RSS Feed
Washington - Obama to Meet American Jewish Leaders to Address Israeli Criticism |
|
| |
Text Size
|
During the presidential campaign Obama greeted supporters during a Town Hall meeting at Bnai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, Fla. file photo
"American Jews more or less agree with the president on settlements, but it's the focus on criticizing Israel that's disconcerting," said an organization leader who will be attending the meeting.
"There's no single monolithic voice speaking for American Jewry," said another participating leader. "When both the Orthodox Union and [American Friends of] Peace Now are in the room, you won't get a unified opinion."
He added that "it's important to speak carefully, because one Jewish leader shouldn't say things that will be contradicted by another. It's important not to appear divided."
The meeting, under the aegis of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, will include representatives of the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform religious streams, and major groups such as AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, ADL and Hadassah.
While the Jewish leaders are expected to raise many domestic issues - from welfare reform to security concerns for Jewish institutions - the question on everybody's mind will be Obama's Middle East policy, participants said. Most of the heads and membership of the major organizations are Democrats who broadly support the current administration - another cause for discomfort.
These concerns have been discussed, though quietly, ever since Obama's June 4 speech to the Muslim world.
The Monday meeting is off-record and was intended to be kept secret.
More of today's headlines
“Hungary - The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called on the government of Hungary to pursue an “effective and comprehensive” investigation into the brutal beating of a...”
Hungary - Concern In Wake of Anti-Semitic Beating in Budapest
Manhattan, NY - Report: Bernie Madoff Going to Otisville Prison
Total28
Read Comments (28) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 12, 2009 at 10:12 PM yosse nathan Says:
well it looks like we can all dance together under one roof . lets up something good comes from this meeting
2
Jul 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM Anonymous Says:
"When both the Orthodox Union and [American Friends of] Peace Now are in the room, you won't get a unified opinion."
One side is halachically Jewish, the other not necessarily
3
Jul 12, 2009 at 09:45 PM Dupes Says:
This will be another photo op for BHO. There is no point to it.
We should have 500 Rabbis protesting outside with a call to take his hands off Israel like they did with the other "ohev Yisroel" FDR.
4
Jul 12, 2009 at 10:24 PM big shtocher Says:
Start kissing Osamas feet. Like this meeting will make his position clear regarding Israel? He has the Jews in his back pocket. That's right.....look at the more than 70% of Jews who voted for him.
5
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:42 AM Anonymous Says:
what a great president. bush never did that!
and obama was the first to have a seder while bush was the first to have ramadan in the white house.
GO fogure! obama is for us!!!!
6
Jul 13, 2009 at 06:01 AM Anonymous Says:
“ what a great president. bush never did that!
and obama was the first to have a seder while bush was the first to have ramadan in the white house.
GO fogure! obama is for us!!!! ”
#5 - Bush never met with any jewish organizations? Also, obama's strategy is to let us feel "loved" and continue what he's doing and mute our response. You sound so naïve.
7
Jul 13, 2009 at 06:01 AM cp Says:
The most important message here is when one official said, "it's important to speak carefully, because one Jewish leader shouldn't say things that will be contradicted by another. It's important not to appear divided."
This is the message that we all need to constantly be reminded of. It's one thing for a rebbe to say drushos or write seforim that disagree with the Tzioinim, but it's another thing, and a horrible blow to ALL of us, when people like Neturei Karta publicly demonstrate their opposition. ALL experts agree that, over history, the enemies of Klal Yisruel strike at issues where we are divided.
8
Jul 13, 2009 at 07:30 AM Avrohom Abba Says:
Mr. Obama wants the world to be patient and give Iran more time to build its nuclear bombs, but he wants the Jews to immediately stop building houses in Israel, this minute.
You want to get technical and precise Mr. Obama??
Fine, let's get technical and precise.
Where is your birth certificate?
Where are your elementary school transcripts?
Why can any American produce those two documents, but you, as the president, can't seem to find them?
9
Jul 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM Anonymous Says:
“ what a great president. bush never did that!
and obama was the first to have a seder while bush was the first to have ramadan in the white house.
GO fogure! obama is for us!!!! ”
having a seder?
are Jews even supposed to invite gentiles to a seder?
10
Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM obama is a fraud Says:
“ what a great president. bush never did that!
and obama was the first to have a seder while bush was the first to have ramadan in the white house.
GO fogure! obama is for us!!!! ”
dont you realize its all for Pr he does these thing for people like you to fall for them. and its working R"L. on the other hand bush didn't need to prove it he was a genuine friend of the yidden.
11
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM Shua Says:
“ Mr. Obama wants the world to be patient and give Iran more time to build its nuclear bombs, but he wants the Jews to immediately stop building houses in Israel, this minute.
You want to get technical and precise Mr. Obama??
Fine, let's get technical and precise.
Where is your birth certificate?
Where are your elementary school transcripts?
Why can any American produce those two documents, but you, as the president, can't seem to find them? ”
Avrohom Abba: I usually find a great deal of worth in your comments, but with all due respect, I think that this time you need to re-ground yourself.
Factcheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They are as reputable as any organization can be. As a result of the Obama birthplace controversy their staffers did an on-site, hands hand investigation of the original birth certificate and found that it's 100% legitimate. (You can google: "fact check + obama birth certificate" for the results of their investigation).
Factcheck also points out that the naysayers conveniently ignore an unquestionably authentic Obama birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
Factcheck's conclusion: "The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A." Claims by Orthodox Jews to the contrary are only embarrassing. Please stick to the issues. There are enough legitimate concerns about Obama's anti-Israel policies to be worried about without chasing after right-wing, illusionary bugaboos.
12
Jul 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM Anonymous Says:
“ dont you realize its all for Pr he does these thing for people like you to fall for them. and its working R"L. on the other hand bush didn't need to prove it he was a genuine friend of the yidden. ”
Dont tell that to malcolm hoenlein because he thinks he is having a real meeting with the president that he will be tlaking about for the rest of his life.
13
Jul 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM Anonymous Says:
“ having a seder?
are Jews even supposed to invite gentiles to a seder? ”
HE himself led his own seder in the white house. why make problems? If bush did it you wouldnt be asking such questions , you would be praiosing him.
fact remains bush brought ramadan to the white house and obama brough pesach to the white house.
14
Jul 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM Milhouse Says:
“ having a seder?
are Jews even supposed to invite gentiles to a seder? ”
Why not? The only problem is if it's not on Shabbos, then it's forbidden to invite a goy to a yomtov meal. But in this case he wasn't invited, he was the host, so that wasn't a problem. It's also not a problem if all the cooking is done before yomtov, or it's catered, as this one was.
15
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:51 PM Charlie Hall Says:
“ Avrohom Abba: I usually find a great deal of worth in your comments, but with all due respect, I think that this time you need to re-ground yourself.
Factcheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They are as reputable as any organization can be. As a result of the Obama birthplace controversy their staffers did an on-site, hands hand investigation of the original birth certificate and found that it's 100% legitimate. (You can google: "fact check + obama birth certificate" for the results of their investigation).
Factcheck also points out that the naysayers conveniently ignore an unquestionably authentic Obama birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
Factcheck's conclusion: "The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A." Claims by Orthodox Jews to the contrary are only embarrassing. Please stick to the issues. There are enough legitimate concerns about Obama's anti-Israel policies to be worried about without chasing after right-wing, illusionary bugaboos. ”
And even if Obama *had* been born outside of the US, he would *still* be a natural-born US Citizen because his mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth.
16
Jul 13, 2009 at 03:12 PM Milhouse Says:
“ And even if Obama *had* been born outside of the US, he would *still* be a natural-born US Citizen because his mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth. ”
No, he wouldn't be. Natural born is natural born. Someone who was born under the jurisdiction and protection of a foreign sovereign is not eligible for the presidency.
17
Jul 13, 2009 at 03:10 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Avrohom Abba: I usually find a great deal of worth in your comments, but with all due respect, I think that this time you need to re-ground yourself.
Factcheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They are as reputable as any organization can be. As a result of the Obama birthplace controversy their staffers did an on-site, hands hand investigation of the original birth certificate and found that it's 100% legitimate. (You can google: "fact check + obama birth certificate" for the results of their investigation).
Factcheck also points out that the naysayers conveniently ignore an unquestionably authentic Obama birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
Factcheck's conclusion: "The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A." Claims by Orthodox Jews to the contrary are only embarrassing. Please stick to the issues. There are enough legitimate concerns about Obama's anti-Israel policies to be worried about without chasing after right-wing, illusionary bugaboos. ”
Garbage. It's the ANNENBERG POLITICAL Fact Check. Affiliated with the Annenberg Challenge founded by the terrorist Bill Ayers, and for which he hand-picked Barack Obama to run it, the same one through which Obama and Ayers channeled $130M to their leftist "community organisers" while achieving nothing at all. Their claim to have examined this alleged certificate (NOT the "original" but a very partial extract) cannot be trusted. And the fact remains that he has not allowed ANYBODY ELSE to see his birth certificate, not an extract and not the full thing. It would be simple for him to authorise the Hawaii government to release it to anyone who asks, but he has consistently refused to do so. Why is a mystery, but that it is so is a fact.
John Kerry promised over four years ago to release his military records and he has still not done so. Obama never even promised anything. We're supposed to just take it on trust. And it seems that nobody can make him prove his eligibility. So what is to stop Schwartzenegger or Granholm from running in the future and just claiming to be eligible? Or what's to stop some 34-year-old from running and just claiming to be 35?
18
Jul 13, 2009 at 03:29 PM Shua Says:
“ And even if Obama *had* been born outside of the US, he would *still* be a natural-born US Citizen because his mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth. ”
I am not so certain about that. Apparently Obama's mother was 18 years old when she gave birth to him. I have read (but not verified) that, according to applicable statutes, a woman has to have continually resided in the U.S. for a minimum of 5 years from her 16th birthday in order to confer citizenship on a child born outside of the country. If Obama's mother had been overseas at age 18 when she gave birth to him, she would not have met the 5 year U.S. residency requirement. But it's all irrelevant, so I won't make the effort the research the statute and verify this information.
19
Jul 13, 2009 at 04:24 PM Shua Says:
“ No, he wouldn't be. Natural born is natural born. Someone who was born under the jurisdiction and protection of a foreign sovereign is not eligible for the presidency. ”
> "Natural born is natural born." Sigh...as usual you try to *sound* authoritative while having absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The U.S. Constitution does not define "natural born," so what the framers meant by this term is a complete unknown. And surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has never issued a ruling defining it either. In the course of our history a number of presidential contenders were foreign born of U.S. citizen parents, and no challenges were made to their eligibility to run.
John McCain (remember him? Obama's adversary) was born in Colon, Panama (to U.S. citizen parents). Just to cover him, McCain's Senate pals issued a non-binding resolution recognizing his status as a "natural born citizen" regardless of his foreign birth ["non-binding" because they're not the Supreme Court and had no *legal* authority to render such a decision]. Oh my gosh, I guess they forgot to consult with you Milhouse; you would have told them a thing or two about constitutional law!
Finally, here is a quote from the U.S. Department of State: "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen." [citation: 7 FAM §1131.6–2, Eligibility for Presidency]. Gee whiz...I guess the State Department forgot to consult with you, too, for your chidush.
20
Jul 13, 2009 at 06:44 PM Milhouse Says:
“ > "Natural born is natural born." Sigh...as usual you try to *sound* authoritative while having absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The U.S. Constitution does not define "natural born," so what the framers meant by this term is a complete unknown. And surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has never issued a ruling defining it either. In the course of our history a number of presidential contenders were foreign born of U.S. citizen parents, and no challenges were made to their eligibility to run.
John McCain (remember him? Obama's adversary) was born in Colon, Panama (to U.S. citizen parents). Just to cover him, McCain's Senate pals issued a non-binding resolution recognizing his status as a "natural born citizen" regardless of his foreign birth ["non-binding" because they're not the Supreme Court and had no *legal* authority to render such a decision]. Oh my gosh, I guess they forgot to consult with you Milhouse; you would have told them a thing or two about constitutional law!
Finally, here is a quote from the U.S. Department of State: "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen." [citation: 7 FAM §1131.6–2, Eligibility for Presidency]. Gee whiz...I guess the State Department forgot to consult with you, too, for your chidush. ”
The term needed no explaining when the constitution was written. In fact it was used as an example of a term that is completely self-explanatory, and would never need interpreting. Blackstone explains it very clearly. A person owes his natural loyalty to the sovereign under whose jurisdiction and protection he was born. Generally that means the country where the birth takes place, but ambassadors are not under their host country's jurisdiction or protection, so their children are natural born citizens of their country of origin. The same circumstance applies to servicemen as well, so McCain was indeed a natural-born citizen of the USA, and would have been even if he had been born not in the Canal Zone but in a US naval base elsewhere, such as Guantanamo Bay. The same would apply to someone born to a US serviceman in Germany. And children born to foreign servicemen stationed in the USA are not citizens under the 14th amendment, and are not natural born citizens of the USA, because they are in US territory but not under US jurisdiction.
21
Jul 13, 2009 at 08:37 PM Shua Says:
“ The term needed no explaining when the constitution was written. In fact it was used as an example of a term that is completely self-explanatory, and would never need interpreting. Blackstone explains it very clearly. A person owes his natural loyalty to the sovereign under whose jurisdiction and protection he was born. Generally that means the country where the birth takes place, but ambassadors are not under their host country's jurisdiction or protection, so their children are natural born citizens of their country of origin. The same circumstance applies to servicemen as well, so McCain was indeed a natural-born citizen of the USA, and would have been even if he had been born not in the Canal Zone but in a US naval base elsewhere, such as Guantanamo Bay. The same would apply to someone born to a US serviceman in Germany. And children born to foreign servicemen stationed in the USA are not citizens under the 14th amendment, and are not natural born citizens of the USA, because they are in US territory but not under US jurisdiction. ”
You wrote a lot of words, none of which are encoded in the statutory laws of the United States. Once again, since the term "natural born" citizen remains legally undefined, there is a machlokes among constitutional law experts as to whether foreign born children of American citizens are "natural born" citizens or not. The military or ambassadorial status of the parents has absolutely no relevance. That's exactly why the Senate felt the need to pass its resolution declaring John McCain "natural born"...to protect him against any challenge that he, too, was ineligible to run for the presidency due to his Panamanian birth. The Senate knew that his parents' military status was irrelevant to the issue, and so they felt the need to do something to protect his status as the Republican nominee.
The Senate was probably being overly cautious though, since there have been no real historical challenges to presidential candidates born abroad to U.S. parents. George Romney, born in Mexico, ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 and nobody challenged his right to do so. The same for Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, who was born in France and ran in 1980 (neither set of parents had military or ambassadorial status).
So, until either a clarifying constitutional amendment is adopted or a definitive Supreme Court ruling is issued, the present presumption is that foreign born children of U.S. citizens are considered to be "natural born" and eligible for the presidency.
22
Jul 13, 2009 at 09:05 PM Shua Says:
“ Garbage. It's the ANNENBERG POLITICAL Fact Check. Affiliated with the Annenberg Challenge founded by the terrorist Bill Ayers, and for which he hand-picked Barack Obama to run it, the same one through which Obama and Ayers channeled $130M to their leftist "community organisers" while achieving nothing at all. Their claim to have examined this alleged certificate (NOT the "original" but a very partial extract) cannot be trusted. And the fact remains that he has not allowed ANYBODY ELSE to see his birth certificate, not an extract and not the full thing. It would be simple for him to authorise the Hawaii government to release it to anyone who asks, but he has consistently refused to do so. Why is a mystery, but that it is so is a fact.
John Kerry promised over four years ago to release his military records and he has still not done so. Obama never even promised anything. We're supposed to just take it on trust. And it seems that nobody can make him prove his eligibility. So what is to stop Schwartzenegger or Granholm from running in the future and just claiming to be eligible? Or what's to stop some 34-year-old from running and just claiming to be 35? ”
> Milhouse wrote: "Their claim to have examined this alleged certificate (NOT the "original" but a very partial extract) cannot be trusted."
>> Okay, for argument's sake we'll go with that. Then you must be one of those
conspiracy theorists who ignore baby Obama's birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser of Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
The conspiracy theory goes something like this: Obama's grandparents -- who placed the announcement in the Honolulu paper -- were certain that baby Obama would one day grow up and run for president of the United States. The grandparents though, knew that baby Obama was actually born in Africa and would therefore be ineligible to run for president. So, they decided to save baby Obama's presidential aspirations (it is reported that his first words, spoken at 13 months, were "white house") and file a false birth announcement in Hawaii, so that 47 years later everyone would be fooled into thinking that baby Obama was born in the U.S.A. But we shouldn't be fooled by the grandparents' scam, now should we?
23
Jul 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM Eli Says:
“ The most important message here is when one official said, "it's important to speak carefully, because one Jewish leader shouldn't say things that will be contradicted by another. It's important not to appear divided."
This is the message that we all need to constantly be reminded of. It's one thing for a rebbe to say drushos or write seforim that disagree with the Tzioinim, but it's another thing, and a horrible blow to ALL of us, when people like Neturei Karta publicly demonstrate their opposition. ALL experts agree that, over history, the enemies of Klal Yisruel strike at issues where we are divided. ”
In other words, you don't care about drushos or sfurim because you don't listen to drushos or learn any sfurim. you care when people say daas toiro about the tziyoinim effectively.
24
Jul 14, 2009 at 01:03 PM Milhouse Says:
“ > Milhouse wrote: "Their claim to have examined this alleged certificate (NOT the "original" but a very partial extract) cannot be trusted."
>> Okay, for argument's sake we'll go with that. Then you must be one of those
conspiracy theorists who ignore baby Obama's birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser of Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
The conspiracy theory goes something like this: Obama's grandparents -- who placed the announcement in the Honolulu paper -- were certain that baby Obama would one day grow up and run for president of the United States. The grandparents though, knew that baby Obama was actually born in Africa and would therefore be ineligible to run for president. So, they decided to save baby Obama's presidential aspirations (it is reported that his first words, spoken at 13 months, were "white house") and file a false birth announcement in Hawaii, so that 47 years later everyone would be fooled into thinking that baby Obama was born in the U.S.A. But we shouldn't be fooled by the grandparents' scam, now should we? ”
Take an F in reading comprehension. Or in telepathy, if that's what you were attempting. I have written nothing from which you could conclude any such thing. The fact remains, though, that he has not released his birth certificate, or shown it to anybody. He must have a reason for that.
25
Jul 14, 2009 at 01:01 PM Milhouse Says:
“ You wrote a lot of words, none of which are encoded in the statutory laws of the United States. Once again, since the term "natural born" citizen remains legally undefined, there is a machlokes among constitutional law experts as to whether foreign born children of American citizens are "natural born" citizens or not. The military or ambassadorial status of the parents has absolutely no relevance. That's exactly why the Senate felt the need to pass its resolution declaring John McCain "natural born"...to protect him against any challenge that he, too, was ineligible to run for the presidency due to his Panamanian birth. The Senate knew that his parents' military status was irrelevant to the issue, and so they felt the need to do something to protect his status as the Republican nominee.
The Senate was probably being overly cautious though, since there have been no real historical challenges to presidential candidates born abroad to U.S. parents. George Romney, born in Mexico, ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 and nobody challenged his right to do so. The same for Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, who was born in France and ran in 1980 (neither set of parents had military or ambassadorial status).
So, until either a clarifying constitutional amendment is adopted or a definitive Supreme Court ruling is issued, the present presumption is that foreign born children of U.S. citizens are considered to be "natural born" and eligible for the presidency. ”
It's got nothing to do with the statutes. All that matters is what the phrase meant to the framers and adopters of the constitution, and for that Blackstone is a sufficient source. The framers relied heavily on Blackstone, and he is clear about what it means. I don't give a damn what the Senate thought in 2008; how many constitutional experts are there in the Senate?
Romney and Weicker were clearly ineligible, and had they got their party's nomination they would certainly have been challenged. But it now appears that they could just brazen it out and refuse to produce a birth certificate, and nobody could make them.
26
Jul 14, 2009 at 04:10 PM Shua Says:
“ Take an F in reading comprehension. Or in telepathy, if that's what you were attempting. I have written nothing from which you could conclude any such thing. The fact remains, though, that he has not released his birth certificate, or shown it to anybody. He must have a reason for that. ”
I'm going to end my contribution to this thread with a quote from Alex Koppelman, a staff writer for Salon.com. Milhouse, in reading the following you will be reading about yourself, and all of those others who refuse to accept that Obama produced a legal, raise-sealed and original stamped Certificate of Live Birth (in the exact same format, by the way, that they're issued in New York City).
"You might think the rumors [regarding Barack Obama's birth] would have died off after Obama produced proof that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed that he was born there. But that doesn't matter. The faux controversy isn't going to go away soon. According to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, a psychologist and columnist for Scientific American. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it. Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. [These] people develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence."
Insofar as the "natural born citizen" issue is concerned, one can't help it if you refuse to accept that we don't 'pasken' according to Blackstone in the U.S. As I've previously pointed out, the U.S. State Department itself [under whose jurisdiction determinations of citizenship and nationality fall] has *officially* stated that the definition of "natural born citizen" has NOT been determined in this country. If you think that you know better...well...great for you.
27
Jul 14, 2009 at 06:02 PM Milhouse Says:
“ I'm going to end my contribution to this thread with a quote from Alex Koppelman, a staff writer for Salon.com. Milhouse, in reading the following you will be reading about yourself, and all of those others who refuse to accept that Obama produced a legal, raise-sealed and original stamped Certificate of Live Birth (in the exact same format, by the way, that they're issued in New York City).
"You might think the rumors [regarding Barack Obama's birth] would have died off after Obama produced proof that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed that he was born there. But that doesn't matter. The faux controversy isn't going to go away soon. According to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, a psychologist and columnist for Scientific American. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it. Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. [These] people develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence."
Insofar as the "natural born citizen" issue is concerned, one can't help it if you refuse to accept that we don't 'pasken' according to Blackstone in the U.S. As I've previously pointed out, the U.S. State Department itself [under whose jurisdiction determinations of citizenship and nationality fall] has *officially* stated that the definition of "natural born citizen" has NOT been determined in this country. If you think that you know better...well...great for you. ”
Oh, the holy Salon.com says so, so it's a fact. The fact is that he has NOT produced or released his birth certificate. It would be easy for him to do so, and yet he hasn't. And Hawaiian officials merely said that one exists; they carefully did not say what was on it.
By the way, it's over four years since Kerry said he'd release his military records, and he still hasn't done so.
The state department decides who gets issued a passport; it has no business interpreting the constitution. Eligibility for the presidency does NOT fall under its jurisdiction. And those whose business it is to interpret the 18th-century language of the constitution do in fact regard Blackstone as the most important and reliable guide.
28
Jul 14, 2009 at 04:27 PM Shua Says:
“ Take an F in reading comprehension. Or in telepathy, if that's what you were attempting. I have written nothing from which you could conclude any such thing. The fact remains, though, that he has not released his birth certificate, or shown it to anybody. He must have a reason for that. ”
Oh...one more thing. As you certainly know, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear any of the cases challenging the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. This means that the petitioners could not persuade the justices that they had even a leg to stand on. But I guess that doesn't have any meaning either, for as we all know, the mostly conservative Supreme Court is packed with Obama stooges...right? ;-) [Goodbye to this thread]