Patterico's Pontifications

7/31/2009

What We Don’t Know About Obama: A Lot

Filed under: Media Bias,Obama — DRJ @ 8:24 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

A don’t-miss article by Andrew McCarthy on why Obama’s birth certificate matters (it’s not because he was born in Kenya), in which McCarthy concludes:

“There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.

But we should know. The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?”

He also discusses how the media views its job as covering for Obama instead of covering Obama.

— DRJ

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I don’t think I’d cite Scary Larry Johnson for anything.

162 Responses to “What We Don’t Know About Obama: A Lot”

  1. Sounds about right to me.

    Nobody spends that much cash for plotting.

    Foxfier (db0f51)

  2. That doesn’t work. The bold. Definitely some redirect is needed that says no – we’re not talking about where he was born we’re talking about… but that doesn’t do it.

    The Hot Air people have pretty much rendered the birther meme toxic in the blogosphere, anyway. Toxic and unmalleable. Hot Air has printed more references to calls for Barack Obama’s birth certificate than Andrew Sullivan has ordered Palin pap smears. Which, come to think of it, they’ve probably done more to kitschify that woman than an army of Andrews ever dreamed of doing. Those ones are fond of thinking they’re far far more clever than they are I think.

    But anyway… I think the McCarthy piece is interesting but ultimately it’s tone-deaf. If we can’t beat Barack Obama on the simple basis of him being an insipid, craven, shallow, and virulent dirty socialist that is gravely harming our little country then we’re not actually in the game at all.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  3. It is illustrative, but that is as far as it goes for me. The levels of irony and hypocrosy are rather amusing though, coming from Teh One’s mostest transparent administration EVAH !!!

    JD (bc26c4)

  4. […] Patterico has more on a different, but still valid reason, that we should at least ask the question. […]

    Gazzer’s Gabfest » The Born Conspiracy II (b98ad6)

  5. My one question is always just this,”He said he travelled to Pockistan in 1981, on what passport, as US citizens were banned entry at that time?”
    Is that too much to ask?

    Gazzer (409de8)

  6. we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it.

    The bottom of what? Obama attending terror indoctrination?

    CNN tracked down officials at Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971. Classmate Bandug Winadijanto discussed their routines at the public school: “A lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. … So that’s a mixed school.” Even syndicated magazine shows like Inside Edition traipsed over there.

    Obama returned to the U.S. before he turned 25. His mother never lost her citizenship because she married Soetoro in the 1960s [Nationality Act of 1940, Chapter 3, §§ 301-322.]

    He said he travelled to Pockistan in 1981, on what passport, as US citizens were banned entry at that time?

    There was no travel ban in 1981.

    steve (b0aaeb)

  7. The McCarthy piece is important because it opens the question of whether Obama ever tells the truth. Roosevelt was known as a man who would lie when the truth would do as well. It seems that Obama shares this trait.

    For those with an interest in politics from the past, the novel “Advise and Consent” (not the movie) is still a classic. Allan Drury was a UPI correspondent in Washington for years (and reputed to be gay). His non-fiction book, which I have, is also excellent. It is the basis of the novel.

    Mike K (addb13)

  8. “He said he travelled to Pockistan in 1981, on what passport, as US citizens were banned entry at that time?

    There was no travel ban in 1981.”

    steve – McCarty did not say there were travel bans. He said there were trvel advisories warning against travel to Pakistan. Were you quoting somebody else?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  9. The only safe and sane perspective on Obama is that he is lying. Always.

    Peg C. (48175e)

  10. Gazzer : The passport issue is moot. American citizens can and have traveled on passports issued by other counties that, under their laws, recognize “dual citizenship.”

    Using another country’s passport has no effect on United States citizenship.

    Depending on the circumstances, President Obama could have used a Kenyan passport based on his father or an Indonesian passport based on his step-father. It is also possible that he might have been eligible for and received a British passport.

    As to not admitting to having used the name Soetoro in his bar application, he was a minor child and had no say in the matter. All he would have to say is that he did not remember using that name when he was filling out the bar aplication.

    This is embarrassing but not damaging. I suppose that most of the other things that he and his people are hiding are more embarrassing that damaging.

    Inflating grades, school standing, work record, etc. and/or issuing campaign biographies that are full of factual inaccuracies may cause embarrassment but usually are not considered criminal.

    Longwalker (996c34)

  11. Using another country’s passport has no effect on United States citizenship.

    Comment by Longwalker — 8/1/2009 @ 3:18 am

    Having dual citizenship as an adult (traveling on an Indonesian passport while being over the age of 18) would certainly have bearing on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen. I dare you to find any of the Founders who wrote anything remotely stating dual citizenship is okay in the personage of the President. Hence the Constitutional requirement for a president to be a natural born citizen, the only elected office so designated.

    But like McCarthy says, Obama lies about everythng, big and small. He lies when the truth would do just as well. He’s spent tons of money keeping that birth certificate locked away. (Whose money? The DNC’s, or his own? If his own, from his own bank account, or from his campaign funds [and we don’t even know where all those came from!]) Just like he’s locked away all his records. What’s he got to hide? Because, as my logic dictates, only someone with something to hide would hide EVERYTHING from his past, only allowing us his own faux autobiographical narrative. In a president, this is unprecedented, which does, in fact, make Obama our Precedent.

    And don’t you find it odd that a man who wrote two, count ’em two, autobiographies before the age of 45, and without any achievement, significant or otherwise, was never queried on those books? Why no reporter had the bokk at hand and asked him to elucidate on some of his “thoughts,” like “white man’s greed runs a world in need”? The cone of silence around Obama is frightening. It also leaves me with more questions than answers. Couple the burial of his records with the cult of personality that has grown around him, in all strata of society, and you have a recipe for disaster, a disaster we see clearly taking shape every day this administration rules over us by fiat.

    RickZ (c06fbc)

  12. As to not admitting to having used the name Soetoro in his bar application, he was a minor child and had no say in the matter. All he would have to say is that he did not remember using that name when he was filling out the bar aplication.

    Comment by Longwalker — 8/1/2009 @ 3:18 am

    Uhm, you do realize that our Barry lying on the Illinois bar application is the reason why he had to give up his law license? Another inconvenient truth the Fellatio Media will not report.

    RickZ (c06fbc)

  13. “My one question is always just this,”He said he travelled to Pockistan in 1981, on what passport, as US citizens were banned entry at that time?”
    Is that too much to ask?”

    Yeah we don’t need to ask about the birther nuttyness. Just all their crapola arguments they advance completely without merit. All under guise of “questions” about his “past.” That’s what gets us a minority of republicans believing the guy is a citizen.

    imdw (de7003)

  14. “Having dual citizenship as an adult (traveling on an Indonesian passport while being over the age of 18) would certainly have bearing on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.”

    Why would what you do as an adult affect how you are born?

    “I dare you to find any of the Founders who wrote anything remotely stating dual citizenship is okay in the personage of the President. ”

    They were all dual citizens, since the country didn’t exist when they were born.

    imdw (de7003)

  15. Having dual citizenship as an adult (traveling on an Indonesian passport while being over the age of 18) would certainly have bearing on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.

    No, it doesn’t.

    I dare you to find any of the Founders who wrote anything remotely stating dual citizenship is okay in the personage of the President.

    I dare you to find anything in the Constitution that says having dual citizenship is forbidden for a President.

    While there’s a good argument that a President shouldn’t hold a dual citizenship, the fact is the Constitution does not bar it.

    Steverino (69d941)

  16. Steverino – imdw is just restating points that were not challenged by McCarthy in his article. Why? Who knows. It’s just a restatement of the obvious.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. IMDW—the founders made an exception for themselves by grandfathering themselves in- so that they could be qualified to be president

    markcon (3ce4f2)

  18. Re: “He said there were trvel advisories warning against travel to Pakistan. Were you quoting somebody else?”

    There were no travel advisories warning against travel to Pakistan in 1981. It was so peaceful that the newspapers ran travel articles recommending visits to “scenic Lahore.” Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue in New York City and flew from JFK Airport via London to Karachi. US citizens were given 30-day visas on arrival at Pakistan airports.

    So, US citizens could travel on US passports, and Obama did, because he never had either a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  19. McCarty did not say there were travel bans. He said there were trvel advisories warning against travel to Pakistan. Were you quoting somebody else?

    Quoted #6.

    And the advisory did not “warn against travel to Pakistan.”

    steve (6e2015)

  20. Re: “I dare you to find any of the Founders who wrote anything remotely stating dual citizenship is okay in the personage of the President.”

    I dare you to find any of the Founders or Framers who wrote anything remotely stating that dual citizenship is NOT okay.”

    Dual citizenship is a red herring. Supposing Mexico passed a law that said that all the children born in Texas were at the moment of birth also Mexican citizens. Would that law affect the Natural Born Citizen status of those children? Should it? How could it? Would it really affect the loyalty of the children? Would we allow Mexican law to make children who normally would be eligible no longer eligible?

    The founders knew that it was inevitable that many children born in the USA would have dual nationality. That is because they were lawyers and knew that some countries conferred citizenship due to the place of birth (like the USA) and others conferred it on the basis of the citizenship of the parents. The first is known as Jus Soli and the second is known as Jus Sangunis.

    So whenever a child of parents (or in some cases a single parent) of a Jus Sangunis country (like, say Italy) is born in the USA, the child has dual nationality. (Recently Italy has changed the law to make it that if the parent was nationalized in another country, the right of citizenship ceases, but that was not the case for a long time.)

    Now let us imagine two children. Both are born in the USA. One has parents from a Jus Soli country (like Canada), the other has parents from a Jus Sangunis country (like Italy, and say that it was before Italy changed the law on naturalization).

    What makes the two children different? Both are citizens because of the location of birth. Is the first one a Natural Born Citizen and the second one NOT a Natural Born Citizen? If the second one is not Natural Born, why? Why does the law of Italy affect the status of the child? Why should a foreign law affect the child? Why should a child of Canadian parents have any more rights than one of Italian parents?

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  21. daley, I generally don’t care what imdw says. I was responding to Rick Z.

    There are hundreds of reasons to oppose Obama. Dual citizenship is not among them. Let’s fight the battles that (a) we can win and (b) are worth winning.

    Steverino (69d941)

  22. I suppose that most of the other things that he and his people are hiding are more embarrassing that damaging.

    That’s really the crux of the matter here – when you continually cover up basically benign (albeit embarrassing) incidents in your past, you open up questions pertaining to other relevant facts in your life.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  23. the next time Obama runs for an election he’s going to have a record of what he did (or did not) do as prez. Why not focus on that rather than some national guard, sorry birth and school records, ffrom over 30 yrs ago?

    Kolohe (23f387)

  24. On the dual-citizenship thing– I believe the reason it comes up is that the US is one of the few countries that’s cool with the practice.

    Other countries, on the other hand, tend to demand you renounce all ties to foreign countries if you’re traveling under their identity.

    Thus, if he was on an Indonesian passport, he would’ve had to renounce American citizenship to get that passport as an adult.

    Foxfier (db0f51)

  25. My expectation is that this fall, as the economy tanks and Obama’s legislation is defeated, some disgruntled political activist on the Left will disclose more about Obama than he wants us to know. Then the fun starts!

    For an incisive examination of the whole birth eligibility issue, and why there is no proof of natural-born citizenship available, see this exhaustive summary.

    Even Henry Louis Gates, Jr. showed the cop his Harvard ID and Massachusetts driver’s license. Why is this kind of process so hard for Teh One and Done? Because he’s a fake, a phony and a fraud.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  26. I dare you to find any of the Founders who wrote anything remotely stating dual citizenship is okay in the personage of the President.

    I dare you to find any of the Founder, Framers, or members of the First Congress who wrote anything remotely stating that being of Afrian descent is okay in the personage of the President. God love the Founders, Framers, and members of the First Congress, I know I certainly do (expect for Jefferson, who was a jackass), but I think that would have been a blind spot for them.

    Just saying.

    Fritz (29480b)

  27. a lot unmalleable

    happyfeet (42470c)

  28. What we know about Obama is worse than what it is that we do not know.

    JD (072c39)

  29. By all means, keep the birther thing going. I’ve got my popcorn, & it’s a scream watching as Ultraconservative Airlines comes crashing down from the sky in flames.

    JEA (f2526c)

  30. “By all means, keep the birther thing going. I’ve got my popcorn, & it’s a scream watching as Ultraconservative Airlines comes crashing down from the sky in flames.”

    Don’t you know. Eric Cantor says this is all the liberals doing.

    imdw (de7003)

  31. Steverino – My mistake. Sorry.

    JEA – What fluffy said, twice, sideways with a swordfish.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  32. JEA – Please outline for us the ultra-conservative positions here.

    JD (4c20e2)

  33. #24, the answer to your question is in the “don’t miss” article linked in DRJ’s opening sentence. Here’s a hint, “The fact is that Obama’s account of his background is increasingly revealed as a fabrication, not his life as lived; his utterances reflect the expediencies of the moment, not the truth.”

    Ropelight (6f0b7c)

  34. So, did Larry Johnson ever find that tape of Michelle Obama talking about “whitey”?

    [Battle Panda posts from the same IP as Brolic Johnson and thus his comments are moderated. — DRJ]

    Battle Panda (280b11)

  35. What we know about Obama is worse than what it is that we do not know.

    Nailed it perfectly.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  36. When you start getting flak, you know you’re over the target. Chris Matthews nearly had a Chrissyfit&#8482 over the subject of Obama’s elibigility.

    We will discover the reasons why some people say, “Obama is not the President–he just plays one on TV.”

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  37. (That was supposed to be html for “TM” after Chrissyfit.)

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  38. kohole #24:

    the next time Obama runs for an election he’s going to have a record of what he did (or did not) do as prez. Why not focus on that rather than some national guard, sorry birth and school records, ffrom over 30 yrs ago?

    As I read your comment, you’re fine with letting the media cover for Obama and his history and then we’ll judge him after his first term in office. What a novel idea! Let’s try it in 2012, only this time with Sarah Palin. No talk, criticism, or background about her will be allowed. Instead, we’ll give her 4 years in office and then evaluate how things went.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  39. It’s always the same meme for the Obama cultists – he deserves less scrutiny than his predessors, because they say so.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  40. Wow – bad typo there – “predecessors.”

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  41. “would probably show….may have wanted…it’s been claimed”

    Well that certainly seems definitive!

    So McCarthy decries the media’s lack of investigative journalism while himself engaging in almost nothing but rank speculation throughout the article. Speculation he is careful to denounce: “The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the “Obama as Muslim Manchurian Candidate” canard.” Uh huh, sure, THAT was your point.

    My questions are: Isn’t National Review part of the media? Are they incapable of conducting their own investigative journalism? Is McCarthy? If “The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories,” then why are they publishing the “crackpot conspiracy theories” of McCarthy? If you want a better media, why don’t you actually try being a better media?

    His article is not so much an indictment of the declining responsibility of the media, except in its being largely an example of its evident decline.

    As to his larger point and his question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing more legitimite information about Obama’s background. But nor is there anything wrong with Obama legally withholding any information for whatever reason – maybe it is embarassing, or able to be easily mischaracterized by his opponents, or maybe he just wants to mess with their heads? Nothing wrong in making Obama’s lack of transparency an election issue either – that might even have legs!

    Although I fail to see what relevance the information McCarthy wishes to uncover would have on Obama’s fitness to be President, I can see how McCarthy might find it useful – and he is certainly welcome to try and track it down. But could he stop bitching that nobody is doing his homework for him? “[S]adly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it.” Yes, sadly indeed.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  42. You could have shortened that considerably, Bob. How about STFU wingers? Or, we won, deal? Or, neocon conspiracy theories?!?!

    JD (204bee)

  43. Bob,

    Do you know any legal way a journalist can get a copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate?

    Since Obama has refused to release it, why is it wrong for a journalist to speculate about what it might say?

    DRJ (8d138b)

  44. “As to his larger point and his question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing more legitimite information about Obama’s background.”

    Bob – Gee, maybe McCarthy’s point, which you seem to have missed, is that if the media held Obama to the same standards they other candidates to, these questions could get easily resolved. But no, you choose to categorize them as outlandish conspiracy theories. Complete bullshit on your part.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  45. JD @ #43: I happily leave the simple stuff for you!

    DRJ @ #44: Nope, no legal way – but what possible use is having the Doctor’s name? Are the media running out of front lawns to camp on?

    Nothing wrong in speculating about the birth certificate, but I wouldn’t call it journalism. I certainly wouldn’t call it responsible journalism to speculate about irrelevant details. What does any of it have to do with Barack Obama the man, the candidate, the President?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  46. The obtuse is strong in this one.

    JD (204bee)

  47. Bob,

    Let’s assume the long-form birth certificate and other state records indicate Obama was adopted by his step-father or that he was classified as a Muslim as a child. I don’t blame people for what their parents decide for them as children, but I am bothered if Obama thinks he can or should hide that information. It suggests he will go to great lengths to hide inconvenient facts, and that’s not a good sign. It reminds me of Nixon.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  48. daleyrocks@#45: My point was why doesn’t National Review hold him to whatever standard they deem fit by engaging in actual journalism? Because most of the birth/childhood information they are looking for has no relevance on Obama’s fitness for office and might better be termed ‘Oppo’ research. That’s not a problem for me, I just suggest they should do it themselves.

    And for which other candidates do I (or you) know their delivery doctor or hospital. And except in the most trivial of senses, why would we care?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  49. Because you are a good person, you have fallen into the trap of assuming good faith on Bob Noballz’s part. That assumption is erroneous.

    JD (204bee)

  50. We know all of that about Palin, Bob.

    JD (204bee)

  51. “Since Obama has refused to release it, why is it wrong for a journalist to speculate about what it might say?”

    I don’t think he’s refused it.

    imdw (c5488f)

  52. DRJ@#45,
    “The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the “Obama as Muslim Manchurian Candidate” canard.”

    Uh huh….

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  53. Oh, for the sake of f*ck, imdw. Is there any topic that does not cause you to hyper-parse, spin, and be otherwise dishonest?

    JD (204bee)

  54. JD, Do you ever actually engage in discussion or is it all insults, all the time?

    Why don’t you go dig up some of my examples of my bad faith?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  55. Well, Bob, “Uh huh…” is not discussion. So mote, eye, beam etc.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. JD @#51,
    I had no idea, but tell me who tracked that down and I’ll join you in calling them idiots.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  57. All insults, all the time. It is not like you do not have a history here, like we are not familiar with you. Hell, in this thread alone, you have shown that you cannot have a good faithed discussion with DRJ. If you cannot do that, then the problem ain’t with me, Bob.

    JD (204bee)

  58. Bob,

    Like McCarthy, I don’t think Obama is forthcoming about his background to the same degree and standards other candidates have to meet. That doesn’t make Obama a Manchurian candidate and I never said he is, but it does make him more manipulative and less transparent than he likes to portray himself.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  59. Maybe I was unfairly harsh, Bob. To you, not imdw. I hope you prove me wrong.

    JD (204bee)

  60. “daleyrocks@#45: My point was why doesn’t National Review hold him to whatever standard they deem fit by engaging in actual journalism?”

    Bob – Maybe it would help it you actualy read the article linked so that you aren’t just erecting fields of strawmen about what McCarthy is saying or doing.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  61. SPQR, Fair point.

    My point in that comment was that IF the word Muslim appeared within 500 miles of Obama’s Birth Certificate (et al) I don’t find it at all unreasonable for Obama to not want to disclose that – reality being what it is. You can’t hold a child responsible for their parent’s decision. I certainly don’t find it any more dishonest than say the Reagans not informing the public they planned to consult an astrologer. Or that George Bush had 4 undisclosed nipples (I’m just speculating on that last one.)

    Overall, I think my concise post was better.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  62. “Oh, for the sake of f*ck, imdw. Is there any topic that does not cause you to hyper-parse, spin, and be otherwise dishonest?”

    For real. He’s released his birth certificate. And hasn’t refused anything else.

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    imdw (7a9833)

  63. “And for which other candidates do I (or you) know their delivery doctor or hospital. And except in the most trivial of senses, why would we care?”

    Bob – I’m more intereste in the issues raised by McCarthy,not by the BS you are bringing up, but if that’s what you want to know, have at it.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  64. “I certainly don’t find it any more dishonest than say the Reagans not informing the public they planned to consult an astrologer.”

    Bob – Was that just Nancy or Ron as well. Did Ron say the astrologer informed his Presidential decisions? See here is where you are just getting all goofy again Bob.

    Now what about Obama’s transcripts, medical records, Illinois legislature records, etc. Why did his people try to limit access to the Annenberg Challenge files and why did ACORN scrub their websites of the pictures of Obama training their people? I guess that’s all oppo research tather than legitimate journalistic inquiry, right?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  65. DRJ @#59,

    more manipulative and less transparent than he likes to portray himself.

    So, we agree he’s a politician then?

    If you think Obama has been more secretive than other past or current candidates and you think that’s a winning electoral issue, you just have to sell your point of view to the public. Hopefully you’ll make a better success of selling it than I think McCarthy has, because frankly he comes off looking like he IS just itching to call Obama a manchurian candidate (I did read it, but thanks for the friendly advice daley).

    I’m honestly not sure that it is a winning issue with the electorate, or if it just tends to make conservatives look bad trying to stir up dirt on the childhood Obama. *Shrug* maybe they are just playing you?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  66. Bob, judging Obama by Obama’s own standards, he is secretive and non-transparent. Blaming those evil conservatives for daring to judge Obama by Obama’s own standards is pretty lame.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. None of this matters. Did you know the FBI is investigating Palin? And that she is moving to The Hamptons? And that she is leaving Todd? CNN said so, and they are always right.

    JD (2ed087)

  68. Maybe there is something to moderated comments, after all. I remember when comments would get loose and people would talk to each other here like they were talking around the fountain in the village square. Now it’s like two mobs shouting across the street. And me being no exception but sick of it.

    nk (5e5670)

  69. Bob

    Obama

    Did not disclose his college records

    Did not provide a birth certificate (my daughter to attend West Point and all other officer cadets everywhere and all Federal Employees are REQUIRED to provide an original certificate of Birth a notification of Birth is not – in the case of Federal Employment – an acceptable document)

    Did not disclose the manner in which he bought property less than face value

    Did not disclose the miraculous raise his wife received from a University that receives state and federal funds, making her in her part time position one of the highest paid University chairs in US history.

    Lots of things Obama has not disclosed….

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  70. daleyrocks,

    Now what about Obama’s transcripts, medical records, Illinois legislature records, etc. Why did his people try to limit access to the Annenberg Challenge files and why did ACORN scrub their websites of the pictures of Obama training their people?

    I assume it’s because they see that as to his advantage. I agree that that is a good and logical way to come at Obama and I don’t expect anyone to stop calling for the release of the files. I encourage investigative journalism into all of it. I think most if not all of it will be pointless if uncovered. I think Obama has every legal right not to allow people to fish through his personal files in order to do him harm. I think McCarthy’s article was not journalism. I wish we had better journalists all around.

    I know nothing about the Reagan’s astrological habits other than I was kinda freaked out when I first heard about it.

    That should clear up some of my views for you.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  71. EricPWJohnson @69,
    Yeah, so…..

    Who did he fail to disclose his wife’s salary to?

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  72. “I agree that that is a good and logical way to come at Obama and I don’t expect anyone to stop calling for the release of the files.”

    Bob – I’m glad we’re in agreement. McCarthy’s point is that only a very small part of the media is calling for the release of that information. Shouldn’t the media be more curious, even in your current disingenuous mode it’s tough to argue against filling in the blanks in Obama’s background.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  73. “Did not provide a birth certificate (my daughter to attend West Point and all other officer cadets everywhere and all Federal Employees are REQUIRED to provide an original certificate of Birth a notification of Birth is not – in the case of Federal Employment – an acceptable document)”

    Seriously? You haven’t seen one online? How did he get a passport?

    imdw (f2c7dd)

  74. SPQR @#66,
    I already agree Obama probably has been more secretive and non-transparent about aspects of his history than his predecessors. So I’m not blaming anyone for judging him as such. Its all the bs McCarthy shoveled along with it that I found lame.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  75. imdw – Why does Obama need a passport? He’s a citizen of the world and a celebrity.

    Kumbaya my child.

    May blessings be upon you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  76. Bob

    He was elected Senator, his wife went from a full time 100K job to a 5 hour a week 385K job with drivers, and many other perks.

    If ___Insert any Republican Spouse HERE____ was EVER given that treatment…

    Remember, they went after Tom Delays wife for 80,000 in salary over three years of office work

    Please…..

    Keep your indignation in proportion to the pontifications of OBama

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  77. There’s no BS in McCarthy’s article, Loblaw. McCarthy’s piece is straightforward and rational.

    Obviously you didn’t bother to read it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  78. “imdw – Why does Obama need a passport? He’s a citizen of the world and a celebrity.”

    Those people have passports.

    imdw (09734a)

  79. imdw

    I only have a notification of birth

    The local Hospital (most if not all) will never issue a certificate of live birth for any baby that is not birthed from an ADMITTED patient.

    However a notification of birth is a document gleamed from the statements of fact from the parents and from a attending medical or law enforcement official.

    Thats the difference. Now to get my passport it took a few days longer even though it was a dozen years ago and Also having have filed tax returns for many years, having a social security card and the county confirmed the notification was genuine.

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  80. “The local Hospital (most if not all) will never issue a certificate of live birth for any baby that is not birthed from an ADMITTED patient.”

    And you haven’t seen obama’s?

    imdw (b7ffa4)

  81. Comment by imdw — 8/1/2009 @ 8:59 pm

    No. We’ve yet to see an actual Birth Cert for him. No, I don’t really care at this point.

    But the fact remains that – sadly – a lot of people will keep bitching about this until a real, honest to god birth cert shows up.

    Though it is entirely possible that his mom wasn’t an admitted patient of a hosp. She was kind of a hippy, so a home birth is hardly out of the question.

    Again, I really don’t care. he’s the president, and the SCotUS said he’s good to go. That really did end it for me.

    Scott Jacobs (c470eb)

  82. “And you haven’t seen obama’s?”

    imdw – Have you? Could you forward a copy?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  83. “We’ve yet to see an actual Birth Cert for him.”

    me neither. Only a pic.

    “imdw – Have you? Could you forward a copy?”

    Would a copy satisfy you?

    imdw (fb6c4b)

  84. EricPWJohnson @#77: Oh! so he did actually disclose it, but you just find it yucky? That’s not the same as what you claimed.

    SPQR @#78: *Yawn*

    daleyrocks,

    Shouldn’t the media be more curious

    Absolutely! About things more important than Obama’s college transcripts also.
    I’m with you, our current media suck (including McCarthy) and are largely useless with their trivial obsessions. Because they are generally lazy and stupid in no small amount, I think they generally rely on oppo research to spit up whatever juicy morsels there are in these types of background cases? And besides his grades, I don’t think there’s much of a market in the MSM for the info involved outside of whatever dirt the other side makes of it?

    I don’t think you should go easy on your own media though. National Review is (or certainly should be) capable of doing their own investigating on this. You’re the consumers; demand better.

    My own fervent wish is that his college records get out, but he was like aceing everything, thereby backfiring on the right! See, we’ve all got skin in this game!

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  85. Only a pic.

    That, sadly, wasn’t a birth certificate.

    Scott Jacobs (c470eb)

  86. the next time Obama runs for an election he’s going to have a record of what he did (or did not) do as prez. Why not focus on that rather than some national guard, sorry birth and school records, ffrom over 30 yrs ago?

    As I read your comment, you’re fine with letting the media cover for Obama and his history and then we’ll judge him after his first term in office. What a novel idea! Let’s try it in 2012, only this time with Sarah Palin. No talk, criticism, or background about her will be allowed. Instead, we’ll give her 4 years in office and then evaluate how things went.

    uh what? Palin’s record as gov – to criticize or compliment – is fair game, because it’s the dog closest to the sled, so to speak. It’s the most recent relevant experience. What *wouldn’t* be all that relevant is her record at boise state(?) or among the 4 to 5 other colleges she went to. Ancient history.

    What I am saying is focusing on birth certificates and school records – for a person with an established and *very* visible public record – is the same mistake that people made thinking the voting public would give two whits about nat’l guard records, even if they weren’t fake. Ancient history.

    Kolohe (72b7a1)

  87. “That, sadly, wasn’t a birth certificate.”

    Right. It only certifies his birth.

    imdw (490521)

  88. Obama was born in 1961 — by which time his parents had divorced and his mother was planning a move to Indonesia with the second of her two non-African-American husbands.

    McCarthy or NRO needs to document this.

    The Obama’s married Feb. 2. 1961 and divorced three years later, in 1964. Half-sister Maya says: “Our mother, after divorcing Barack’s father, met my father..”

    steve (23f2ef)

  89. Comment by imdw — 8/1/2009 @ 10:50 pm

    *shrugs* I don’t exactly get it either, and like I said, I don’t care…

    But neither you, I, or anyone else on teh interwebz has seen Obama’s actual BC.

    For me, the SCotUS saying he qualified was enough. At that point, I moved on from this BC bull. It really doesn’t matter, as they probably wouldn’t eject him if it came to light that he wasn’t actually a natural born citizen.

    And every conservative should shut up an be happy, because the alternative is maybe Obama DOES get booted from office, and then we have President Biden, which should be a terrifying concept to anyone.

    Scott Jacobs (c470eb)

  90. Kolohe,

    I thought Palin’s multiple colleges and Bush’s grades were issues in their respective national elections. Explain to me how you decide when it matters and when it doesn’t.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  91. “But neither you, I, or anyone else on teh interwebz has seen Obama’s actual BC.”

    If I had to guess, as a max, I would say I have only ever seen about 2 or 3 actual BCs.

    “For me, the SCotUS saying he qualified was enough.”

    I don’t think they said this.

    “It really doesn’t matter, as they probably wouldn’t eject him if it came to light that he wasn’t actually a natural born citizen.”

    Probably. Dan Tokaji has written about this being non-justiciable.

    imdw (8be8bf)

  92. I thought Palin’s multiple colleges and Bush’s grades were issues in their respective national elections. Explain to me how you decide when it matters and when it doesn’t.

    Bush’s first one, maybe. (and Palin’s because it’s been her only one). Again, my point is that those that tried to dig up old dirt on Bush during his reelection wound up shooting themselves in the foot.

    Kolohe (72b7a1)

  93. uh what? Palin’s record as gov – to criticize or compliment – is fair game, because it’s the dog closest to the sled, so to speak. It’s the most recent relevant experience.

    Well then, by that statement, Kolohe, Obama’s record in the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate and everything involved that he hasn’t disclosed (like Michelle’s raise and the property purchased for less than face value, for instance) is fair game. Agreed?

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (b1e97e)

  94. Bob, et al

    I enjoy watching people view the presidency as just any other elected position and given the ability of liberals to fit any square logical piece of law into any traditional justice hole is both fascinating and disgusting to watch

    Facts

    The founders for some insane reason made an issue about the President must be a native born individual.

    Facts

    Obama’s father never will be an American Citizen nor even a legal resident.

    Fact

    Obama since the civil war is the first American President to not have both parents be born in the USA and probably the first to have a parent who is not or never will be a citizen of the United States

    Fact

    Obama has not given sufficient proof that he is a citizen – you must provide a CERTIFIED BIRTH
    CERTIFICATE – not a printed notification of birth

    Fact

    No one but two politicians have seen the document and even though I trust them to be telling the truth why won’t they publish it?

    Yes we all maybe knuckle dragging toadish birthers, truthers of what not but we are not ther one’s who are not publishing a certified birth Certificate

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  95. Obama has not given sufficient proof that he is a citizen – you must provide a CERTIFIED BIRTH
    CERTIFICATE – not a printed notification of birth

    I’m wondering where you got this “fact”.

    There really isn’t any doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born, due to Title 8 US Code Section 1401.

    No one but two politicians have seen the document and even though I trust them to be telling the truth why won’t they publish it?

    Who saw Bush’s birth certificate? Or Clinton’s? Or Reagan’s? Or Carter’s?

    All I see on this birth certificate issue is a bunch of people looking foolish over a document that contains no more useful information that what has already been proven.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  96. Steverino

    All Birth certificates were included in the application for running for president – believe it or not and that is why them Dems challenged McCain because he was born in the canal zone while his father was on active duty

    Remember, all military officers must provide a certified birth certificate, not a photo copy nor a notification of birth – same goes for most federal positions that require a hand gun.

    I seriously seriously doubt the people would have elected someone not born into a 100% American family in a foreign land.

    He would have never beaten Hillary.

    Hillary couldnt get her hands on it – there must be a reason

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  97. All Birth certificates were included in the application for running for president – believe it or not and that is why them Dems challenged McCain because he was born in the canal zone while his father was on active duty

    So, that would include Obama’s, right? What are you arguing for, then?

    Remember, all military officers must provide a certified birth certificate, not a photo copy nor a notification of birth – same goes for most federal positions that require a hand gun.

    Just about any birth certificate you can obtain is either a photocopy of the original or a computer printout from the state’s database of birth records. In both cases they are copies, not the actual original. In both cases, they would bear the seal of the state and some official stamp. In all cases, the states decide what form their birth certificates take.

    I just got my son’s birth ceritificate from Denver, CO, where he was born. It’s a “short form”: a Certification of Live Birth, much like Obama’s. Everything on it is correct: his date and time of birth, city of birth, his parent’s names. There’s no mention of the hospital or the doctor’s signature. And yet, this document is proof of his age and citizenship in any legal proceding.

    Steverino (69d941)

  98. I seriously seriously doubt the people would have elected someone not born into a 100% American family in a foreign land.

    Since Obama’s parentage was well known before the election, this is moot, even if I accept your apparent assertion that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    He would have never beaten Hillary.

    And yet….

    Hillary couldnt get her hands on it – there must be a reason

    You don’t know that Hillary couldn’t get her hands on it. An entirely reasonable alternative is that she did, in fact, see Obama’s birth certificate, and it contained nothing scandalous.

    Are you familiar with Hawaii Revised Statute 338 14.3? It says, in part:

    (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

    (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

    (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

    Earlier this week, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health verified that Obama was born in Hawaii

    Since a spokesperson for the DoH verified Obama’s place of birth, and per Hawaii law, that verification can take any form the DoH approves, this should settle once and for all that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Unless you want to argue that Hawaii’s DoH director is lying. In that case, why would you accept even an original birth certificate? I mean, it could be forged, right? The doctor’s signature could be forged, right? The hospital records could be forged, too.

    So, why would accept one piece of paper instead of another?

    Steverino (69d941)

  99. Steverino

    Again, and I agree with you more than you think.

    ITS REQUIRED. Ahem YOU NEED A CERTIFIED COPY of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    The PRESS should have HOUNDED HIM until hell or high water HE PRODUCED ONE.

    SO FAR HE HAS NOT AND STILL NOT AND NOW ARMED FORCED, GENERALS, are refusing his commands and are suing until OBAMA PRODUCES PROOF THAT HE WAS ELIGBLE to run for office.

    A blurb in the newspaper under “Birth Announcements” whereas in court could be very strong evidence he was born in Hawaii but its still not a CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    As far as anyone vouching for actually seeing the orginal and swearing to it – in a court of law – I would agree with you that this could be strong evidence – but again – ITS NOT A CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    To run you must provide sufficient proof that you are a natural born citizen, and that standard for decades has been a CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    A NOTIFICATION OF BIRTH is like a receipt from a grocery store. Its just another piece of paper that doesent prove anything

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  100. Steverino

    Remember Mitt Romney’s father was almost de-certified to run as he was born in a breakaway Mormon community, that questioning destroyed Romenys campaign just as it was gathering momentum

    Also they attacked Nixon for his birth certificate – questioning his parents orthodox religion.

    Birth Certificates matter, it was a living hell getting TWO certified copies from East JEf general after KAtrina, but without this she would not be attending the USMA.

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  101. ITS REQUIRED. Ahem YOU NEED A CERTIFIED COPY of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    The PRESS should have HOUNDED HIM until hell or high water HE PRODUCED ONE.

    SO FAR HE HAS NOT AND STILL NOT AND NOW ARMED FORCED, GENERALS, are refusing his commands and are suing until OBAMA PRODUCES PROOF THAT HE WAS ELIGBLE to run for office.

    A blurb in the newspaper under “Birth Announcements” whereas in court could be very strong evidence he was born in Hawaii but its still not a CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Okay, I’m going to say this once and only once. I won’t use caps, because I don’t need to shout.

    First, the Certification of Live Birth that Obama produce really is a birth certificate under Hawaii law. You need to read HRS 338; there are half a dozen sections that apply to this. But that document

    (a) is certified by the state of Hawaii
    (b) contains the date, time, and place of Obama’s birth
    (c) is held by the state of Hawaii to be prima facie evidence of the facts it contains.

    Therefore, that document is the certified birth certificate that you are demanding.

    Second, the Director of the Department of Health has verified that Obama’s birth certificate exists and shows that he was born in Hawaii. That’s all that is needed under HRS 338 14.3 to prove the facts of his birth. You really need to read these laws.

    Third, even if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, he was born of an American citizen and qualifed under 8 USC Seciton 1401 as a natural born citizen no matter where he was born

    Fourth, all Obama has to prove is that he is over 35 and a natural born citizen. It’s already been proven. So, why are you demanding a document that won’t prove anything more than what has already been proven?

    Fifth, you said all candidates had to file their birth certificates with the application for running for office. But now you are saying that doesn’t include Obama. Aside from the obvious self-contradiction, how do you know that he didn’t produce it? How do you know that Hillary didn’t see it? How do you know any of these things you claim to be absolutely certain of?

    To run you must provide sufficient proof that you are a natural born citizen, and that standard for decades has been a CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Birth certificates are a relatively recent thing. For probably the first hundred years of this country, no President had a birth certificate. The only requirement is proof of citizenship, which has obviously taken many forms in the past.

    Please show me a citation for the law which states a certified birth certificate must be produced. If you can’t do that, the rest of your rant is just bullshit.

    Steverino (69d941)

  102. Hillary saw nothing. Nobody but the person whose birth certificate it is, or persons authorized to do so, may see the original.

    The green computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, as displayed on Kos and elsewhere before the election, could be considered verification of the existence of the certificate. (By the way, Hawaii just changed its terminology from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth” within the past two months. Now that computer generated image is called a “Certificate.”)

    But the thing you can’t seem to get your mind around, Steverino, is that an original, paper Certificate of Live Birth may or may not prove that the person was born in Hawaii, since the state issued birth certificates to people not born in Hawaii until 1972. Repeating the error by digitizing the information does not erase the error, if there was one. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (born in China in 1866) had a Hawaiian birth certificate issued to him, too, and the data could be reproduced as a green computer-generated template today, too.

    Click on Dr. Sun’s birth certificate in that link, for a nice, big image of it. It clearly states that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands in 1870.

    The Hawaii statute you cite merely says that the computer-generated version satisfies Hawaii’s purposes, but it really didn’t do that, because to qualify for certain Hawaiian homestead benefits, you need the original copy anyway. More importantly, the statute doesn’t satisfy the language in Article II, section 1.

    Steverino, you can also read about the many ways people could get a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii in my link in post #26, above, in this thread. Here it is again.

    Obama has not put this matter to rest because he cannot. Let me be clear: he’s a fake, a phony, and a fraud.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  103. EricPWJohnson:

    Fact
    Obama since the civil war is the first American President to not have both parents be born in the USA

    Except for: #21 Chester A. Arthur (R) – father born in Ireland; #28 Woodrow Wilson (D) – mother born in England; #31 Herbert Hoover (R) – mother born in Canada.

    Stop making stuff up.

    P.S. I think 2 of your other “facts” can best be characterized as fever dream fantasies.
    I didn’t include #42 Bill Clinton (D) – son of satan, because of the complicated international and metaphysical boundary issues involved.

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  104. The Hawaii statute you cite merely says that the computer-generated version satisfies Hawaii’s purposes, but it really didn’t do that, because to qualify for certain Hawaiian homestead benefits, you need the original copy anyway. More importantly, the statute doesn’t satisfy the language in Article II, section 1.

    Okay, I’ll bite: exactly how does the documen not satisfy the language in Article II, section 1?

    The Hawaii document aside, is it your claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen under 8 USC Section 1401? If so, why?

    Steverino (69d941)

  105. But the thing you can’t seem to get your mind around, Steverino, is that an original, paper Certificate of Live Birth may or may not prove that the person was born in Hawaii, since the state issued birth certificates to people not born in Hawaii until 1972

    The thing you refuse to get your mind around, OIDO, is that the Director of the Department of Health has publicly verified that Obama’s birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii.

    Under HRS 338 14.3, that verification alone is proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    Is this in dispute? If so, why?

    Steverino (69d941)

  106. To satisfy Article II, section 1, you must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Where’s the birth certificate? The digitized version is not proof, because we don’t know under what theory (as described in the second link in my post #104) Hawaii gave him one.

    As for 8 USC Section 1401, the original proviso somewhere in there that one parent is a citizen if she lived in the US five years after the age of 14 is operative, not as it was later amended to two years after the age of 14. They may have changed the law in 1986, and made it retroactive (as Xrlq has pointed out), but that doesn’t matter. That’s because the law as it read in 1961 is what counts. In other words, to be a natural-born citizen, that means, at least to me, you must be one from the moment of your birth–not retroactively. I don’t think Section 1401 means Obama is not a citizen, but even as amended it doesn’t make him a natural-born citizen, as some have argued.

    Anyway, I’m not convinced one way or the other that the citizenship status of both of one’s parents matters at all when determining a natural-born citizen, but a US Supreme Court majority of justices who respect “original intent” may well rule, if asked, that you need to have both parents be citizens and your own birth in the United States to qualify.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  107. Steverino, the Director of the Department of Health (of Hawaii) could also have “verified” that Obama’s sister Maya (born in Indonesia) was born in Hawaii, because she has a birth certificate from Hawaii, too. So, this alleged “verification” of something proves nothing. I just linked a document for you which “verifies” the fact that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen was born in Hawaii in 1870, even though he was really born in China in 1866. The Hawaiian bureaucrat you’re relying on could even “verify” Dr. Sun was born in Hawaii, too.

    Close enough for government work, right?

    Even so, as I understand it, the bureacrat in question is not allowed to “verify” anything to anybody.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  108. “… but a US Supreme Court majority of justices who respect “original intent” may well rule, if asked, that you need to have both parents be citizens and your own birth in the United States to qualify.”
    Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/2/2009 @ 12:08 pm

    I’m sure we’ll find out at some point in the future when a Hispanic-American,
    born in L.A. of illegal-alien parents, runs for President.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  109. Even so, as I understand it, the bureacrat in question is not allowed to “verify” anything to anybody.

    Your understanding is incorrect. Again, look at HRS 338 14.3. I quoted the relevant parts above, but in case you didn’t read that, here it is again:

    (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

    So, according to this, the department of health can verify any information on a birth record. Do you understand that?

    Next:

    (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

    So, the verification is a certification by the state that the facts of the event did actually occur. Right? So, if the director of the department of health verifies that it happened, then as far as the state of Hawaii is concerned, it actually happened.

    Finally:

    (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

    The verification can be in any form approved by the director of health. Since it was the director of health who issued the statement, is it fair to say that the director of health approved of this form?

    And now, to the statement made. It was at the link; did you read that?

    “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement

    So, the director of the department of health has verified that the original record states Obama was born in Hawaii.

    By virtue of that statement and Hawaii law, the matter should be settled. But I’m thinking that it’s not settled with you.

    To satisfy Article II, section 1, you must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Where’s the birth certificate?

    Where’s the requirement in Article II, section 1 for a birth certificate? There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the qualifications have to be satisfied by a birth certificate. Stop making things up. So, contrary to your assertion, the COLB does contain enough information to satisfy the language of Article II, section 1.

    As for 8 USC Section 1401, the original proviso somewhere in there that one parent is a citizen if she lived in the US five years after the age of 14 is operative, not as it was later amended to two years after the age of 14. They may have changed the law in 1986, and made it retroactive (as Xrlq has pointed out), but that doesn’t matter

    Actually, it does matter. The Constitution does not say who is a natural born citizen, that’s up to Congress. And since Congress passed a law which covered everyone born after 1952, that makes Obama a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.

    The law is on the books. You may not like it, but that’s the way it goes. If you think it’s unconstitutional, challenge it in court. Good luck with that.

    but a US Supreme Court majority of justices who respect “original intent” may well rule, if asked, that you need to have both parents be citizens and your own birth in the United States to qualify.

    And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. Until the Supreme Court does rule in that fashion, what determines natural-born citizenship is up to Congress.

    Steverino (69d941)

  110. Steverino, you’re begging the question. The Health Director can supply verification to interested parties for everyday purposes like getting a passport, under Hawaiian law, but also under Hawaiian law the problem still remains that one could get a Hawaiian birth certificate through loopholes you could drive a Ford Expedition through. The Health director believes she’s verifying something, and she thinks the statutes allows her to do so, but when she says that the document proves he’s a natural-born citizen, she’s stepping over the line into speculation, based on those loopholes again. She must not only be a health director, but a lawyer, too!

    As Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) once said, “Not proven!”

    We will have to agree to disagree about Section 1401. As for the whole matter, the Supreme Court will eventually decide.

    And, no, Article II section 1 doesn’t demand a birth certificate, true enough. That’s a red herring. But, on a practical level, we should demand one, because what we want is proof–best evidence. Obama has the power to supply it, but he won’t, and that means he can’t.

    Oh, and this just in, today:

    Obama’s real birth certificate!?

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  111. That link to the image in my post #112 comes from a Free Republic thread, started just today.

    As Matt Drudge once said, the Freepers are going nuts.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  112. “Steverino, the Director of the Department of Health (of Hawaii) could also have “verified” that Obama’s sister Maya (born in Indonesia) was born in Hawaii, because she has a birth certificate from Hawaii, too. ”

    Where does it say she was born?

    imdw (bc4070)

  113. Bob

    All became/were citizens at the time of birth

    thanks for the deliberately false argument

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  114. Steverino

    Regardles of the effaciency of the HR 338

    THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REQUIRES not REQUESTS AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE – CERTIFIED THAT IT IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    There that was easy – the rest of your argument does not stand – I agree with what you say but the GOVERNMENT says otherwise
    T

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  115. Where does it say she was born?

    It says, “Stanley, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” :)

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  116. Let me start by stating: a) I do not like Barack Obama; b) I did not vote for Barack Obama; c) I probably never will vote for Barack Obama.

    All that said, the “birthers” are nuts. The document the State of Hawaii issues is accepted by the U.S. government as a “birth certificate.”

    This record indicates Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Even if not born in the United States, he would be a “natural born citizen” because his mother most assuredly was one.

    So would his sister–but that’s beside the point.

    Finally, who cares if the Kingdom of Hawaii issued a birth certificate to Sun Yat-Sen? Hawaii did not become a U.S. territory until the 1890s. I suspect many things changed in that transition (and change would have changed in the following 70 years regardless).

    The birthers give conservatives a bad name. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the President. Getting distracting on this BS does nothing but make conservatives look stupid.

    Dave N (7b47ae)

  117. EricPWJohnson, you repetitively claimed that Obama is required to produce a specific form of birth certificate.

    Prove it. I’m looking forward to seeing the language in Article II of the Constitution that so requires.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. This record indicates Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Not proven.

    The document the State of Hawaii issues is accepted by the U.S. government as a “birth certificate.”

    What government do you mean? The US State Department accepts the Certification as evidence that Obama is a citizen, to get a passport. But it doesn’t establish that he’s a natural-born citizen.

    Even if not born in the United States, he would be a “natural born citizen” because his mother most assuredly was one.

    No, he would be a citizen, but only if the parent who’s a citizen has met certain requirements according to 8 USC 1401(g). But that law also uses the word “parent.” Does that mean a father or mother from a legal marriage, or a common-law marriage? Or can you be adopted?

    Where’s the birth certificate?

    :)

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  119. Steverino has done much work, muck work explaining the avalanche of logical legal arguments for Obama and company

    Let me rephrase it

    Steverino

    1408 does not address native born

    1408 does not address presidential elegibility

    Hr 338 does not address presidential elegibility

    FEC Form 1 requirements title 11 codes

    Every republican and democrat state party require them.

    even to play little league softball

    but not Obama

    simple enough – where is the birth certificate – simple enough

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  120. Re: “could also have “verified” that Obama’s sister Maya (born in Indonesia) was born in Hawaii, because she has a birth certificate from Hawaii, too. ”

    Turns out that Maya does NOT have a Hawaii birth certificate. She was born in Indonesia, and her mother did not have a year of residence in Hawaii before the birth, so she was not eligible.

    IF her mother had lived in Hawaii for a year before her birth, and she was born in Indonesia (as she was), she would have been eligible to get a Hawaii birth certificate, but it is not allowed to lie about the location of birth. So it would say something like: “Hawaii birth certificate. Location of birth: Indonesia.’

    Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 BEFORE the law that allowed registration of foreign birth. So the original birth certificate in his file CANNOT be a foreign birth certificate because that was not allowed at the time. Also, the notices in the newspapers (which were sent by the Hawaii government for births in Hawaii and not births outside of Hawaii) show that the original in the file cannot be a delayed birth certificate (no delay) and it cannot be a certificate of Hawaiian birth (which required a one-year delay).

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  121. Re: “simple enough – where is the birth certificate – simple enough.”

    Simple. The Certification of Live Birth IS the official birth certificate of Hawaii. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

    And it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. When people ask for copies of their original birth certificate, Hawaii sends them the Certification. ALWAYS the certification, as the link above shows.

    That being the case, when Obama asked for a copy of his birth certificate in 2007, he was sent the Certification. Unless Obama has a copy of the original saved from the time of birth, and not lost it (and many of us do lose our original birth certificates), then all that he can show is the document that Hawaii send him.

    Hawaii sends out only the Certification of Live Birth. Why doesn’t Obama show the original? Because Hawaii send him the Certification.

    As the Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial today: “he document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.

    FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.

    …So why doesn’t Obama release the original certificate?…Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit.

    Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    End Quote

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  122. In other words, EricPWJohnson, you are making stuff up.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  123. “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

    Tell it to the judge.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  124. Hr 338 does not address presidential elegibility

    Oh my god, how disingenuous can one person get?

    Of course HRS 338 does not address presidential eligibility. HRS 338 is about Hawaii Vital Records: Birth, death, marriage, divorce.

    As far as Presidential eligibility goes, any President must be over 35 and a natural-born citizen. To the extent that a birth record from Hawaii establishes age and place of birth, it satisfies Presidential eligibility.

    Steverino (69d941)

  125. This record indicates Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Not proven

    The record is prima facie evidence of the facts it contains. Which means that, absent any rebuttal, it has legally proven those facts.

    Where’s the rebuttal? Show credible evidence that the facts the document contains are wrong.

    Steverino (69d941)

  126. 1408 does not address native born

    1408 does not address presidential elegibility

    8 USC Section 1401 was brought up to prove that even if I accept the unproven allegation that Obama was born out of the US, he would still be a natural-born citizen by an act of Congress.

    To the extent that 8 USC Section 1401 proves natural-born citizenship, it addresses Presidential eligibility.

    Stop making things up.

    Steverino (69d941)

  127. “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

    . . .in Hawaii.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  128. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REQUIRES not REQUESTS AN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE – CERTIFIED THAT IT IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    Show me the citation of that law. You haven’t done so, though I might note that you’re using even more capital letters than before. Until you come up with a citation to back up your words, they are just bullshit.

    Steverino, you’re begging the question. The Health Director can supply verification to interested parties for everyday purposes like getting a passport, under Hawaiian law, but also under Hawaiian law the problem still remains that one could get a Hawaiian birth certificate through loopholes you could drive a Ford Expedition through. The Health director believes she’s verifying something, and she thinks the statutes allows her to do so, but when she says that the document proves he’s a natural-born citizen, she’s stepping over the line into speculation, based on those loopholes again. She must not only be a health director, but a lawyer, too!

    You’re splitting hairs. You are wrong on this issue. I suspect you know you are wrong, but you’re trying to talk your way around it.

    You didn’t address the fact that the Department of Health verified the existence of Obama’s original birth certificate, and that it says he was born in Hawaii. That verification alone is sufficient proof under Hawaii law of the facts of Obama’s birth. If you disagree, cite chapter and verse of the legal basis for that disagreement. I’ve cited chapter and verse to prove my point.

    Steverino (69d941)

  129. OIDO ? In any state. Full Faith and Credit clause.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  130. “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

    . . .in Hawaii.

    “In any” is not the same thing as “in Hawaii”

    And the full faith and credit clause would apply, so it’s prima facie evidence anywhere in the US.

    Steverino (69d941)

  131. If that were true, you wouldn’t have trying so strenuously for the past six months to debunk all doubters of Obama’s eligibility.

    Give it a rest.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  132. OIDO, that’s incoherent.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  133. All of this debate frustrates me to no end. I have no doubt he was born in Hawaii. It just seem remarkable that we have to produce more evidence to get a drivers license than we do to become President. It also frustrates me that people conflate the Certificate of Live Birth and the original Birth Certificate. One may act as the other, in its stead, but that does not make it the other.

    JD (4e8277)

  134. My 6-iron can act as my 5-iron, but that does not make it a 5-iron.

    JD (4e8277)

  135. Look, I’ve been saying that the Certification may or may not prove what you think it proves. If that little “prima facie” disclaimer on the Certification is valid, then just argue that. But that’s not what happened. Instead, we were urged to consult 8 USC 1401 (g), and the records of the First Congress, and the eligibility of McCain and Goldwater and Lowell Weicker and Woodrow Wilson and even Chester A. Arthur. And on and on.

    The Certification may be authenticating incorrect information. Think of it this way: did anyone ever carry a driver’s license that got one of the dates wrong? How that could have happened in Hawaii discussed in the “exhaustive summary” link in my post #26, above, in this thread.

    As for full faith and credit, Article II Section 1 says “natural born citizen.” What happens when a state law and a Federal law conflict? And, of course, the presidency is a Federal election.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  136. OIDO, you don’t get it. Full faith and credit means that the document attests to Obama’s birth under Hawaiian state law much be given the same credit in any other state that it is in Hawaii.

    You’ve not shown any “conflict” between state and federal law. And you’ve not shown any actual evidence that the certificate is false.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  137. And Obama has not shown us his paper birth certificate. He really should do so, because now Chuck Norris is demanding that he reveal it.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  138. Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 12:00 pm

    A difference without a distinction since rumor has it that you can’t hit either.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d9867d)

  139. Ah, so true, AD. In my old age, I am gravitating towards hybrids. But my short game is spectacular.

    JD (88ca98)

  140. Look, I’ve been saying that the Certification may or may not prove what you think it proves. If that little “prima facie” disclaimer on the Certification is valid, then just argue that. But that’s not what happened. Instead, we were urged to consult 8 USC 1401 (g), and the records of the First Congress, and the eligibility of McCain and Goldwater and Lowell Weicker and Woodrow Wilson and even Chester A. Arthur. And on and on.

    You really don’t get it, do you? The purpose of citing 8 USC Section 1401 was to show you that even if you could prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii (and I submit that you would never be able to prove it), he still would be a natural born US citizen by virtue of that act of Congress. In showing that, all of your arguments would thus fail, because no matter how you cast the issue, it would still come up that Obama was a natural born citzen.

    The Certification may be authenticating incorrect information.

    That’s bordering on insane. If the COLB could be authenticating incorrect information, then by the same logic, the original birth certificate could also be authenticating incorrect information.

    Where does the line of doubt stop? Why believe one state-issued document over another? Why believe a possibly forged doctor’s signature? How do you know the doctor was really there? If you’re going to argue that the information on the COLB could be wrong, then you have to accept that any information on any form could be wrong.

    If that were true, you wouldn’t have trying so strenuously for the past six months to debunk all doubters of Obama’s eligibility.

    Give it a rest.

    Actually, I haven’t been trying that hard. In fact, I keep bringing up the same facts. It’s just that the doubters refuse to understand them. Speaks more about their intellectualy capacity than it does about my efforts.

    I’ll give it a rest when you get a clue.

    Steverino (69d941)

  141. Chuck Norris is demanding that he reveal it.

    Game changer, not.

    Obama seems blessed by the quality of his political opponents and long may that continue.

    spart (86ff05)

  142. Ah, so true, AD. In my old age, I am gravitating towards hybrids. But my short game is spectacular

    There was a great scene in the old tv series Get Smart. Max was supposed to pose as a golf pro. The lab gave him a set of irons, saying that they were specially made so that no matter how he hit the ball, the ball would always fly straight and true.

    Max exclaimed, “Wow, that’s fantastic! Do you have a set of woods that can do that?”

    The lab person responded, “Does anybody?”

    (I say this as someone who wouldn’t know a spoon from a brassie.)

    Steverino (69d941)

  143. Steverino – I think Fred Funk’s woods go straight.

    This spart clown is quite the clown, no?

    JD (88ca98)

  144. Remember, when playing in the rain, always use a one-iron, since…

    AD - RtR/OS! (d9867d)

  145. God might not be able to hit a 1-iron, but Tiger sure can.

    JD (88ca98)

  146. No, Steverino, you just don’t get it. But you came close. You said,

    “the original birth certificate could also be authenticating incorrect information”

    Yes, that’s right. Obviously, it appears you didn’t read the material I linked in my post #26, Steverino. Read it. There used to be several ways to get a Hawaiian birth certificate in 1961, including being born in Hawaii, and including not being born in Hawaii. The operative word here is “loopholes.” So, just as you say, the original birth certificate could also be authenticating incorrect information. Certainly, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate authenticated incorrect information, but you have decided to totally forget about that, even though I linked you a picture of it.

    If there has been been an error in Obama’s paperwork since 1961, it’s now duplicated every time a copy is requested by the state of Hawaii’s green computer template. Obama could put this matter to rest by showing his paper birth certificate. I believe he won’t because he can’t.

    As for 8 USC 1401 (g), as I said, we will have to agree to disagree. The section seems to indicate that Obama is a citizen, but since the law was passed in 1986, and he seems to have been born in 1961, there were 15 years where he was not a citizen, and as I believe, a natural-born citizen has be one from the moment of birth, and stay one.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  147. Isn’t that the truth.
    I seem to remember Jack doing fairly well with one also.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d9867d)

  148. OIDO, so you still have no actual evidence for this “error” in Hawaiian records. Without any evidence to the contrary, the certificate is conclusive.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  149. The most important word is “loopholes,” not error. And I said if there was an error.

    The Certification claims it’s conclusive, except that it isn’t persuasive.

    Official Internet Data Office (50a06f)

  150. OIDO, its both conclusive and persuasive because all you have is nothing.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  151. ***Ignore smrstrauss.***

    He’s an Obama-bot (O-bot). In real life his name is Paul Strauss and he’s an Obama Superdelegate.

    http://paulstrauss.org/

    See evidence of him being an O-bot here:

    http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obama-bot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/

    Ryan (541418)

  152. His Name is Paul Strauss and he’s an Obama Superdelegate.

    My first name is Samuel. My middle name is Michael. And I was not an Obama superdelegate.

    As for ignoring me, the facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. The latest birth certificate allegedly from Kenya was forged. His birth in Hawaii has been confirmed by two officials who looked into the file and found an original birth certficate. Hawaii did not allow foreign births to be registered in 1961, when Obama was born, so the original in the file shows that he was born in Hawaii. And there is this confirmation of his birth in Hawaii: http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  153. “My first name is Samuel. My middle name is Michael. And I was not an Obama superdelegate.

    As for ignoring me, the facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. The latest birth certificate allegedly from Kenya was forged. His birth in Hawaii has been confirmed by two officials who looked into the file and found an original birth certficate. Hawaii did not allow foreign births to be registered in 1961, when Obama was born, so the original in the file shows that he was born in Hawaii. And there is this confirmation of his birth in Hawaii: http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html

    You keep repeating the same nonsense w/o responding to my questions @ http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obama-bot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/

    BTW, If your name is Samuel, then why did you post as “Paul” using the same ID of smrstrauss@aol.com here: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=53073&page=2

    Did you randomly decide to use Paul on that day? Did you change your name?

    You have no idea what you are getting yourself into. I love that you government fascists assume anyone who runs a blog must be inferior to your all encompassing knowledge. We’ve dug up quite a bit of information on you and will not hesitate publicly releasing it to the media if you decide you want to keep playing games.

    Do any of these ring a bell? Gables Residential? Georgia AV Investment Properties? National Womans Latina Council?

    Keep flaming the fire, Paul.

    Ryan (541418)

  154. BTW, If your name is Samuel, then why did you post as “Paul” using the same ID of smrstrauss@aol.com here: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=53073&page=2

    I never posted as Paul. That post was by Paul replying to smrstrauss, which is me.

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  155. Also explain this..

    http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6366/smrstrausspaulgoogle.png

    Apparently there were at one time two smrstrausses. This was before I started posting. When I started, the smrstrauss name was no longer being used, so it was available to me.

    And, by the way, I live in Ohio.

    smrstrauss (32c8db)

  156. […] was excoriated by the left for his enemies list, and Obama’s actions make him look more and more like Nixon every […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Fishy Emails (e4ab32)

  157. Re: Do any of these ring a bell? Gables Residential? Georgia AV Investment Properties? National Womans Latina Council?

    No

    smrstrauss (32c8db)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4006 secs.