that Justice Thomas is not smart or up to the job.  I'm not sure why this is.  But in any event, it simply is not true.

None of this means that anyone else needs to agree with Justice Thomas's judicial philosophy or with where it leads him when deciding cases.  But this, I believe, is a separate issue from whether he has earned respect.

For example, I have a great deal of respect for Justices Ginsberg and Breyer.  Like Thomas, they both are intelligent jurists who decide cases with integrity, applying consistent judicial philosophies.  I don't agree with their judicial philosophies and often disagree strongly with their decisions.  However, they both have earned my very deep respect.

:-) is there anyone on the court who you do not respect?

I am not a lawyer myself, and do not read Supreme court documents nearly as much as I should. However, i know someone who has worked as a solicitor, gathered evidence for trials and submitted amicus curae briefs. And he can't stand Thomas.

For that matter, neither can Obama -- whose status as a Constituional Law Scholar is rather relavant here. ;-)

Respect for Justices

If you caught me at the bar (the kind that serves beer, not the kind in a courtroom) discussing a case, I might well say that I "can't stand" some Justice or other.  Usually what I mean when I say that is that I disagree very strongly with an opinion that the Justice has written.  It could well be that your friend "can't stand" Thomas in this sense.  

As for your question, I sometimes am very frustrated at the way in which Justice Kennedy approaches his job.  Many on both the right and left share this frustration.  The reason, I think, is that he doesn't seem to approach cases with any discernible judicial philosophy.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that I don't respect him.  But as I said, he frustrates me. 

ummm

"For that matter, neither can Obama -- whose status as a Constituional Law Scholar is rather relavant here. ;-)"

for someone who claims to be interested in truth and accuracy, you are stretching it greatly here.

Obama was a Con Law lecturer.  By no reasonable definition of the term was he a scholar.  If you can point to a scholarly body of work, I will retract that statement.

 

He taught courses in constitutional law at one of the top

ten law schools in the country. You are being ridiculous. A scholar is a learned person or someone who has done advanced study in a field. Do you think her just rolled up to the classroom year after year to read a script written by somebody else?

"scholar" has a specific meaning

in the academic world:  it is someone who does research, writes and publishes in peer reviewed journals.

Bambi was a lecturer, period. These are terms with real meaning.  You should familiarize yourself with them before you embarras yourself with their misuse.

Facts are stubborn things. 

 

The dictionary definition of "scholar"

1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil 2 a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field b: a learned person 3: a holder of a scholarship

And that, moqui, is you, schooled.

the dictionary definition

is not the term of art as used in academia.  By the dictionary definitions you provide, everyone is a scholar.

that is you, nando, schooled.

Obama's position is formally termed lecturer.  He was not, is not, and likely never will be a scholar.

Please link to his scholarly work if I am incorrect.

It's ok to admit he is no scholar.  It does not diminish his other, real accomplishments.

You are aware that this is not the faculty lounge

 right? You are being a pedant, which to save you having to look it up, means one who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge. There was absolutely nothing wrong in the original poster's use of the word. 

rhetorical flourishes on my part are not worth this much debate

do you have any law journals to recommend? Google Scholar ain't pulling shit, but it ain't exactly the NLM if you know what I mean ;-)

Juctice Thomas, one of the best Justices we have

I respect Justice Thomas because he is an intelligent jurist who decides cases with integrity, applying a consistent judicial philosophy.  Much more often than not, I agree with him.  But not always. 

Well said.

More needs to be said on Clarence Thomas' behalf. Justice Thomas is one of the best Justices on the court. He is a judicial conservative and someone who truly follows the Constitution and the right principles of jurisprudence. 

Justice Thomas has more good judicial philosophy and understanding in his pinkie than a 1,000 Lawrence Tribe wannabe "living constitution" activists, who treat the Constitution like toilet paper .

 

 

smart money was ALL on Obama

smart money was ALL on Obama winning. Also, don't trust polls when one person's strategy ISN"T about polls, but is about maximizing base support and voter turnout.

Lorenz High School

Berg is a Democrat

To be fair to the "opposition",  I have read and heard from several sources that Philip Berg is a Hillary supporter and not a Republican.  Maybe this is a smoke screen that he's using to seem less vindictive, but as far as everyone is reporting, his lawsuit is not a frivolous conservative suit, but one against his own party.

you're referring to does not

you're referring to does not list any information about where BHO was born? The announcement only tells us something we already knew: he was born. It's not proof, and you obviously aren't capable of understanding that. pocono raceway - regents prep - math regents

Oh, Shit! Not ANOTHER one!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/15913/2941/459/670771

Scalia this time, taking it from Ginsburg.

oh dear, not another four letter word

RT - You keep forgetting that Next Right is not intended to be an obscenity-laced sewer like dKOS.

 

GOP stupidity in action

The fact remains that Obama has not provided definitive proof of where he was born. If you think otherwise, you're wrong: see the link.

 

And, dozens of reporters, pundits, organizations, etc. have all pretended that BHO has provided definitive proof.

 

The "stupidity" part comes in because they aren't using the fact that all those people lied to discredit them. This can be a completely separate issue from anything else. You can still think BHO was born in HI and is qualified to be president and at the same time point out that all those hacks lied.

 

Let me repeat that: you can still think BHO was born in HI and is qualified to be president and at the same time point out that all those hacks lied.

 

I'll be breaking something interesting specifically about the issue of one of those lying hacks  tomorrow.

Please don't bother with your "breaking" news tomorrow.

Unless you can explain who planted his birth announcement in the local paper on the day he was born, there is not point in pursuing this insanity any further.

You aren't capable of understanding

Did you read the link? Did you notice that I pointed out that the announcement you're referring to does not list any information about where BHO was born? The announcement only tells us something we already knew: he was born. It's not proof, and you obviously aren't capable of understanding that.