James Von Brunn Apparently Part Of Obama "Birther" Movement

[Cadena Bretado]

Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

James Von Brunn Apparently Part Of Obama "Birther" Movement

First Posted: 06-10-09 06:00 PM   |   Updated: 06-10-09 06:13 PM




Among the myriad of disturbing qualities of James Von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who shot and killed a security officer inside the Holocaust Museum on Wednesday, is his apparent belief that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States and therefore has no right to the presidency.

The reason it sticks out is that, even among Von Brunn's other characteristics -- including heavy streaks of anti-Semitism, disdain for the federal government, and threads of white supremacy -- being a "birther" has a modicum of political credibility.

Certainly, the vast majority of people who are skeptical of Obama's birth in the state of Hawaii tend to be harmless conspiracy theorists. And there has been no suggestion that Von Brunn's distrust of the president's citizenship solely drove him to this violent act.

"In addition to being a birther," said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, "he also believed that Hitler didn't kill enough Jews. He had a history of anti-Semitic, hateful views."

Indeed a "birther" mindset is more a symptom of extremism than a cause.

That said, the extent to which the birther ethos has been driven into the political narrative by legitimate figures, and subsequently picked up by extremist elements, is noteworthy. In an obvious reference to questions about Obama's birthplace, Rep. Bill Posey, R-FL, has introduced a bill in the House requiring presidential candidates to file a copy of their birth certificates. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-V.A, has joined him as a co-sponsor of that measure.

Several weeks ago, conservative reporter Lester Kinsolving, asked Robert Gibbs why the president would not "respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital?"

Outside political circles, but still within the national spotlight, the view is much more widely articulated. As late as two weeks ago, for instance, Fox News was running a headline on its website, asking: "Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News?" On Wednesday morning, moreover, talk show host Rush Limbaugh sardonically compared President Obama to God, noting that, "God does not have a birth certificate either."

Remarks like these aren't inherently violent. They can be picked up, however, by individuals who are.

"I think it is perfectly obvious that the birther movement has gained a large following on the radical right," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It may have emerged form the right wing of the Republican Party. But the reality is that it has been adopted by the most noxious elements out there and certainly John Von Brunn represents that element."

Neither Posey nor Goodlatte's office returned request for comment.

[Cadena Bretado]

Nutcases!

[Volitzer]

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy wasn't some governmental nut case hired to make those of us who understand what natural-born citizen means to make us look like extremists for following the Constitution.

Sorry Obamanoids America aint buying it.

How much prozac was this guy on anyway

[Volitzer]

Any law Obama signs won't be valid due to his un-Constitutional Presidency but there's no need to get violent about it, just like no has gotten violent over William Howard Taft's un-Constitutional Presidency.   

[Robert0326]

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy wasn't some governmental nut case hired to make those of us who understand what natural-born citizen means to make us look like extremists for following the Constitution.

Sorry Obamanoids America aint buying it.

How much prozac was this guy on anyway

It would surprise me either if you believed that.  Apparently he wasn't on enough.

[Volitzer]

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy wasn't some governmental nut case hired to make those of us who understand what natural-born citizen means to make us look like extremists for following the Constitution.

Sorry Obamanoids America aint buying it.

How much prozac was this guy on anyway

It would surprise me either if you believed that.  Apparently he wasn't on enough.

They usually wait until they are going through withdrawal then when they don't get their fix they go nuts.

Problem-Reaction-Solution.

The question is what do we do for the solution phase, actually get people off Big-Pharma drugs or engage in more un-Constitutional gun grabbing.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... I know what liberals will do.

[Robert0326]

We keep a closer eyes on those "organizations" that would perpetuate hate and violence towards others.  Namely white supremacists, other hate groups as well as individuals known for their hateful views. 

[Patsy Fahlgren]

The reason they keep going on about his birth certificate is simple - he is African-American and they are prejudiced. You sure didn't see anyone asking any questions about Bush's birth certificate, or Clinton's, or Reagan's.  Those guys are all WHITE MEN.

[Volitzer]

Every other candidate in the 2008 election submitted their Birth Certificate.

Article II - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


It's called complying with the US Constitution Patsy, no one except Obamanoids ever bring up the race issue.  It's a clear cut Constitutional issue.

[Volitzer]

William Howard Taft was a white guy who was not a Constitutional President either but for different reasons.

Read on...

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

[Volitzer]

So the questions of Obama's and Taft's un-Constitutional Presidencies are NOT racially motivated.


Thanks for reading.   

[Harconen]

Hi Vol, you have point, please see this.

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,20048.msg161263.html#msg161263