Clyburn: GOP Congress will swamp White House with subpoenas

[De Selby]

The 14th amendment's quite plain language, not its misinterpretation, gives us the anchor baby issue. 

The 'long form' will not satisfy birthers, as the 'short form' already proves the location of Obama's birth.  Whatever is on the long form, unless it shows he was born somewhere else, it cannot even in theory be relevant to his job now.  I do not support feeding the sideshow to Obama's actual (lack of) performance.

[MechAg94]

IMO, the Republicans would be stupid to officially touch this issue.  IMO, letting it roll around the back alleys of US politics for 2 more years probably helps them as much as anything else.  I was always more interested in his college transcripts and papers and such.  I think those would show either interesting things on college funding or show that Bush was smarter than him or something. 

On the OP, I think Republicans would be smart to keep any investigations of the Obama administration quiet and as dignified as possible.  They don't want to waste the next two years on that stuff and not get any legislative goals accomplished. 

[HankB]

. . . The 'long form' will not satisfy birthers, as the 'short form' already proves the location of Obama's birth . . .

No. At that time the short form "Certificate of Live Birth" was available and issued to babies born elsewhere. The "long form" is very specific about the place of actual birth.

Most likely it exists, is valid . . . and as already discussed, shows something that would be embarassing to Obama; maybe it lists race as "White" or maybe it lists religion as "Moslem." In the first case, people would claim he's not America's ". . . first Black president."  (HA!) In the second case, in the eyes of a couple of hundred million Moslems, it would show him as an apostate, which is regarded as a Bad Thing. (Fatwa time . . . )

IMO, the Republicans would be stupid to officially touch this issue.

The smartest way to touch this issue - without abandoning it entirely - would be at the state level - where some states could pass a law requiring submission of a certified copy of the birth certificate by any candidate running for an office that requires "natural born" citizenship.

[230RN]

Posted on wrong thread. :(

[Waitone]

The flap about his birth certificate serves to obscure the larger issue which is nothing of the man's background is available for public scrutiny.  And then there is the matter of a blue hose law firm being employed to hinder access to documents of his background.  How come?

[De Selby]

No. At that time the short form "Certificate of Live Birth" was available and issued to babies born elsewhere. The "long form" is very specific about the place of actual birth.

Most likely it exists, is valid . . . and as already discussed, shows something that would be embarassing to Obama; maybe it lists race as "White" or maybe it lists religion as "Moslem." In the first case, people would claim he's not America's ". . . first Black president."  (HA!) In the second case, in the eyes of a couple of hundred million Moslems, it would show him as an apostate, which is regarded as a Bad Thing. (Fatwa time . . . )
The smartest way to touch this issue - without abandoning it entirely - would be at the state level - where some states could pass a law requiring submission of a certified copy of the birth certificate by any candidate running for an office that requires "natural born" citizenship.

The certificate we have shows his place of birth, and if it can be faked in a conspiracy involving the Governor of Hawaii, so can the original. 

Any other details are irrelevant to what he's doing now; this is sideshow politics.  It'd be like the Dems alleging Sarah Palin was born a man.  Hard to imagine an attack with less substance.

[Perd Hapley]

Any other details are irrelevant to what he's doing now; this is sideshow politics. 

Yeah, I guess. Kinda like what Clyburn was doing by suggesting the Republicans would start birther-ing when they got a majority. Interesting.

Has anyone heard of a Republican Congressman using the birther controversy to stir things up?

[HankB]

Hard to imagine an attack with less substance.

Almost as silly as going after a big-time gangster behind things like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre with something trivial and unrelated like tax code paperwork . . .

[MechAg94]

The flap about his birth certificate serves to obscure the larger issue which is nothing of the man's background is available for public scrutiny.  And then there is the matter of a blue hose law firm being employed to hinder access to documents of his background.  How come?

This has been my opinion about the whole thing, but I find it all very amusing the way the whole issue has not gone away, but almost expanded.  Democrats seem to get increasingly shrill and dismissive and vocal about it even though Republicans aren't saying anything about it at all.  

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not a birther, either, but it is interesting that even to question O's citizenship is considered racist, crazy, or just bad form. I didn't see that reaction when John McCain's citizenship was questioned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028

Also amusing is the common rejoinder that G.W. Bush never had to show a birth cert. As if.