Thursday, April 28, 2011

About that birth certificate

Allow me to drop some knowledge on you.  Meet United States Code Title 8, Section 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years[.]
The President's mother was an American citizen who had very clearly spent more than five years physically present in the United States.  In other words, Barack Obama could have been born on Neptune and he would still be a natural born citizen of the United States under the jus sanguinis (bloodright), as opposed to the jus soli (right of soil, i.e., place of birth).  It simply does not matter where he was born, so even a presupposition that his birth certificate is fake and that he wasn't born in the United States doesn't get birthers racists anywhere.  Unless they now wish to claim that his mother wasn't his mother.  Which wouldn't surprise me.  How long can it be before they're demanding DNA samples?

If the 9/11 Truthers have proved anything, it's that no lie is too big and no conspiracy too elaborate for the creative imaginations of credulous idiots.

POSTSCRIPT: I realize some may see it as a cheap shot to link to Dad29 using the words "credulous idiots" and making an analogy to the 9/11 Truth movement hoax.  But I think I can adequately defend myself by pointing out that truth is always a defense, and by citing the doctrine of "if the shoe doth fit, verily must thou wear it."  To believe that the birth certificate is a forgery also requires that the newspaper announcement was likewise a fake, with the only conceivable aim of the conspiracy being the sure and certain knowledge almost fifty years in advance that this baby was going to be elected President of the United States (this at a time - 1961 - when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had not yet been enacted) and so he'd better damn well be a US citizen.  I think "credulous idiot" is actually a pretty charitable description of someone who is stupid enough to believe that such a thing is not just possible, but more likely than the possibility that President Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father in 1961.  A less charitable description might be that such conspiracy theorists are either racists, charlatans, or in desperate need of mental help.  And still wrong, as 8 USC 1401 demonstrates.

UPDATE: Dad29 has edited his post to add:
(Let me make something perfectly clear. I don't give a flying $%^&*&& about Obozo's citizenship. I DO care, Very Much, that Obozo's residence, beginning January 2013, is anyplace BUT the White House. Hawaii's nice that time of year, I hear.)
Simply put, this is nonsense. People who don't give a flying whatever (and it's so nice to see bloggers who are afraid of magical four letter words like "fuck") about the president's citizenship do not post things about Xeroxes and link to so-and-so's "questions about the long form."  Dad doth protest way, way too much.

UPDATE 2: Dad29 is all class:
I happen to find the topic interesting, bozo.
I'm sort of flattered, actually.  Usually when someone responds to reasoned argument with name-calling, it's an admission that they have no reasonable response.  Or just no reason.


  1. I must have missed the Blogspot Rule which states that 'a blogger must have a position on EVERY SINGLE POST-TOPIC'.

    But that's OK, because you're around to make sure that everyone obeys all the rules that you make up!

    Green Bay's boring, eh?

  2. Eh, Green Bay's not bad. Pretty exciting that night back in February, obviously.

    To your point, if I linked (uncritically) to things arguing that Sarah Palin was the spawn of Satan himself, or that she was not the mother of Trig Palin (I've heard that conspiracy theory too, and it's just as stupid), you'd be well within your rights to assume I was endorsing those positions and hammer me for it.

    In my opinion, your piece is a subtle but definite attempt to reinforce the belief that President Obama (you do know that his last name isn't "Obozo" right?) is not a US citizen and his presidency is therefore illegitimate. You yourself said that all you care about is getting him our of the White House by 2013, and your tone turned really nasty when I wondered if you were willing to link to or say anything that you thought strengthened your case against the President even if you didn't believe it yourself.

    So, as I see it, you're either A) an implicit birther who just knows better than to say so explicitly, B) not a birther, but willing to fellow-travel with and pander to those who are birthers themselves (any port in a storm), or C) indifferent to the issue itself, but eager to advertise anything whatsoever which you feel makes President Obama look bad.

    Now, after making this post, you claim (emphatically) not to care about the substance of the subject matter of that post. In that case, I can either infer that your blog isn't entirely sincere (since you post things you don't really believe) or I can take you at your (original) face value and conclude that you protest too much in your expression of disinterest. Which would you prefer?

    You'll forgive me if I'm not inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt to a guy whose blog includes an image of the President of the United States as the Joker from The Dark Knight with "Socialism" above it (Reagan was a socialist compared to Obama, but I digress), and an image of the Rod of Asclepius (the symbol for medicine) morphed into the eagle of the Third Reich with "Obamacare: Death and Taxes" written underneath it. I'm pretty sure that second one has Holocaust victims spinning in their graves, by the way.

    If, on the other hand, you're actually an undercover liberal whose goal is to make right-wingers look ridiculous, and I have somehow interfered with that grand design by calling your out on these issues, then I sincerely apologize.

  3. I'm trying to find "pompous ass" between your [] marks, but I don't have to.

    It's all over your screeds.

  4. Obozo is a Marxist, not a Socialist. The picture went up before the true nature and depth of the man's depravity became clear. Sorry, my mistake.

    Not only is he a Marxist. He is completely and wholly dedicated to the destruction of the US, economically and philosophically. The man is the motion picture of Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values.' There are no 'redeeming values' in the man whatsoever.

    Having said that, I'll also say this: may God have mercy on his soul.

    Clear enough for you?

  5. Look, on the personal opinion of the president, you and I clearly just disagree, because I think you're being hysterical, and I'm sure you think I'm being naive. Fine.

    (I would insert here that I'd like to see some hard evidence please that Obama wants to "destroy" the US, but really, I don't see the use.)

    But can we at least agree that health care reform is in no way shape or form related to the Nazis? Surely you can see why I would take offense to turning the symbol of healing into the Third Reich's eagle.

    You're very good at citing scary names of philosophical boogeymen, in order to frame the president in a negative light. I haven't seen or heard one thing from the president that indicates he wants to transvalue all values, especially considering he is a practicing Christian, and Nietzsche's transvaluation was entirely based on what Nietzsche felt was the erosion of God as the source of morality. If, has Nietzsche felt, there is no God, it becomes necessary to find something else upon which to base our values. Tell me what part of this the president ascribes to.

    Hell, I'm an atheist and I don't even subscribe to Nietzsche's full theory on transvaluation, even if it has interesting things to tell us. I don't, for instance, feel it does anything to answer a question as to why something is wrong by referring the question upward. But that's about as far as I go, and I probably go farther than the president, considering that he's not an atheist, and I am.

  6. Try working out N's 'will to power' in the Obozo context.

    Hitler was a National Socialist. Obama is, at minimum, a socialist, albeit not in any way shape or form a nationalist.

    So the symbology remains.

    By the way, showing up at church doesn't make one a 'practicing Christian.'

  7. By the way, showing up at church doesn't make one a 'practicing Christian.'

    Nothing I love more than the faithful claiming "I'm a true believer, but thou art not."

    And keep defending your Nazi analogies all you want, it doesn't make you look any less of an idiot to compare one of the great mass murdering psychopaths of all time with the duly elected President of the United States.

    Also, as someone who has actually studied Nietzsche in depth, rather than just skimmed for ominous sounding catchphrases to quote out of context, I can tell you that you know absolutely nothing about Nietzsche, who would not at all have been a fan of Hitler or Obama. I suggest you read anything by Walter Kaufmann, the foremost scholar on Nietzsche at Princeton until his death, for a good summary of how Nietzsche's writings were selectively edited and reinterpreted after his mental breakdown and death by his sister Elisabeth, first for her own personal gain, and then to pander to the Nazis.

    Further proof: One cannot be a socialist and a Nietzschean at the same time. The two are diametrically opposed, since socialism is a collectivist philosophy and Nietzsche hated collectivism and "the rabble" more than anything else in this world. For an idea of what I mean, I'd recommend Beyond Good and Evil Part II, "The Free Spirit" where Nietzsche castigates the "levelers" who bring the high down to the level of the rabble. But I don't know why I bother, because you'd rather just say "NIETZSCHE, BAD!" and think it makes you sound smart.

    One of us, as you put it, is a "pompous ass" (a charge I happily plead guilty to), and the other is wrong. I know which I would rather be.

  8. I must have missed the Blogspot Rule which states that 'a blogger must have a position on EVERY SINGLE POST-TOPIC'.

    Really? That seems the daddio and wingnut response to nearly all liberal posts, when they've lost the argument. For example: "Yeah, but when is your post about so-and-so going to happen. Never. Hypocrite."

    Fred Dooley is especially fond of that retort.

  9. btw: I was not aware you had a blog. You've now been added to my blogroll and thx for my inclusion. I like your stuff.

    Daddio is a pushover.