Newsflash: Obama Born in the USA

Time to break out the Springstein anthem. President Obama was in fact born in the USA. Just this morning, the White House released the President’s long form birth certificate to allay any remaining doubts about the President’s birthplace. If this is news to you, well then…now you know.

In remarks after the release, the President said that the country didn’t need to be distracted by “sideshows” and “carnival barkers.” I couldn’t agree more with his characterization because that’s exactly what this birther issue was.

[In related news, the sideshow continues. Donald Trump says that he is “proud” of himself for getting the President to release his birth certificate. Listen to the Q&A. Trump still sounds skeptical.]

33 Responses to Newsflash: Obama Born in the USA

  1. yankeegospelgirl April 27, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Yeah, I just think it’s really unlikely that he was born in Kenya at all, and even if he was, he could still possibly have been a citizen, although the situation was really confusing.

    The question is, why didn’t he produce this certificate sooner? I thought perhaps he didn’t have one because he was born at home, but that theory seems to be wrong. I hear the governor of Hawaii said he would go find it at one point but then came back and said, “Uh, never mind.” So now suddenly… they have it?

    It’s just all rather weird to me, but it’s been amusing to watch.

  2. Greg Smith April 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    I agree. But if it was this easy to dispell the rumors, why didn’t he do this long ago?

  3. michael April 27, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    I don’t know why the president didn’t produce this long ago, but I have a guess: Because all this actually helps his side. He’s running against a Republican party of which a third appear (at least publicly) to be kooks. And now, that same third will come up with another nutty theory of why this new form a forgery or not adequate. These folks who come up with their theories — trying to bring him down — are actually helping him get re-elected.

  4. Christiane April 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    Why didn’t he do this long ago?

    Because he told the truth.

  5. donsands April 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Oh for a Statesman. I’m so tied of these Hollywood type politicians/lawyers and their ideology and weak backbones.

    Statesmanship conveys a quality of leadership that organically brings people together and of eldership, a spirit of caring for others and for the whole.

  6. John April 28, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Of course he didn’t release it sooner. This was a brilliant play, really. He got people to focus on a non-issue instead of things like 14T worth of debt, or an unlawful use of the military in Libya, and then he was able to make his opponents look like fools. Brilliant.

  7. Paul April 28, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    He probably just showed the short form for all of those years because THAT’S ALL THAT’S EVER BEEN ASKED OF 43 OTHER PRESIDENTS!

    It’s not that it seems strange, it’s that redneck white america (sorry, don’t see ANY conservatives whose views I respect going the birther route) wants “their” country back from that scary negro.

    Fine, let’s say it’s not racist. But it did prove that a very big chunk of the Republican Party is xenophobic and ethnocentric to a frightening degree.

    What kind of horrible things are the GOP going to pull when we inevitably end up with a president of latino decent?

  8. yankeegospelgirl April 28, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Yawn.

    Look, I don’t give a hoot whether he’s black, green, purple, or green with purple polka dots. But it sure seems to me that when Americans voted this guy into office, they weren’t exactly fulfilling MLK’s dream. You know, the one about judging a man based on the content of his character instead of the color of his skin? Remember that one?

  9. Paul April 28, 2011 at 10:33 am #

    Oh, come on. You and I both know that the folks trying to “take our country back” didn’t vote for Obama in the first place. At which point, that heartwarming post doesn’t apply in the slightest.

    YOU might not care what color he is, but I guarantee you, plenty of really, really, really stupid people do (on both sides…the black guys that voted for Obama solely because he’s black are just as bad as the white ones that make up stuff about him because he’s black or has a funny name).

  10. Kelley Kimble April 28, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    There is a lot of bigotry in this country, still. I am dismayed that some of my Christian friends forward e-mails to me that spread false information and racially charged jokes about the President, despite my requests that they stop. The problem is lack of statesmanship, a genuine form of leadership that seems to be rare not only in politics but in life in general. I think it has to start with ordinary people. As a life-long Arizonian who is very familiar with John McCain, I didn’t have a good feeling about him when he won the nomination. His choice of Palin as a running mate still puzzles me. I would feel better about Obama had he been more seasoned before being catapulted to the Presidency, but then again if God didn’t want him in the office, he wouldn’t be there. I like Obama personally. They seem like a family I would love to visit. I just think he is in over his head.

  11. yankeegospelgirl April 28, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    That’s right Paul. Those folks voted for McCain instead—which I would never do, myself. But it sure would be nice if they really did take the country back. Let me know when those bigoted red-neck Christians are all coming to get us, and I’ll run out to meet them half-way. Cross my heart.

  12. Paul April 28, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    YGG –

    Who are they taking the country back from? What are they trying to take our country back from? This country has swung harder to the right in the last 20 years than it had to the left in the previous 50, at least politically speaking. If you’re speaking in the cultural sense, it won’t matter who’s in the white house or in the house and senate.

    And, I must state, it’s amazing that those same people that are all of the sudden worried about spending weren’t worried when Bush II was running up massive deficits in the name of empire building. But put the black guy with the funny name in office, and all of the sudden…OUR COUNTRY IS OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    An awful lot of the tea partiers, who are the ones trying to take the country back, are Ayn Rand fanatics trying to get everyone to go see Atlas Shrugged. You cannot believe in Randian principles AND be a Christian. They are incompatible.

    So, let’s get it straight, it’s not CHRISTIAN rednecks, it’s greedy, misinformed, ignorant as all get out rednecks trying to “take our country back.”

  13. yankeegospelgirl April 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    *shrug*

    To be honest, I wasn’t too thrilled with Bush II either. But I didn’t demonize him, unlike some people.

  14. Christiane April 28, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    YGG,

    You have a problem with someone’s character ?

  15. Christiane April 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Calm down, PAUL

    The ‘red-necks’ you speak of are Americans, too.

    You can see that now in the town-hall meetings where these so-called ‘rednecks’ who voted Republican are taking their Republican congressmen to task for voting for Ryan’s plan to ‘save’ Medicare by privatizing it (ie. throwing a ‘coupon’ at old people and shoving them into the arms of the insurance industries).

    Whoah! The videos of those meetings are very, very dramatic.

    A few minutes watching that, and you will feel reassured that people are not so stupid, or so blind, or so ‘sheep-like’ that they will not see when the welfare of their own families are threatened. If these people are ‘rednecks’, I’m glad to call them fellow Americans.

  16. Nate April 28, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

    Paul, so you think the Clintonian era of the 90s was a right-leaning era? And that Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II swung to the right more than Johnson’s Great Society swung to the Left? Seriously…

    Or, are you speaking about the govt. in general? Even then, you would have a difficult time saying that the Congress/Senate of the 90s/2000s were more right leaning than the Congress/Senate of the 60s/70s were left, from a political standpoint.

  17. Christiane April 28, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Most Americans now see the Republican Party as ‘radical’, not ‘conservative’ in the classic sense.

    Especially in the last several months, they have seen the proof of this extreme radical agenda.

  18. Mark April 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    I’m still skeptical about this. But again, this is my futurist premillennial everything will be under the Beastly NWO soon mind speaking.

  19. Paul April 28, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Nate – certainly economically speaking. Do a search on the fiscal guys under Clinton. They were more free market than Bush’s guys. These were the guys that quashed the chance to destroy the derivative market before it got off the ground (see real estate crash in 2007 if you were wondering about the results of that). Social policies have certainly swung way to the right from where they were in the 70s, to be sure (short of GLBT rights). Especially in the past 12 years where numerous states have enacted much more comprehensive pro-life measures, we’ve seen the assault weapons ban expire, we’ve seen amendments in numerous states to outlaw gay marriage, and now there’s one state that has a papers law to document citizenship, with similar laws ready to be voted on in a few other states. All politically conservative initiatives, to be sure. Throw in attempts to defang as many of the social programs implemented under LBJ by heartless conservatives today, and yeah, my case stands, and stands pretty darned well.

    Now, sure, you might be able to say that programs like the Civil Rights Act, Head Start, WIC or laws outlawing blockbusting were very liberal on their face, but I’d say that they were common sense and shouldn’t be considered as part of a liberal or conservative agenda. Instead, we should call those simply good government.

  20. yankeegospelgirl April 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    Except the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional… but perhaps we shouldn’t go there. 😉

  21. Christiane April 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    “Except the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional… but perhaps we shouldn’t go there. ;-)”

    I really like how you express the silent political beliefs of your Church, YGG.

  22. Kelley Kimble April 29, 2011 at 2:00 am #

    “Except the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional… but perhaps we shouldn’t go there.” ygg

    How so? I’ve heard a lot of debate about the act, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it from that point of view.

  23. yankeegospelgirl April 29, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my church. I’d venture to say everyone at my church would disagree probably, as well as most if not all of my friends.

    Yes, it was unconstitutional because the federal government exercised a power it didn’t lawfully have. The Bill of Rights expressly states in the 10th that all powers not granted to the federal government must be reserved to the people and the states. Discrimination laws would most certainly qualify on that count. And by that I don’t mean laws that prevent black people from being lynched. That’s a crime that should be punishable by other laws anyway. I mean laws that force business owners to be in perpetual fear that they might not have a high enough percentage of minorities working at their business in order to fulfil the established “quota.”

    It seems to me that a “lunch counter situation” is the sort of the thing that could be handled very well by private citizens. Imagine a scenario where Joe restaurant owner refuses to hire blacks. People find out about this and say, “Man, what a jerk,” and they simply stop giving him their business. Ordinary people like you and me, not trespassing, not deliberately breaking the law, just simply refusing to give him money. Doesn’t it seem plausible that he would just go out of business after a while? The situation would simply have been resolved by the free actions of the people, without government legislation forcing anything.

  24. yankeegospelgirl April 29, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Oh hang on, I’m sorry, I make a mistake in my scenario. That shouldn’t be Joe restaurant owner who refuses to hire blacks, that should be Joe restaurant owner who refuses to SERVE blacks.

  25. Kelley Kimble April 29, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    But when state governments don’t act, and when you have a society that rules by thuggery, what then? What of the systematic efforts to keep people from even registering to vote? That effectively denied them a voice in state government, and on a larger scale denied them the benefits of the Bill of Rights. The laws existing at the time were not being enforced. People got away with murder for decades before being brought to trial.

  26. yankeegospelgirl April 29, 2011 at 11:06 am #

    I believe the 13th Amendment granted voting rights (correct me if I’m wrong). And of course there are many murder laws on the books.

    However, this means steps should be taken to ensure that laws already in place are enforced—not creating entirely new and unconstitutional laws.

    Sadly, people are still getting away with murder today, but now discrimination is going the other way. Today, it is actually an *advantage* to be a minority if you commit a crime, because now there is a fear that somebody will get in trouble for racial discrimination if you are given your just desserts.

  27. Paul April 29, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    “Sadly, people are still getting away with murder today, but now discrimination is going the other way. Today, it is actually an *advantage* to be a minority if you commit a crime, because now there is a fear that somebody will get in trouble for racial discrimination if you are given your just desserts.”

    You clearly don’t live anywhere near Chicago.

    Christiane – Yes, those rednecks are Americans, too. And when I speak of rednecks, I don’t speak of all Republicans (I can give the Wall Street types a break, they’re voting with the wallets. And the socially conservative ones are trying to bring Armageddon to pass, which I guess is their right), I speak specifically of the ones that vote for the Republicans’ regressive agenda out of fear. Those people keep me up at night for fear of the country that my kids are going to inherit.

    I actually liked Huckabee (before he got his show on Fox, when he went insane with his talk of fair tax) and Santorum. But Ryan, Walker and Preibus (just to name three whack-jobs from WI alone) scare me half to death. All three aren’t even Christians – they’re Rand-ites. Read Rand, and then read Crowley, and see how much they have in common. People talk about how liberalism is evil, but it’s guys like Ryan that are basically saying (to rich people anyway) “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Extent of The Law.”

  28. Murf April 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    I understand the frustration, but those last two comments make two assertions for which there is no data to support.

    1. That states would have done the right thing: I think that was proven before and after the civil war, and before and after WWII, that states, with their insular power structures of fallible people, often DO NOT do the right thing, and protect their WRONG way of doing things, vigorously. Forgive the analogy, but the Fed had to “bind the strongman” (Matt. 12:29). In other words, the insular power structure in many institutions (including states) had to be subjugated on this issue. Those pieces of legislation and the precedent set are problematic to be sure but our nation was not being run by the consent of ALL governed.

    Republican haters should be aware too, that without the overwhelming Republican support of the CRA, it would never have happened, because the Dems were completely divided on the issue. SO GET OFF THE RACE CARD. We do not like Barack’s politics or performance, period.

    2. Our prison demographics, law enforcement duty reports and arrest reports show that discrimination is not going the “other way” where crime is concerned. You comment would have been more appropriate, for instance, if you were speaking about fire dept. hiring practices in New England.

    It’s hasty generalization with no supporting evidence.

    I mention these to you because I am a born-again Christian and a Constitutionalist too, but we cannot make assertions on forums like that, and not expect to get incendiary and irrational comments back at us, because, in reality our arguments are void of any data the other side can see.

    May the “birther” movement and the “sore loser movement” of the conservative right be over, FOREVER. How we behave in defeat is more important than how we behave in victory.

  29. Paul April 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    Murf,

    Let’s lay an old dog to rest here…

    The Republican Party of the early to mid 60’s was a vastly different beast than the Republican Party today. And many of those Democrats that voted against the CRA, or Jesse Helms (who shamefully filibustered it) became Republicans as the Republican party became more and more conservative.

    Let’s Face it, the Republican Party of today looks a lot more like Sally Kern (look her up) than it does like Teddy Roosevelt. So don’t go patting yourself on the back for being the party that got the CRA passed. That version of the GOP died a long time ago.

  30. Christiane April 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    “It seems to me that a “lunch counter situation” is the sort of the thing that could be handled very well by private citizens.”

    Well, I am a WITNESS to what some ‘private citizens’ did to our black citizens who were conducting a ‘sit-in’ at the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Norfolk, VA, in the sixties:

    these black citizens were cursed at, yelled at, and in one case, spit on, while they sat in quiet dignity and in prayer.

    YGG, you are a young person, and you when you have lived a long time, may you begin to have a sense of ‘solidarity’ as a Christian woman with those who suffer from the evils of this world. There are some things that people do to other people that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. We must be guardians against the evil that some will do to others. We must, as Christians, take a stand for what is just and moral.

    That you will learn this, as you live your life, is my prayer.

  31. Charlton Connett April 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    I would agree with Murf that states do not always do the right thing. Yes, many Southern States were continuing to enforce and live under racist laws. However, the issue becomes what the Constitution allows the Federal government to do. Once laws are passed that allow the Fed. Gov’t. to go beyond what the Constitution states, who is left to act to restrain that titan? When states act poorly, pressure can be brought upon them by other means that the Constitution allow.

    However, in defense of Southern States, there was already movement toward greater equality. I say this as one who grew up in Savannah and who has spoken with those between the ages of 70 to 80 today who lived through the 50’s and 60’s in the deep South. I have been told by people of both sides that Blacks and Whites were moving, slowly, toward greater levels of equality. In fact, in Savannah and Beaufort there was already so much going on that even Black leaders of the time asked Martin Luther King, Jr. not to come and stir things up, because they felt his presence would cause racial backlash that would setback what they had accomplished. (Again, I can’t quote you a source on this other than the people I have spoken with, of both colors, as I grew up. However, I will point you to the fact that by 1903 Savannah already had black police men, and was moving toward significant equality between blacks and whites. A necessity based on local population numbers, if nothing else.)

    So, while the Federal government stepped in to “make things right” they failed to take into account the unintended consequences of their actions, and they simply didn’t have the right (Constitutionally speaking) to intervene in the way they did.

    As to the main subject of the thread, I am glad that this issue can be put to bed.

  32. Christiane April 29, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    Hello, PAUL

    I am aware of how recently-elected Republicans campaigned on certain issues,
    and once it office, totally went in the other direction, much to the dismay of their constituents who had believed their campaign rhetoric.

    The ‘recalls’ in Wisconsin are a result of the horror of the voters who were betrayed.

    I think ‘the issue’ in 2012 has now been defined by the Ryan Republicans,
    and there is no turning back for them.

    I am curious to see how the Senate Republicans vote on the Ryan Plan this coming week, as I hear that it will be brought up for a vote in the Senate by Harry Reid.

    Is the die cast? I think it may be. We shall see.

  33. Kelley Kimble April 29, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Was the constitutionality of the CRA ever challenged in court? It’s the courts that have the authority to decide what is constitutional, not the citizens. The struggle for legal protection for the rights of all citizens under the US Constitution was fought long and hard. When state government officials can proudly proclaim, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever,” they should expect the feds to move in on them.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes