The Damage Done by Obama’s Obstinance (Update: Isikoff and Corsi Respond and the Layering Argument)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Yeah, I’m going to start a new thread on the subject of the Obama birth certificate. Here’s another copy of the picture:
First, I think this is the quote of the day. We have been wondering why Obama has waited so long to release it, wondered what on Earth he was hiding… And Instapundit might have the answer:
[R]eader Dave Converse emails: “Now that Obama has released his birth certificate, it’s clear why he waited: there was no immaculate conception!” That’s sure to disappoint some of his fans.
Second, to sum up the messy, show-your-work thread earlier today, it looks like he has released his long form birth certificate. Now let me repeat the familiar disclaimer. Neither I nor Patrick are birthers. But for me, it was very easy to believe that the current White House was incompetent enough to call something that was not the long form birth certificate a “long form birth certificate.” But it sure as heck looks like another document that was identified by World Net Daily as a long form birth certificate. Now, there were some descriptions of the document by a Ms. Fukino that didn’t quite match up what she said, but increasingly I have come to feel that maybe Patrick and I were just being two anal retentive lawyers expecting her to be more precise than many people are accustomed to being. That being said, I do urge Michael Isikoff (or someone else) to follow up with Ms. Fukino and verify that this is what she saw, just in following the Reagan mantra of “trust but verify.” But on the other hand, I am not holding my breath waiting for verification to happen and for now I am satisfied that it is what it purports to be.
[Update: Although I am not given permission to quote him, Carl emailed Isikoff and he seemed to indicate that he would not be following up on this story.]
On the other hand, The Smoking Gun helpfully lists some different theories that Birthers might cling bitterly to. OMG Obama might be a twin?! (Joking of course.)
And Patrick is right to note that it is somewhat of an embarrassment how easy it was to get the certificate. That makes everyone who claims it was impossible to release it look like idiots. And there has been other fallout as well. For instance, Ed Morrissey writes:
You know who the biggest loser in this might be? CNN. They’re in the middle of their in-depth investigation of the birther movement, and now their unaired episodes are moot.
My initial sarcastic response was that more likely Jerome Corsi would be the big loser, or perhaps all the people pre-ordered bought his book (which, funny, is ten dollars off today).
(Please use the Amazon search box on the side to pick up this book, if you are inclined to do so. Patrick gets a nice payback if you do, without increasing the price of the book.)
It will be particularly interesting to see how Corsi responds, given that the WND post above is also by Corsi, meaning I have used his images to demonstrate that this form is most likely the long form. [Update: Corsi responds, here.]
I am reminded years ago of reading a book on the life of Thomas Jefferson (I forgot which one) where at the end there was an essay studying where Jefferson and Sally Hemmings were at the time when each of her children were likely conceived in order to prove beyond a doubt that it was physically impossible for Jefferson to be the father of any of her children… followed by an addendum admitting that subsequent genetic testing proved him completely wrong. Of course no blogger who has had more than six updates on one post can mock a person too much for getting caught flat-footed by changing events, but you tend to think that when a person writes a book, as opposed to spilling a bunch of digital ink, that things are supposed to be more final, more settled and thus less susceptible to sudden obsolescence.
So I was going to write a lighthearted post about how screwed Corsi is. And then a commenter mentioned this post,* about a person who really lost the most, and it stopped being at all funny. Shit got real, if you pardon my French. So, let me introduce you to a man. This guy:
This is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. This is what Jack Minor writes about him:
Terrence Lakin, a graduate of University High School, is a decorated Army flight surgeon who has served in Afghanistan and Bosnia. For over a year Lakin, using the chain of command and following procedures asked superiors for assistance resolving concerns he had regarding whether Obama was constitutionally eligible to be Commander-In-Chief.
After being rebuffed and having his superiors refuse to address his concerns Lakin announced he felt he had no other choice but to disobey orders until the issue was resolved. During his subsequent court martial the jurors stated during initial questioning it was important for a soldier to be able to ask questions and have their concerns addressed.
Lakin was subsequently convicted of missing a movement and disobeying orders. During sentencing Lakin stated he was wrong for disobeying orders and going forward he would obey all orders. Despite the claims of some, Lakin has never stated he was wrong for having concerns regarding the eligibility issue or for having sought resolution through the chain of command.
Now you can say this guy was wrong to disobey orders (hard to argue with that, given that now he agrees). And you can say that he expected more proof than a reasonable person should. And you might even think that no evidence would be good enough for a Birther. And given what we have seen with other conspiracy theorists, that might true…
But that doesn’t change the fact that if the President had released that certificate years ago, Lakin might not have gone to prison. For all you know, Mr. President, he might have been convinced. And yet you chose to withhold that information.
And it gets worse for Lakin:
While Lakin will be released next month his request for clemency has been denied. The denial means the findings of the court martial were confirmed. This includes discharge from the Army and loss of pay and pension. He now has two stages of appeals before the discharge becomes formal. The process could take a year or more.
So, seriously, why did you withhold this information, Mr. President?
Patrick speculated that it was arrogance. Althouse supposed it was politics:
I’d say, the reason Obama did not release the long-form birth certificate before is that he thought it was to his advantage to allow other people to look bad or crazy in one way or another by going on in the birtherist mode. But there was a tipping point, as Trump got traction and polls showed huge numbers of American’s entertaining doubts. So, it was all political strategy. You could criticize Obama for wasting our time by not just releasing the damned thing earlier. But he could have thought it was demeaning to have to do this, so I’m inclined to give him a pass.
And if the fallout was purely political, and few reporters and writers getting egg on their faces, I might give him a pass, too. But instead it might very well have cost Lt, Col. Lakin his freedom.
And no, I am not giving him a pass on that.
So, bluntly, Mr. President, you should grant him a pardon, cleaning out his record as honorably discharged and giving him his pension, perhaps on the condition that he publicly admits you are eligible to be President. It’s the least you can do.
Update: A lot of people are asking about the layers supposedly present in the pdf. I didn’t mention it because honestly I didn’t even understand it. And I still don’t. I don’t play around with photoshop and the like. But here is the National Review’s take on the issue.
However, I will take them to task on the claim that it is unlikely that anyone would make such a rookie mistake when forging a document. Let’s not forget that the person who forged the Rathergate documents apparently didn’t even bother to use a typewriter, thinking we wouldn’t know the difference if it was a computer. Also I remember a few years ago when the military released a classified document in word format, using the highlight feature to redact information. The only problem is that any person could just highlight the blacked out areas, press Control-C and paste the forbidden words in another document. So, yes, people are exactly that stupid. That is indeed why I don’t believe in most conspiracy theories–because they require a level of omnicompetence unlikely to occur in reality, especially if the government is involved.
But their point about adobe doing it on its own seems reasonable enough.
* Yes, I know that post goes a little over the top with werewolf silliness, but its central point–that it was irresponsible of Obama not to release it sooner and Lakin potentially paid the price for that decision–is valid.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I confess that I do not understand the “layers” comments I see on the web about the construction on the posted certificate.jim2 (a9ab88) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:57 am
jim me neither. which is why i haven’t said anything about it.
but… if anyone cares to explain it to me, this is drudge’s link:
http://bryankeithnixon.com/?p=103Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:02 pm
Right. Because the President of this country should cater to the lunatic fringe. That’s just what we want in this country — the far right (or left) tail wagging the sane dog.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a man possessed with free will, was wrong to disobey orders. He admits it; you admit it; everyone admits it. That’s true whether or not Obama revealed his “long form” birth certificate or not.
Put another way, Obama doesn’t owe him a pardon at all. Why not? Because the dude broke military law.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:07 pm
Obama might be a twin?!
If they’re both President it would explain how he gets all the golf in.Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:08 pm
There’s no reason not to continue to use the issue, albeit now from its periphery, in order to score points against Obama politically.
Consider this: think of the utter contempt with which he has held his fellow citizens ever since this question arose.
Mr. Obama has had a more peculiar provenance than most presidential candidates — one foreign parent with no strong ties to this country (viz. Obama Sr. came and then went, i.e. he wasn’t even an actual immigrant), strange marital circumstances of parents, partial foreign upbringing, early immersion in a religion profoundly foreign to American sensibility, and one which has of late been causing America actual grief in foreign wars.
None of this has ever been sufficient grounds to deny his natural-born status (his mother was undeniably an American citizen, therefore he is too even if he was born on Mars — game, set, and match).
But he spun his early history and dined out on it for political gain — so there’s no reason why his opponents shouldn’t have tried to make hay out of it too.
The dignified way to have addressed the question, the way to have put it to rest at the starting gate, was to have treated the question as a reasonable one given all the unusual circumstances, and then to have respectfully provided the answer, which we can now see is also a reasonable one.
Instead he hemmed and hawed and stomped his feet for over TWO DAMN YEARS.
He showed contempt for his fellow citizens and their reasonable concerns. Total contempt.
And THAT should be the moral of the story.d. in c. (af7a3a) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:18 pm
Lakin is a strong-headed fool and he is suffering a fool’s fate. He swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…….”
Part of that duty is to obey orders, including those of the U.S. Commander-in chief.
Lakin might be insane. But that’s another matter. He wholeheartedly put his freedom and his pension on the line for what, to him, was a matter of principle. We all knew he was misguided. He offered himself as a martyr for the birther cause. I expect he felt glory in all the attention. And he suffered his fool’s fate.
What part of that do you not understand?
But I hope guys like you worm their ways into any future Republican administrations as high-level advisors. Teh ignorance would help negate any street cred such administrations might have going in.Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:20 pm
Except that polls prove this wasn’t just fringe. It was most of the country that was unsure of Obama’s birth. I find this disturbing on a number of levels, but the fact is that it’s not fringe.
And you love to ignore points by ridiculing the person making it, but this is not rational.
It was good that the US Government looked into 9/11 and produced a report. Even though there were kooks claiming it was an inside job… it was reasonable that the US Government provide some analysis. They marshaled the facts as best they could (and to some extent, not the best they could, thanks to Berger and Gorelick’s focus on forgiving democrats for their screw ups).
Saying ‘I don’t like you’ is not a factual way to handle controversies. When tens of millions of people think something requires more attention and factual analysis, it’s harmful to this country to refuse to use facts to help.
Kman can pretend Obama did no wrong, but Obama did the United States some damage by disrespecting the idea of being a transparent and honest leader. It turns out he had better evidence, all this time, at his disposal. There’s nothing on it embarrassing, and his own staff have occasionally noted that the ugliness of this controversy hurts his opponents.
So Obama put his political interest ahead of his country, and Kman says that’s OK.
I don’t know about Lakin. I think he set a dangerous precedent. We need a military that follows orders. Yes, Obama screwed this man over. This man who devoted years to service and took a principles stand that he wanted more evidence. Obama apparently actually had what this man asked for all along, and could have resolved this issue without wasting Lakin’s career. That is so sad. It all boils down to Obama trying to prove a point “I don’t have to answer to you!” at the cost of a lot of misery and doubt.
But as soon as it’s clear this is a political liability to Obama, with Trump bringing it up shamelessly, Obama released the evidence he had access to. To Obama, his principle was worth that LTC’s freedom, but it wasn’t worth Obama’s position in the polls.
And Kman’s OK with that?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:22 pm
its ironic that you call tea partiers “teabaggers” on your site.
Because you seem very willing to do that for the president.
The fact is obama didn’t have a principled reason for not releasing it… given that he just released it. So he was perfectly willing to “cater to the lunatic fringe” as you put it, if he cared enough.
When his political future was threatened he cared enough. When Lakin’s freedom was threatened? not so much. Which is inexcusable.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:22 pm
He did. And he asked for evidence Obama had access to, but refused to disclose, even with something like the LTC’s freedom at stake.
But Obama released it when Obama’s interests were at stake.
Obviously no one is going to help Lakin out, and I don’t like the idea of someone like that attempting to be the authority on whether Obama is a eligible for office. I think Lakin was seriously misguided, and shouldn’t be in the military.
But I also think it’s sad that Obama is so petty with other people’s freedom. While there will always be a hardcore fringe of idiots out there, there’s a much larger number of Americans who were asking much more reasonable questions.
This isn’t like truthers in a key way. Watch the polls and see. Now that Obama has told us which hospital he was born in, and provided verifiable evidence about that event, a lot of people will have less doubt that he was eligible.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:27 pm
No Pardon from the President;AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:27 pm
to do so would be to admit that it was all political, and that LtCol Lakin was incarcerated for a political decision (tactic) of the President – can we say “Political Crime”?
I’m sure that the President will feel some remorse over this that he will work out in therapy, or an extended round of golf.
what’s really funny is that he’s named as “II”, when it ought to be Jr…. you only become “II” when there’s a “III”
you’d think who ever forged this would know that. 8)redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:29 pm
I’m not sure what principle Kman is even talking about. The principle of Obama to keep as much personal information private as possible? It’s not like his eligibility to hold office is an illegitimate thing for the citizens to care about. It’s not like Lakin didn’t swear to uphold those constitutional rules.
Obama promised to be the most transparent president in history. He loudly complained about a lack of willingness in an administration to tell the people what they know. His eligibility is a legal issue, after all. It’s not like Obama has a right to keep his eligibility a secret. Sure, this is just additional information, and Hawaii already certified his birth, but there is no principle behind Kman’s whining.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:31 pm
Mawy Reilly eats boogerz.JD (85b089) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:34 pm
> Lakin is a strong-headed fool and he is suffering a fool’s fate. He swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…….”
Part of that duty is to obey orders, including those of the U.S. Commander-in chief.
Even if the person is not legally president? So let’s say obama claims that he is el presidente for life and suspends all elections and without even a national emergency go give him a fig leaf of justification… so our military is supposed to obey?
One of the great bulwarks of our freedom is our military’s oath to the constitution, rather than any person. it was a step toward dictatorship in nazi germany, when the soldiers were asked to swear to hitler personally, not to their constitution. but you want to toss that away because… you really, really like obama.
lakin’s principles of constitutional law weren’t wrong, or his understanding of his duty. if obama was not lawfully the president, he would be exactly right. lakin’s mistake was evidentiary, and that is all. he is wrong and should be out of the military (which is why i didn’t suggest he should be restored to his old position), but the president wronged him and the president needs to attone. clearly it wouldn’t have been hard at all for obama to comply with his request.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:34 pm
You’ve got your timeline back-assward. Only RECENTLY did polls show (and actually, I believe it was only ONE poll) that a high number of people weren’t sure where Obama was born. Of course, that’s not surprising… most people don’t know where Trump was born either.
NO President should spend his time defending the accusations of lunatics. That’s a princiupled reason. It gives the lunatics a credibility they don’t deserve.
For example, Bush didn’t (and rightly so) with the truthers. The Pentagon, a couple of years after the fact, released a video of a plane (not a missile) hitting the Pentagon. Were they negligent for waiting so long to respond to truthers? And did it actually end the controversy?
Some advice if you ever find yourself advising a politician: You don’t let the morons set your agenda.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:37 pm
Somehow the left and their anti-repub birtherism doesn’t bother certain people.DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:38 pm
” Yeah, and if Obama hadn’t run for President, Lakin might not have gone to prison. Seriously, Lakin was responsible for his choices, I won’t absolve him in the least because someone else could have done something different.
Silly. First, he wasn’t punished because he didn’t follow Obama’s orders, he didn’t obey orders given to him by his immediate superiors. Obama could have been from Mars (literally, not just figuratively, as is the case) and Lakin would still have been bound to obey orders from his direct superiors. Second, since when do subordinates get to demand or expect anything from their superiors as far as providing explanations or ‘evidence’? Sure, they might like their superiors to explain the rationale behind a particular order, but the boss is under no obligation to do so.
Exaggerating a bit? Most? And even if true, so what? Most of the country are idiots, at least if voting for Obama correlates with stupidity.
Wrong standard. Just not wanting to release it is a legitimate reason. He wasn’t under any obligation to do so, he could have (as I suspect he did) kept it under wraps until he felt it was to his advantage to do so.steve (369bc6) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:39 pm
Cannot believe Birthers are not either ignorant or cynical.Jenny (61a90f) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:39 pm
Obama owes them nothing except his best.
“Silliness” does not describe them and their actions; “willful obstruction” comes closer. You’re the lawyer, you come up with the words.
I disagree with AW on this, I do not think Barcky wronged him, and I do not think Barcky needs to atone for anything. Lain was a fool to think that Barcky would do something like that, and to thing Barcky would be a big enough man to do anything about it now is laughable beyond words.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:39 pm
Where is the raised seal?
What is around the corner of the paper?sablegsd (b5b2a9) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:40 pm
There is a technical detail, wikipedia might be wrong, fancy that:
The facility was originally founded by Queen Kapiʻolani as the Kapiʻolani Maternity Home in 1890 for which she held bazaars and luaus to raise $8,000 needed to start the Home. Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital opened in 1909 named for Emma Kauikeolani Napoleon Mahelona (1862–1931), the wife of Albert Spencer Wilcox (1844–1919). In 1978, it merged with Kapiʻolani Maternity Home to become Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children.narciso (79ddc3) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:40 pm
So basically, every soldier can question every order on any conceivable theory (“my direct superior is clinically insane”), and as long as the THEORY holds water, it doesn’t matter if the FACTS fail to prove it up?
Wow. That’s some military discipline you got there. Sounds like a formula for mutinies right and left.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:41 pm
> NO President should spend his time defending the accusations of lunatics. That’s a princiupled reason
Except he just did, which means it is a principle he just violated. So he didn’t take a principle stand, but one he was willing to abandon if it grew too inconvenient to him.
> For example, Bush didn’t (and rightly so) with the truthers.
Actually there was that whole 9-11 commission… ever hear of it?
> Some advice if you ever find yourself advising a politician: You don’t let the morons set your agenda.
No wonder they never call you to help set their agenda.
Btw, isn’t teabagger an anti-gay slur? I mean I thought you were all enlightened and pro-gay rights. hell, i thought you were gay yourself you get so worked up and irrational about it. But then you call people you don’t like teabaggers.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:42 pm
What timeline? I didn’t offer a time line.
I don’t care about where Donald Trump was born.
You just spit out ugly comments instead of trying to argue in good faith. It’s honestly so pathetic. I recall you calling this blog an echo chamber, but you refuse to let me comment at your blog because you’re utterly insincere. What’s the URL to your blog?
Anyway, you’ve proven my point, which I realize you didn’t read in the first place. Obama released this information because he realizes it finally harms his credibility.
It’s always been the case that tens of millions of Americans questioned where Obama was born. Sure, now it’s a majority who say they aren’t sure, but from day 1, there was a large number. They weren’t at the outer edge. They weren’t fringe. Perhaps you’re just illiterate and have no idea what you’re saying?
Many, many of these people will find Obama’s birth certificate helpful. You claim Obama has a principle against showing Americans the best evidence he has access to about a legal matter that impacts his eligibility, which you also concede lots of Americans were not convinced yet about.
What principle? That you hate teabaggers? That Obama doesn’t have to tell us a damn thing, because he was lying about transparency?
No, you’re just fueled by hatred as usual. You’re the fringe kook.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:43 pm
> So basically, every soldier can question every order on any conceivable theory (“my direct superior is clinically insane”), and as long as the THEORY holds water, it doesn’t matter if the FACTS fail to prove it up?
Nope, didn’t say that at all. Indeed, I explicitly didn’t say that.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:43 pm
Obama owes them nothing except his best
His best what? When should be expect his best? Or is what we have seen the best we are ever going to get?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:43 pm
No, but you do monitor what is going on so you can act if/when it looks like the train of lunacy crosses the track onto mainstream thinking. And that is what Obama seems to have done, released the certificate when it looked like the subject was going from fringe to less-than-fringe.
And I’m not hijacking the thread, but Bush could have done a better job of doing this, as a lot of themes found themselves into mainstream conversation without a firm response/rebuttal from Bush.steve (369bc6) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:44 pm
I’m sure the State of Hawaii is grateful to Obama for letting them do all the extra work of fending off birth certificate requests for three years.
And did any taxpayer money go into fighting the Berg lawsuit and the Lakin case?MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:45 pm
Well, sure. If it starts occupying the news and national discourse (even if only the loonies actually believe it), it’s time to step on that bug.
That wasn’t put in place to appease or confront the truthers, doofus. That was because we knew we were going to have pass a slew of laws and revise our government, and we needed to know what happened.
Oh, how little you know about me.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:47 pm
I think Obama’s flip flop on this issue shows just how unprincipled he is. And it shows that he does not value military service. That LTC earned more respect than he got. The LTC took a principled position. Sure, he was wrong, but he was acting on principle and making a personal sacrifice. Larry Reilly can pretend he was selfishly seeking glory, but he’s an idiot.
That man was mistaken, but trying to do the right thing. Obama could have shown him better evidence from 1961 at almost no cost to Obama other than shutting down the birther movement (then considered helpful to Obama). That Obama shows this evidence for Obama’s sake, shows just how unprincipled Obama was the entire time.
Kman’s not the first cross dresser who expresses homophobia. I think he’s just an attention seeking crank.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:47 pm
Are you saying that because Obama knew that something bad might happen to Lakin (and/or others like him) if he didn’t release his long-form birth certificate, that makes Obama somewhat responsible for what happened to Lakin?Foo Bar (c1726e) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:48 pm
Kman — in the case of a plane hitting the Pentagon, the underlying question was not constitutional in nature. Category fail.
“the accusations of lunatics” — there was and is nothing lunatic about the accusation. The laws regarding citizenship and naturalization in 1961 could be quite byzantine regarding births overseas and in unusual circumstances. Stanley Dunham was a minor, her marriage to a foreigner was bigamous, and she was not present in the continental US: all this put the birth in an unusual category. A natural birth in US territory straightens things out considerably, and that is the evidence which Obama had all along, and that is what he WITHHELD. Willfully, spitefully, almost maliciously.
The controversy had reasonable partisans on both sides. Furthermore it could have easily been put to rest by one party, but was not.
Nothing lunatic here. Logic fail. Legal fail. Temperamental fail.
Stop trying.d. in c. (352bcf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:50 pm
And Maybee’s certainly quite right that this mess cost a lot of tax dollars. The government paid for a lot these legal fights, and Hawaii had to deal with constant requests. And we lost at least one LTC, and probably many other troops who did not reenlist. This was a very large and ugly controversy, and the fact of the matter is that it wasn’t isolated to the outer edge of society. It was a mainstream question.
Obama should have granted access to the 1961 certificate. It was apparent the entire time that he could, and was refusing to, which is 99% of the reason why the controversy existed. He looked like he was hiding something.
How many millions of dollars was Obama’s principle worth? And what principle was this again? Privacy about his birth? Then he shouldn’t run for president.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:50 pm
“Some advice if you ever find yourself advising a politician: You don’t let the morons set your agenda.”
Kman – Good advice. We don’t want to wind up like Democrats.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:53 pm
He knew for a certainty, because he prosecuted the guy. He also knew he was spitefully (to take d in c’s term) holding onto the 1961 evidence, and that everyone saw that.
That shows poor character and terrible leadership. If I overtly hid some evidence from a background check, Obama wouldn’t hire me. Even if that evidence didn’t actually implicate me.
Aaron’s point is that Obama’s decision to openly refuse to grant access to the 1961 evidence actually harmed this country in various ways. Obama had to make a judgment call as to whether that was worth it.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:54 pm
All this proves is that Andrew Sullivan is Trig’s father.BT (74cbec) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:55 pm
Kmart – When you call people who do not share your collectivist leftist viewpoints teabaggers, what are you referring to?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:56 pm
d in c:
The relevant laws regarding qualifications for being President, as well as citizenship are ALL in the Constitution, and they’re pretty straightforward.
Not as far as citizenship is concerned. Do you REALLY think that that being a minor parent has ANY bearing on citizenship?
To think so IS “lunatic”.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:58 pm
Who have I called a “teabagger” here?Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Some advice if you ever find yourself advising a politician: You don’t let the morons set your agenda.
Comment by Kman — 4/27/2011 @ 12:37 pm
— Well, there goes YOUR influence over this administration.Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Comment by redc1c4 — 4/27/2011 @ 12:29 pm
red, normally the appellation “II” is used when the name skips a generation, unless we’re talking about royalty when ascending the throne (no “jr” kings).AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Perhaps the senior Obama had pretensions of royalty within his tribe?
> Well, sure. If it starts occupying the news and national discourse (even if only the loonies actually believe it), it’s time to step on that bug.
Thank you for essentially proving my point. So he cared enough to disclose for those alleged lofty goals (I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact the issue was really getting traction against him, naw), but not enough if a decorated soldier is about to lose his freedom over it. seriously, f—k him.
Does that about sum up your position?
> That wasn’t put in place to appease or confront the truthers, doofus
Lol, yes it was. I suppose you will deny that the purpose of the Warren Commission was to dispel conspiracy theories around JFK, too.
> Are you saying that because Obama knew that something bad might happen to Lakin (and/or others like him) if he didn’t release his long-form birth certificate, that makes Obama somewhat responsible for what happened to Lakin?
The military he commanded was about to punish a man when he could have easily diffused the situation instead. Punishing a subordinate for asking a question that could easily have just been answered stinks out loud.
Was he technically responsible? Beats me. for all I know, Lakin might be still unswayed.
But it wouldn’t be hard. It wouldn’t require him to give up any God-given rights or freedoms. And it might have prevented this man’s career from being ruined. Lakin bears the bulk of the blame for being unreasonable in the first place, but Obama has some of the blame and bluntly, I hold our president to a high standard of conduct.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:00 pm
I found the weasel word. Anyone else?carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:01 pm
Oh, I see. You want to make this thread about me, and then (at some point) whine how I always hijack a thread and take it off topic.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:02 pm
“And if the fallout was purely political, and few reporters and writers getting egg on their faces, I might give him a pass, too. But instead it might very well have cost Lt, Col. Lakin his freedom.
And no, I am not giving him a pass on that.”
The president years ago released enough information for Lakin to not make his foolish decision. Now he lives with it.daniel (b12fab) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:02 pm
Kmart – You are too big of a coward to do it HERE, and even more of a coward to not let AW quote from your website, since you know he has way too much honor and would not out you and your douchenozzlery, despite your stalking and fundamental dishonesty.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:05 pm
I would remind all of you that our soldiers take an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” They do NOT take an oath to any person, including the president of the United States.
Instead, Obama has shown himself to be nothing more than a political animal, someone who cares naught what Americans expect of him, only how things look in the polls. When the polls got hot, he finally took action. Action that he should have taken when the Clinton campaign first raised the question about his “natural” birth.
Obama is guilty of mass arrogance, thinking he is above answering the questions of the American people. Is this what we want? Someone who thinks that they are not answerable to anyone?
We have already had presidents like that; Woodrow Wilson and FDR, both who left adverse impact on our nation. Both lied to the American people, thinking that we “little” people did not understand what was best for us and only those of “intellect” (brain trusts) had the right to make decisions for us. It that what we want now?retire05 (2d538e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:05 pm
First of all, nobody said that Obama’s reasons for withhold OR disclosing were “lofty” or “unlofty”. Man you are spinning HARD today. You’ve just GOT to make this an anti-Obama story no matter what!!
Secondly, the decorated soldier lost his freedom because of acts done…. by the decorated soldier. You are apparently the only one in this whole comment area who fails to understand that.
Again, the “subordinate” wasn’t being punished for asking a question.
Not only are you spinning HARD, you’re spinning BADLY now.
Yeah. Because the duty of the commander-in-chief is to make sure that no soldier ever gets in harm’s way…. even when that soldier is disobeying orders.
Logic fail.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:09 pm
I’ve said for a long time that this was a issue that only Obama could resolve, but meanwhile his own minions were out there churning the waters of discontent.Neo (03e5c2) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:10 pm
Obama had grown incredulous at the overall debate. He had watched as even Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan had been sucked into the discussion of his birthplace, aides said. In his own interview prep sessions, Obama was warned that the “birther” subject might arise – even though it had subsided from the headlines for more than two years since the presidential campaign. Finally, on April 19, in a meeting with White House counsel Bob Bauer, the president asked about the feasibility of getting his long-form birth certificate at last.
“It wasn’t one specific thing” that tipped the scales, a senior administration official said. But Trump was a major factor …
It’s sure is nice to see that Obama came to the aid of Boehner and Ryan.
Your reply assumes that Lakin would react rationally to the document being released, thus “diffusing” the situation. Given that he had disobeyed direct orders based on a perceived grand conspiracy that Obama was born in Kenya, that is a stretch.
As an example, you can google the blogosphere today and see Orly Taitz doubling down on the fake accusation, by questioning Obama’s father’s race (why did he say “African” and not “negro”). Also, several websites are currently analyzing the layered PDF file for anomalies. Assuming rational response from the birther people seems to be a stretch.
Here’s WND today:carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:11 pm
“So basically, every soldier can question every order on any conceivable theory (“my direct superior is clinically insane”), and as long as the THEORY holds water, it doesn’t matter if the FACTS fail to prove it up?
Wow. That’s some military discipline you got there. Sounds like a formula for mutinies right and left.”
Kman – How did you feel about Lt. Ehren Watada, considered a hero by many on the lunatic left, who refused to deploy to Iraq in 2006 because he considered it an illegal war?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:11 pm
I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast your take on Lakin/Obama to your insistence that Terry Jones does not deserve any blame for the violence that followed after he had a Koran burned:
I’m sure you’ll say that that situation is different because of x,y,z. And that’s fine. And Patterico will probably chime in later, explaining in even more detail why my comparison is totally stupid. And that’s also fine. I don’t have time for a long back-and-forth. It just seems like there are some similarities in the situation (i.e., is Obama/Jones responsible for something crazy that someone might do in response to his actions (or inaction) just because he knows what would happen?).
Maybe you’ll say that because Jones was exercising his sacred free speech rights, that makes his situation different. I don’t know.Foo Bar (c1726e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:11 pm
> Who have I called a “teabagger” here?
Dishonest as usual. You know I pointed out that you said this at your own blog. I didn’t allege you said it here. I don’t recall that you ever said it here. But what difference does that make whether you say it to our faces or behind everyone’s back?
yes or no, do you deny saying it at your site?Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:13 pm
The Washington Post reports 70 lawsuits on this. 70! How much money has been wasted while Obama could have just released the thing? What principle was involved here?MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:14 pm
Carlitos – that is WND. Did you expect them to change their mind? That is a distinctly minority view.
Kmart – are you denying that you refer to people that disagree with your leftist collectivist views as teabaggers?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t know who you are talking about, but based solely on what you’ve said, I know it would be ridiculous to blame Bush for Watada’s decision not to deploy.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:15 pm
Orly Taitz = Alex Jones without murder involved.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:16 pm
Why focus on her? Who is her constituency?
Foo Bar is trying his best for a BUNNIES moment, except he is comparing apples to Fords.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:17 pm
Not that your question is on topic (it’s not), but I do indeed deny that.
The only people I call “teabaggers” are people in (or who associate themselves with) the Tea Party.
What exactly is your point?Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:18 pm
Carlitos – I really do not get why we should care what WND and Orly Taitz have to say about this. I didnt care yesterday, nor will I care tomorrow.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:18 pm
You are slimy, kmart. You cannot even answer a direct question without trying to be a douche, and succeeding. So, you hurl smears at people at your website, and hide behind AW’s honor.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:21 pm
I only mention WND and Orly Taitz because that’s where Lakin got his ideas. They are doubling down today with the release of this certificate, so why would we assume that Obama releasing this sooner would assuage Lt. Col Lakin?carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:21 pm
> First of all, nobody said that Obama’s reasons for withhold OR disclosing were “lofty” or “unlofty”.
Yes you did, you just got called on it.
> Secondly, the decorated soldier lost his freedom because of acts done…. by the decorated soldier.
And obama might have been able to convince him not to do that. but it was more important to do… whatever non-lofty motives you pretend to ascribe to him.
> Man you are spinning HARD today.
Lol so you say as I dismantle your arguments.
And why do you keep putting the word hard in all caps. Ew…
> Again, the “subordinate” wasn’t being punished for asking a question.
He wasn’t asking “where the hell’s the long-form birth certificate?”
> Because the duty of the commander-in-chief is to make sure that no soldier ever gets in harm’s way….
Actually he kept him out of harm’s way. slowpoke.
> I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast your take on Lakin/Obama to your insistence that Terry Jones does not deserve any blame for the violence that followed after he had a Koran burned:
You mean like when I said about obama:
> It wouldn’t require him to give up any God-given rights or freedoms.
Game, set, match.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:21 pm
Obama was only a defendant in 3 of them.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:22 pm
I don’t assume that, Carlitos.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:24 pm
The government was in the other 71, answering on his behalf, no?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:24 pm
Yeah, that makes it worse. The rest of the cases were in Carlitos and Dustin’s name. They were defended on our behalf, with our money.
Seems like Obama could have made a call, when Hillary Clinton’s campaign brought this up, to authorize the 1961 certificate, but he has always preached this ‘agitate them as much as possible’ tactic.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:26 pm
Game, set, match.
Yes, I was aware that you had written that.
So if there was anything whatsoever that Obama has *said* that caused Lakin to do what he did, you wouldn’t be complaining, because that’s Obama right to free speech being exercised. OK- if you say so.Foo Bar (c1726e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:27 pm
No, that’s your spin. Putting words in my mouth. I defy you to link to the comment where I said Obama was doing something “lofty”. Or fess up to being a liar.
WTF? What??? Do you think Lakin disobeyed his orders in the Oval Office in front of Obama?
Obama never HEARD of Lakin until Lakin got press attention for disobeying orders. It was too late for Obama to “convince” Lakin not to disobey orders (and it’s not Obama’s JOB to do that anyway).
He wasn’t punished for asking that question. Duh.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:28 pm
JD – Understood.
Aaron indicates above that Obama should have had Hawaii make an exception to their birth certificate procedure, like they did today for him and him only, because it “might” have convinced Lt. Col Lakin that Obama was born here, thus it “might” have kept him out of jail. That assumes some level of rationality on Lt. Col Lakin’s part. Aside from the very reasonable questions asked at this site, I haven’t seen any evidence of rationality in the birther camp.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:29 pm
Aaron, it’s actually worse, IMO, that Kman would say it behind our backs, then refuse to let me comment at this blog, and then come here, pretending he wouldn’t say such a thing (just look at his weaselly denial) while calling this place an echo chamber.
It shows a pattern of bad faith.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:29 pm
Same argument for the lawsuits. Unreasonable people file unreasonable lawsuits. Many of them were frivolous and resulted in plaintiff paying court costs, so it didn’t cost us anything. Certainly not “millions” like some are saying.
There might even be more than 70 lawsuits in the next 6 years. Today’s release won’t help. Corsi wants to sell books.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:32 pm
Frankly, I think Lakin should have been satisfied by the authority of the State of Hawaii to say he was born there. That satisfies the 14th amendment, making Obama a citizen at birth.
We’re at war, and Lakin was a field officer, with responsibility to know what the hell he was doing. Yes, without a doubt, Obama made this controversy worse. He’s a serial agitator. But Lakin actually deserves a harsh penalty, despite taking a stand on principle. It just turns out that Obama has no principles.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:33 pm
Obama was only a defendant in 3 of them.
I didn’t say it was his money being wasted.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:33 pm
As JD and Dustin point out.
Let’s be clear on something. The government is named in THOUSAND of frivilous lawsuits of all kinds — some scrawled on the backs of napkins.
If anyone thinks that Obama’s silence on the birth certificate was causing the DOJ to work overtime in answering these 70 lawsuits, running up billions of dollars in legal fees which is why we have a deficit, then you just have no idea how the DOJ, or the federal courts work. Trust me, you didn’t have legal teams doing hours or LEXIS research. Instead, you had some glorified paralegal punch up the boilerplate “motion to dismiss” on the computer and run it down to the courthouse.
The majority of these lawsuits were NOT expensive for the government. And even if they were, isn’t that REALLY the fault of the people FILING the lawsuit?
Oh, no right. Everything is Obama’s fault here.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:34 pm
> So if there was anything whatsoever that Obama has *said* that caused Lakin to do what he did, you wouldn’t be complaining, because that’s Obama right to free speech being exercised. OK- if you say so.
Actually it depends on what he said.
If he got on national television and said (being very hypothetical, here), “Okay, I admit it, I faked everything, I was born in Kenya.” And that was why Lakin disobeyed orders? I would say Obama was still in the wrong because in that scenario Lakin would be 100% right.
On the other hand, if obama goes on TV and says (again, another hypotethetical), “Okay I admit it, I am a muslim,” then Lakin would be 100% in the wrong to disobey obama on that basis.
On the other hand (we are up to three hands, heh), Obama says, “Mohammed was a pedo” and Lakin was a muslim who refused to obey orders for that reason, again, lakin would be 100% wrong and his courtmarshalling would be his own stupid fault. Get it?
But you want to proclaim me a hypocrite because… you imagine I am one. Well, I can’t stop you from doing that.
Or can I? From now on you cannot say anything bad about me… or the kitten gets it.
Joking of course, but do you see how, ahem, FUBAR the world becomes when you pretend a person has a duty to give in to terrorism?Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:35 pm
Same argument for the lawsuits. Unreasonable people file unreasonable lawsuits
Yes.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:36 pm
And unreasonable people withhold the *best* evidence, that could be used to reduce cases and court costs, because they don’t feel like releasing it.
If Obama was trying to make some kind of political statement with his birth certificate hiding?
Obviously that’s hard to imagine, but I’ll suspend belief for a second. Suppose hiding one’s birth certificate is known as a political message, and Obama is making that message, and this drives Lakin to refuse to follow orders. Not because Obama’s eligibility is impacted, but because Lakin wants Obama to stop making his political message.
I think that would change this so much that it’s silly to even discuss.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:36 pm
Obama did not release this earlier because _________(fill in the blank).
What’s a good answer, and what was his answer?MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:38 pm
Hey, you said it!
Truth is, Obama claimed he could handle the job. That job comes with blame for mistakes in judgment. Did Obama’s willingness to show this 1961 document for Obama’s needs, but not for the country’s show poor judgment? Yes. So I agree with Kman that we can blame Obama for the birther issue.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:39 pm
MayBee …….. because, there was no compelling legal authority forcing him to do so.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:41 pm
Joking of course, but do you see how, ahem, FUBAR the world becomes when you pretend a person has a duty to give in to terrorism?
Well, I don’t think Obama had any kind of duty to give in to Lakin. He had already supplied the version of the birth certificate that suffices legally in virtually every situation. I don’t think he bears any responsibility here.Foo Bar (c1726e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:42 pm
And trutherism. And Trig trutherism.
No, I’m being silly. AIDS was Ayers’ doing.
*Sigh*. Obama Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.Kman (5576bf) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:43 pm
foo bar, assume for a moment that we all knew that Obama was preventing access to the 1961 document, and this led people to suspect he was hiding something.
Does that change things?
You’re right that Obama satisfied the legal requirement. The State of Hawaii certified him, end of story. It just seems that Obama could have made a better judgment call. You say he didn’t have a duty to make this judgment call, but I think he had a moral obligation to be the best president he could be, and take care of the troops as best as he could, even if that’s difficult.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:44 pm
“And you might even think that no evidence would be good enough for a Birther.”
If Stanley Ann rose from the grave and swore on a stack of Korans that she spewed him forth at good old Kapolani Hospital, the Birthtards would claim she was just a hologram being manipulated by the DNC.
Get over it, kids, Obambi is a red-blooded, America-hating, lefty American of the first water. He’s as American as the Weather Underground or Kwanzaa. Christ, he shoots hoops and plays golf. What the hell do you want as proof of his Americaness?
A tattoo of an American flag on his ass?Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:46 pm
Really. The people (like me) who started to assume he was hiding something personally embarrassing were giving him more credit than he deserved.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:47 pm
MayBee and others – Some commenters here are quoting the birthers’ line that this cost us “millions.”
The gov’t defended Keyes et al and Allen vs. Soetoro. The gov’t defended Berg, and the gov’t defended Hamblin v Obama. A couple dozen of the 70 cases were dismissed sua sponte. I don’t know how much that costs. Many of the cases were never docketed; again, I don’t know what that costs. In Hollister v Soetoro, Kertchner et al v Obama, Rhodes v MacDonald, sanctions were imposed on the plaintiffs. Alan Keyes, Greenberg and Charles Kerchner were all charged court costs.
I think it’s a stretch to say that this cost us millions, which some commenters here have suggested.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:47 pm
Indeed, if Obama somehow publicly acted creepy about 9/11, for example if he was caught by burning documents related to Osama Bin Laden before they become publicly examined, we could blame him for a truther problem.
This makes perfect sense. It’s the cover up. Obama was covering up… nothing at all, but he was overtly covering it up. Claims he had no choice, or was acting out of principle, are now proven completely untrue.
So he was fostering a doubt, even thought the doubts are wrong, by waiting 3 years to release a document that cost so little, and saves so much.
BTW, it’s Obama who thinks AIDS is America’s fault. After all, he had his kids baptized in Rev Wright’s church and spent 20 years in attendance. I’m not sure why.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:48 pm
Well, as long as kman only labels Tea Party members as “teabaggers” . . . [eye roll]Icy Texan (fb7f2c) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:48 pm
OK, you’re probably right.
But an LTC costs a lot to train. I am not sure how much this entire mess cost, but it’s too much, however much it was.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:49 pm
> Putting words in my mouth.
That is funny because you already were caught doing that once in this thread and you are about to be caught doing it again. So as usual you are projecting.
> I defy you to link to the comment
Link to it? I already quoted it.
> Do you think Lakin disobeyed his orders in the Oval Office in front of Obama?
Nope, you are putting words in my mouth.
> Obama never HEARD of Lakin until Lakin got press attention for disobeying orders.
1) he knew or had to know that this would cause problems in the ranks.
2) and why didn’t he act then? Oh, right because you already admitted it just wasn’t important enough for him to do so.
> If anyone thinks that Obama’s silence on the birth certificate was causing the DOJ to work overtime in answering these 70 lawsuits, running up billions of dollars in legal fees which is why we have a deficit,
I don’t recall anyone arguing that obama’s suits were responsible for the deficit. So again, you are putting words in people’s mouths.
> The majority of these lawsuits were NOT expensive for the government. And even if they were, isn’t that REALLY the fault of the people FILING the lawsuit?
Actually I consider it somewhat of a failure on my part every time a suit is filed. A good lawyer knows how to diffuse many situations without a suit being filed. You can’t prevent all of them, but people on the defense side learn techniques for preventing most cases from coming to trial. I’d say more, but that wouldn’t serve my client very well to give away my techniques.
But here’s one I can share. One of the most basic techniques is if they have a non-monetary request that is easy to comply with, DO IT for f—k’s sake. Good lawyers know that. So naturally you have no idea.
Bluntly, as a lawyer I think refusing to turn over that simple piece of evidence is a mistake and ill served their clients (which is, us), at least if the goal is to reduce litigation costs.
Btw, do you deny calling tea partiers “teabaggers” at your blog? yes or no.
> That assumes some level of rationality on Lt. Col Lakin’s part
I thought I was pretty clear in the post that lakin might not have been convinced. I may have been more sloppy in the comments, but that I recognize that some of them will never be convinced. But I think you are too quick to think all birthers are unreachable.
I mean I am sure there is a hard core who will never be convinced. But there are some people who might have said, “well, why the hell doesn’t he just release the damn birth cert.? what is he scared of?” Those people could have been reached.
So why shouldn’t he have tried to reach them? Expecially given now he apparently is doing exactly that.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:49 pm
The gov’t defended Keyes et al and Allen vs. Soetoro. The gov’t defended Berg, and the gov’t defended Hamblin v Obama
The government defended them without the President offering to release the best evidence.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:49 pm
However much it cost, it was a waste of our money for…..what principle?
Last time before I give up. WorldNetDaily and other “birthers” aren’t accepting your *best* evidence. They are doubling down with the crazy. Therefore it has had very little impact on these lawsuits.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:50 pm
> Obama Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.
Indeed, it is. you have a deranged love of the man.
you’ve already admitted that obama had no principled reason for refusing to turn this over. he just didn’t care enough. and that necessarily means he just didn’t care enough about lakin.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:54 pm
re: “Those people could have been reached.”
What happens when some activist government officials see my certified copy of a COLB from Illinois and don’t accept it? Will I have to sue to get a passport because I don’t have a real birth certificate like Obama does? What if these silly birther bills pass and we have a constitutional crisis in 2016 when a candidate can’t produce something that really doesn’t exist, because that state went digital?
What Obama did today undermines states’ rights and the full faith and credit clause. The fact that the Hawaii DOH acquiesced to it makes them weak. That he did it to satisfy a clown like Donald Trump and distract from his failed administration is just icing on the liberal cake.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:54 pm
I do not care about World Net Daily.
I care about the President of the United States and his poor decision making. It isn’t my best evidence. It was the best evidence. The President of the United States chose not to release it, and if you can explain the principle behind that without equating the President’s decision making skills to World Net Daily’s, I’d love to hear it.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:55 pm
seriously, dude, in my job if i want to prevent a lawsuit and i think i can by turning over a document i have the legal right to turn over… i turn the damn thing over. that is good defense-side lawyering 101.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:55 pm
BTW, let’s all be honest.
The answer is that Obama thought he could associate his future political opponents with birthers. He thought he could enjoy watching them try to explain to birthers that Obama was eligible for office, or argue that they have a legitimate beef, and either way, they face a PR problem.
He was happily playing a cynical game.
Kman wants to lap up as much of this as possible, condemning people with Obama derangement syndrome, and associating me with a truther or a Rev Wright AIDs kook, even though I don’t even think Obama was ineligible.
It’s a pretty obvious plan. Obama is the ultimate troll. He just didn’t expect Donald Trump to press this issue so quickly. Now, a majority of Americans question Obama on such a fundamental issue, and Obama folds like a lawn chair. Claims he couldn’t release, or had a principle… they are dead now. Now, his critics will move on. Obama’s opponents will have much less birther pressure.
But the reason Obama made such a show of not releasing the 1961 document was that he wants to create a controversy where he’s the victim. Could it be any more obvious? There’s nothing embarrassing on the certificate.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:56 pm
Headline at Gateway Pundit. Sweet.
Obama on Birth Certificate: “We Do Not Have Time For This Kind of Silliness. I Have More Important Things to Do” …Then He Flew to Chicago to Be on Oprahelissa (267e6a) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:57 pm
We don’t have to defend them. There will always be kooks out there. That’s a shame.
Obama is on their level.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:58 pm
I was really, really expecting the BHO long form to include the entry “Religion: Astral Traveller.” I was _sure_ of it!
Since this form does not include that entry, I conclude that it is a forgery.gp Mockham's Razor (e3fe9c) — 4/27/2011 @ 1:58 pm
I am going to weigh on Kman’s side on this one (strictly regarding the main point).
1)There already enough evidence to show Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore eligible to be POTUS. There is not any evidence which shows Obama is not eligible.
2)Therefore Lt. Lakin, in claiming he did not need to follow orders because Obama was validly President, was acting like an idiot. The document released today merely confirms what we already know; all the evidence necessary to show Lakein he was wrong about Obama’s birth was publicly available before Lakin started to make his claims.
Which means to me that
a)Lakin deserves no sympathy from any of us
b)Lakin deserves nothing from Obama.
(It would be a nice political gesture from Obama, but don’t hold your breaths, since Obama seems to dislike the pardon power ever more than most other recent presidents, even in cases not involving personal insults to himself.)
I’ll adhere to the arrogance theory, but I’ll suggest that each one of you (or at least those of you born in the USA) ask yourselves if you were in Obama’s shoes, just how much would you be inclined to tell people like Lakin to go take a long walk off a short pier? By being in Obama’s shoes I mean having people zealously claim, based on absolutely nothing but other people’s speculations which were based on a complete lack of evidence, that you were not born in the US?kishnevi (66020b) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:02 pm
“Last time before I give up. WorldNetDaily and other “birthers” aren’t accepting your *best* evidence.”
Give up, people here are not responsible for the conduct of WND or even other “birthers”.
Why some people are even calling what Obama did today an “exception” to Hawaii’s statutes regarding birth records in spite of the plain language of the law to make him sound more heroic in his disclosures.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:04 pm
> What happens when some activist government officials see my certified copy of a COLB from Illinois and don’t accept it? Will I have to sue to get a passport because I don’t have a real birth certificate like Obama does?
Actually, by numerous reports that is precisely what they ask for to get a passport. And if you can’t give them that, then you have to give them a billion other pieces of evidence. Its anecdotal and that is why I haven’t blogged about it, but from several sources I am hearing the same thing: its harder to get a passport than to be president of the united states. Which is wrong.
> What if these silly birther bills pass and we have a constitutional crisis in 2016 when a candidate can’t produce something that really doesn’t exist, because that state went digital?
The constitutionality of a birther bill has nothing to do with this discussion. And I would have to look at a specific one to see if it is really silly. But I have said regularly that the constitution requires proof of birth in the U.S. and a birth certificate is only one way to prove it. lawyers know that records are destroyed now and then and we have a great system for working around that problem.
For instance, imagine if there was a fire in Hawaii’s record warehouse in 1971, destroying the original. Then the rules of court would allow a person to say, “I recall seeing the birth certificate. It was form X, with the blanks filled in as follows.” That’s how we lawyers get around the “best evidence rule,” as it is called. And of course other evidence can be presented and I have long ago accepted its vitality.
And I will note that obama’s obstinance prompted those birther bills.
> What Obama did today undermines states’ rights and the full faith and credit clause.
The constitution does not forbid him from releasing that information. And the full faith and credit clause does not require another state to accept as true a forged document. By your logic if someone wrote on a piece of paper that it was a “Beerf Certificate for Barak Osama” they would have to accept it. While state documents are excepted from the hearsay rule, they are not excepted from challenges to their authenticity or veracity.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:06 pm
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 4/27/2011 @ 1:55 pm
Carlitos’ point is that the ‘birthers’ aren’t accepting this document, which means they would not have dropped the lawsuits if it had been released earlier.kishnevi (437df2) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:07 pm
I would have loved to hear how this conversation would have gone, had liberals hounded George W. Bush for two years to release proof he had nothing to do with bombing the World Trade Center, and never been satisfied no matter what he did. If they’d brought countless, nonsensically stupid lawsuits harassing him, and soldiers refused to serve in the wars?
Yet you expect the President of the United States to respond to every idiotic conspiracy theory proposed by knuckleheads.
Conservatives have been hounding the President of the United States to prove he was born here, after years of Hawaiian officials – Republican ones – telling you all he was, and now, after Obama releases his BC, you’re busy asking why he didn’t sooner after hounding him for two years about something it turns out you were entirely wrong about.
How about just saying ‘our bad’ and stop wasting the country’s time with drivel instead of asking why he didn’t respond to legions of morons sooner.JEA (e6fc5e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:08 pm
Lakin might be insane. But that’s another matter. He wholeheartedly put his freedom and his pension on the line for what, to him, was a matter of principle. We all knew he was misguided. He offered himself as a martyr for the birther cause. I expect he felt glory in all the attention. And he suffered his fool’s fate.
Contrary to the troll’s theory, most of these physician failure to make a shipment cases involve someone who was obligated by the fact that the Army paid medical school tuition and expenses. That may not apply to Lakin but I’ll bet he had a rational reason. Maybe a job offer outside the military and resignations are frozen.Mike K (8f3f19) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks kishnevi, for saying it more rationally than I can.
daley – Obama is the one human being in the USA to whom the Hawaii DOH has released this document. I’d call that an exception. I don’t think it makes Obama heroic; I think it makes him and Hawaii’s sovereignty look weak and cynical.
I don’t think anyone here has to defend WorldNetDaily or “birthers.” But watch their actions moving forward and ask yourself if they really would have dropped this if he had released this document sooner. I think you’ll find your answer then.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:09 pm
> There’s nothing embarrassing on the certificate.
On the contrary, it shows he had a mother and a father and didn’t instead spring forth fully formed from Zeus’ head.
remember there is deranged hate and there is also deranged love.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:09 pm
none of them are? not even a little?
not even their donors.
i don’t think you can assume they are a monolith.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:09 pm
This is reasonable, though I don’t think this is all Kman is saying.
I’d tell LTC Lakin to look at the best evidence I could produce, but I’d have produced it as soon as I could, in the primaries, and this issue would have been less mainstream. I have no idea if that would have helped Lakin (my guess is that it would have).
I sure as hell would not have made a show of refusing to show people a document that was in a file. If I needed privacy about my birth, I shouldn’t run for president.
Frankly, Kish, I would be very annoyed to be in Obama’s shoes. My dad wasn’t born in the USA… maybe some birther out there would say I’m not a natural born citizen. There are plenty of cranks out there who claim Bush let 9/11 happen, or the CIA invented AIDS, or Obama has to live up to an ever changing set of rules to hold office.
But Obama had great evidence, made in 1961, with signatures and verifiable information. We shouldn’t discount the power of this document to shut down the birther movement. Sure, there will remain a hard core that thinks it is a forgery, but I think a lot of that is because Obama behaved like he was covering something up. He acts like he wants this doubt. He has preached that alinksy agitation technique in his classroom, and I think he wanted to force his opponents to deal with it.
So OF COURSE he is responsible for the mess he made.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:10 pm
daley – Obama is the one human being in the USA to whom the Hawaii DOH has released this document.
This document, yes.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:14 pm
But you have nothing to back up the idea that other people cannot get their own long forms.
In fact, there are several on the internet.
And CNN reported yesterday it is entirely possible for anyone to get their own long forms if they request them.
Kman says “You don’t let the morons set your agenda.” The simple release of a single _inconsequential_ document hardly constitutes an “agenda.” It only ever took a one-minute phone call from BHO to some Hawaii mucketymuck. Those “morons” claimed this doc existed, and lo! It really exists!
The most amazing part of this whole clusterf%#k is how folks like Kman and CJ regard the simple release of this doc as some kind of undignified, shameful response that has been insultingly forced upon BHO, a man who, obviously to them, should never be bothered with such an obvious, no-brainer, easy, cost-free decisions.
Jeez, we’ve come a long way from the days when the BHO worshippers vehemently _denied_ that this kind of document actually existed, and that folks who used the term “long-form” were derided as lunatics.gp (e3fe9c) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:14 pm
==Obama behaved like he was covering something up. He acts like he wants this doubt. He has preached that alinksy agitation technique in his classroom, and I think he wanted to force his opponents to deal with it. So OF COURSE he is responsible for the mess he made==
Dustin, I think that’s called being too clever by half.elissa (267e6a) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:16 pm
Jeez. It’s like they think releasing this document was difficult. Hell, even if it had been difficult, compared to the drama, it would be a good idea to release it, but it turns out that Obama gave up nothing. The document doesn’t even have any embarrassing details. The only thing it cost Obama was the potential to face an opposition he could write off as birthers. That’s it.
This is so much better than the COLB printout. It’s got signatures from 1961. What kind of idiot keeps this locked up?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:18 pm
Conspiracy theorists will always see a conspiracy, regardless of proof. Give them what they want, and it’s not enough. That would be why there was (is) no incentive to provide what they ask for, because they’re not looking for answers.Ben S (1f3e77) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:18 pm
I presume you’re trying to be funny?steve (369bc6) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:19 pm
Well, it seems to require more extensive documentation.AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:24 pm
You’d have to say this entire country is unwilling to listen to reason to say there is no incentive to provide better evidence.
Obama saw things differently. He knows he can’t very well win reelection without votes from millions of Americans who already said they aren’t sure where he was born. How is going to do that? Dismissing birthers as kooks? He’s not going to get their votes that way.
Face it: Obama made a show of not giving up this document because that is very aggravating behavior. He wanted to make the GOP look as bad as possible, but it blew up in his face, and now Obama can’t win reelection without some of these people who aren’t convinced.
Now, the truth is, Hawaii certified Obama. That’s a legal issue, and it’s a closed case. But maybe some people are more focused on real evidence, rather than the certification process.
They want to see evidence that Obama isn’t a huge lying fraud, such as knowing what hospital he was born in, or seeing some document from his actual time of birth, rather than a printout. They want to see signatures from people who were there. And now they have that. This 1961 certificate is dramatically more convincing than the COLB was.
Obama was a freaking idiot to make a show of hiding this much better certificate. He thought he was being cunning and laying a trap.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:29 pm
You know, that all being said, I think Carl has inspired me to talk about something in a new post.
We call it the best evidence rule. That means that if you want to prove something, you use the best evidence first if it is available.
Like if I sue on a contract action in Virginia, I am required to attach a copy it to the complaint, because the written contract is the “best evidence” of the contract and the obligations under it.
And that is what I get intuitively about this.
The long form birth cert. is the best evidence. It always was. He should have handed the f—king thing over from the start. Its that simple.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:29 pm
It seems clear that had Obama put out his long-form certificate earlier, Corsi and his ilk would have responded just as they did today. Whatever was received, they would have asked for more.
And I agree with Kman in post 3 that Obama is absolutely not responsible for the idiot who got court martialed. Dude made his own bed. He wants to do this kind of protest… don’t join the military. And, frankly, even if a bunch of people believe it, the birther crap was easily crushed by bits of common sense combined with a nugget of research.
Releasing it now was political and tactical, as was not releasing it earlier. Not evil. Unlikely (in my opinion) to be stupid. Not harmful; the birthers aren’t going to be embracing Barack any time soon.
There was a non-issue that Donald Trump managed to push forward. I suppose the Obama folks didn’t believe Trump could get the Republican nomination, because I have to believe they’d pay money to see him win, and keeping it an issue might have helped Trump (and therefore Obama). (Aside to Mitch Daniels: Save us.)
–JRMJRM (de6363) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:31 pm
“its harder to get a passport than to be president of the united states” Is the president required to have a passport? If so, then that’s a logical fallacy.
But who ever checks POTUS’s passport? I doubt he ever has to go thru customs.
*** Where’s the long-form passport?! Show us the passport!! ***
That’ll set the BHO “agenda” for the next two years, while he again ponders the deep enigma known as “routine document release.”gp (e3fe9c) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:37 pm
JRM, Corsi isn’t the American people in total.
Only 38% were convinced Obama was born in the USA.
A lot of that 38% are Republicans, too, such as myself. He has a huge problem, and not merely with Corsi and that Farah yahoo at WND.
If Bush came out and said he doesn’t owe America an investigation into 9/11 because some idiots think he’s responsible no matter what he says, I think we’d agree that’s silly.
Bull. It was evil. Obama let this problem grow this large, and you say he did that for his political and tactical goals, and that was unpresidential and irresponsible.
You can’t say it wasn’t harmful when we have an LTC in prison, and money wasted on 70 lawsuits (most of it tax dollars). Hawaii claimed they were inundated with requests for information.
Some of these people were not kooky birthers. Some of them even voted for Obama. Some portion might even consider voting for him again. This evidence is actually quite powerful, and much better than the COLB because it’s detailed and from 1961, with 1961 signatures.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:37 pm
its harder to get a passport than to be president of the united states. Which is wrong.
If you think that is bad, look at the proposed passport requirements.
Show of hands – who here cares what WND or Taitz thinks?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:44 pm
That poll, ‘facepalm with an octopus’ the same sample, only think Trump was born here by 43%, Idiocracy here we come, I mean you come to the same conclusion, that South Park had about the 9/11 denialistsnarciso (79ddc3) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:47 pm
Ah, but to whom? Who was asking for it? That’s right – crazy people.
Here’s what Corsi said when Obama released the certificate back in 2008:carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:48 pm
Another way this birther issue has harmed out country is how it’s exposed that we’re kinda on the honor system. It’s not really clear how these eligibility requirements can be enforced.
Obama’s shown that the constitution is just a piece of paper the president can just ignore. This is hardly the best example of Obama doing this, but he’s got a real streak of defiance to the constitution.
This is a messy sloppy issue. A real leader would resolve it quickly and sharply, with good faith. A bastard would try to use it to make the GOP look bad, and then hope to pop the balloon at the best tactical moment to gain sympathy.
That bastard is responsible for his choice.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:48 pm
Really? 62% of Americans are crazy? How do we define mainstream?
I think 62% exceeds the definition.
I have no idea where Trump was born. I’d have said I was sure Obama was born in the USA, and I am unsure if Trump was, simply because I have no paid attention to him.
The results aren’t surprising at all. Obama played a game with the American people’s confidence in his own honesty, because he knows some people will associate all who question Obama’s birth with the most extreme examples of birther kooks.
Some people simply don’t have the time or inclination to sort this mess out. Obama is the president here… he’s supposed to lead this country. He didn’t.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:52 pm
Ah, but to whom?
This might sound crazy, but he could have released the long form to all news outlets, posted a PDF on his website, and called a little press conference to announce he had done so.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:57 pm
‘Cuz speaking of releasing it to crazy people, he first released his COLB to Kos.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:58 pm
Obstinance. I do not think that wordRobert (6673d8) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:58 pm
means what you think it meansexists.
What is 62%, Dustin?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 2:58 pm
Aaron wrote that Obama “should have handed the f—king thing over from the start.” Now he’s talking about the best evidence rule. The start was the campaign. During the campaign, in 2008, he provided for viewing and published what Hawaii sent him, their COLB, which is certified and carries the state seal. In 2008, reasonable people like Jim Geraghty at NRO said “the issue is settled.”
ONLY irrational people like Corsi and Taitz kept asking. If you have a source that, in 2008, 62% of Americans were questioning the circumstances of Obama’s birth, please link it here.
So, “from the start” the only people asking for this document were the fringe. Aaron’s point pretends that there was someone sane to whom Obama should have handed his birth certificate back in 2008, and that there were a bunch of reasonable people looking for it. I don’t think that’s true.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:03 pm
JD, in comment 118, I link a story showing that USA Today had a poll where merely 38% of Americans agreed with me that we know Obama was born in Hawaii.
62 is the difference between 38 and 100.
My point is that this is a large number of people who aren’t fringe kooks, and this far superior evidence may be far more than is needed in court, but I think Obama should have made a judgment call to abandon this birther trap and just give us his best evidence.
In fact, if there was no document being kept in Hawaii, and Obama wasn’t refusing to disclose it for three years, that number of Americans who doubt Obama on this issue would lower. He acted like he was hiding something.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:04 pm
Carlitos, I think we just have a difference of opinion about whether Obama should have cleared this up from the start. I can see it from both sides, but if I wanted to be president, I’d allow my life to be an open book.
I’ve proven that’s untrue several times in this thread. Doubt about Obama is widespread, even though it wouldn’t be if Obama behaved like a president.
I don’t see why you want to bring up Orly or Corsy. I don’t follow them, but if they aren’t reasonable people, let’s ignore them. Let’s talk about the majority of Americans who doubt Obama instead.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:06 pm
“only think Trump was born here by 43 per cent”
And so, if Trump officially declares his candidacy for the presidency, I’ll want to see his full documentation too, as a matter of routine formality, even though I’d bet he’s qualified by birth. Just make it a pro forma filing requirement from now on, especially now that we’re up to our eyeballs in foreigners. Idiocracy has nothing to do with it.
This really isn’t so hard. Obama had an obligation to his fellow citizens. Because of his unusual personal history, which he himself made much of, that obligation came under greater scrutiny than is generally the case. This was understandable; even if it turned out to be in error, the error was not crazy or stupid or lunatic. Didn’t he himself make a domestic-politics US campaign speech in Germany, on foreign soil, where he called himself a citizen of the world? What were we to make of that, as regards his formal attachment and loyalty to his own (ostensible) country?
Obama had an obligation to clear the question up, and it was easy to do: cards on the table, nothing more. Instead he was a big drama queen about it. He failed in a basic obligation to his fellow citizens, sane and nutty alike, and he showed contempt for them in the willfulness of that failure.
I don’t know why he did it, and I don’t care. The fact that he did do it is all I need to know about him.
What this comes down to is just pattern recognition.d. in c. (6d8a47) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:13 pm
Carlitos – I cannot find “the issue is settled” at the link you provided. Am I missing it? He did not provide it for viewing, he sent a copy to Kos, almost guaranteeing that the issue would not go away.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:14 pm
Yes, JD. And his campaign knew it was controversial enough that they set up a website for it called, “Stop the Smears”. For some reason, they gave it to Kos instead.MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:19 pm
Carlitos- aren’t you happy that Republicans are no longer going to be asked about this at every turn?MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:21 pm
NRO, from the link:
That doesn’t sound like “hey, let’s demand more” to me.
I scanned through White House press transcripts, and the only reporter I can find asking about the birth certificate AFTER the release of the COLB was WorldNetDaily reporter Lester Kinsolving. I could be wrong, but I just don’t remember a mainstream clamor for more evidence.
In 2008, 1/3 of Republicans thought he was somehow ineligible to be POTUS, and only 10% of Americans thought so. 10% probably also believe in moon landing conspiracies, etc. So, with hindsight, 3 years later, demanding that Obama should have released more “from the start” rings hollow to me.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:21 pm
“daley – Obama is the one human being in the USA to whom the Hawaii DOH has released this document.”
carlitos – Obama’s document, perhaps.
Other people who have a direct, tangible interest in their own similar documents, I would like to see your proof of that statement.
My recollection is that is where you stuck your fingers in your ears claiming you were not a lawyer and could not offer any interpretation of the plain English of the law. How you can claim such an interpretation for Obama, not being a lawyer and all, but not others baffles me.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:24 pm
Who checks the President’s passport?
Probably nobody, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one.
I believe that all diplomatic personnel, and the President is the Chief Representative of his country, are issued Diplomatic (black-cover) Passports, as Pro-Forma identification.
Whether or not they are ever checked is a non-issue, but they are supposed to have them (so they can wave them in the face of traffic cops who wish to write them a ticket for double parking, etc.).
It has also been said that the great gaps in the known history of Barack Obama would preclude him from receiving a security-clearance if he were not the President.
RHIP!AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:25 pm
“I don’t see why you want to bring up Orly or Corsy.”
Dustin – Because he’s got a narrative to follow. Plus, we need to shut up WND and other “birthers” or we’re all racists or something.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:29 pm
daley – Why didn’t any Hawaii-based believer in the birther stuff simply get his “long form” since 2008? There was one guy on the radio (can’t remember where) who actually tried to get it and failed. Both in person and online. I can’t give you evidence, because there isn’t any evidence of anyone doing so.
This doesn’t have anything to do with interpreting the law. Many birthers claimed he could secure this document. None did so themselves with their own documents. There are, however, several forgeries and documents from other eras posted online at the birther sites. Not worth your or my time to even think about it.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:29 pm
“ONLY irrational people like Corsi and Taitz kept asking. If you have a source that, in 2008, 62% of Americans were questioning the circumstances of Obama’s birth, please link it here.”
carlitos – Just another strawman. Plenty of people were questioning in 2008 when they became aware there was a difference between the COLB and the long-form, not just Corsi and Taitz. People questioning were not necessarily questioning whether he was born in Hawaii or not, just why he was not releasing the long form.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:34 pm
Why has Obama taken all this time to release his birth certificate? Why has he spent millions defending against a reasonable request? The Constitution requires presidential candidates be natural born citizens. Why is it unreasonable to ask a candidate prove to his eligibility? McCain produced his birth certificate.
Obama did not do this to trap a group of conspiracy theorists. He wants to put this thing to bed too quickly. His draft registration paperwork was an obvious forgery. Why did he do that? Did he elect Indonesian citizenship to get a Fulbright scholarship at Occidental and Columbia? Did he ever renounce Indonesian citizenship? Was he ever naturalized as an American?
There is something very wrong here.
Birmingham is getting tornados with 200 MPH winds. The dogs are very upset. I’m outta here.Arch (24f4f2) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:40 pm
Perspective from 2008:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificatecarlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:43 pm
So after Dan Rather had been fired from CBS (moving on to collecting lifetime achievment awards – it was Bush he was targeting, not a real President, so it was okay) let’s say Bush comes out six months later and says ‘I’ve been saving this box in the attic of movies I took while I was in Alabama and it covers the entire period I was there’.
And Democrats would be fine with that? I don’t think Republicans would be fine with that – who defends nonsense?
When was the last time the media polled the Bush AWOL story? Put differently, did they ever do such a poll? I noticed that when folks go back to find Truther polls they seem to have a hard time finding them (the two I’ve seen recently were the same one – a 2005 poll). But it’s all good as they’re now making up for not exposing how widespread Bush conspiracy theories were by looking under every rock and Lucy Ramirez for Obama conspirancy theories. So the average across the two Presidencies is probably about right.East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 4/27/2011 @ 3:47 pm
The tornados are north of here. There’s a Cat 4 storm half a mile wide moving just south of I-20/459. It’s going to be a disaster for the people in Bessemer and Gardendale. It wiped out a large swath of Tuscoloosca near UA Football stadium.Arch (24f4f2) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:02 pm
That doesn’t sound like “hey, let’s demand more” to me.
Agreed, but that is not what you quoted.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:07 pm
Fair point. I shouldn’t have used quotation marks. Just because journalists and Glen Greenwald do that it doesn’t make it ok.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:11 pm
I am not trying to be a dick. I just went looking for what was in quotes.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:13 pm
“None did so themselves with their own documents.”
carlitos – I’m comforted by the fact that you cannot give me evidence of this.
“This doesn’t have anything to do with interpreting the law.”
Of course it doesn’t when you put your fingers in your ears and say I can’t hear you as you have consistently done.
I still do not understand your ultimate goal with your comments.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:21 pm
Carlitos- do you think Obama has handled this well? Are you arguing that if Obama had released the long form earlier, Republicans would still have been asked for 2 years if they believe Obama was born in the US? Do you think such a high percentage of Americans would have doubts about Obama’s birthplace?
Do you think we would still be talking about this if Obama had just turned over the most complete documentation available?MayBee (081489) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:24 pm
“Perhaps the most common argument of those questioning Obama’s eligibility is that he should just release his full, original birth certificate, rather than the shorter certification, which is a copy.”
carlitos – The above is from your Salon link. Ignoring the words about eligibility, the most common issue two years ago was the same as today. Obama wasted two years with his trademark nondisclosure policy.
Not sure the following list is still current:
Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA — Released 4/27/11
Certificate of Live Birth — Released
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released – Proven Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)
Law practice client list — Not releaseddaleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:34 pm
That selective service registration had controversy surrounding it, but I’m not sure it waS ever proven to be fake.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:36 pm
Separate the reason Lakin balked and you have simply a disobedient soldier. No sympathy for him at all.
It may sound a bit morbid but it is possible that someone else took a bullet since they had to fill his spot. Sort of like the draft dodgers in Viet Nam given amnesty at the end of the war. IMO they should have never been allowed to come back.
What would the reaction be if someone from the left refused to deploy under a Republican president due to some perceived question as to the CINC’s qualifications. Good order and discipline must be maintained – politics be damned.vor2 (7a2693) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:37 pm
On the release of records point, Tom Maguire linked today to a NY Times piece in which they acknowledged that Obama should have been able to obtain this document had he wanted to.
“Make an exception”? The NY Times was quite clear that Obama was entitled to see his own records when they “covered” this a year ago:
By Hawaiian law, birth records can be released only to people with “a direct and tangible” interest in them — a person born in the state, say, or certain relatives or their estates.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 4:59 pm
Law practice client list — Not released
It would be illegal to release that (client confidentiality). At most, it would require consent to have their name released by each individual client–and I think you will agree with me that the clients we would be most interested in would be the ones least likely to give such a consent.
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Are those really relevant to anything?
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
My memory is hazy on this one, but I think the reason it’s not been released is because it’s a myth. Or is there something I missed out on?
Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)
The two items on that list that are the most important, and the ones which he should have the least reason to hide.kishnevi (8d9aab) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:09 pm
daleyrocks’ list above hasn’t been a secret, but only political news junkies knew about it, and few of us cared much. Along comes Trump, now everybody knows about it.
There are no good answers to ‘why not just release the stupid birth certificate?’, but had Ø done so, few people today would be asking ‘why does Ø have so many secrets?’. Now lots of people ask.
So is Øbama continuing whatever his game is, with all these other docs, or is there a secret worth finding, somewhere in the stack? OR, does Ø just really like being the center of attention… Ø said this is trivial, but he set up the entire scenario. I have trouble imagining a reason that is honorable or worthy of the POTUS.jodetoad (0e079d) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:13 pm
kishnevi – I understand the law client confidentiality issue. People need to dig a little deeper into Obama’s work for Chicago slum lords and then his steering of government grants to them while serving in the Illinois Senate. There are some juicy Valerie Jarrett, Tony Rezko connections in there.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:20 pm
Comment by daleyrocks — 4/27/2011 @ 4:59 pmkishnevi (cc1ec4) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:23 pm
One of the news reports I heard today said that Obama had to obtain, or give, a waiver of some sort, so that his counsel could pick it up in Hawaii. Otherwise, he would have to show up at whichever state office it’s kept and have it handed to him personally. I’m not sure that’s absolutely correct (USPS registered mail, recipient’s signature required wouldn’t suffice?) but that might be the root of the “not possible to obtain” meme.
“that might be the root of the “not possible to obtain” meme.”
kishnevi – You might be right, but it does not seem to be dying.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 5:34 pm
You know who the biggest loser in this might be? CNN.
To give them a bit of credit, I saw a few minutes of one of their reports yesterday that showed an interview of an older woman who had given birth around the same time Obama’s mother did. The woman said that among the infants in the hospital nursery, Obama stood out because he was quite uncommmon in Hawaii, referring to his black background.
They also showed an interview of the former director of Hawaii’s Health Department (Ms. Fukino), and she apparently is politically neutral—or at least isn’t a partisan liberal. So her statements about the history surrounding the birth certificate of the current occupant of the Oval Office, and what she herself has seen in the files, seemed down-to-earth.
So Trump’s supposed squad of sleuths couldn’t have done the same thing that CNN did and also drawn the same conclusion I reached based on such information/interviews? Trump, you’re fired!
The only thing I’m surprised by is that the long form of the birth certificate didn’t contain any information that would have embarrassed Obama. So his doing back flips until now to avoid the simple act of what transpired today is a sign of both his arrogance and foolishness.Mark (411533) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:01 pm
Mary was the “Immaculate Conception”, because she was born without Original Sin, but through the normal human mating process.
The phrase you’re groping for is “Virgin Birth”, which applies to Jesus, as Mary bore him without having sex first.Guardial (cd7dfb) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:18 pm
Mark wrote:The only thing I’m surprised by is that the long form of the birth certificate didn’t contain any information that would have embarrassed Obama. So his doing back flips until now to avoid the simple act of what transpired today is a sign of both his arrogance and foolishness.
That was the only surprise to me as well.SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:38 pm
No doubt Obama would like to see a few more GOP precinct chairs like this one.
(courtesy of Patterico’s sidebar)
This one doesn’t accept the document because 1)it says Certificate of Live Birth and not Birth Certificate across the top and 2)she’s seen the real one, with Obama’s footprint, from Kenya.kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:52 pm
On behalf of the state of Texas, I apologize for that jackass.
/facepalmDustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 6:59 pm
Given the embarrassment that Obama’s presidency has become, Kenyans now say he was born in Hawaii.SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:10 pm
I will confess, not being catholic, i had no idea it was even wrong as i repeated the joke. I thought the immaculate part was conceiving jesus without sex.
indeed, i am pretty sure that is a common misstatement of doctrine. So i got it wrong, because it is not my doctrine. i believe mary was a virgin when she gave birth. i don’t believe she was absolutely spotless. i am sure she was reasonably human, and probably better than most… but not spotless.
Anyway, sorry for the minor flub.Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:18 pm
At this point I’m ready to believe practically anything. I’m starting to think he
Was born in the back seat
Of a Greyhound bus,
Rollin’ down Highway 41.
Lord, I was born a Bambling man…
or else, he was
In a trunk
In the Bijou Theater
In Pocatello, Idaho.
or maybe he was even
Born in the wagon
Of a travelin’ show,
His mama would research blacksmithing
For the money they’d throw.
Grand-bama did whatever he could:
Preach a little Koran,
Get some campaign finance from Holly-wood.
Any more? There’s gotta be more.d. in c. (7c90f3) — 4/27/2011 @ 7:24 pm
heydaley,let’ssAythatyourlistisvalishouldwefocusonthatstufffrom30yearsago,orthepresidentialresume?carlitos (dd980b) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:19 pm
Blackberryifail…please-ignore.carlitos (dd980b) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:23 pm
carlitos – It’s all part of his presidential resume. He is the least vetted president of my lifetime. The media fellating he received got him at least 15% of the vote including the white guilt vote. Any serious attempts to examine his background were actively undermined by the Obama campaign or its allies and Obama put out the word to smear people conducting such research as racists. Those smears continue today and people such as yourself help to perpetuate them out of fear.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:27 pm
“Another way this birther issue has harmed out country is how it’s exposed that we’re kinda on the honor system.”
We are when it comes to presidents and wannabe presidents.
When it comes to ordinary citizen types, we’re on the “We’ll subject you to a flagrantly Unconstitutional search anytime we damned well feel like it” system.
See airports for an example.Dave Surls (ee4c90) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:29 pm
Yes Dave, that’s a very good point. Obama has no problem scanning a little girl, or giving her a patdown, or assuming my bottle of coke is a bomb. But he plays politics with his background information. And I mean every single little bitty bit of it.
Frankly, the more I’ve read the blogosphere, the more I’m inclined to see Carlitos’s side. There are an awful lot of asses out there who won’t give Obama a fair shake on this issue, and there’s a strong chance that if I were Obama, I would feel like refusing to dignify any birther issue at all, even if that led to tremendous problems for the country. But then, I know that is selfish and unpresidential. Obama failed a test of leadership in this case.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:33 pm
Another way Obama has harmed the country is that according to the framing of the left, we are not supposed to hold black politicians to the same standards of inquiry as white ones, because that is racist. Obama used race card dog whistles and code words during his presidential campaign and it continues today. Just look at the trash the Yahoo put out about the birth certificate at the end of the day today. Tell me that was not coordinated from the White House if you can.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/birth-certificate-wont-end-race-related-attacks-on-the-presidentdaleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:38 pm
btw, in case you are wondering, i am alive. but i am signing out for the night.Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:39 pm
“We are when it comes to presidents and wannabe presidents.”
Dave Surls – I have yet to witness any honor out of president Obama, but maybe I am forgetting something.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:40 pm
If the above is part of his “presidential resume,” daley and I have a difference of opinion.
No one of any character or qualification is ever going to run for President again, if they are subject to this level of scrutiny. Grade School? For fark’s sake.
Has any other candidate been subject to requests like this? Did we clamor for Clinton or Gore’s grade school information? Did we ask for Bush Jr.’s parents’ marriage certificate?
Obama has been president for a while now. Every second he can distract folks with this insanity is a win for Democrats.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:42 pm
‘night Aaron!carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:43 pm
“Obama has been president for a while now. Every second he can distract folks with this insanity is a win for Democrats.”
carlitos – I completely disagree. When an idiot like Trump can get media attention on how poorly vetted Obama was before his election that is a big win. It embarrasses the media and distracts Obama. It does nothing to mainstream conservatives.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:47 pm
That yahoo post was disgusting, Daley.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:50 pm
carlitos – We lose when we let the left frame the terms of debate for us by telling us what avenues of inquiry are acceptable and which are not. I get the sense you have caved into the left’s framing of Obama.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:50 pm
daleyrocks, if you think that Trump is “winning” in any sense outside of the Charlie Sheen version, then I respectfully disagree. I think that fomenting conspiracy theories is harmful all around. If you think that John Q Public is thinking “hey, now that Obama delayed the release of his “long form” birth certificate, I question the mainstream media” and not “hey, birther racist Rethuglicans are idiots” then again, we disagree. I have no faith in my fellow man.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:52 pm
“No one of any character or qualification is ever going to run for President again, if they are subject to this level of scrutiny. Grade School? For fark’s sake.”
carlitos – It’s list pulled off a blog, for cripesake. Edit it if you like.
Dispute that Obama is the least vetted candidate of your lifetime if you can.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:53 pm
Yes, you have a point. I wouldn’t wish this crap on my family.
I think Obama’s a little bit special. His background is unusual. People want to know he’s on America’s side in his dealings with other countries, for example, because so much of his background wasn’t here. On the other hand, he’s got an interesting take on the world, because he saw Indonesia (I believe he was extremely privileged in comparison, but it was an experience).
I think Daley’s list is not a witchhunt. It’s an effort to know as much about our president as possible. I bet he feels this way about Bush and Mccain. I certainly felt this way about that bastard John Kerry, who still hasn’t signed an unqualified form 180.
The Presidency is powerful enough to end the world as we know it. We want as much information as we can possibly get. somehow, we need to balance this against the need to have sane people want to be president (men who don’t subject their family to hell).
How do we deal with that? I don’t know, but I think Obama made it a lot worse with his political handling of this issue.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:53 pm
Are ratings up for his program? Is his craving for more attention satisfied?
Sure, he’ll never be president, but he didn’t make that less likely, as it was always 0%.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:55 pm
“daleyrocks, if you think that Trump is “winning” in any sense outside of the Charlie Sheen version, then I respectfully disagree.”
carlitos – Then we disagree. I think the release today showed Obama worried about his polling weakness and he needed to take heat off. It was not a move from strength for him. I have more faith in my fellow citizens than you, especially now that they have seen Obama in office for a couple of years.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:57 pm
As I was quoting Sun Tzu earlier, of course you are right. You have to choose the field of battle to win. Perhaps I have looked at the origin of the claims, and I agree with “the left” on this issue. I see a double standard.
Several times, I have asked about the college transcript issue. This is a clear double standard – Bush, McCain and Dole did not willingly release their transcripts. Your list is further evidence of a double standard – did you demand that McCain release his parents’ marriage certificate or his parents’ marriage certificate?carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 8:57 pm
Der – I meant to say “grade school transcrips” and not “his parents’ marriage certificate twice.
What level of bribe would our host need to enable editing of comments?carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:00 pm
I want every candidate for office to release their transcripts. How is it a double standard for me to want to see th mostest smartest President EVAH’s transcripts?JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:00 pm
“Your list is further evidence of a double standard – did you demand that McCain release his parents’ marriage certificate or his parents’ marriage certificate?”
carlitos – I am not demanding anyone release anything. I think the media should do that. With Obama they have fallen down on the job.
Can you dispute that Obama is the least vetted president of your lifetime? If not, where is the double standard?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:01 pm
transcripTTTTTs. Argh!carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:01 pm
Carlitos, you have to admit, the media went after some of these details when it was Mccain or Bush. Come hell or high water, they got the leaks they needed to expose this information. But then Obama… and no more journalism. No leaks.
I’d like journalists to have scrutiny of democrats, too. Otherwise we wind up having a selective narrative that Republicans are morons. Oh, and when someone naturally tries to push a democrat under that same spotlight, we see cries of racism. I think some people actually just want Obama’s transcripts exposed out of a sense of political justice. If he were a Republican, all that data would be in the public domain by now.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:04 pm
If you can establish objective criteria for “most/least vetted,” we can discuss it. Obviously, you and Dustin both realize that your list isn’t being applied to Ronald Reagan, George Bush or John McCain. Because you both feel that Obama is mysterious. Well hey, prove it!
If you’d like to substantiate your claim, feel free to make a spreadsheet with your list (or some variant) and compare various candidates and the level of scrutiny that they received. I’d include Palin, McCain, Biden, Gore, Bush at least. Include items like “released parents’ marriage certificate,” “released 2 versions of birth certificate,” “had DOH heads from 2 parties attest to viewing birth record,” “released grade school transcripts,” etc.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:07 pm
Hung out with domestic terroristsJD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:12 pm
Sat in Rev Hatey’s church for 20 years
Public records for State Senate
Look at how Kurtz was attacked just for looking into ideology.
For example, when Sarah Palin’s yahoo email was hacked, did the press read those emails and report on them?
Or did they refuse, or complain about sexism? That latter sounds ridiculous, but if Palin was a democrat, that’s what would have happened.
I know every little stupid detail about Sarah Palin because she is not a democrat. I know all about her husband’s political secessionist views (even if it’s based on many assumptions and a few lies), but Michelle’s background? I don’t think I’ll learn much about it. I think I heard somewhere that she’s the reason Obama met so many radical kooks, so I bet there’s a lot to Michelle’s views that are disturbing, but it’s just baseless speculation at this point.
Yet Todd Palin’s or Cindy Mccain’s? Not so. Multimillion dollar corporations like the New York Times will learn as much as they can about these people. Mccain’s relationship with a lobbyist is front page news, based on speculation that later turns out to be wrong. Obama’s relationship with Vera Baker? Don’t expect to see speculation of it on the front page of any major newspapers.
This should lead conservatives to push for more sunshine on the background of democrats. To not vet these people aggressively, when the GOP is so vetted, strikes me as naive and unjust. Ideally, somehow, we could get beyond some of this. Realistically, we won’t.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:14 pm
Goodnight, racists. Actually, ne more quick note. That is what infuriates me the most, the idea that race drives this, when perfectly reasonable people see glaring areas that the MFM refused to go, or called people racist if they went there. It is ridiculous, childish, shallow, and quite dishonest.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:16 pm
don’t be unreasonable. I’m simply noting the fact that Obama’s background is unusual, and much of it is not well known. It’s a normal thing to want to know as much about Mccain, Reagan, Bush, or Obama as possible.
I have not accepted your claim that scrutiny doesn’t apply to Republican presidents. Quite the freaking contrary.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:17 pm
Yes, JD, you’re right. Those claiming that we want to know as much about Obama as possible is tinged with racism are assholes. I didn’t see anyone say that in this thread, but I easily could have missed it.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:18 pm
Oh, and Kevin Durant is a stud.JD (318f81) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:20 pm
The words you are looking for are “special pleading.”
Seriously it sounds like you have the time and motivation to build the spreadsheet that I talked about. If you’d like to objectively prove this, send a message to Aaron or Patrick and I’ll help you do so. Because I’m sure you’d like factual evidence, vs. supporting teh Narrative on something like this without objective evidence.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:23 pm
Interesting that Obama in particular has no respect for privacy, unless it’s Obama’s.
OK, I’ll happily do so right now:
ALL INFORMATION WE CAN GET PERTAINING TO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
There, I finished. You’re welcome. I already conceded there is a serious flaw in how my list makes it difficult for sane people to pursue the presidency. I explained that this is not the ideal, but rather forced on us by the reality of how the media treats Republicans.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:26 pm
I confess I don’t even know what that means. I know sometimes it sounds like I’m well versed on legal topics, but I’m a bit of an airhead, and that’s why I readily admit when I find I’m mistaken, which is not exactly unheard of.
There’s the wikipedia.
I think Carlitos is trying to claim I’m dishonest, without actually explaining how. That’s unfortunate, as I’ve argued my points here in good faith, even though Carlitos has repeatedly associated them with claims I have never even heard of, let alone argued. I’ve accepted that because I thought Carlitos is impassioned about this issue, and how difficult it is to keep up with this back and forth. Ya know, that good faith thing I try to show people.
I have even granted Carlitos his points, against me ‘side’.
I’m not sure where he gets the idea I’m making an unjustified exemption to any rule I have endorsed.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:30 pm
“If you can establish objective criteria for “most/least vetted,” we can discuss it.”
carlitos – Wow! Are you even that uncomfortable expressing a subjective judgement about Obama and his background?
If you keep setting impossible standards to meet, I think this discussion is over. Keep nitpicking lists rather than focusing on the overall disclosure picture and behavior pattern. That is safe.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:30 pm
Dustin is dodging my offer to create a spreadsheet that objectively looks at the scrutiny applied to recent Presidential candidates. If anyone else is interested in such a venture, let me know.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:31 pm
“The words you are looking for are “special pleading.””
Dustin – I think it is actually carlitos asking for special pleading and attempting to shift the burden of his work to others, but that’s just my opinion.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:33 pm
Dustin – That’s why the argument always comes back to the same points with him, even after people supply new information.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:34 pm
Yes. I’m unwilling to impose subjective criteria on any question. Does that seem strange to you?
I’m offering to set objective criteria. You are welcome not to participate.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:35 pm
The above is a claim. Someone making such a claim could provide evidence.
I’m dead serious. If anyone wants to further the “Obama is somehow mysterious” meme, they should apply the same standards of evidence to other recent candidates. If a serious examination shows that it’s true, great.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:43 pm
Oh, I thought you were asking me to produce something like that list where people said that wanted transcripts from gradeschool, etc.
You’re asking me to look into whether they found Reagan’s mom’s divorce records? Or whether he agreed to provide them?
Isn’t it pretty clear that candidates generally do not give up much information, and that journalists try to find as much as they can get?
You’re going to have to produce this spreadsheet on your own. It sounds like you’re trying to produce a scoreboard or something. I don’t really understand what you’re after, other than repeatedly personally attacking someone who has been nice to you anyway. Maybe you need to chill out and admit Obama has an unusual background that anyone would find interesting and newsworthy, and that we should try to learn as much about a presidential candidate as possible.
What exactly do you think I’m after? His mom’s divorce record? Read the thread again if you think I’m demanding something like that.
I’m more interested in Obama’s record at columbia, a particularly mysterious segment of his life that I think has a lot to do with his connection to Bill Ayers and chicago. Isn’t that the time Obama almost became a junkie (in his own words)? Who was his drug dealer? Did he sell drugs? Who did Bill Ayers introduce Obama to?
I actually don’t know what direction journalism should take. I just think it should follow the evidence and ask hard questions of as many people as possible. I think it’s scary that a cokehead is in the oval office. I think Obama’s background is crammed full of such red flags. We’ve got a supporter of Rev Wright in control of the nuclear football.
Is that similar to John Mccain? No!
While I still think we need to know as much about Mccain as possible, the level of curiosity is obviously different. Mccain is a well known guy. His background was in the navy, years of it in a prison camp, being tortured and yet refusing to take a special favor because of his dad’s rank. His loyalty is not as questionable as Obama’s. It’s just a common sense fact.
That’s why my spreadsheet just says we should learn as much as we can. If there is something about Mccain that a journalist can dig up, we should learn more about it. That lobbyist affair that didn’t happen? A good place to try to dig up info. Keating? A good place to dig up info. His first wife? a good place to dig up info.
I don’t think I’m being inconsistent… it’s just that Obama has opened up a lot of doors. Have you read Obama’s books? He’s a creep who drops racial slurs and uses drugs. Very questionable person.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:49 pm
May I ask how you know this? Or, if it was CNN saying this, how they know it? I have no idea whether it’s true, but I’ve grown extremely wary of such claims when made in the press. It would be nice to know that it isn’t being made without some sort of evidence.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/27/2011 @ 9:56 pm
Either list the other candidates of whom these questions have been asked, or admit it’s special pleading. Simple.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:01 pm
That just doesn’t make sense. Actually, you’re the one who is guilty of this special pleading fallacy.
Mccain didn’t admit to being a cokehead on the road towards being a junkie. That’s why I don’t want to know the name of his cocaine dealer.
Reagan graduated from school in 1932 and had a very public life. That’s why any honest person admits Obama’s background is more mysterious.
Show some good faith, Carlitos.
Hell, I actually already did what you asked. I compared the NYT treatment of Vicki Iseman affair to its treatment of Vera Baker. You know damn well we could go on and on with such examples for hours.
You know I’m right, then, and that I already exposed the double standard. What you’re asking for is some spreadsheet with special questions about Obama’s background that I’m not even asking about, and that is because you are unreasonable and losing the argument.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:11 pm
Hell, there are books about Mccain’s parents’ background. Carlitos is claiming these questions haven’t even been asked?
Oh wait, Carlitos isn’t claiming anything at all, right?
Carlitos: make a specific claim that I can falsify. Name a presidential candidate you claim is less mysterious than Obama. You have been unable to falsify the claim Obama is more mysterious, but clearly you disagree with that. Your only defense is to demand proof, but no one is going to spend hours meeting your unusual request for a spreadsheet about Reagan’s parent’s divorces or whatever exactly you want to know.
I think you’re trying way way too hard to force me to defend craziness I have taken no part of. You want to replace my argument for reasonable scrutiny of all presidential candidates with something else that you found kooky, but I didn’t say.
Show me your claim that can be falsified. Do you even have a claim?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:17 pm
DADDY!happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:17 pm
what’s a two dollar beeyul?happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:18 pm
Actually, if Carlitos is trying to assert that there exists, out there, a person who is unfair to Obama, I guess I have to admit he’s right.
But if he plans to cherry pick the questions he’s found least fair about Obama, and then prove Obama got the short end of the stick, he has to also let me cherry pick the least fair questions asked of other presidents. We can’t just rely on questions about Kenya and Obama’s mom’s life story. We have to include every lamebrain thing every asserted against everyone.
But that’s not what Carlitos was asserting, was it?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:30 pm
do bumble like pina coladas?
do he like getting caught in the rain?happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:43 pm
Oh wait, Carlitos isn’t claiming anything at all, right?
Not totally sure what is fueling his biases in regards to this matter. He implied in a recent posting (and I assume seriously) that his wife leans right. By contrast, I believe he’s sort of a squish, if not a closeted liberal? In particular, or far more important than that, I believe he previously has indicated he’s a big softy about illegal immigration, so that may be at the core of how he thinks people’s background and citizenship should be dealt with in general (ie, pliable and dumbed down).Mark (411533) — 4/27/2011 @ 10:47 pm
“Yes. I’m unwilling to impose subjective criteria on any question. Does that seem strange to you?”
carlitos – Yes, yes it does. I offered my subjective opinion that Obama was the least vetted president of my lifetime and you offered no agreement or disagreement. Instead, you demanded some rules based objective criteria for evaluation. I call that chickensh*t.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:07 pm
Either you have a basis for believe a double standard is being applied or you do not. You have not presented evidence and have instead asked others to do it for you to support your belief. That’s a subjective belief right there if you are keeping score.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:10 pm
Obviously, the real question is whether he likes to spend out country into collapse, but I guess we need not speculate on that one.
Truth is that some have given Obama a hard time. I just don’t understand why I am being ordered to product a spreadsheet detailing all questions asked, or ‘admit it’s special pleading’. That’s unbelievably irrational for someone as smart as Carlitos.
Did the world scrutinize ever car accident Barack’s wife was in, demanding to know if she was a murderer? They did that to W’s wife. I guess we could go on and on looking for the unfair things people have asked for in relation to each candidate. I don’t think the list I saw upthread is even close to the worst leveled even at Obama, and I just think the presidency requires lots more scrutiny than Obama got.
What do we know about Obama’s views? He voted present on many issues, and ran for the Presidency as a tax cutting deficit halving fiscal hawk who would close GITMO and get us out of Iraq.
Reagan, Dubya and Clinton ran their first terms largely as they claimed they would, and I don’t think they possibly could have gotten away with anything less because they just weren’t such cyphers.
Something clearly went wrong with the public’s evaluation of Obama. I think it’s pretty obvious that the press utterly failed to inform the public about Obama, or investigate much about Obama. Were they digging in his garbage, as they did the GOP’s VP candidate? I’d have settled for some tougher direct questions.
mark, I don’t know what carlitos’s POV is, but I thought he was an Obama supporter. I have no problem with him either way. I just think he needs to be a little more direct and reasonable.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:12 pm
Yep. I think this is true. Daleyrocks is entitled to his opinion, and I think it’s obviously very reasonable. How many people have claimed they were surprised by what Obama turned out to be like?
I’m really surprised someone would demand proof, but Obama’s such a cypher, with such a less public background than other presidents, that it’s actually conceivable that it could be objectively shown. Clinton and Bush and Reagan were all governors, after all. Bush 43 was the VP for 8 years. Obama was nothing. He wasn’t really even a Senator, as he barely voted on anything. A couple of times he did, but he even contradicts those votes! (debt ceiling, for example).
How can someone look at these men and not conclude that Obama was more mysterious?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:17 pm
Pretend I didn’t make any typos, such as saying Bush 43 was VP instead of Bush 41.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/27/2011 @ 11:17 pm
Obama released his birth certificate during his campaign. That is more than any other presidential candidate has ever done. Any idiocy on the part of birthers is wholly their own.giantslor (21db7f) — 4/28/2011 @ 2:53 am
“Mysterious”Big Median (2f532a) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:25 am
OK, I’ll grant that the term is too dramatic for my purposes. Still:
The shoe fits. Obama had less of a record and concealed his agenda, while facing an absurdly weak press that should have scrutinized his views and background. Democrats admit they are surprised by the directions Obama’s administration has taken.
It’s hard to remember a president in recent memory with less relevant information available, such as a record as governor, or votes on the record, or even simply a background story. Hell, Obama was hiding whether he even knew Bill Ayers, or whether he even was present at Rev Wright’s church.
The hysterical questions directed at Bush or Reagan, such as conspiracies with Iran or Osama Bin Laden? I think they tended to be more severe than merely asking if Obama could let people see evidence of his 1961 birth that came from 1961.
Still, the term ‘mysterious’ was not one I chose. I’m just compelled to note it’s defensible, if a little bit dramatic.
I agree with Big Median that it’s hilarious how mysterious Obama was to his own supporters. They actually thought they were voting for someone who would withdraw the US from wars, rather than start new ones. they thought they were electing the most transparent admin, who would cut deficits while getting single payer.
But I think the joke is on Obama’s supporters. All they seem to have right now is mockery of the most fringe conservative, because focusing on reasonable complaints about Obama behavior is a sure loser for the left.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:07 am
the “least vetted” president?Big Median (2f532a) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:11 am
You mean with all Murdoch’s money, all Rush Limbaugh’s gazillions and all hundreds of millions of anti-Obama claims made on right-wing blogs no conservative could manage to properly “vett” Obama?
If true, what does this say about intellectual and organizational capabilities of his unquestionably committed opponents?
Wait… you think the term “mysterious” warrants ‘rotfl’ mockery, and then you launch into this hysterical nonsense?
Fair point. John Mccain’s campaign deserves criticism. I’m not sure how you leap to saying something about his intellect, but surely mistakes occurred.
And yet, only a moron would ask if this is true.
It’s simply a fact. We knew more about how Bush 43, Clinton, and Reagan would govern. These men had all governed before. They all had well articulated policies. They all behaved largely as predicted by their supporters in the beginning of their terms (all we have to compare with Obama).
Obama was not like that. He had no leadership background, and his policy promises were not truthful. It was too easy for him to lie to his supporters about what he would or even could accomplish. He’s easily the least vetted president in recent memory.
And his work with ACORN and Ayers and his amazing loyalty to Wright were not clearly discussed. Sure… they were brought up as attacks, largely by Sarah Palin, but it’s still not very clear what Obama’s relationship with these people was like. His entire Columbia record is a question mark.
It probably would be less important what Obama’s college record was like if he had some other credential than graduating from Harvard, Magna Cum Laude (even that is a mystery… what does that mean? it doesn’t mean top 5%, and we don’t really know what classes Obama did well on. He admits he was a crappy student.)
Lefty kooks engaged in deep investigations of Bush’s wife having a car accident. They invented radically paranoid and dishonest smears about Bush’s military service. They accused him of cocaine abuse, and being drunk years after he gave up drinking. And there is some counterpart of this on the right, I admit, with some birther arguments. So what? We can safely leave all that aside, or we can bring them up to distract from Obama’s actual lack of character on this issue.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:27 am
The claim that Obama wasn’t “vetted” doesn’t warrant the dignity of a serious response, but the fact that so many wingnuts can’t understand how the claim destroys their own crediblity as “vetters” is too hilarious and telling to pass up without comment.Big Median (2f532a) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:39 am
If all the conservative media — openly hostile to liberals, Democrats and, above all, Obama — aren’t capable of “vetting” the president, who is?
You can erect all the ludicrously irrelevant goalposts you want, Dustin, but none of them will answer the question of why conservatives — by their own vehement assessment — have failed miserably at the most basic possible task a political opposition has.
We know beyond doubt that conservative political groups have no shortage of funding. Firearms makers, tobacco producers, oil companies, drugmakers and tax scofflaws flood conservative causes with cash day by day. So the lack of funding can’t possibly be an excuse for this failure to “vett” a president they insist is so uniquely vulnerable to exposure.
What does that leave, then? Are conservatives simply not smart enough? Do they lack language skills?
What is it, Dustin? Why the failure?
It’s hard to really answer you because all you do is jam together all the insults you can think up.
BTW, you forgot to mention the Koch brothers in #230.
This paranoia that firearms makers and ‘tax scofflaws’ are responsible for the lack of vetting of Obama is pretty hilarious.
Their mere existence is your argument that Obama was vetted? That’s all you’ve got?
What about Obama promising to close GITMO, or get out of Iraq, or cut the deficit in half? What about his simple inability to handle basic leadership tasks? He’s shown a lot of naivety on the world stage, and spends a disturbing amount of time not doing anything but playing.
Sorry, but Clinton, Reagan, and Bush 43 were better vetted, simply because they had experience we could talk about, and agendas they could back up with leadership skills they already had. I only don’t mention bush 41 because I’m a bit less familiar with him. I know he ran the CIA and was VP for years, but I think he was not exceptionally predictable.
If if Obama did have years of experience as governor, and plenty of public votes as senator on tough issues, we’d want to know all there is to know about him. But we don’t. I know that Obama talks about abusing drugs, and his worry about becoming a junkie, but where is the press to interview Obama on this issue? Big Median claims all we need is some big oil companies to investigate, but I think that’s inadequate.
And while Big Median make think he’s found a clever way to call me stupid, I didn’t vote for Obama. I think those who did, without knowing how he would lead, were freaking idiots. A huge number of them have already changed their minds about him. Hell, tens of millions of Obama voters recently said they aren’t even sure he was born in the USA. That’s a stunning commentary on perception of Obama’s honesty. Why do so many people think he wasn’t vetted?Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:49 am
heh, obviously this isn’t correct. However, the USAtoday poll shows that 62% of Americans did not believe Obama on this issue. That means tens of millions of his voters are included. And consider that many of the people who know he was born in Hawaii are news watching Republicans like me, and I wonder just how deep Obama’s credibility gap has actually become.
Of course he was less vetted than other Presidents were. Big Median can claim this is too horrible a concept to dignify, but why is that? Of the last 4 presidents, once of them would have to be the most or least vetted. It’s not nearly so extreme a claim as he seems to think.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:53 am
You tell me, Dustin. Why didn’t the conservative media vett Obama? It’s a really simple question.Big Median (2f532a) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:56 am
Dustin, it’s not just that you’re insulting the credibility and capability of your own movement and don’t even know it, it’s that your fluanting the fact that your political views shoulder ZERO burden of proof.Big Median (2f532a) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:04 am
Your entire view of Obama, and liberalism in general, is based on the idea that your ideology represents self-evident truth, while your opponents must prove any and every claim they make.
The birther circus is so amusing precisely because it celebrates an epistemology that demonstrates with great self-congratulation it’s utter lack of credibility.
@Aaron, in your attempt to shift responsibility for Lakin’s woes, you are reducing him to a mere puppet, incapable of making his own decisions and accepting the responsibility for any consequences which result. Military personnel who, for reasons of conscience, decide to disobey orders, do so out of their own moral conviction. The choice is theirs, as is the responsibility, and also the consequences. Blaming the president for Lt. Col. Lakin’s choices, as if Lakin somehow had no personal agency in the matter does a disservice to each.TR (3491af) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:09 am
responsibility is not a zero sum game. Saying Obama bears some blame doesn’t relieve lakin one bit of his blame.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:37 am
Big MFM median just likes to call people RACISTS. His paranoid delusions are always funny though. The tax scofflaws was rich. You forgot the Kock Brothers, as was noted above.
Anyone read about the Massachusetts Dems assault on the collective bargaining natural rights of public employee unions?JD (85b089) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:43 am
Lakin is not the model to look up to.vor2 (8e6b90) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:50 am
An additional thought about him is his career field. He is a surgeon. Did his absence mean the difference between one of the troops surviving their injury or not? It is a fair question.
See link above for what liberals should be reminded when conscientious objector is brought up.
Okay. Someone is making up big MFM median. Has to be. Beyond parody. A satire of a parody wrapped in a caricature wrapped in an enigma.JD (d48c3b) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:15 am
I call it being rational. Your claim = “least vetted ever.” Your evidence is a list of things about one guy only, with no other presidents listed. Last I checked, “least” is a comparative adjective, yet you offer no comparison.
2 autobiographies, a couple of biographies, a sometimes-willing press, team Hillary! and a kajillion internet commandos have looked into this guy. He’s a known entity. He’s been an elected official since 1997. He’s been PRESIDENT for a couple of years now. His GRADE SCHOOL doesn’t matter anymore; we can criticize his mis-management of the country. You’re wasting time and making Republicans look silly with this faux-birther “Obama the mystery man” stuff. It’s irrational.
You seem able to spot “the narrative” from the other side. Why can’t you spot it on your own side? That’s all I’m asking.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:20 am
Please, ‘Hope and Change’ that was his platform, there was no serious inquiry into what that would entail, except sporadically. His decades long connections with Ayers and Wright, which recurr continuously with the Hamas flotilla, with his the former’s partner Jeff Jones drafting the stimulus for the Apollo alliance, the likes of Van Jones,whose green jobs plan, is ocurring, Obama is exactly the kind of person, Franklin was worriedabout, when he wondered if we ‘could keep the Republic’ and it has nothing to do with where he was born,narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:33 am
Tangential: DNA testing neither proved nor disproved that TJ fathered any of Hemings’ children. He most probably did, but it can’t be proven beyond any doubt either way from the available evidence, primarily because TJ had no sons who lived to pass on their X-chromosome DNA. It has been established from historical records that TJ was in the right places at the right times to be the father of Hemings’ known children. DNA testing in the ’90s showed that descendants of her youngest child, Eston, had a male ancestor of the Jefferson line related to TJ’s paternal uncle Field Jefferson. The testing also excluded Jefferson’s Carr nephews as Eston-line ancestors.Tully (62151d) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:42 am
The media is not conservative you racist beeyotch.DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:46 am
I am just going to agree to disagree with carlitos. I do agree that mystery is way to strong of a word, but it seems abundantly clear that the press is very not-at-all curious about aspects of his past that they would have a decidedly different stance were it Team R.JD (29e1cd) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:50 am
JD, even if true, the guy is the PRESIDENT. He’s managing the country into generational bankruptcy. Talking about Obama’s birth certificate, grade school, or parentage is the conservative equivalent of “look, bunnies!”carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:55 am
I double posted on accident feel free to delete 246.
And you leftys insist on calling yourselves liberals althought your not.DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:55 am
I have long found this rigamarole a distraction, but the media won’t really look into any of these other issues either, they will still like Dana Milbank, insist it is his unappreciated brilliance, Whiskey Tango, that has us in an unresolved conflict in Libya, that has food and fuel prices going through the roof, with Bernanke apparently insisting ‘I meant to do that’narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:02 am
What better to neuter a political cause than the notion that its most contentious claims are self-evident, while it’s rivals require absolute proof?
If Soros doesn’t fund this blog, surely he should.Big Median (2b1825) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:06 am
Carlitos – I aint talking about those things. I could not give a flying f@ck what his grade school grades were. I could not care less about his parents divorce. I do care that he is a horrific President, and had there been any curiosity about his ideology and relationships, then the idea of Hopeychangey BS would never have dominated. He governs in a manner consistent with his collectivist class warfare community organizing Ayers/Davis /Alinsky upbringing. But apparently it is racist to point that out.JD (29e1cd) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:07 am
oh, typos that matter. I meant to write: , while its rivals’ every claim require absolute proof.Big Median (2b1825) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:07 am
Fess up, who is making up big MFM median.JD (d48c3b) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:09 am
See the gateway pundit, he has solid info and do it yourself instructions for verifying that this is a photoshpped document, not a clean scan-to-pdf.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/Smarty (b78ca5) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:12 am
“See the gateway pundit, he has solid info and do it yourself instructions for verifying that this is a photoshpped document, not a clean scan-to-pdf.”
This release will win more of the right wing to birtherism and put even more pressure on GOP candidates.daniel (9d38d7) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:02 am
Some of the comments at Gateway Pundit are almost indistinguishable from parody. That’s unfortunate; I used to like that site.
Speaking of which:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/afterbirthers-demand-to-see-obamas-placenta,6866/carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:09 am
Actually, taking a second look, some over there are making the same point I’m making here:carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:12 am
Skimming further, I note that someone named “carlito” posts at Gateway Pundit, and I am not that someone. That is all.
/obsessivecarlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:22 am
I agree, the forged testimony presented to the court, to sustain the oil moratorium is a more significant issue, but who presses that issue,narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:26 am
that’s why I found Trump either a fool or a knave.
Give me the names of some of each group flooding conservative causes with cash day by day. I’m especially interested in the tax scofflaws.Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:05 am
> If all the conservative media — openly hostile to liberals, Democrats and, above all, Obama — aren’t capable of “vetting” the president, who is?
that’s an outright ignorant statement. take this birth cert. issue. the conservatives could have tried all day long, but short of committing a crime, they couldn’t have gotten it. there was only one man who could get it and that was Barack Obama. The lack of vetting, then, was the lack of media pressure from the likes of cnn, nbc, etc. in seeking this, which gave him the cover not to release this info until yesterday.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:12 am
Openly hostile to liberals[you hijacked the term. democraps and maobama?
😆DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:17 am
Of course this is true, which is why it’s so annoying that my reasonable points keep getting responded to with this completely true point that has no bearing on what I said.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:20 am
Why would you call someone who has said Obama was born in Hawaii and is obviously eligible to hold office a birther?
Because you can’t win the argument that Obama is the least vetted president in our lifetimes, that’s why. You’re wrong, so you lie.
The rest of your reasoning is insisting the GOP controls the media. It’s just plain dumb.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:23 am
Dustin, try this:
Some people believe that 9/11 was an “inside job”
Of those people, there are various subsets-
– some believe that there were no planes, it was all a hologram
– some believe that WTC7 was felled by explosives on purpose
– some believe that a secret, silent explosive was in the twin towers
– some believe that flight 93 landed in Cleveland or someplace, and the passengers were disappeared.
Now, taking the same logic:
Some believe that there is Obama is unqualified to be President, or “hiding” something about his birth.
Of those people, there are subsets:
– Some believe that COLB was a forgery
– Some believe that COLB wasn’t “good enough” but the new one is a forgery
– Some believe that, now that the new one is released, that’s good enough, but WHY DID HE WAIT SO LONG to answer the kooks that were asking
– Some believe that none of the above matters, but since he’s so “mysterious” there has to be something, somewhere, if we just keep digging.
The latter is a soft form of belief in conspiracy theory. In my opinion.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:29 am
The latter is a soft form of belief in conspiracy theory. In my opinion.
Oh no! Not a soft form of belief in conspiracy theory!
BTW, how can anyone not believe in conspiracy theory? It exists!MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:40 am
Heh. You got me there. 🙂
How about “soft form of belief in this conspiracy theory” then?
The reason I don’t like it is belief in conspiracy theories is a flawed espistemology that can result in some bad decisions being made, and even ruining lives like that of Lt. Col Lakin. Lakin’s daughter was born in Hawaii, and even HE couldn’t get her “long form” birth certificate, but he still kept asking Obama for his, and ultimately disobeyed orders and ruined his life. In the post above, Aaron intimates that Obama might have prevented this. I think Lakin was so far down the rabbit hole that rational thought (like seeing his own daughter’s COLB) couldn’t help him. People go nuts on this stuff. In the 666 thread, Newtons mentioned a nuclear physicist that believes the 9/11 stuff. It ruined his career and marriage. My only reason for posting on this is to dissuade us from engaging in conspiracy theory. That’s it.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:54 am
Fair enough, but it doesn’t dissuade from engaging in conspiracy theory to associate non conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories.
It’s not really fair for me to start shouting ‘truther’ at opponents of the Iraq war, for example.
Obama handled this certificate in a way that I think shows he put politics ahead of the country’s needs. He obviously could have released it sooner, and didn’t until his self interest pushed him to. And while I can’t prove it, I think most people agree that he was setting a trap or trying to benefit from kooky birthers. That one little element makes him partially responsible for the fallout.
Lakin, however, is not some moron. He’s a field grade officer, and I think you’re fair to hold him accountable even for this complicated mess. He should have respected the state of Hawaii’s authority on this matter, instead of creating a chain of command problem in a time of war.
But it’s still worthwhile to discuss the fact that Obama’s terrible leadership on this issue has in fact harmed America. Your reaction that Reagan didn’t release his birth certificate (which isn’t even true) is not relevant, because the context was different. This is about leadership and Obama’s priorities, rather than Obama stubbornly refusing to do anything that Reagan or Bush didn’t do.
Again, he made a show of the fact that there was a document in Hawaii that Obama wouldn’t let us see, even though he could, and even there’s nothing to hide on it, because the existence of birthers was politically useful to Obama. He’s an unpatriotic dick.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:04 am
JD, @251: “…He governs in a manner consistent with his collectivist class warfare community organizing Ayers/Davis /Alinsky upbringing…”
Dude, that is a pretty dramatic leap given Obama’s weak-sauce, centrist legislative accomplishments. It’s funny to me that you and I both look at the same record and see militant collectivism and flacid moderation respectively.TR (951de5) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:07 am
My only reason for posting on this is to dissuade us from engaging in conspiracy theory. That’s it.
Well, I don’t think a blanket moratorium against engaging in conspiracy theory is necessary, nor is it necessarily going to work.
After all, who would believe that so many people would be willing to keep quiet about a presidential candidate having an affair and a love child while his wife suffers from cancer? Surely Hillary Clinton would have dug it up if it were true!
If you don’t want people questioning Obama’s intelligence or background or whatever, you are certainly free to make that argument. Frankly, I think it’s quite ugly that you want to paint as wacky! people that just don’t agree with you.
Especially considering all the dirt that was flung at Bush and even Clinton. And all the dirt that Obama’s surrogates are sure to fling at any GOP candidates.
Presidential politics is ugly and Obama has been a willing participant. No reason he should have a special bubble.
Unless you are making a call for a new civility for all.MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:08 am
carlitos- I asked a while ago if you think Obama handled this well. If this is the best outcome for him, as far as his birth certificate goes. Do you? Are you defending his handling of this, and do you think he could have avoided this bru ha ha?MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:11 am
TR, centrist legislative accomplishments? You wrote that with a straight face?
First of all, Obama has no legislative accomplishments. He likes to claim the HCR legislation but he did nothing to advance it, contribute to its drafting and his campaigning for it toward the end of ’09 actually reduced public support for the bill. The legislation he signed actually contradicts his own campaign pledges of it.
The lauded stimulus bill in the first months of his presidency was a load of pork that he had little influence upon in terms of content. And it was an economic failure.
So much for accomplishment. The “centrist” part? Comedy gold.SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:12 am
Remember toward the end of the Dem primaries when Dee Dee Myer’s husband wrote a huge article in Vanity Fair about all the rumors regarding Bill Clinton’s affairs over the years?
It got a lot of coverage. OMG! Did Bill sleep with Gina Gershon??
Obama said not one word to denounce it.MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:14 am
Dustin, I know that sometimes you skim. Please read my posts and try to respond substantively. I specifically mentioned another smart guy – a nuclear physicist – who also ruined his life directly due to belief in a conspiracy theory.
Lakin himself tried to get what Obama released yesterday – a “long form” birth certificate for his own Hawaiian-born daughter. And yet he still persisted like Obama was born in another country, despite no evidence. It’s paranoid stuff, not logic.
Fair enough.carlitos (c2a84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:24 am
@Aaron, it’s true that responsibility isn’t a zero sum game. But what’s your argument here – that although there’s no legal reason he should have had to release the long form birth certificate, he should have done so anyway, because this one dude chose not to believe the short form birth certificate and faced adverse consequences as a result? And on the basis of the potential for that one dude experiencing adverse consequences, Obama should’ve been like – wow, I certainly don’t want THAT GUY to get into trouble just because he’s unwilling to accept the true documentation I’ve already offered up…I should really go the extra mile for him! And if I don’t, I will clearly bear the moral responsibility for failing to remove all of his doubt.
Is this really your argument? Doesn’t seem reasonable on its face. If it were you or me, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t feel compelled to go above and beyond to remove the doubt of a some random detractor who refuses to believe the documentation already provided.TR (951de5) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:24 am
@SPQR – I think there’s a reason that the people who view Obama as a raving leftist are confined to the margins of the internet and right-wing talk radio. And I don’t think that reason is simply that nobody else notices or reports on what is so obviously true to you.TR (951de5) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:27 am
I’ll now wait through the upcoming election, to see what else you deem to be conspiracy or out of bounds.MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:30 am
TR, your view of where the political spectrum falls in this country is just nutty. And your admiration for Obama appears pretty much detached from facts.SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:34 am
I did read that. You have a point. I don’t really understand how this contradicts my response. It’s a similar circumstance where someone with responsibility showed poor judgment.
I’m not sure why you’re suggesting I didn’t know that. Like I said in the comment you appear to be replying to, I agree with you that Lakin should have accepted the State of Hawaii’s authority on the issue of Obama’s birth.
Why on earth do you keep replying to my legitimate criticisms of Obama by citing some radical birther? Do you think Obama is less of a dick just because Lakin was wrong?
It seems like I have explained this to you 20 times now. I criticize Obama for his own choices, rather than supporting some kooky birther issue. Replying with some criticism of Orly or Corsi or Lakin is not really a legitimate response.
My argument rests on an assumption that Obama wanted to benefit from agitation and birther hysteria, because that is embarrassing to his opponents. Obviously you keep trying to refute my arguments with irrelevant citations of birthers, too, which is a pretty good example of this cynical tactic.
At this point, it’s clear you know you’re wrong. you just completely ignore my points and repeatedly act as though refuting birthers somehow refutes something I said.
It’s like Obama’s original plan to refute his GOP opponent by noting birthers are crazy.
You could attack my assumption that Obama engaged in such a cynical tactic, but then, this is an Alinksy teaching Rham Emmanuel hardball politician. He loves violating the privacy of his political opponents by demanding disclosure or unsealing court documents. So I guess you’re smart enough not to bother.
Anyway, I think you’re projecting. You say I’m skimming and then make an argument I already made myself. You do this in a way that insinuates I’m wrong about the thing I actually said. Obviously, you also are making a lot of rude insinuations about me, claiming I have lots of free time to make your kooky spreadsheet, or am too stupid to read the thread, but I don’t see any reason to respond to that.
For some reason, you think defending Obama requires you to be dishonest. Perhaps you should think about why you don’t have a better defense available, if you’re actually correct.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:40 am
Well lets take a look at some of his other offerings, Dustin:
http://tomryberg.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/on-hijacking-the-racial-pain-of-others-or-why-we-white-folks-need-to-stop-thinking-about-race-issues-as-if-they-were-external-from-ourselves/narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 10:52 am
oh, man, for a second I thought I had confused Carlitos with this Ryberg guy, narciso.
Felt like quite a dick.
But thankfully I didn’t.
I do feel it’s important to note that I have skimmed over comments that merely explain why those crazy birthers are wrong, since that’s not interesting or controversial or relevant. Carl is correct about me on that point. But then, why would he expect me to read about that 100 times in a row when I’m talking about Obama’s failure of leadership, or defending the idea he is unvetted (which doesn’t require him to be ineligible or anything like that)?
BTW, Narciso, that is quite a strange post you linked. Racism is sad.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:00 am
But then, why would he expect me to read about that 100 times in a row when I’m talking about Obama’s failure of leadership, or defending the idea he is unvetted (which doesn’t require him to be ineligible or anything like that)?
That’s what is so weird. Carlitos has even acknowledged the fact that Obama himself has engaged in some really atrocious “vetting” behavior himself.MayBee (081489) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:06 am
I do not understand the need to create a carve-out for Obama, or to smear as conspiracists people that don’t agree with the carve-out.
Ryberg’s political spectrum is beyond comical.JD (0d01eb) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:35 am
“I think there’s a reason that the people who view Obama as a raving leftist are confined to the margins of the internet and right-wing talk radio. ”
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that just because something is erroneous it is something that is not part of the mainstream right wing mythology.daniel (5e6f6f) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:39 am
Remember, a majority of Americans polled actually questioned whether Obama was telling the truth about his birthplace. So while this is absolutely a problem on the right wing, it seems to have been enough of a problem that it infected even the democrat party.
And of course, it’s extremely minor compared to the truther problem on the left. It’s one thing to accuse Obama of not being born in the USA, which wouldn’t even be his fault, and the deception over which is at least understandable. Claiming Bush let 9/11 occur is drastically crazier.
There are crazy people out there. Only a fool uses that to refute non crazy points.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:44 am
Yes, someone can listen to crazy talk, for 20 years, and we are told it did not influence his policy making, you see how that worksnarciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:52 am
@285, how does it work, narciso? What policies are you referring to when you say that?TR (951de5) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:59 am
TR, that’s pretty easy. Rev Wright was unbelievably anti american in his rhetoric. He claims 9/11 was God’s punishment for America’s policies, therefore justice.
He claims the CIA invented AIDS.
And Obama’s policies do not seem to place the USA’s interests above other countries.
His support for Brazilian oil drilling, and opposition to the same in this country, for example. I guess we could go on and on listing things where Obama screws America’s interests.
Is this related to Obama’s anti american beliefs, as evidences by his support for Rev Wright. He named his book after Rev Wright’s ‘Audacity of Hope’ mantra. He baptised his kids in a radical racist church.
How does someone attend that church for 20 years, and then get to deny they ever heard Rev Wright’s hatred? Easy: the press didn’t effectively vet Obama.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 12:15 pm
All I know about this is that if this were Bush we would be reading headlines like this today:
The Associated Press, which sued to gain access to the files the latest in a series of embarrassments for White House officials who have repeatedly said they found and released all of Obama’s birth documents and school transcripts, only to belatedly discover more records. Those discoveries – nearly 100 pages, including Obama’s class work – have been the result of freedom of information lawsuits filed in federal courts by AP.
The unraveling has begun. Today there are big changes in the White House, Pentagon and Intelligence community. New players and the musical chairs appointments have created confusion, backlogged inquiries, and shaken long time Obama supporters.
The significance of this latest discovery is initially unclear. The federal grand jury looking into the fake Certificate of Live Birth is moving to collect the information. Mr. Obama remains at a undisclosed location with no official reaction. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that “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.”Bigol (3ca1a1) — 4/28/2011 @ 12:58 pm
“The claim that Obama wasn’t “vetted” doesn’t warrant the dignity of a serious response”
The above comment is from Big Median is correct. The claim merely requires agreement rather than a serious response. Sarah Palin’s fallopian tubes were vetted more thoroughly than Barack Obama.
Can Big Median and Carlitos point me to the tough interviews Obama did on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or MSNBC during his two year campaign or the in-depth, hard hitting pieces about him in the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine.
Apart from the speech he gave about Rev. Wright, who he called his spiritual mentor and moral compass, whom he almost immediately had to repudiate after the speech, where was the MSM investigation Obama’s 20 year relationship to that triumverate of Chicago spiritual advisors, Wright, Pfleger, and what’s his name, as well as Wright’s association with Farrakhan?
Instructing high school, college and graduate school classmates does not make the vetting process a candidate easy. It’s almost as if a candidate hiding things had something to hide, much like Obama lied about his long-term relationship with ACORN and tried to airbrush much of that relationship off various websites, but was not successful. Where was the MSM on that issue? The NY Times spiked a major Obama-ACORN story immediately before the election.
Obama’s obfuscation of his relationship with Bill Ayers is an ongoing cloud over his truth telling the MSM accepted at face value, but it weaves into Obama’s long-term association with radicals of various stripes, from his childhood to the present,which the media felt no need to touch during the campaign. His association with the communist New Party in the 1990s would have made a nice topic of discussion had the media been willing to do its job.
Stanley Kurtz’s attempts to probe the records of the Annenberg Challenge were stymied by allies of the Obama campaign, even though they are housed at a public university.
So yes, there has been a deliberate attempt to suppress information about Obama’s past by the candidate himself and his allies. That is undeniable. The media has also fallen down on its job asking the questions they should ask, instead just offering oral hommage to him and swallowing without spilling a drop.
Trump was unwilling to play the game by the rules of the left and the media. He got almost immediate results. I hope he keeps calling Obama out on more of his lies and BS, because he gets attention the media does not give mainstream conservative politicians and it clearly makes Obama nervous.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/28/2011 @ 1:07 pm
20 years in church to learn… Brazilian oil drilling’s purchase of American goods financed by the export-import bank.daniel (b5a79f) — 4/28/2011 @ 1:11 pm
daleyrocks, that’s a good point. There’s a lot to learn from Trump’s tactics.
Frankly, I think that’s really sad. Why can’t the media just investigate? Why can’t they call out efforts to suppress so much about Obama? I think Big Median accidentally has a point. If the ‘right’ doesn’t sink down to the Trump level, they are stupidly letting the democrats have a huge advantage.
Trust me, having been on the right’s end of this: the left doesn’t want that. They are establishing a law of politics that will suck for everybody.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 1:12 pm
I think it’s more like 20 years of the most hysterical and angry demonization of America I’ve ever heard from a Christian clergyman.
I don’t think Wright is the disease, but the symptom. Obama would have walked out on that church, had he had a preference for America, or any patriotism in his heart at all. Instead, he clearly disfavors America in his dealings. He’s trading away our missile defense, violating our constitution (by his own definition of what is unconstitutional!), and doesn’t seem concerned with the debt crisis he is largely responsible for. A patriot would be concerned. Bush, for example, is also responsible for leaving America with a lot of debt, and he’s expressed deep regret and concern over it. I think that’s one of the reasons Bush left America with such a lower debt than Obama will leave.Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 1:16 pm
Barcky just sent me an email asking me for money his campaign. I’m not giving again this time.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/28/2011 @ 1:57 pm
Where’d you get that idea? It’s obvious from the stamp on the copy released by the White House that the registrar routinely makes true copies of documents as well as abstracts. Otherwise the stamp would only say “abstract”, and they’d have had to cross that out and write in “true copy”. Why make a stamp for something that you never do except as a favour for the president?Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:48 pm
For those who are not aware of what orders members of the armed forces are obliged to obey, I would direct their attention to Art 92 of the UCMJ:
Note that it does not say “fails to obey all general orders or regulations”. It say “lawful order or regulation”. Of course, with the precedent of Watada, I don’t think the LCOL was correct, but for Kman to assert that military members are obliged to follow any and all orders is just not true or factual.prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:33 am
prowlerguy – Where do you keep coming up with the microfiche meme? Do you have a source? The Hawaii folks talk about seeing Obama’s document in a bound volume.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:55 am
#116 But what about the vast majority, like me, who simply said “Hey, I’ve had to present my full, complete, certified and sealed birth certificate to join the military, get a job, get a driver’s liscence, get a passport, add my children to my health insurance, and enroll them in school. Why can’t a candidate for President do the same, given that citizenship and age are two Constitutional requirements for the office?” Why did he treat me with such contempt? Why did he and his minions create a pejorative term to lump me in with conspiracy nuts? And why, if it was so important and principled of him to withhold it for 4 hears, why is it now OK to release? Why make up lies about how it didn’t exist, or it couldn’t be gotten, or how he couldn’t legally release it?prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:31 am
#297: By looking at the damned thing. By looking at the copies of the extant copies of authentic HI long-form BCs at WND. I’ve never seen a normal photocopy exhibit that inverted white type/black background seen there, other than microfilm/microfiche copies. Have you?
But now that you have brought that to my attention, I see that there is at least one news report of it being in a bound volume, kept in a vault, under seperate lock and key. Of course, microfiche is often kept in bound volumes because it is flat, but I’m willing to concede that I may be mistaken. So the forgery would have to have been inserted into a bound book without detection, keeping in mind the sequential numbering, while that book remained under lock and key in a vault. Doesn’t really change my point too much.prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:48 am
Prowlerguy, all photocopies in the 1960s looked like that.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:16 am
@Milhouse:No, some PHOTOSTATS from the 1940’s and 1950’s looked like that, but all copies of microfiche looked like that, since they are negative images. Xerox machines were introduced in the 1950’s, and with the introduction of the 914 in 1959, quickly supplanted other duplication technology, mainly because it used plain paper.
But that really doesn’t change anything, does it? You still claiming a variety of mutually exclusive conspiracy theories, all of which lack any foundation in fact. You slander dead men, make up processes and procedures out of whole cloth, and imagine spy-thriller hijinks and deception. Plus, you make up strawmen whenever someone calls you on it. Failing that, you simply order them to “Shut up.”
In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t take orders from punks like you.prowlerguy (fac5d4) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:19 pm
Photocopies in the late ’60s still looked like that.
And I have not claimed any conspiracy, or slandered anybody. You’re lying every bit as much as Newtons.bit lied in the previous thread, and Patterico called him on it. Quote where I wrote any such thing, or shut up, punk.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:30 pm
I remember making copies at the library that looked like that. And my birth certificate, issued before I even had a name, looks like that.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:45 pm
“Where’d you get that idea? It’s obvious from the stamp on the copy released by the White House that the registrar routinely makes true copies of documents as well as abstracts. Otherwise the stamp would only say “abstract”, and they’d have had to cross that out and write in “true copy”. Why make a stamp for something that you never do except as a favour for the president?”
Comment by Milhouse — 4/28/2011 @ 6:48 pm
A certified copy means just that, with a raised seal. And really, HI doesn’t allow anyone to get their long form? That’s ridiculous. In my world, you go to the county of birth for a certified copy. Why is the state of HI even involved, especially if they claim that they DON’T release certified long forms.sablegsd (b5b2a9) — 5/1/2011 @ 12:50 pm