Questions for Speaker Boehner

Questions for Speaker Boehner:

1) Do you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

2) Do you honor the rule of law?

3) Do you support the enforcement of current Immigration law?

4) Do you know that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that:  

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

5) Is there any exception made in that law for any occupation, including President?

6) Is Obama an employee, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States?

7) Do you know whether or not Obama is in compliance with current Immigration law? Do you know whether or not Obama has completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and if so, what documents he used as proof of his employment eligibility?

8) Do you realize that the Form I-9 is very specific about what documents are acceptable?

9) Do you realize that when you said:

“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”

… you are accepting as evidence something that is not accepted as evidence for a Form I-9?

10) Do you agree that the President is not above the law, and that Obama should publicly release original, initial documentation, certified by the appropriate government agency, to meet the requirements of not only the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 but also the United States Constitution? I.E., that Obama himself must prove that he is not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen?

11) Do you know that even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, Obama does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”?

12) To what legal authority do you look for the definition of “natural born citizen”? Why do you believe that being a “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen” under the requirements of the United States Constitution?

13) Even if you have a demonstrably legal reason to believe that “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen”, what evidence do you have that Obama is a “native born citizen”? 

14) You said:

“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”

The State of Hawaii (specifically, Dr. Fukino) did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until AFTER you, John Boehner, voted in favor of House of Representatives Resolution 593 which contained the words “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

The irony is that you did not rely on a document from Hawaii, but rather Hawaii relied on a document that you voted for in Washington, D.C.!

15) Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

If Speaker Boehner thinks the answer to that question is “the State of Hawaii”, he is sadly mistaken. The answer to that question is “the U.S. House of Representatives”. And they did so without any documentary proof of the claim.

Then, Hawaii could use H.Res. 593 as prima facie evidence…

Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 902. Self-authentication

(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

————————–

Speaker Boehner, combine the legal requirements of:

1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution

2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution

3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

… and you see that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.

And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

267 Responses to Questions for Speaker Boehner

  1. integrity1st says:

    Well done, my man. Are you going to send that to him? Hope so.

  2. integrity1st,

    Thank you for your kind words. As crazy as this may sound, I had not even thought about sending this to him myself. (I have grown accustomed to receiving inaccurate plattitudes from elected officials in response to questions… see the response from one of my Senators contained within this post). But you have inspired me to make the effort to ensure that Speaker Boehner receives this. I may get no response, or a form letter response from his staff instead of him personally, but I will make the effort nonetheless. Thank you for inspiring me to do so.

  3. Speaker Boehner,

    Please take this email seriously, and email me a reply with your answers to the 15 questions located here:

    http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/questions-for-speaker-boehner/

    Submit. Next page displays:

    Speaker of the House John Boehner speaker.gov

    Thank you for your message.

  4. tellen says:

    Re: “Do you know whether or not Obama has completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and if so, what documents he used as proof of his employment eligibility?”

    Do you know whether George Bush completed Form I-9?

    Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials in Hawaii.

  5. tellen says:

    Re: “Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

    Actually, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii was issued in 2007 and the first confirmation of the officials in Hawaii (the first of two) was issued in 2008.

    To be sure, the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, but then it had also confirmed Bush’s elections, and the action of the US Congress was after the publication of Obama’s official birth certificate and after the first of the two confirmations by the officials.

  6. tellen says:

    All US citizens at birth, meaning ALL US citizens who were born IN the USA, are Natural Born Citizens. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  7. Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials in Hawaii.

    That’s a lie. Obama himself has shown nothing. His campaign has asked us to trust two unelected peons from Annenberg Political Fact Check who inspected a supposedly valid (I say supposedly because the State of Hawaii refuses to validate it) CertificatION (not CertificATE as you falsely claim) of live birth.

    You could not provide .JPG images as your source of documentation for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii

    If that is true, then tell me where we can go to inspect this document. And please name the members of Congress who have inspect it.

    and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials in Hawaii.

    False. Governor Lingle, knowingly or unknowingly, lie about Dr. Fukino’s first News Release. And then, CNN Edited Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie and Create their own Lie.

    And please tell me what you think was the triggering event for Dr. Fukino’s second News Release. She didn’t release that 2nd News Release until hours after the U.S. House voted in favor of H.Res. 593, and I believe H.Res. 593 was the triggering event for her 2nd News Release. Dr. Fukino did not publicly say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first!

    the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY

    Yes, but Dick Cheney broke the law when they did.

    the action of the US Congress was after the publication of Obama’s official birth certificate and after the first of the two confirmations by the officials.

    Obama has never authorized the release of his original, initial birth certificate. You are falsely claiming the that certification is a certificate. And you don’t “publish” a birth certificate. You present the hard copy for inspection. The only thing Dr. Fukino “confirmed” in her first news release was that the State of Hawaii had a record on file, not that she had inspected the document nor validated it.

    Parsing the Statement by Dr. Fukino about Barack Hussein Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.

    Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

    Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

  8. Jennifer H says:

    I hope you hear more than Thank you for your message back from him !

  9. tellen says:

    Re: “That’s a lie. Obama himself has shown nothing. His campaign has asked us to trust two unelected peons from Annenberg Political Fact Check who inspected a supposedly valid (I say supposedly because the State of Hawaii refuses to validate it) CertificatION (not CertificATE as you falsely claim) of live birth.”

    Answer: Obama showed the physical copy of the document to both FactCheck and Politifact, a subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times of Florida, and of course his campaign posted it, as did both FactCheck and Politifact. How else show it unless it was posted.

    Yes, the name is a CertificaTION, and despite the name, it is a birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it to get their US passports every year.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues….

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

    Re: “You could not provide .JPG images as your source of documentation for an I-9 form.”

    Answer: Of course not, the JPG images are necessary to show the document on the Web–how else. However, Obama also has the physical copy of the document and has shown it to both Politifact and FactCheck.

    More importantly, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the FACTS on the document twice.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

  10. tellen says:

    Re: “If that is true, then tell me where we can go to inspect this document. And please name the members of Congress who have inspect it.”

    Have any members of Congress asked to inspect it? If they did, how do you know that Obama would not show it? Did any member of Congress inspect, or ask to inspect, the birth certificate of George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush41, or any president or presidential candidate?

    The fact is that Obama has shown his birth certificate; it is the official birth certificate, and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the officials in Hawaii. And, there is this witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth and writing home about it

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

  11. tellen says:

    Re: “False. Governor Lingle, knowingly or unknowingly, lie about Dr. Fukino’s first News Release. And then, CNN Edited Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie and Create their own Lie.”

    Answer: Baloney. Lingle would not lie for Obama, and she would make damn certain that she was not making a mistake. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.

    Re: “And please tell me what you think was the triggering event for Dr. Fukino’s second News Release. She didn’t release that 2nd News Release until hours after the U.S. House voted in favor of H.Res. 593, and I believe H.Res. 593 was the triggering event for her 2nd News Release. Dr. Fukino did not publicly say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first!”

    Answer: She said in the first release that Obama’s official birth certificate was on file: at the time that Obama was born ONLY the birth certificates from Hawaii could be filed in Hawaii. Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates (even from other states) to be filed.

    Regardless of the time of the announcement, Fikino and the head of the department of vital records would not lie for Obama, and if they did, there was a Conservative attorney general who could prosecute them.

    There were also the notices in the newspapers that appeared in 1961. And at the time such notices were not advertisements. They were only official notices sent out by the department of vital records, and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.

  12. tellen says:

    Re: “Yes, but Dick Cheney broke the law when they did.”

    Answer: So a conservative Republican is alleged to have broken the law to help Obama. This is an indication of how crazy birthers are.

    The rule was that if any member planned to vote against the motion, she or he would go to a specified office (I think it was the office of the vice president) and state in advance that she or he planned to vote against. that was the rule in all previous such motions too. Do you know of any in which the vice president actually asked ‘all those in favor’, and ‘all those against’?

    Since you cannot show that, you cannot show that Cheney broke the law.

    However, the fact that it was a UNANIMOUS vote still remains. For, IF any member had planned to have voted against, or even changed their minds, she or he could easily have gone to the press (and their local newspapers would have lapped up any story) and said that she or he had planned to vote against. NOT ONE DID.

  13. this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    Yet in all of the cases that have been brought challenging Obama’s eligibility, he has NEVER introduced this document into evidence. The document was first presented as a digital image posted on Daily Kos, (not his campaign web site), and it was posted there within minutes of a mostly blank COLB template and the clearly forged COLB of “Haye I.B. Ahphorgerie” ( “Hey! I Be A Forgery!”). There is no reason to trust this document.

    Please name the members of Congress who have personally inspected the hard copy Certification of Live Birth. I won’t hold my breath.

    The WSJ link you provided claimed that it was “The last word on President Obama’s place of birth”, yet it was published July 30, 2009… and this is still an issue that is being discussed in January 2011… so I guess they weren’t the “last word”, were they?

    Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike want Obama to release his original, initial Certificate of Live Birth to once and for all confirm or refute the “Obama birth narrative”.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then Obama was born a British subject by both British law and Natural law. And by Natural law, he was not born a natural born citizen. Hence, he is a usurper, should be immediately removed from office, and every action that was performed with his usurpation of the office should be declared null and void.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then Obama is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., and could still be a usurper of the office. If he was born on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. citizen parents, then he was born a natural born citizen, and as long as he did not lose his U.S. citizenship by later using a foreign passport, then he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, but should be immediately impeached for the high crimes of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. If he was not born on U.S. soil, then he is both a usurper and guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

    PERIOD.

    The kitv link you provided makes false claims about Dr. Fukino’s statement. Ever since the days of Bill Clinton saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”, and “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”, we have been forced to carefully parse every word for exactly what it does, and does not, say and mean. The kitv link claims that

    The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.

    But that is not what Dr. Fukino said. She never “verifyied the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate”.

    What Dr. Fukino did say was “”Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    She verified that there is a record. She did not verify that the information contained on Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate matches the information presented by the Obama campaign. She did not say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”, and was unwilling to do so until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first. And she never, in neither October 2008 nor July 2009, said “the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii”.

    Governor Lingle was lying, either intentionally or unintentionally, when she said:

    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    No, that’s just a lie. The statement DID NOT say what Lingle claimed it said. And CNN edited her words to conceal her lie and create their own lie. I linked to that before, but obviously you did not read it, so I’ll link it again.

    CNN Edited Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie and Create their own Lie.

    And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961

    LOL. That’s called “hearsay”. It’s not valid evidence. It would be so incredibly simple for Obama to authorize the State of Hawaii to release his original, initial birth certificate. There is a reason why he hasn’t and why he continues to pay lawyers to do everything they can to ensure that no court makes him release it.

    And regardless of what that document says, Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President because, by his own campaign’s admision, he was born a British subject. At best a dual citizen. But in no way a “natural born citizen” by Natural Law.

  14. Re: “And please tell me what you think was the triggering event for Dr. Fukino’s second News Release. She didn’t release that 2nd News Release until hours after the U.S. House voted in favor of H.Res. 593, and I believe H.Res. 593 was the triggering event for her 2nd News Release. Dr. Fukino did not publicly say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first!”

    Answer: She said in the first release that Obama’s official birth certificate was on file: at the time that Obama was born ONLY the birth certificates from Hawaii could be filed in Hawaii. Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates (even from other states) to be filed.

    Regardless of the time of the announcement, Fikino and the head of the department of vital records would not lie for Obama, and if they did, there was a Conservative attorney general who could prosecute them.

    There were also the notices in the newspapers that appeared in 1961. And at the time such notices were not advertisements. They were only official notices sent out by the department of vital records, and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.

    You didn’t answer my question. It’s understandable why Dr. Fukino issued her first News Release on October 31, 2008, just before the general election. You have not explained what was the triggering event that caused her to release a second News Release on July 27, 2009.

    I contend that the triggering event was the vote in favor of H.Res. 593.

    What’s your explanation?

  15. I’m not claiming that members of Congress had objections when they certified the Electoral College vote.

    I’m claiming that the certification was not performed acording to the law.

    The law clearly states:

    “the President of the Senate shall call for objections”

    “Shall” means shall.
    “Call for objections” means call for objections.

    Cheney did not call for objections. It is irrelevant whether or not there were any objections. Cheney, by law, was required to call for objections, and if no objections were raised, proceed to certify the Electoral College vote.

    Cheney did not call for objections. The law was not followed.

  16. If the “Obama Birth Narrative” is 100% true, then he is not a “natural born citizen” by the Laws of Nature (Natural Law) and the intent of our Founders when they wrote Article II Section 1 of the Constituion.

    If the “Obama Birth Narrative” is not 100% true, then he is guilty of impeachable offenses (perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice, etc.)

    EITHER WAY, he should not be acting as President.

  17. On January 7th, 2011 at 8:31 pm, BOB said:

    Please listen to this Red, (or anyone else), finally a reporter with courage who tells it like it is:

    http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/01062011PETE7A.mp3

    http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html

  18. Jeff Kuhner on Obama’s Eligibility;
    Media Privately Admit Serious Constitutional Crisis

  19. Interested Bystander,

    Thank you for your comment. I agree with some, but not all, of what you wrote.

    tellen comments:

    “Do you know whether George Bush completed Form I-9?”

    And this matters why?

    It matters because we are a Republic, ruled by the rule of law, not the rule of men. The law states:

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    There are no exceptions. All employees hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9.

    All means all. When George W. Bush was “hired” by “We the People” to become President of the United States, he was legally required to complete a Form I-9. If he did not, then he broke the law.

    All means all. When Barack H. Obama was “hired” by “We the People” to become President of the United States, he was legally required to complete a Form I-9. If he did not, then he broke the law.

    tellen asked:
    “Do you know whether George Bush completed Form I-9?”

    No, I do not. But I think that would be a great question for someone to ask him at one of his book signings. And while you’re at it, ask him to publicly release his original, initial, long-form birth certificate… I have a feeling that he would happily do so.

    The question of whether or not George W. Bush completed a Form I-9 is relevant to the rule of law. But it is not relevant to the question of whether or not Barack H. Obama completed a Form I-9.

    When one person is charged with breaking the law, it is not a defense to say, “Well, do you know whether that other guy broke the law, too?”

    George W. Bush’s guilt or innocence in this matter is a completely separate and distinct matter from Barack H. Obama’s guilt or innocence in this matter.

    If George W. Bush is guilty of breaking the law, then let the punishment fit the crime.

    If Barack H. Obama is guilty of breaking the law, then let the punishment fit the crime.

    If George W. Bush is not a natural born citizen, then he was a usurper and any actions performed by him as President are null and void.

    If Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he is a usurper and any actions performed by him as President are null and void.

    We are a Republic, ruled by the rule of law, with equal justice under the law.

  20. Interested Bystander says:

    Hey All,

    itooktheredpill,

    Good thread, Good questions.

    This is my first comment here, but I feel I need to address some of tellen’s comments:

    tellen comments:

    “Do you know whether George Bush completed Form I-9?”

    And this matters why? Bush was never a citizen of Indonesia, or ANY other Country other than the United States.

    tellen continues:

    “Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials in Hawaii.”

    Which PROVES absolutely NOTHING.

    But NO ONE from the HDoH has confirmed that the “OFFICIAL” COLB posted on the web is in fact from Hawaii.

    But that doesn’t matter to you does it?

    tellen next comments this:

    “Actually, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii was issued in 2007 and the first confirmation of the officials in Hawaii (the first of two) was issued in 2008.”

    Again, NO ONE from the State of Hawaii has CONFIRMED that the COLB posted on the web actually came from the HDoH.

    Imagine that.

    tellen goes on:

    “All US citizens at birth, meaning ALL US citizens who were born IN the USA, are Natural Born Citizens. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens.”

    I’m thinking that the Founders envisioned some pregnant woman from Mexico crossing the border to birth a child, and then under your belief, that child would be eligible to be President.

    That’s why a natural born citizen is a child born in the Country of citizen PARENTS, meaning BOTH parents need to be citizens and have no allegiance to another Country.

    tellen next comments:

    “Obama showed the physical copy of the document to both FactCheck and Politifact, a subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times of Florida, and of course his campaign posted it, as did both FactCheck and Politifact. How else show it unless it was posted.”

    The Daily Kos was the first place the document was posted, and then on Obama’s own web site.

    Only AFTER questions arose did the campaign try to get the document “verified”.

    Good try though.

    tellen comments:

    “Yes, the name is a CertificaTION, and despite the name, it is a birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it to get their US passports every year.”

    It is a certificaTION because as Lou Dobbs states, it admits there is another document on file. All we are asking is to see THAT document.

    But to your thinking that’s asking too much.

    “Just sit down and shut up”, that’s your sides mantra.

    And it never ceases to amaze me that the only qualification the other side believes is PROOF that it is a legitimate document is that a passport could be acquired by using the COLB.

    “Hey, here’s my US passport, I must be a natural born citizen”, just does not compute in my brain.

    tellen continues:

    “More importantly, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the FACTS on the document twice.”

    But they haven’t provided the document that they confirmed the information from. Besides the “confirmation” is only that the ORIGINAL on file states he was born in Hawaii, and NOTHING else.

    So please, do NOT imply the “confirmation” is for ALL information on the released COLB.

    I guess from personal experience, I’m pretty skeptical of what ANY politician says. Or maye you just do not realize that politicians are known and confirmed LIARS?

    BOTH sides of the aisle.

    tellen next comments:

    “Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.”

    Ummmmmmmmmmm, I don’t believe this “seal” you comment on is the OFFICIAL seal laid out by the regulations from the HDoH.

    You may want to look in to that before you make that comment again.

    tellen goes on:

    “Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.”

    But yet Obama will not allow the release of the ORIGINAL BC. As a reasonable thinking person, I’m thinking the ONLY reason Obama wouldn’t release the ORIGINAL document is because it would show him to be a liar.

    There really is NO other reasonable explaination.

    But your assertion that Hawaii didn’t allow foreign birth registrations is either you being misinformed, or you are blatantly lying.

    There was ONE restriction on what births could be registered in 1961, and that was that you had to provide a witness to the birth. I don’t understand why those asking the questions about Obama’s birth continually bring up the “one year residency” statute which was enacted in the early 80s.

    In 1961 there was ONE restriction, that being that you provide a witness to the birth in Hawaii. That is a FACT.

    tellen comments:

    “Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.”

    I agree with you that Hawaiian Officials have confirmed the document on file states Obama was born there.

    But for you to continue to comment “Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii” again is you either being misinformed, or you blantantly lying.

    That comment is NOT true, simple as that. You are aware that the Emporer of China had a Hawaiian COLB, and he was born in CHINA, aren’t you?

    tellen comments:

    “And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:”

    And in a follow up story the lady stated that she didn’t know where the doctor had found out that this “Barack” was born in Hawaii. The jist of the story was that someone with an “odd” name was born in Hawaii. The only connection with Kapiolani was that the doctor had once worked there, not that he was present at the birth, or even had knowledge that the birth occured at Kapiolani.

    When you actually know the truth, the story you link has NO bearing on where Obama was born. The doctor could have simply read the announcement from one or both of the newspapers.

    And THAT’S your evidence?

    tellen continues:

    “Baloney. Lingle would not lie for Obama, and she would make damn certain that she was not making a mistake. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.”

    But yet she didn’t “make damn certain that she was not making a mistake”, now did she?

    What she DID do, is ensure that the ORIGINAL BC should state he was born in Kapiolani. But where did she get that information from? She says from Fukino, but Fukino NEVER stated that. So Lingle either misspoke, or LIED.

    There has NEVER been confirmation from HDoH, or Kapiolani that Obama was born at Kapiolani.

    You’d think that after Obama sent that letter to Kapiolani that they would have erected a ten story wing dedicated to the President being born there (or at least a plaque), but they haven’t done that, and they can NOT confirm Obama was born there. There is NO evidence what so ever that Stanley was in EITHER hospital in August of 1961.

    I’m thinking that Obama’s ORIGINAL BC states he was born in a residence in Hawaii, most probably the residence listed in the newspaper announcements. But that’s my OPINION, I have no proof of that.

    It should also be noted that Kapiolani posted the letter on it’s web site, used the letter in a video and in a brochure asking for donations for the hospital, but quickly “backtracked”, and the ONLY evidence of the letter is on the video that may or may not still be posted on their web site, where it is shown for a brief few seconds, and has Abercrombie embellishing what the letter actually states.

    tellen comments this:

    “She said in the first release that Obama’s official birth certificate was on file: at the time that Obama was born ONLY the birth certificates from Hawaii could be filed in Hawaii. Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates (even from other states) to be filed.”

    This comment is simply NOT true.

    Then tellen comments:

    “There were also the notices in the newspapers that appeared in 1961. And at the time such notices were not advertisements. They were only official notices sent out by the department of vital records, and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.”

    Again, you comment another untruth, that being “and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.”

    Ummmmmmmmm, no, the information for the birth announcements were acquired from the HDoH from births REGISTERED with the HDoH.

    There was only one verification process in place in 1961 from HDoH, that being that a “witness” had to sign the registration form confirming the birth took place in Hawaii, whether that be a doctor or the grandmother of the child, it mattered not to the HDoH in 1961.

    But that is like the third time you have commented that.

  21. As to the seal…

    The official seal looks like this:
    Official Hawaii Department of Health Seal

    The seal on the supposedly authentic Obama CertificatION of Live Birth does not match that seal…

    Factcheck.org photo #1: 'Incised Seal' on back of Obama's alleged COLB

    (also archived here.)

    It is incised, instead of raised.

    The font size of the word “OF” is smaller.

    Those two things are more than sufficient to believe that the seal on the “Obama COLB” is fraudulent.

    More here.

  22. Interested Bystander says:

    itooktheredpill commented:

    “Thank you for your comment. I agree with some, but not all, of what you wrote.”

    You are welcome, and I don’t expect you to agree with everything I commented, that is why we are SUPPOSED to be free thinking people.

    itooktheredpill continues:

    “There are no exceptions. All employees hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9.”

    Ok, ok, Bush should have (and probably did in the stack of paperwork you sign when you are hired somewhere) filed an I-9.

    However, I stand by my comment of “And this matters why?” because Bush was NEVER a citizen of another Country, so we can be ASSURED that he was legally able to hold work within the United States.

    Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, at least according to the school registration form from Indonesia, and would have had to re-establish his United States citizenship to be eligible to work within the United States. (I would also comment that alot of this depends on whether Obama was 5 or 6 when he bacame a citizen of Indonesia).

    But the bottom line is that we have a document that states Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, and no document has been offered that states Bush was a citizen of ANY other Country.

    I’m not familiar with an I-9, so forgive me of my ignorance.

    Besides, it doesn’t state EVERY time you are hired, at least not the part you presented, so I would think that filing one with your first employer would satisfy the law.

    But you are correct, Bush should have filed an I-9 also.

    I stand corrected.

    If that’s all you disagree with, I think I did pretty good.

    I wonder if tellen will respond?

  23. Interested Bystander,

    If that’s all you disagree with, I think I did pretty good.

    Yes, you “did pretty good”! :-) Please don’t take my previous comment as being harsh towards you… it wasn’t intended to be harsh. I agree with you that tellen’s question of whether or not Bush completed an I-9 is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Obama completed an I-9. Both must obey the law. If one person breaks the law, it does not give another person an excuse to break the law. So tellen’s question is moot with regard to Obama.

    As to the foreign citizenship, you are correct that Obama was listed with Indonesian citizenship (and religion: Islam) when he attended school in Indonesia. Some will argue that a child born with U.S. citizenship cannot lose that citizenship until they turn 18 and make their own citizenship decision. I’m willing to concede that point if Obama releases his original birth certificate to prove that he was born on U.S. soil (if he wasn’t, then he was not born a U.S. citizen, as his mother was too young to pass U.S. citizenship to him). But being a U.S. citizen is not sufficient to hold the office of President unless you were a citizen when the Constitution was passed in 1787 or ratified in 1789. Since Obama does not qualify under that grandfather clause, he must meet the higher qualification of “natural born citizen”… which he does not, because his father was a British subject and Obama was born a British subject.

    In addition, if Obama held a foreign passport as an adult, then he was, as an adult, claiming to be a citizen of that foreign country. There are many who believe that Obama travelled to Pakistan, as an adult, with an Indonesian passport.

    As to the I-9, employees are required to complete one with their employer every time they start a new job. I’ve completed an I-9 form for every job I’ve had since November 6, 1986.

  24. Bridgette says:

    Excellent article Red! Right on target. Will the speaker respond? It will be interesting to see. When I changed jobs, I had to fill out the I-9 every time. Why would a company from Michigan send my I-9 to Texas? They wouldn’t.

  25. Thanks, Bridgette.

    The employer has both the legal authority and the legal responsibility to inspect the document(s) provided by the employee.

    Who is the employer of the President of the United States?

    Is it not “We the People”?!?

    And while a passport is an acceptable document to prove that an employee is a citizen of the United States, it is not sufficient to prove that an employee is a natural born citizen of the United States. The document that proves that an employee is a natural born citizen of the United States is a hard copy birth certificate, authenticated with a legal seal from the state, showing birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

    The URL that the Obama campaign has “released” does not meet the combined legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the U.S. Constitution.

    And the only way that Obama could produce a hard copy birth certificate that does meet the combined legal requirements of both the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the U.S. Constitution would be for him to present a hard copy birth certificate showing birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, and that would mean that the document “released” previously was fraudulent.

    So, even if Obama was born a natural born citizen and never had a foreign passport as an adult, he would STILL be guilty of high crimes and worthy of impeachment.

    There is 0 (ZERO) chance that Obama is legally qualified to hold the office of President.

  26. tellen,

    You have come here and spewed the standard Obot boilerplate, and I have shown how it’s false. For example, I showed how what Governor Lingle said was DEMONSTABLY FALSE. She claimed that Dr. Fukino’s October 2008 News Release said things which it very clearly DID NOT SAY. Lingle lied. Whether she lied intentionally, or lied because she didn’t even know what the News Release actually said and was talking out of her *** when she talked about what it said, either way what she said was untrue and easily shown to be untrue. Simply compare the actual News Release to what Lingle claimed the News Release said, and you’ll see that the News Release did not say what Lingle claimed it said. Lingle lied. Lingle can not be trusted.

    And neither can you.

    By the way, would you mind explaing why you have posted under multiple different names on another blog? You have used the same IP address, but taken on many different names. Please explain why you have done that. It reeks of deception and dishonesty.

  27. tellen says:

    Re: “Yet in all of the cases that have been brought challenging Obama’s eligibility, he has NEVER introduced this document into evidence. ‘

    As you know, the plaintiffs have no standing to sue. That was the grounds for dismissal of all the cases, which is the law, and Obama has the right to use the law, as all of us do.

    However, THERE WAS NEVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA JUST FOR THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    If there had been a lawsuit just for the birth certificate, Obama might well have presented it to the court. Or, if a congressional committee asks for it (which is highly unlikely since they all know that there is no issue here), he would show it.

    There was never a lawsuit that just asked for the birth certificate. Many were to stop the election. After the inauguration, all the lawsuits asked for a passel of things including his college transcripts and in some cases his parents’ marriage license, which he did not have to show—so he has every right to fight those lawsuits. If there have been one just for the birth certificate, maybe he would have shown it.

    Re: “ There is no reason to trust this document.”

    Answer: The allegation that the document was forged was made by two guys who would not give their real names. The McCain campaign checked into the allegation of forgery, as it checked into the allegation of birth in Kenya, and found them both false. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.

    Re: “Please name the members of Congress who have personally inspected the hard copy Certification of Live Birth. I won’t hold my breath.”

    Answer: Please name the members of Congress who personally inspected George Bush’s birth certificate or Clinton’s or any president’s. Please name the members of congress who asked to see Obama’s birth certificate and were turned down.

    Re: “this is still an issue that is being discussed in January 2011… so I guess they weren’t the “last word”, were they?”

    Answer: The fact that a number of people continue to believe that the earth is flat proves nothing.

    Re: “Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike want Obama to release his original, initial Certificate of Live Birth to once and for all confirm or refute the “Obama birth narrative”.

    Answer: The original birth certificate will show exactly what the official birth certificate shows, that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed. Hawaii has not sent out the original birth certificate since 2001 when the new short form birth certificate became the official birth certificate. Hawaii’s new governor is considering issuing the original birth certificate again, already some birthers are saying that they will claim that the original birth certificate is forged.

    Re: If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then Obama was born a British subject by both British law and Natural law. “

    Answer: It is only when birthers give up on their claim that Obama was born in some country than the USA that they raise their back-up claim that even if he were born in the USA the fact that his father was not a citizen affects Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

    If even one member of Congress had believed this stupid myth, we would have heard about it from that one Congressman. Nobody in government and no constitutional scholars believe it.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    “That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant….”

    And it concluded: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  28. tellen,

    You are an infamous Obot, and before I spend any additional effort responding to your standard Obot boilerplate that you have spewed elsewhere, please explain why you have posted under multiple different names on another blog.

    You have used the same IP address, but taken on many different names.

    As I said previously, Please explain why you have done that. It reeks of deception and dishonesty.

  29. tellen says:

    Re: “She claimed that Dr. Fukino’s October 2008 News Release said things which it very clearly DID NOT SAY. Lingle lied.”

    Answer: News releases go through various drafts. The one that was released did not have the name of the hospital, but the one that she saw, which was not released, may have had it. The fact that she remembers an earlier draft and not the actual draft that was released does not affect the fact that she said that Obama was (1) born in Hawaii; (2) born in Kapiolani Hospital–which is the same hospital that the witness cites http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    She is one of the three officials of the former government of Hawaii who have confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes four including the clerk, and if there was any hint that any of them were lying or that the birth certificate were forged the CONSERVATIVE Republican attorney general of Hawaii would have taken action, and he didn’t.

  30. That is such bovine excrement, tellen.

  31. The fact that she remembers an earlier draft

    Your entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You claim as fact that she remembers an earlier draft, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence of that. It’s not a “fact” as you claim. It’s merely your conjecture.

    Well, my conjecture is that Lingle told Fukino to issue a News Release in 2008 to put the controversy to rest. Fukino was very careful to issue a very carefully parsed statement to create the impression that the COLB that was created at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago was valid, without ever saying that it was valid and without ever saying “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Fukino was not willing to say “Obama was born in Hawaii” without relying on a document from Nancy Pelosi and the U.S. House of Representatives that contained those words. And Fukino was not willing to say Obama is “natural born citizen” without a doucment from Nancy Pelosi that contained those words.

    It’s all a big shell game.

    The “Obama birth narrative” is either 100% true or it is not.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, then he was born a British subject. That’s an undisputed fact. And someone born a citizen or subject of a foreign country is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to Natural Law. By Natural Law, and British law as well, Obama was born a British subject…

    … unless his father was not who he has claimed it was.

    If the “Obama birth narrative” is NOT 100% true, then he is guilty of fraud, forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

    So regardless of whether the “Obama birth narrative” is either 100% true or not, Obama has no right to be acting as President.

  32. “tellen” / “granite”/ “tedstevens” / “ohioborn1″ / etc.,

    Please explain why you have posted under multiple different names on this and other blogs.

    It reeks of deception and dishonesty.

  33. Here’s the content of the instant, automated email reply that I received yesterday from Speaker Boehner’s office:

    From: John Boehner <AsktheLeader@mail.house.gov>
    Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at x:xx PM
    Subject: RE: Web Site Contact Form
    To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Thank you for contacting the Office of the House Republican Leader. Your thoughts are important to me and are appreciated. Due to the volume of E-mail I receive, it may not be possible to personally respond to your comments. If you would like to share and debate your priorities in real-time with members of Congress and other Americans, please visit America Speaking Out.

    America Speaking Out is an effort by the House Republican Conference to engage Americans across the country and give them a voice in creating a new agenda for Congress. I hope you will take a moment to join the hundreds of thousands of citizens that are communicating directly with Congress and each other via this groundbreaking project.

    Visit America Speaking Out now.

    Sincerely,

    John A. Boehner

    Republican Leader

    I’ll update this post it/when I get a more substantial response to my actual questions.

  34. tom says:

    37th Congress 2nd Session House of Representatives 1862

    Who are natural born citizens?

    ALL PERSONS BORN within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians The reason that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody

  35. Apparently, Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, believes and supports the following statement:

    Issa to Clyburn: Paranoid Much?
    Wednesday, 29 September 2010 16:59

    WASHINGTON D.C. – Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued the following statement tonight regarding deceptive comments made by House Majority WHIP Jim Clyburn (D-SC) on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews:

    “The fact that Jim’s paranoia and imagination have resulted in the resuscitation of this bizarre conspiracy theory is ridiculous and a little goofy. It’s disappointing that Jim would embrace the politics of fear and continue spreading such misleading and untruthful things in what I can only imagine is an effort to manipulate the American people. Jim should spend more time fighting for a straight up or down vote on tax relief for all Americans rather than conjuring up bizarre stories about what a Republican Majority would do next year.”

    FACT: A Congressional Resolution honoring Hawaii’s 50th anniversary that passed on a 378-0 vote on July 27, 2009 recognized President Obama as a natural born citizen of the state, which is legally binding. In the text of the bill, it reads: “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” H.Res. 593 establishes legal precedent that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    So, Issa is more concerned about being labeled a “birther” than he is about supporting and defending the Constitution and current Immigration law?

    We are a REPUBLIC, Rep. Issa!

    We are supposed to be ruled by the rule of LAW, not the rule of MEN. Obama is not above the law.

    Yet Issa confirms here exactly what I suspected…

    H.Res. 593 is legally binding

    and

    it was the U.S. House of Representatives, not the State of Hawaii, that established the legal precedent that “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

  36. This is a big deal. (Or as Joe Biden would say, “A Big F-ing Deal”).

    Many members thought H.Res. 593 was just a typical, mundane House Resolution to recognize this or recognize that. It was ostensibly to recognize the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood.

    Did they know that their vote for H.Res. 593 was going to become the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

    I’d say no, given that they voted on July 27, 2009, and less than a month later, on August 24, 2009, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) issued a statement which included the following remarks:

    …it makes no sense to me for the President of the United States, who ran on a platform of transparency and accountability, to so blatantly hold in contempt the sincere questions and concerns of literally millions of the people he serves and represents when he could so easily satisfy those concerns over his eligibility to hold the highest office in the country. How can President Obama ask Americans to trust him on critical issues like healthcare reform, energy, and government spending, when he continues to be so dismissive of taking one easy step to cultivate their trust by releasing his long form birth certificate? The continued reluctance on the part of the President to even respectfully address this issue increasingly raises the question in the minds of many Americans whether he cares about having the trust of the people and whether he is going to actually deliver on the promises of “transparency” he promised to the American people during his campaign.

  37. tom,

    Thank you for your comment. Do you have a link for the text you provided? I’d like to see the primary source document, if you can point me to it.

    Thanks!

  38. ————————————————————————————————

    http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1016%3Aissa-to-clyburn-paranoid-much-&catid=22&Itemid=29

    archived to

    http://www.webcitation.org/5vbPxVCMv

    ————————————————————————————————

    http://www.house.gov/list/press/az02_franks/obamabirthcertificatecontroversy.html

    archived to

    http://www.webcitation.org/5vbQOfHq3

    ————————————————————————————————

  39. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    Sorry for my disappearance in the middle of our discussion – I got distracted by something shiny and life happened to me for a while. I wanted to jump into this because although I think that tellen is doing a pretty thorough job of presenting the facts, they missed something important which, I’m sorry to say, is devastating to your case. The following is a quote from Dr. Fukino:

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.

    Where did she say this, you ask? As you can see from the source document, this was a statement to the Hawaii Senate Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations. i.e. this is sworn testimony that the image released online was a copy of the President’s birth certificate*. The best possible outcome that you could ever hope for in court (or by state law) is for President Obama to be required to produce a certified copy of the COLB which Dr. Fukino says is a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate – therefore, it would reflect the information on the original vital records which she says are maintained on file by the Hawaii DOH. A court will never allow discovery of the original document (presumably a longer form with additional information) because it has no additional evidentiary value – the ONLY information pertinent to President Obama’s eligibility on file is his place of birth (if you don’t agree with this, please tell me what information on the long form and not on the COLB would be relevant to determining ‘natural born’ status). Before you object, I will note that being born in Hawaii is sufficient to establish the president’s natural born status according to US v. Wong Kim Ark. If the Wong Kim Ark decision does not mean what the Indiana Court of Appeals held it to mean in the Ankeny case, could you tell me why the opposition to Mr. Wong argued that the court shouldn’t decide in his favor because if they did so he (and hence President Obama) would be eligible to run for the presidency?

    * If you are going to say that the COLB is merely a ‘certification’ – it is the State of Hawaii’s official birth certificate which entitles it to full faith and credit under the law in the other 49 states and it meets the federal definition of a birth certificate as well – in the absence of evidence (admissible in court) to the contrary it is prima facie evidence of the president’s birth in the US (making him a natural born citizen – a status he could not have lost before the age of majority according to Perkins v. Elg).

    p.s. $!#&* Florida State! I think we would have gone undefeated if it wasn’t for Kyrie’s toe – hopefully it will turn out like Bobby’s foot did… ;-)

  40. Slartibartfast/”Baldy”,
    Welcome back. (For those interested in more context regarding Slartibartfast’s comment, see the comments here). Yes, I think it would have a been a different result in the Duke vs. FSU basketball game last night if Kyrie Irving hadn’t been out with a toe injury. (Again, just trying to give context to those readers who may not have otherwise known what we were talking about.)

    As to the majority of your comment, 1) I see two inconsistencies in Dr. Fukino’s testimony, 2) Dr, Fukino’s testimony does nothing to reduce the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution.

    1) Inconsistencies in Dr. Fukino’s testimony

    1a) “Fiscal Implications: No material fiscal impact” is not consistent with the claim that “The time and state resources it takes to respond to these often convoluted inquires are considerable… We respectfully request a facilitated passage of SB 2937 which could provide the desired relief from the abuse and unnecessary burden that these vexatious requesters have placed upon the Department of Health.” To be consistent, the “Fiscal Implications:” section should not have said “No material fiscal impact” but rather given an estimate of the fiscal savings resulting from “passage of SB 2937 which could provide the desired relief from the abuse and unnecessary burden”.

    1b) Yes, I think it is inconsistent to use “certificate” where “certification” should have been used.

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.

    People were seeking the long form birth certificate, not the CertificatION JPG posted on his former campaign website. While a hard copy COLB, with a proper raised seal, may be entitled “to full faith and credit under the law in the other 49 states and it meets the federal definition of a birth certificate as well”, that is not true of a JPG image. You can’t submit a URL, pointing to a web page with a JPG, as official documentation. And that is all that has been “released” to the general public or any member Congress to date. That does not pass as an “Acceptable Document” on an I-9 form, and that is a main point of one of the questions I raise for Speaker Boehner in this post.

    2) Dr, Fukino’s testimony does nothing to reduce the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution. When you start with the legal requirement for Barack Obama to provide acceptable documentation for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and then further filter that down to just those documents that prove that the employee was a citizen at birth (let alone natural born citizen), you realize that documents like a U.S. Passport don’t make the cut because a Passport does not prove that you were a citizen a birth. When you combine the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution, Barack Obama is legally required to produce a hard copy of his birth certificate for inspection by the U.S. Congress (so that they can meet their obligations under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment).

    That doesn’t even cover the issue of whether or not Obama ever had a foreign passport as an adult. If he did, he relinquished any U.S. citizenship he may have had.

    And the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born citizen”. They specifically avoided doing so. I’ve gone over this so many times in the last 2.5 years. I am not an attorney, and neither are you, but Leo Donofrio is and he makes several execellent points including, but not limited to:

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

    Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

    That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”

    While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

    A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

    If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

    The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

    The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.

    [For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak. ]

  41. Slartibartfast says:

    Interested Bystander posted:

    tellen continues: “Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii and the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials in Hawaii.”

    Which PROVES absolutely NOTHING.

    On the contrary, a certified copy of the document shown on line is prima facie evidence of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii in any US court of law (including the SCOTUS).

    But NO ONE from the HDoH has confirmed that the “OFFICIAL” COLB posted on the web is in fact from Hawaii.

    But that doesn’t matter to you does it?

    As I posted above, Dr. Fukino has in sworn testimony. Does that matter to you?

    tellen next comments this: “Actually, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii was issued in 2007 and the first confirmation of the officials in Hawaii (the first of two) was issued in 2008.”

    Again, NO ONE from the State of Hawaii has CONFIRMED that the COLB posted on the web actually came from the HDoH.

    Imagine that.

    You are wrong again. Imagine that.

    tellen goes on: “All US citizens at birth, meaning ALL US citizens who were born IN the USA, are Natural Born Citizens. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens.”

    I’m thinking that the Founders envisioned some pregnant woman from Mexico crossing the border to birth a child, and then under your belief, that child would be eligible to be President.

    The founders welcomed any and all to immigrate to the country – one of the appeals of the United States was that the children of immigrants could grow up to be president. If you don’t like the fact that anchor babies are natural born citizens, then you will need to amend the Constitution, but until then the established law says that anchor babies are as much citizens as the natural born child of citizen parents.

    That’s why a natural born citizen is a child born in the Country of citizen PARENTS, meaning BOTH parents need to be citizens and have no allegiance to another Country.

    Where in the Constitution does it say anything about allegiance in regard to natural born citizenship? We’ve had Greek vice-presidents and elected a French citizen president. Do you think that Jefferson had a problem with his dual allegiance? Did he not understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers? The only laws which are pertinent in determining natural born citizenship are the US Constitution and US law – otherwise Kim Jong Il could cause a Constitutional crisis by declaring that every natural born US citizen was a citizen in North Korea. As for the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, the Indiana Court of Appeals seems to think that Wong Kim Ark says that Jus Soli is sufficient – do you have any evidence that the SCOTUS would feel any differently?

    tellen next comments: “Obama showed the physical copy of the document to both FactCheck and Politifact, a subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times of Florida, and of course his campaign posted it, as did both FactCheck and Politifact. How else show it unless it was posted.”

    The Daily Kos was the first place the document was posted, and then on Obama’s own web site. Only AFTER questions arose did the campaign try to get the document “verified”. Good try though.

    I you were a political candidate and you wanted to release your birth certificate how would you go about it? How does that differ from what was done by the Obama campaign?

    tellen comments: “Yes, the name is a CertificaTION, and despite the name, it is a birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it to get their US passports every year.”

    It is a certificaTION because as Lou Dobbs states, it admits there is another document on file. All we are asking is to see THAT document.

    You can ask to see that document, but you have no right to see it, nor does it contain any additional information which is pertinent to President Obama’s eligibility. What do you think that document would tell you and why do you think a court should let you look?

    But to your thinking that’s asking too much.

    Yes. By law you are not entitled to that information and there is no evidence that release of the document would do any good since you (and most other eligibility deniers) maintain that it would not be sufficient to prove President Obama’s natural born status (a mistaken assertion on your part).

    “Just sit down and shut up”, that’s your sides mantra.

    Well, yes. You’ve been shown more than enough not only to convince any reasonable person, but to prove President Obama is natural born to any court of law in the country. You can yell and scream about it all you want, but until you have evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the COLB, don’t expect reasonable people to take you seriously.

    And it never ceases to amaze me that the only qualification the other side believes is PROOF that it is a legitimate document is that a passport could be acquired by using the COLB.

    On it’s face, it appears the same as other COLBs issued by the Hawaii DOH around that time, it was inspected by a non-partisan third party, Dr. Fukino said (under oath) that it was a copy of his birth certificate, she also said that his original records are on file and prove that he’s a natural born citizen, Governor Lingle said he was born in Hawaii, he sent a letter (which was read at an official ceremony) to the hospital at which he was born, there were birth announcements in the local papers… need I go on? Additionally, there is no evidence that contradicts the ‘official’ birth narrative in any way. Why is all of that NOT sufficient to you?

    “Hey, here’s my US passport, I must be a natural born citizen”, just does not compute in my brain.

    No one thinks that a passport is sufficient to prove natural born citizenship, but it does prove that a birth certificate (or other identification – like a certificate of naturalization – which there is no evidence of President Obama having) was presented in order to obtain the passport. While birth in the US would be sufficient to prove natural born citizenship, President Obama would be a US citizen regardless of where he was born due to the fact that his mother was not legally married (his father was still married to his first wife at the time of their wedding).

    tellen continues: “More importantly, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the FACTS on the document twice.”

    But they haven’t provided the document that they confirmed the information from. Besides the “confirmation” is only that the ORIGINAL on file states he was born in Hawaii, and NOTHING else.

    Which is sufficient to show that he is a natural born citizen.

    So please, do NOT imply the “confirmation” is for ALL information on the released COLB.

    Dr. Fukino’s testimony to the Hawaii State Senate does, in fact, imply that ALL of the information on the COLB is consistent with Hawaii DOH records.

    I guess from personal experience, I’m pretty skeptical of what ANY politician says. Or maye you just do not realize that politicians are known and confirmed LIARS? BOTH sides of the aisle.

    We have enough information regarding this issue to conclude that there is no reason for President Obama to lie about this nor is there any evidence to suggest he has.

    tellen next comments: “Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.”

    Ummmmmmmmmmm, I don’t believe this “seal” you comment on is the OFFICIAL seal laid out by the regulations from the HDoH. You may want to look in to that before you make that comment again.

    Can you provide other documents of the same vintage with different seals? Because there are other documents of similar vintage which have the same or similar seals…

    tellen goes on: “Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.”

    But yet Obama will not allow the release of the ORIGINAL BC. As a reasonable thinking person, I’m thinking the ONLY reason Obama wouldn’t release the ORIGINAL document is because it would show him to be a liar.

    What good would it do to release a document that contains no additional pertinent information and would not silence eligibility deniers in any case?

    There really is NO other reasonable explaination.

    I’m sorry, but it’s your line of thinking which is unreasonable…

    But your assertion that Hawaii didn’t allow foreign birth registrations is either you being misinformed, or you are blatantly lying. There was ONE restriction on what births could be registered in 1961, and that was that you had to provide a witness to the birth. I don’t understand why those asking the questions about Obama’s birth continually bring up the “one year residency” statute which was enacted in the early 80s. In 1961 there was ONE restriction, that being that you provide a witness to the birth in Hawaii. That is a FACT.

    In the early 80s a law was passed allowing Hawaii residents to register births outside of the state with the Hawaii DOH. Such a birth certificate would show the place of birth as being out-of-state. Why does it matter that birth certificates could be obtained on the testimony of a single witness? There is no evidence that President Obama’s birth was anywhere but Kapiolani hospital or that his COLB is fraudulent in any way – the burden of proof is on the accuser. Or don’t you believe in our legal system as enshrined in the Constitution?

    tellen comments: “Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.”

    I agree with you that Hawaiian Officials have confirmed the document on file states Obama was born there. But for you to continue to comment “Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii” again is you either being misinformed, or you blantantly lying. That comment is NOT true, simple as that. You are aware that the Emporer of China had a Hawaiian COLB, and he was born in CHINA, aren’t you?

    It’s you who is being disingenuous – you have no evidence that anyone born outside of Hawaii has ever had a COLB from the STATE of Hawaii that showed that they were born in Hawaii. The case you mention was decades before Hawaii became a state.

    tellen comments: “And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:”

    And in a follow up story the lady stated that she didn’t know where the doctor had found out that this “Barack” was born in Hawaii. The jist of the story was that someone with an “odd” name was born in Hawaii. The only connection with Kapiolani was that the doctor had once worked there, not that he was present at the birth, or even had knowledge that the birth occured at Kapiolani.

    The doctor was, in fact, in obstetrics at Kapiolani in 1961 and the account implies that he delivered President Obama. The ‘odd’ name in this case was Stanley Ann Dunham’s and reasons for the story being told and remembered ring true to me (you are free to differ, but this is merely one pebble in a mountain of evidence…).

    When you actually know the truth, the story you link has NO bearing on where Obama was born. The doctor could have simply read the announcement from one or both of the newspapers.

    It’s corroborative evidence – it can’t establish anything on its own, but it certainly supports the official birth narrative.

    And THAT’S your evidence?

    Seems pretty strong to me… ;-)

    tellen continues: “Baloney. Lingle would not lie for Obama, and she would make damn certain that she was not making a mistake. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.”

    But yet she didn’t “make damn certain that she was not making a mistake”, now did she?

    Attacking Governor Lingle’s misstatement is making a mountain out of a molehill. The most likely explanation is that since she knew he was born at Kapiolani (she was at the event where the president’s letter referring to Kapiolani as his place of birth was read) and she knew that Dr. Fukino had verified that the president was born in Hawaii that she accidentally said that Dr. Fukino had released all of the information (which she knew to be true). In any case, one can not hold Governor Lingle to the same standard when speaking informally to a reporter that one would hold a representative of the DOH speaking officially to.

    What she DID do, is ensure that the ORIGINAL BC should state he was born in Kapiolani. But where did she get that information from? She says from Fukino, but Fukino NEVER stated that. So Lingle either misspoke, or LIED.

    She knew he was born at Kapiolani having been present at the reading of a letter in which President Obama stated that he was born there. What evidence do you have that this was a deliberate lie rather than an accidental misstatement?

    There has NEVER been confirmation from HDoH, or Kapiolani that Obama was born at Kapiolani.

    And what do you call the letter from the president which was read at a Kapiolani anniversary ceremony?

    You’d think that after Obama sent that letter to Kapiolani that they would have erected a ten story wing dedicated to the President being born there (or at least a plaque), but they haven’t done that, and they can NOT confirm Obama was born there. There is NO evidence what so ever that Stanley was in EITHER hospital in August of 1961.

    No hospital in the US can confirm that any living person was born there – hospitals take privacy laws VERY seriously. I’m guessing that they would take the privacy of the president even more seriously… And I would remind you that there is no evidence that Dr. Dunham gave birth anywhere but Kapiolani hospital (the letter and the newspaper article are evidence that he was born there – not indisputable evidence, but evidence nonetheless. What have YOU got?

    I’m thinking that Obama’s ORIGINAL BC states he was born in a residence in Hawaii, most probably the residence listed in the newspaper announcements. But that’s my OPINION, I have no proof of that.

    And Occam’s razor says that your opinion is unlikely to be correct.

    It should also be noted that Kapiolani posted the letter on it’s web site, used the letter in a video and in a brochure asking for donations for the hospital, but quickly “backtracked”, and the ONLY evidence of the letter is on the video that may or may not still be posted on their web site, where it is shown for a brief few seconds, and has Abercrombie embellishing what the letter actually states.

    And this is significant why?

    tellen comments this: “She said in the first release that Obama’s official birth certificate was on file: at the time that Obama was born ONLY the birth certificates from Hawaii could be filed in Hawaii. Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates (even from other states) to be filed.”

    This comment is simply NOT true.

    Then you should have no problem citing the statute under which out-of-state births could be filed in 1961. I don’t suggest taking too much time looking for it because it doesn’t exist…

    Then tellen comments: “There were also the notices in the newspapers that appeared in 1961. And at the time such notices were not advertisements. They were only official notices sent out by the department of vital records, and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.”

    Again, you comment another untruth, that being “and only for births IN Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.”

    Can you cite an example where one of those newspapers had an announcement for an out-of-state birth?

    Ummmmmmmmm, no, the information for the birth announcements were acquired from the HDoH from births REGISTERED with the HDoH.

    And you can’t find a statute that says that out-of-state births could be registered in Hawaii in 1961.

    There was only one verification process in place in 1961 from HDoH, that being that a “witness” had to sign the registration form confirming the birth took place in Hawaii, whether that be a doctor or the grandmother of the child, it mattered not to the HDoH in 1961.

    The unsupported assertion that fraud COULD have been committed is in no way evidence that fraud WAS committed – the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused (or don’t you believe in the legal system established by the Constitution?

  42. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Anderson posted:

    Slartibartfast/”Baldy”,
    Welcome back. (For those interested in more context regarding Slartibartfast’s comment, see the comments here). Yes, I think it would have a been a different result in the Duke vs. FSU basketball game last night if Kyrie Irving hadn’t been out with a toe injury. (Again, just trying to give context to those readers who may not have otherwise known what we were talking about.)

    I just hope we get Kyrie back for the tournament. I was there when Bobby came back from his stress fracture in ’92 – that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard Cameron (chanting “HURLEY! HURLEY! HURLEY! …” when he went to the scorer’s table to check into the game…) – I’d love to see something similar happen with Kyrie.

    As to the majority of your comment, 1) I see two inconsistencies in Dr. Fukino’s testimony, 2) Dr, Fukino’s testimony does nothing to reduce the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution.

    What is the definition of ‘employee’ in the context of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? I’m guessing that the POTUS is not an employee under that definition but even if it is, you don’t have any evidence that the requirements of the act were not met by President Obama (I’m assuming that a certified copy of the COLB would be sufficient since it is a legal birth certificate).

    1) Inconsistencies in Dr. Fukino’s testimony

    1a) “Fiscal Implications: No material fiscal impact” is not consistent with the claim that “The time and state resources it takes to respond to these often convoluted inquires are considerable… We respectfully request a facilitated passage of SB 2937 which could provide the desired relief from the abuse and unnecessary burden that these vexatious requesters have placed upon the Department of Health.” To be consistent, the “Fiscal Implications:” section should not have said “No material fiscal impact” but rather given an estimate of the fiscal savings resulting from “passage of SB 2937 which could provide the desired relief from the abuse and unnecessary burden”.

    Where’s the inconsistency? If, say, it required a worker an average of 2 hours to deal with a request, this would have no fiscal impact (the workers get paid no matter what they do) but it would mean that 100 worker hours a month wasn’t spent on other projects – in other words, resources spent responding to requests that would never appear in the DOH budget.

    1b) Yes, I think it is inconsistent to use “certificate” where “certification” should have been used.

    It may be a certification rather than a certificate in a formal semantic sense, but the important sense here is legal and since it is the type of birth certificate given out by the State of Hawaii and thus entitled to receive full faith and credit from the other 49 states and it meets the federal government’s definition for a birth certificate, it seems like in the context of the president’s eligibility it is a birth certificate in every significant sense of the term.

    People were seeking the long form birth certificate, not the CertificatION JPG posted on his former campaign website. While a hard copy COLB, with a proper raised seal, may be entitled “to full faith and credit under the law in the other 49 states and it meets the federal definition of a birth certificate as well”, that is not true of a JPG image. You can’t submit a URL, pointing to a web page with a JPG, as official documentation. And that is all that has been “released” to the general public or any member Congress to date. That does not pass as an “Acceptable Document” on an I-9 form, and that is a main point of one of the questions I raise for Speaker Boehner in this post.

    If you were a presidential candidate who was asked to provide proof of your natural born citizenship, how would you do it? Obtaining the document which your state DOH provides in response to requests for birth certificates, posting images of it on your website, allowing the press free access to inspect it, and letting a non-partisan group verify it and post images of it on the web seems like a reasonable way to go about doing it to me…

    Do you have any evidence that President Obama has failed to live up to any verification of his credentials to which his predecessors were subjected? If you want people to believe that something untoward is going on here, you need to be able to show evidence that President Obama has failed to meet a requirement that was explicitly met by previous presidents. What evidence do you have that there is something here that Speaker Boehner should investigate?

    2) Dr, Fukino’s testimony does nothing to reduce the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution. When you start with the legal requirement for Barack Obama to provide acceptable documentation for an I-9 form, and then further filter that down to just those documents that prove that the employee was a citizen at birth (let alone natural born citizen), you realize that documents like a U.S. Passport don’t make the cut because a Passport does not prove that you were a citizen a birth. When you combine the legal requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution, Barack Obama is legally required to produce a hard copy of his birth certificate for inspection by the U.S. Congress (so that they can meet their obligations under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment).

    Again, do you have any evidence that President Obama failed to meet any legitimate demand that has been made for his credentials? Were Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush required to do the same? Do you have any evidence that they complied with this requirement?

    That doesn’t even cover the issue of whether or not Obama ever had a foreign passport as an adult. If he did, he relinquished any U.S. citizenship he may have had.

    By what statute? It is possible for adults to have multiple legitimate passports – you can find some examples here. In addition, Thomas Jefferson was certainly entitled to carry a French passport and Spiro Agnew could have held a Greek passport and there was no conflict with eligibility in either of those cases. In any case, there is no evidence that President Obama ever traveled on or possessed anything other than a US passport at any time in his life (and no evidence that he has held any citizenship besides US since reaching the age of majority).

    And the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born citizen”. They specifically avoided doing so. I’ve gone over this so many times in the last 2.5 years. I am not an attorney, and neither are you, but Leo Donofrio is

    I would note that the vast majority of lawyers and all Constitutional scholars disagree with Mr. Donofrio, including the justices of the Indiana Court of Appeals.

    and he makes several execellent points including, but not limited to:

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here.

    I would note that you should be careful of the ‘permanently domiciled’ argument regarding President Obama’s eligibility – I would think that marrying a citizen and having a child would probably be considered indicative of a desire to stay in the US.

    If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

    I agree with this (that the statement is true), but I doubt that a court would ever uphold this requirement.

    Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

    That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”

    This does not say ‘these were THE ONLY natives…’

    While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

    The court held that Mr. Wong was as much a citizen as the child of natural born citizens – if Mr. Wong was not eligible to run for president it would contradict this holding.

    From the dissent in US v. Wong Kim Ark:

    Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is h erefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’ Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, § 212. ‘The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. * * * The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.’

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark paragraph 134

    Why argue for Vattel’s definition in the dissent if it was the operative definition in the majority opinion?

    A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

    If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

    Mr. Morse is clearly in the minority in his interpretation – if you’d like some quotes to support my characterization, you can find them here.

    The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.

    Again, he is in the minority on this view as can be seen here

    His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

    You are assuming that the argument in the article is correct. If it isn’t then President Arthur’s dual nationality didn’t make him ineligible and thus his ‘concealment’ of it isn’t relevant to the article being written. This is like the talk of President Obama ‘sealing’ his records – his records are sealed by the same federal laws that seal yours and he didn’t spend a dime to do it. He is certainly able to release any records that he chooses to, but he isn’t (and shouldn’t be) required to release anything and he hasn’t withheld anything that has typically been released by candidates for the presidency in the past.

    The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.

    That is not the prevailing legal opinion – see the links above for supporting references.

    This is not a political issue.

    Asking the courts to overturn the results of a legal election IS a political issue, but in general I would agree with that statement.

    It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.

    That will likely happen if the President’s eligibility is challenged by someone with proper standing (another candidate in 2012) or if an eligibility law is passed by a state and challenged in court*. If it does, the result will be a ruling similar to the one in Ankeny, President Obama will present a certified copy of his COLB, and the matter will be settled. Of course, this is just my prediction, but if the courts rule on the issue I think you will find it accurate.

    *I believe that any eligibility law which does not view the COLB as sufficient to prove natural born citizenship will not survive a Constitutional challenge – and certainly the president will challenge any law which denies him access to a state’s ballot.

    [For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak. ]

    I read Mr. Greschak’s article, and he is certainly free to invent and argue for any definitions (and Constitutional Amendments) that he wishes, but until such time as said Amendment is ratified that is not the definition that will be used by the courts (nor should it be). The terms in the Constitution (unless specifically mentioned, like ‘treason’) are to be interpreted in the context of the common law, which, in the original colonies, was English common law. Calvin’s case spells out clearly that a child of an alien born in England is a natural born subject and there is nothing in the Constitution or US law which contradicts this understanding.

    I know I’ve thrown a lot at you in these posts, but I just wanted to lay out the big picture (as I see it, anyway…). I would be happy to provide more detail regarding any issues you’d like to focus on. I want to mention again that I think you demonstrate intellectual honesty and integrity by allowing open debate on your blog (especially in comparison to other eligibility websites – I still have yet to find any other site which doesn’t moderate comments to eliminate dissent). I may disagree with you, but you have my respect for that.

  43. Interested Bystander says:

    Hey All,

    I’ve been thinking all day about how to reply to Slartibartfast’s reply to me.

    Let me start by stating this:

    It is, and always has been the OBAMAs that have fought this tooth and nail.

    Over two and a half years ago Obama was asked to provide proof that he was eligible to be President of the United States.

    In response to those inquiries, Obama released the LEAST amount of evidence needed to prove his eligibility. He didn’t release anything to back up the COLB, he didn’t release ANYTHING to state he was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro. As far as I know, Obama has NEVER addressed the issue of his adoption by Soetoro.

    There are many concerns from those of us who are asking the questions, about whther Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

    Maybe you can answer these questions:

    Was Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro?

    If so, was Obama EVER a citizen of Indonesia?

    What financial aid did Obama receive while attending Occidental, Columba, and Harvard?

    What Country’s passport did Obama use to travel to Pakistan in 1981?

    Did Obama register within the allotted time for the Selective Service?

    But in the COLB controversy, I have to admit, you are right. The COLB is the ONLY thing the campaign had to release to “satisfy” his eligibility requirement for the Presidency.

    It’s just amazing to me that “your side’s” arguements are always about the Courts, and the Law, and how any Court would allow the COLB in to evidence.

    The problem is that the Courts won’t allow the Government to present the evidence in a session, or for the questioners to presnt the evidence they have.

    No matter what you comment, it won’t stop me from asking. You can continue to spout about how this or that would be allowed under the “rules of evidence”, but it really means nothing when you know the truth.

    The statutes that pertain to births in 1961 are these:

    338-5, 338-6, 338-12, 338-15, 338-16, 338-17.

    All you needed to establish a Hawaiian Birth Certificate was a witness signature.

    That’s it.

    What I WILL comment is that you are painting yourself in to a corner with your Kapiolani comments. There were FOUR places where Queens Hospital was mentioned as Obama’s birth place.

    One was Obama’s own website (yes it was on the free blog part of his site, but it was there).

    There was an article by I believe the AP that stated that Obama related about a woman from Kansas giving birth at Queens.

    Then there was Wikipedia who up until about 2 years ago had it posted that Obama was born at Queens. You would have thought that someone from the Adminsitration would have notified Wiki long ago about their error, but it wasn’t until the letter to Kapiolani came out did Wiki change it.

    Finally, there was a schol newspaper who interviewed Obama’s sister, and in the article it stated Obama was born at Queens.

    I’m sure all of these were simple mistakes.

    I’d like to see the long form simply to see if it states he was born at Kapiolani. If it doesn’t state he was born at Kapiolani, you and Obama sure would have “egg on your faces”, and the questions would become DEMANDS to see more (you know, like those other questions I asked above).

    The bottom line is this, Obama went around the Country during the campaign, and continues to do so to this very day talking about how “the more information you have the better”, and then he goes and does this about his eligiblity.

    It screams of hypocrisy.

    Sure, the COLB is the ONLY evidence needed to prove his eligibilty to be President, and he has done that.

    Assuming of course that it is a certified Hawaiian issued birth certification. The Fukino testimony does NOT state that the COLB posted on line was issued by the State.

    There are also questions about the seal on the document.

    But why in the “wide wide world of sports” would Obama want to keep all of these documents sealed? If they backed his story up (and to be honest, the FIRST time Obama has even suggested where he was born was two years ago in that letter), then they would have been released already.

    There’s no logical reason to keep them sealed, unless of course he is hiding something.

    You keep commenting about how this would stand up in any Court. In the Court of public opinion, the longer this goes on, the more people become aware of the situation, and the louder the questions become.

    Just release the documents alread Mr President, YOU are the one who pledged to have an “open and transparent” Administration. How about leading by example?

    Or were they “just words”?

  44. Slartibartfast says:

    I’m not going to include links to back up my statements here – I don’t want Mr. Anderson to think that I’m spamming his blog, but I can provide links supporting any my claims upon request. My main source is Obama Conspiracy Theories (www.obamaconspiracy.org) – Doc C has links and citations for all of the sources he uses, so the material there is all well documented.

    Innocent Bystander posted:

    Hey All, I’ve been thinking all day about how to reply to Slartibartfast’s reply to me.

    That’s good – I approve of thinking! I hope this comment provokes more thought.

    Let me start by stating this: It is, and always has been the OBAMAs that have fought this tooth and nail.

    How, exactly, has President Obama fought this tooth and nail? He released his COLB and since then has pretty much ignored the issue other than to make jokes in a couple of humorous speeches (and I would doubt that he even wrote the jokes). A couple of lawyers have also racked up a few billable hours appearing for the president in various court cases, but in most instances even those pittances of legal fees were charged to the plaintiffs. I wouldn’t describe that as ‘fighting tooth and nail’.

    Over two and a half years ago Obama was asked to provide proof that he was eligible to be President of the United States.

    Yes.

    In response to those inquiries, Obama released the LEAST amount of evidence needed to prove his eligibility.

    The key there is ‘prove his eligibility’. I’m a mathematician so ‘prove’ is a very strong word for me, but in what way is proving something insufficient? Why would you do more than the least amount necessary to prove something?

    He didn’t release anything to back up the COLB

    It doesn’t need to be backed up, that’s sort of the point. A certified copy of the COLB is prima facie evidence of the information it contains and would, by law, be sufficient proof of those facts to any US official or any US court including the SCOTUS.

    , he didn’t release ANYTHING to state he was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro. As far as I know, Obama has NEVER addressed the issue of his adoption by Soetoro.

    He didn’t release a statement saying that he wasn’t of Scandinavian descent or that he never played for Duke either.

    [By the way, Mr. Anderson, do you at least give props to the president's body man, Reggie Love? I was a Crazy for all of Reggie's career and he was a favorite of mine (his defense reminded me of the Detroit Pistons in the Bad Boys era) - I'm proud that if you want to drive the lane on the president in a pickup game that you're going to meet up with Reggie in the key (and he makes a better door than a window ;-) and that somebody who would recognize me (like you did) works with the president every day. How about you?]

    Why should he have addressed the issue of an adoption that there is no evidence of and which would be of no significance even if true?

    There are many concerns from those of us who are asking the questions, about whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

    Let me lay your worries to rest: he is.

    Maybe you can answer these questions:

    I’ll do my best…

    Was Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro?

    No. At least there is no evidence that he was – the elementary school register is not evidence of adoption (in any case Lolo Soetoro was a muslim – in the Islamic faith adoptees retain their family names – to change a child’s last name to that of the adoptive parent would be an offense against Allah and the father’s family). In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that Mr. Soetoro listed his stepson under his own name on the school register for the sake of expediency (and I don’t consider a man telling a white lie in order to get his stepson an education to be anything other than an indication of the good character of the man – a man who wouldn’t do that for his stepson would be a very small-minded and pathetic man, in my opinion).

    If so, was Obama EVER a citizen of Indonesia?

    No. Adoptive children of Indonesian parents cannot become citizens after the age of 5 (or by naturalizing as an adult) and President Obama was 6 years old when he moved there. Even if he had received Indonesian citizenship, it would not have affected his US citizenship – see Perkins v. Elg.

    What financial aid did Obama receive while attending Occidental, Columba, and Harvard?

    You can ask the question, but privacy law says that the president doesn’t have to answer unless he chooses to.

    What Country’s passport did Obama use to travel to Pakistan in 1981?

    There is no evidence to suggest that President Obama has ever traveled under any but a US passport. The information on Dr. Dunham’s passport applications obtained by Mr. Strunk’s FOIA request suggests that President Obama did, in fact, have a US passport prior to 1981 (he wasn’t included on his mother’s passport and there is no evidence that he had a British or Kenyan passport). In 1981 the New York Times informed travelers as to how they could obtain an entry visa to visit Pakistan for up to 30 days, so it was possible for US citizens to travel there (and the New York Times didn’t see a problem with it as a tourist destination…). Why would you think that President Obama used a foreign passport for his travel to Pakistan?

    Did Obama register within the allotted time for the Selective Service?

    Yes.

    But in the COLB controversy, I have to admit, you are right. The COLB is the ONLY thing the campaign had to release to “satisfy” his eligibility requirement for the Presidency.

    So what’s the problem?

    It’s just amazing to me that “your side’s” arguments are always about the Courts, and the Law, and how any Court would allow the COLB in to evidence.

    Yes we adhere to the Constitution, the laws, and the courts of the United States of America. Accordingly, we understand that President Obama was legitimately elected and inaugurated and is eligible for his office. If you have a problem with the established process for vetting a presidential candidate, then work to get a law or an amendment passed to change it (I would suggest state legislation regarding ballot access), but President Obama will serve out his term (barring impeachment or incapacity) and, provided he can produce a certified copy of his COLB, he will be on the ballot in 2012 (I think he’ll win, too…). If you abide by the Constitution then you have to accept these facts. You are free to speak out against his policies (although I wish you would speak out against the actual polices being proposed rather than the right wing demagoguery about socialism and communism and death panels… the man is a center-left moderate who’s policies are to the right of President Nixon’s, for god’s sake!), work to defeat him for re-election, or work to change the established vetting process for candidates (although I’ll warn you that you will not be able to keep him off of the ballot Constitutionally) but to try to delegitimize him and to smear him with lies and misrepresentations is, to me, contrary to the Constitution and the spirit of what it means to be an American.

    The problem is that the Courts won’t allow the Government to present the evidence in a session, or for the questioners to present the evidence they have.

    There are rules about what cases the court is allowed to hear – why should the courts break their rules to hear a defective case? If it’s any consolation I fully expect that one of the eligibility lawyers will find a client with standing (I think anyone on a state’s ballot for president in 2012 would do) and will lose the case on its merits (although, technically speaking, standing IS one of the merits of a case). If this doesn’t happen, the only reason that I can think of to explain it would be that they know that it is hopeless and wish to keep soliciting donations… Also, I am unaware of any evidence of the president’s ineligibility that is admissible in court – an official Kenyan birth certificate (which, incidentally, are available, BY LAW, to anyone who requests them – if they exist, anyway…) would probably need to be accompanied by an affidavit from a government official attesting to its legitimacy and even then it would not be sufficient to invalidate the COLB (I don’t think anything could possibly be sufficient to invalidate the COLB as long as the Hawaii DOH continues to confirm it’s authenticity) – there is no evidence of fraud regarding the COLB nor is there any evidence that Dr. Dunham left the country before the birth of her son – Indonesian citizenship is irrelevant eligibility – the ‘two citizen parent’ theory can certainly be argued in court but you will find, as in the previous 70 or so cases, that you wont get any court to agree with you. The COLB is presumed to be fact until sufficient evidence is presented to call it into question. (I would also note that this burden must be met BEFORE a case gets to discovery, so you can’t use that for a fishing expedition – the courts REALLY don’t like that: witness Dr. Taitz…)

    No matter what you comment, it won’t stop me from asking. You can continue to spout about how this or that would be allowed under the “rules of evidence”, but it really means nothing when you know the truth.

    As I am also a scientist, I’m kind of picky about the word ‘truth’. What exactly is the ‘truth’ and in what sense do you ‘know’ it? I know the truth that President Obama is eligible for his office and the legitimate POTUS in the sense that Constitutional lawyers (Vince Treacy, a DC-area lawyer, for one) have shown me citations of statute and case law and explained how they had been interpreted historically and what the legal consensus regarding them was and using this information (which is completely consistent with all observations) they are able to accurately predict the behavior of all of the courts involved. The only alternative is, almost literally, ‘everyone’s in on it’ – every single Constitutional lawyer and most of the rest, every judge in the country (at least the 70 or so who’ve heard cases plus the nine…), the Republican former governor of Hawaii, most of the staff of the Hawaii DOH, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the 111th Congress, etc., etc., etc. How has the ‘truth’ that you ‘know’ successfully explained observations or predicted future events?

    The statutes that pertain to births in 1961 are these: 338-5, 338-6, 338-12, 338-15, 338-16, 338-17.

    You can find links to all of those statutes here

    All you needed to establish a Hawaiian Birth Certificate was a witness signature.

    Sorry, but the assertion that a HBC could possibly have been obtained based on information that you feel is insufficient to prevent fraud is not evidence of fraud. You have no reason (except the need to justify your predetermined conclusion that President Obama is ineligible) to suspect that there was fraud in this case.

    That’s it.

    So you are saying that because, under some circumstances, a HBC could be obtained with the signature of a single witness (and you assume that the person verifying the information would accept the unsupported word of a witness in the absence of the parents AND the child with no further verification…) that Hawaiian COLBs are not, in fact, what they assert themselves to be: prima facie evidence of the facts they contain? Good luck getting that to fly in court – although if you try this argument in front of a judge, you may be able to break Dr. Taitz’s record for fines…

    What I WILL comment is that you are painting yourself in to a corner with your Kapiolani comments. There were FOUR places where Queens Hospital was mentioned as Obama’s birth place.

    Are you aware that the hospital in question was named after QUEEN Kapiolani? Could that not cause some confusion due to people referring to the hospital named after the Queen incorrectly as ‘Queen’s Hospital’? As for painting myself into a corner, since a letter from the president naming the hospital as his place of birth was read during a hospital function, I feel that I’m on pretty solid ground…

    One was Obama’s own website (yes it was on the free blog part of his site, but it was there).

    Without the quote, a link, or any context I can’t speculate as to this…

    There was an article by I believe the AP that stated that Obama related about a woman from Kansas giving birth at Queens.

    Which could easily be an example of what I described above…

    Then there was Wikipedia who up until about 2 years ago had it posted that Obama was born at Queens. You would have thought that someone from the Adminsitration would have notified Wiki long ago about their error, but it wasn’t until the letter to Kapiolani came out did Wiki change it.

    Is there any reason to think that anyone should have noticed the error BEFORE the letter to Kapiolani came out?

    Finally, there was a schol newspaper who interviewed Obama’s sister, and in the article it stated Obama was born at Queens.

    So a reporter from a school newspaper interviewed Maya Soetoro-Ng and stated (not quoted) that President Obama was born at Queens hospital and this should be grounds for dismissing the full faith and credit of the State of Hawaii? I don’t think so. Especially considering that being born at Queens hospital or outside of a hospital would not invalidate any of the information on the COLB. (As for it’s effect on President Obama’s credibility, why (if it turned out he was born elsewhere) would the most reasonable assumption not be that President Obama had been told that he was born at Kapiolani? If the president’s grandmother and Dr. Dunham conspired to commit fraud to ensure him US citizenship (and that theory has so many holes that it leaks like a screen door on a submarine…), why would they have ever told him?

    I’m sure all of these were simple mistakes.

    I find it much more plausible that they were a result of mistakes and/or a confusion due to the names of the two hospitals than that they resulted from… ? What exactly do you think this is evidence of?

    I’d like to see the long form simply to see if it states he was born at Kapiolani.

    That’s fine – I’d be interested in seeing it too (it’s presidential history, after all). My problem comes when you think that you have the right to demand that President Obama produce it or believe that his failure to produce it is a indication of some sort of fraud. You can ask the president to show you his long form and threaten not to vote for him in 2012 if he doesn’t (although I doubt that you would vote for him if he personally handed you the archived original document…) but that’s about the limit of your legal leverage (Constitutionally speaking) and you’re free to say whatever you want about it (as long as you don’t threaten the president), but don’t expect to convince anyone with the case you have so far…

    If it doesn’t state he was born at Kapiolani, you and Obama sure would have “egg on your faces”, and the questions would become DEMANDS to see more (you know, like those other questions I asked above).

    Again, that would not invalidate the COLB as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii (and hence proof of natural born citizenship). If, in the unlikely event that happened, people wanted to see more information before voting for President Obama for a second term, that’s their right – the president would then do as he chose to and would have to accept the consequences. I’m guessing that even in the highly improbable scenario that the President was not born at Kapiolani very few people would base their vote on whether or not he released more information. I know mine wouldn’t.

    The bottom line is this, Obama went around the Country during the campaign, and continues to do so to this very day talking about how “the more information you have the better”, and then he goes and does this about his eligibility.

    And President Obama has released more information regarding his eligibility than any of his predecessors – campaign promise fulfilled!

    It screams of hypocrisy.

    Um. Not so much… (In my opinion, anyway)

    Sure, the COLB is the ONLY evidence needed to prove his eligibility to be President, and he has done that.

    Excellent, we agree.

    Assuming of course that it is a certified Hawaiian issued birth certification. The Fukino testimony does NOT state that the COLB posted on line was issued by the State.

    She said “President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website”. How much clearer does she need to be?

    There are also questions about the seal on the document.

    I’m familiar with those questions and I find them highly dubious (the methodology of the investigations which raised the questions is suspect at best…). You are welcome to attempt to raise such questions in front of a judge, but remember what I said about fines…

    But why in the “wide wide world of sports” would Obama want to keep all of these documents sealed?

    Why are you keeping all of your documents sealed? You have spent as much money as President Obama has to seal your personal records… none at all – they are protected from release by law. Look at it from the opposite point of view: What reason does President Obama have to release any additional documents? There are no unreleased documents with additional information pertinent to the president’s eligibility. While there may be a few critics who are convinced by releasing documents, the vast majority of them will not (no document will mollify anyone who believes the two citizen parent theory). Releasing the COLB certainly didn’t make the problem go away – repeating the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

    If they backed his story up (and to be honest, the FIRST time Obama has even suggested where he was born was two years ago in that letter [Was he ever ASKED about where he was born prior to that letter?]), then they would have been released already.

    Why? They wouldn’t have silenced his critics nor has similar information ever been released by another president or presidential candidate.

    There’s no logical reason to keep them sealed, unless of course he is hiding something.

    Since ‘keeping them sealed’ requires only that the president take no action and there’s no upside to releasing them (unless you’ll vote for him if he does ;-) doing nothing in this case seems pretty logical to me. I sincerely hope that the president doesn’t spend any time at all thinking about this and I’m confident that is the case.

    You keep commenting about how this would stand up in any Court. In the Court of public opinion, the longer this goes on, the more people become aware of the situation, and the louder the questions become.

    You’re entitled to believe this, but, personally, I don’t think that this is the case. More importantly, I doubt that the president’s campaign staff is spending any of their time worrying about it. Personally I hope that either a state passes an eligibility bill (which I believe must either accept the COLB as sufficient or fail a Constitutional challenge) or a candidate gets standing to challenge ballot access in court in the run-up to the 2012 elections (which I believe will result in a court ruling substantially the same as the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny and the refusal of the SCOTUS to hear an appeal – why do you think the Ankeny decision wasn’t appealed to the SCOTUS?).

    Just release the documents already Mr President, YOU are the one who pledged to have an “open and transparent” Administration. How about leading by example?

    Leaving aside that his pledges of transparency were regarding the policy making process (in which he has been more transparent than his predecessors although he could do better…), he has released more than any prior presidential candidate (by releasing the COLB) and there is nothing which was required of his predecessors which has been denied by him. Considering that he had published two autobiographies before running for president, I think it is fair to say that more was known about President Obama’s past at the time of his election than any prior president. Additionally, many people with eligibility questions trumpet the executive order he signed on his first day in office which relaxes the regulations regarding the records of former presidents (NOT the current president) from the less transparent policy of one of President Bush’s executive orders to a more open standard which is nearly word-for-word what the policy was under President Reagan (I will grant you that they don’t characterize it in quite the same way, but the way I have characterized it is accurate). I call that leading by example.

    Or were they “just words”?

    They were words that he has followed through on.

    At the memorial in Tucson our president spoke of the need of a more civil dialogue for the good of our Republic. In the spirit of that, I ask you to consider the possibility that you may be wrong about the president’s eligibility and what the ramifications of that would be. To do myself what I’m asking of you, if it turned out that I was mistaken, then I would still be confident that all of the statements that I had made were based on a rational interpretation of the available facts made in good faith. While I think that such an eventuality would be devastating for our country, I would not hesitate to call for the president’s resignation in such a case (although I can’t imagine what could outweigh all of the evidence that I’ve seen to date short of a ruling by the SCOTUS that ‘natural born’ status requires two citizen parents…). Think about all of the seditious rhetoric that’s been used by people questioning eligibility – if they are wrong, then they are maligning good, patriotic Americans who, acting in good faith, believe that a different course is best for our nation. Have we fallen so far that the quintessentially American idea that you would spend your last breath telling someone that what they’re saying is a load of crap while defending their right to say it is dead? I’m a progressive that thinks that President Obama’s polices haven’t been liberal enough – I would have liked a bigger stimulus, a public option (medicare buy-in), tougher Wall Street reform, more unemployment benefits (the most stimulative form of spending possible, bar none – over $1.70 worth of economic activity for every $1 spent), prosecution of war crimes (torture – I’m not happy about President Obama’s Justice Department asserting that he has the right to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil, either…), etc. I can support all of these positions (and more ;-) with rational arguments – I’m not trying to institute communism or bring down the American government, I’m trying to save our country from the unregulated free-market capitalism which is annihilating the middle class (in my opinion – which I can support with facts and logical reasoning) and is being championed by the right. If people don’t realize that just because someone disagrees with you does not make them evil pretty soon, then civil discourse will cease to exist and the Republic will fall (okay, that’s a little bit of hyperbole…). I hope that throughout this comment I have shown you appropriate respect and always assumed that, even when I thought that your facts or your reasoning were faulty, your intentions were good (yours too, Mr. Anderson) and I ask that you extend the same courtesy to me. In return I promise to answer any questions you may have honestly and to the best of my ability.

    Kevin Kesseler

    (that’s my real name – feel free to check out my (scant) publication history or find me in YouTube videos of Cameron Indoor Stadium…)

  45. Interested Bystander says:

    Slartibartfast commented:

    “Innocent Bystander”

    I’ll let that pass.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “How, exactly, has President Obama fought this tooth and nail?”

    And then later on you comment about 70 Judges hearing cases about Obama’s eligibility.

    You don’t believe that 70 cases is proof Obama is fighting this “tooth and nail”?

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “A couple of lawyers have also racked up a few billable hours appearing for the president in various court cases, but in most instances even those pittances of legal fees were charged to the plaintiffs.”

    Come on now, there were reports that Rangel racked up MILLIONS in legal fees in a few weeks before his ethics committee “hearing”, and you can’t understand why those of us who are simply asking questions believe that Obama has spent OVER 2 million dollars of his own money defending his ability to keep the documents sealed? That doesn’t even count the money the TAXPAYERS have had to spend on Justice Department lawyers representing the Government AND President Obama in these cases.

    For you to suggest that lawyers have only had “a few billable hours” is simply not a believable response.

    The LEAST expensive way to answer these questions would be to release the documents.

    Slartibartfast next comments:

    “The key there is ‘prove his eligibility’.”

    But doesn’t that comment fly in the face of Obama’s “the more information the better” comments he continually makes?

    Slartibartfast then states this:

    “I’m a mathematician so ‘prove’ is a very strong word for me, but in what way is proving something insufficient? Why would you do more than the least amount necessary to prove something?”

    Simply because the more evidence the less questions arise. I’m sure that you can relate to something like this:

    You can teach 2+2=4 and it would be true.

    However if you could produce 2 apples in your right hand, and 2 apples in your left hand, and put them togther to make 4 apples, then more people might relate to how 2+2=4. You could continue to do that with things like pencils, or desks, or whatever else you would want to prove that 2+2=4.

    What you are suggesting is that simply because 2+2=4, then NO other examples need to be given.

    You are right, but there are still going to be those who question the 2+2=4 FACT because they can not relate to numbers being used.

    Releasing the collaborating documents would only bolster Obama’s release of the COLB.

    And you continue to suggest that we are wrong for asking him to release the documents?

    I sure hope our teachers don’t have the same mentality as you do about asking questions. You see your assertion that the release of the COLB answers ALL questions is flawed, because there are those of us out here that still has questions, warranted or not, the questions remain.

    You’d think as a former “Teacher”, Obama would understand that.

    Slartibartfast then comments:

    “It doesn’t need to be backed up, that’s sort of the point. A certified copy of the COLB is prima facie evidence of the information it contains and would, by law, be sufficient proof of those facts to any US official or any US court including the SCOTUS.”

    See the above point.

    I can only comment my opinion, but again, the more information the better.

    The tact of fight these questions in the Court only bolsters my belief that he is hiding something.

    It started with simple questions being asked, and at least the way I see things, OBAMA has forced these questions in to Court.

    Slartibartfast tries another approach with this:

    “He didn’t release a statement saying that he wasn’t of Scandinavian descent or that he never played for Duke either.”

    This tact has been tried before, make up some ridiculous question and state the President hasn’t addressed it either.

    Good try, this strategy is not going to work however.

    In my mind the questions are legitimate.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “Why should he have addressed the issue of an adoption that there is no evidence of and which would be of no significance even if true?”

    As you go in to later there is the school registration form. And as you also state later, his age at the time of adoption is “significant”.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “Let me lay your worries to rest: he is.”

    I feel so much better now. From a person who suggests that simply stating something is enough proof that it is true.

    Slartibartfast answers the adoption question with this:

    “No. At least there is no evidence that he was – the elementary school register is not evidence of adoption (in any case Lolo Soetoro was a muslim – in the Islamic faith adoptees retain their family names – to change a child’s last name to that of the adoptive parent would be an offense against Allah and the father’s family). In my opinion, the most likely explanation is that Mr. Soetoro listed his stepson under his own name on the school register for the sake of expediency (and I don’t consider a man telling a white lie in order to get his stepson an education to be anything other than an indication of the good character of the man – a man who wouldn’t do that for his stepson would be a very small-minded and pathetic man, in my opinion).”

    You comment that there is no evidence, and then go about discrediting the evidence.

    “Move along now, nothing to see here”, comes to mind.

    And for you to suggest that Lolo was a man of “good character” is astounding. Have you researched Lolo to find out anything about him?

    You do realize that the man spent the last year in Hawaii ILLEGALLY don’t you? He LIED about Stanley being sick to be able to get his stay here extended. For you to suggest someone telling a “white” lie is anything less of a lie is one thing that is ruining our Country. Indonesia had already communicated that they wanted Lolo back, but yet he was allowed to stay here on FRAUD.

    I guess in your mind, that’s ok, because he did it to stay here with his “sick” wife. I can not agree with this analogy.

    Slartibartfast continues his adoption comment:

    “No. Adoptive children of Indonesian parents cannot become citizens after the age of 5 (or by naturalizing as an adult) and President Obama was 6 years old when he moved there. Even if he had received Indonesian citizenship, it would not have affected his US citizenship – see Perkins v. Elg.”

    But Obama was 5 when they got married, and Lolo returned to Indonesia BEFORE Obama had his 6th birthday. It is POSSIBLE Lolo adopted Obama when he was 5.

    There is no evidence Lolo DIDN’T adopt Obama. There is evidence that Obama had taken the Soetoro last name, and that he was an Indonesian citizen within that school registration document that you so convieniently pooh pooh off as “nothing to see here”.

    Again LEGITIMATE questions that have been asked get swept under the carpet with no REAL answers.

    Slartibartfast answers the financial aid question with this:

    “You can ask the question, but privacy law says that the president doesn’t have to answer unless he chooses to.”

    I am continually amused by the “because he doesn’t have too” answer to LEGITIMATE questions.

    It’s reminds me of the “becuase I said so” answer I would get from my parents when I questioned why I had to go to bed at 8pm.

    The documents are available for release, and again Obama has fought tooth and nail to keep them sealed.

    The question will remain in the “unanswered by choice” column.

    Slartibartfast answers the passport question with this:

    “There is no evidence to suggest that President Obama has ever traveled under any but a US passport. The information on Dr. Dunham’s passport applications obtained by Mr. Strunk’s FOIA request suggests that President Obama did, in fact, have a US passport prior to 1981 (he wasn’t included on his mother’s passport and there is no evidence that he had a British or Kenyan passport). In 1981 the New York Times informed travelers as to how they could obtain an entry visa to visit Pakistan for up to 30 days, so it was possible for US citizens to travel there (and the New York Times didn’t see a problem with it as a tourist destination…). Why would you think that President Obama used a foreign passport for his travel to Pakistan?”

    There is no evidence that Obama has ever used a United States passport either, but yet you comment it as if there IS evidence.

    The man traveled to Pakistan with a Pakistani citizen after staying a month in Indonesia.

    It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that the friend whom he traveled with suggested to him that he would have freer travel with a Muslim Country passport.

    The most interesting part about this whole Pakistan trip, is that Obama didn’t even mention the trip, or the visit with his mother for one month in either of his autobiographies. The comment was an off the cuff remark in California about his foreign policy experience.

    So again, Obama is keeping all of these things sealed. Unless Obama hadn’t said what he did about travleing to Pakistan, we wouldn’t have proof that he did travel there.

    If Obama would have never had admitted to traveling to Pakistan in 1981, then there would be no evidence of it, and if people asked if he did travel there in 1981, your answer would be “there is no evidence that he did, so therfore he didn’t”.

    And you would be wrong.

    Slartibartfast answers the selective service question:

    “Yes.”

    This is something we can agree on.

    However, I understand the LEGITIMATE questions still being raised about the form that was released.

    I would also point out that Obama didn’t release the document, it was requested under FOIA regulations, and released to the requester.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “Yes we adhere to the Constitution, the laws, and the courts of the United States of America. Accordingly, we understand that President Obama was legitimately elected and inaugurated and is eligible for his office.”

    And they use every nook and cranny of these “laws” to keep things sealed, AFTER pledging to be “open and transparent” and how “more information is better”, this Adminstration shows how much they are hypocrites by doing this.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “If you have a problem with the established process for vetting a presidential candidate, then work to get a law or an amendment passed to change it (I would suggest state legislation regarding ballot access), but President Obama will serve out his term (barring impeachment or incapacity) and, provided he can produce a certified copy of his COLB, he will be on the ballot in 2012 (I think he’ll win, too…).”

    And when States try to pass said legislation it is vilified in the media and it is suggested that they are stupid for raising the issue.

    I sure hope he doesn’t win in 2012, and I DO believe the eligibility issue will be a MAJOR issue in the campaign in 2012. However I will qualify that comment that it is my OPINION, and I have been wrong before.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “If you abide by the Constitution then you have to accept these facts. You are free to speak out against his policies (although I wish you would speak out against the actual polices being proposed rather than the right wing demagoguery about socialism and communism and death panels… the man is a center-left moderate who’s policies are to the right of President Nixon’s, for god’s sake!), work to defeat him for re-election, or work to change the established vetting process for candidates (although I’ll warn you that you will not be able to keep him off of the ballot Constitutionally) but to try to delegitimize him and to smear him with lies and misrepresentations is, to me, contrary to the Constitution and the spirit of what it means to be an American.”

    I really need to comment on this statement by Slartibartfast:

    “the man is a center-left moderate who’s policies are to the right of President Nixon’s, for god’s sake!”

    I sure hope that is a joke.

    If you are sincere in your comment, then I have real reservations about everything you comment.

    Slartibartfast suggests:

    “but to try to delegitimize him and to smear him with lies and misrepresentations is, to me, contrary to the Constitution and the spirit of what it means to be an American.”

    Again, and I make this point often, all we are doing is asking questions. HE is the one who is unwilling to answer them, and BECAUSE he is unwilling to answer them then we are “smearing” him or our questions are “contrary to the Constitution”, or we are less than “Americans”.

    This tactic will NOT keep me from asking the questions Slartibartfast, no matter how much you try this intimidation tactic, it won’t work with me.

    If I could try to make an analogy of this, what you are suggesting is that when Loughner was firing those shots in Arizona last weekend, the people who tackled the gunman are MORE American than those who fell to the floor in fear.

    The analogy just doen’t make sense to me. We are all different, and THAT’s the greatness of America. Each of us react differently given the same situation.

    I respect your freedom to think those thoughts, I just don’t “buy in” to your way of thinking.

    Slartibartfast opines:

    “If it’s any consolation I fully expect that one of the eligibility lawyers will find a client with standing (I think anyone on a state’s ballot for president in 2012 would do) and will lose the case on its merits (although, technically speaking, standing IS one of the merits of a case).”

    Allen Keyes was a candidate on the ballot in California, and was a Plantiff in an eligibility case, and the case was not allowed to be heard.

    Why would the next candidate be any different?

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “Also, I am unaware of any evidence of the president’s ineligibility that is admissible in court – an official Kenyan birth certificate (which, incidentally, are available, BY LAW, to anyone who requests them – if they exist, anyway…) would probably need to be accompanied by an affidavit from a government official attesting to its legitimacy and even then it would not be sufficient to invalidate the COLB (I don’t think anything could possibly be sufficient to invalidate the COLB as long as the Hawaii DOH continues to confirm it’s authenticity) – there is no evidence of fraud regarding the COLB nor is there any evidence that Dr. Dunham left the country before the birth of her son – Indonesian citizenship is irrelevant eligibility – the ‘two citizen parent’ theory can certainly be argued in court but you will find, as in the previous 70 or so cases, that you wont get any court to agree with you.”

    Ok, now here’s my point exactly. You spell it out very well.

    In other words, even IF there were a Kenayn BC, it doesn’t matter because of this or that.

    It smells. Your side uses every loophole there is, and then smile and say:

    “Move along now, nothing to see here” with thumbs in their ears, fingers above there heads waving back and forth and their tongue sticking out.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “As I am also a scientist, I’m kind of picky about the word ‘truth’. What exactly is the ‘truth’ and in what sense do you ‘know’ it?”

    Then as a scientist, you continually strive to offer MORE proof of what you say as “truths” is true.

    It is “true” that there is no cure for cancer. So as a scientist, using your comment as fact, then scientists should NOT strive to find a cure for cancer.

    Don’t you get it?

    BECAUSE questions about cancer exist, scientists are trying every day to find a cure.

    The FACT is still there is no cure for cancer.

    Why do they continue to ask questions then?

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “I know the truth that President Obama is eligible for his office and the legitimate POTUS in the sense that Constitutional lawyers (Vince Treacy, a DC-area lawyer, for one) have shown me citations of statute and case law and explained how they had been interpreted historically and what the legal consensus regarding them was and using this information (which is completely consistent with all observations) they are able to accurately predict the behavior of all of the courts involved. The only alternative is, almost literally, ‘everyone’s in on it’ – every single Constitutional lawyer and most of the rest, every judge in the country (at least the 70 or so who’ve heard cases plus the nine…), the Republican former governor of Hawaii, most of the staff of the Hawaii DOH, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the 111th Congress, etc., etc., etc. How has the ‘truth’ that you ‘know’ successfully explained observations or predicted future events?”

    Then there should be no problem with releasing the documents that bolster that evidence, yet Obama continues to fight to keep the documents sealed.

    It’s simply amazing to me.

    You being a scientist, for one ought to understand why these questions remain. You want as much proof as possible that your findings are correct. You don’t want, and shouldn’t accept the least amount of proof.

    Where am I wrong in that thinking?

    Rain comes from the clouds is a factual statement.

    What you are suggesting is that it is not reasonable to ask “why does rain come from the clouds?”

    Your answer seems to be “because it does”, and that should be sufficient to answer the question.

    Again, this just does not compute in my brain. Sorry, maybe I AM unreasonable to ask the questions, but it’s not going to keep me from asking them.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “Sorry, but the assertion that a HBC could possibly have been obtained based on information that you feel is insufficient to prevent fraud is not evidence of fraud. You have no reason (except the need to justify your predetermined conclusion that President Obama is ineligible) to suspect that there was fraud in this case.”

    But yet that possibility still is there.

    Again, as a scientist don’t you want to close ALL questions before coming to a conclusion? And even AFTER you reach a conclusion, don’t you investigate and research when a question arises that leaves in question your conclusion?

    You admit the possibility is there, and there is a document that would either close the issue once and for all (if the long form states he was born in Kapiolani), or raise more questions (if the long form shows he was born ANYWHERE else).

    I would also point out that I have NO “predetermined conclusion that President Obama is ineligible”. I am amused that you come to that conclusion. I have NOT ONCE commented that Obama is ineligible to be President. NEVER. YOU on the other hand are sure that he is.

    My question to you would be, “Who is acting like a scientist, and who is acting like someone who accepts answers as fact when questions remain?”

    Slartibartfast next comments:

    “So you are saying that because, under some circumstances, a HBC could be obtained with the signature of a single witness (and you assume that the person verifying the information would accept the unsupported word of a witness in the absence of the parents AND the child with no further verification…) that Hawaiian COLBs are not, in fact, what they assert themselves to be: prima facie evidence of the facts they contain? Good luck getting that to fly in court – although if you try this argument in front of a judge, you may be able to break Dr. Taitz’s record for fines…”

    You just do not understand.

    What you suggest in the above comment is exatly the point I try to make throughout my comments.

    You suggest that it is an already answered issue.

    It isn’t, it’s as simple as that.

    No matter what the Courts determine, questions remain about Obama’s eligibility.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “Are you aware that the hospital in question was named after QUEEN Kapiolani? Could that not cause some confusion due to people referring to the hospital named after the Queen incorrectly as ‘Queen’s Hospital’? As for painting myself into a corner, since a letter from the president naming the hospital as his place of birth was read during a hospital function, I feel that I’m on pretty solid ground…”

    Again the “Move along now, nothing to see here” answer.

    The letter PROVES nothing. The COLB doesn’t prove that Obama was born in Kapiolani either. The LONG FORM BC would answer this question once and for all.

    Mistake or not, the articles stand for themselves.

    Slartibartfast states this:

    “Without the quote, a link, or any context I can’t speculate as to this…”

    Here, this article has MORE than the four examples of articles stating Obama was born at Queens:

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=103306

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “Which could easily be an example of what I described above…”

    It was a UPI article also, not AP as I commented.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “Is there any reason to think that anyone should have noticed the error BEFORE the letter to Kapiolani came out?”

    Yes there is. You would think that SOMEONE from the staff would have been assigned to this sort of thing. Wiki was the “go to source” on information, and continues to be today. You’d think Obama would have had the forethought (or maybe Axelrod or Rahm, or SOMEONE would have thought of this).

    Slartibartfast defends Obama further:

    “So a reporter from a school newspaper interviewed Maya Soetoro-Ng and stated (not quoted) that President Obama was born at Queens hospital and this should be grounds for dismissing the full faith and credit of the State of Hawaii? I don’t think so. Especially considering that being born at Queens hospital or outside of a hospital would not invalidate any of the information on the COLB. (As for it’s effect on President Obama’s credibility, why (if it turned out he was born elsewhere) would the most reasonable assumption not be that President Obama had been told that he was born at Kapiolani? If the president’s grandmother and Dr. Dunham conspired to commit fraud to ensure him US citizenship (and that theory has so many holes that it leaks like a screen door on a submarine…), why would they have ever told him?”

    It’s out there, and his sister WAS interviewed for the article. IF the reporter didn’t VERIFY the information with Maya at the time of the interview, then it is IRRESPONSIBLE to write it in the article.

    Slartibartfast asks:

    “I find it much more plausible that they were a result of mistakes and/or a confusion due to the names of the two hospitals than that they resulted from… ? What exactly do you think this is evidence of?”

    Inconsistancies, which in turn keep the questions UNanswered.

    Questions that could be answered by simply releasing the long form BC.

    Without giving the “because they don’t have too” answer, why don’t you answer the question WHY won’t he release this document that would support his claim?

    THAT’s why the questions remain in the UNanswered column.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “That’s fine – I’d be interested in seeing it too (it’s presidential history, after all). My problem comes when you think that you have the right to demand that President Obama produce it or believe that his failure to produce it is a indication of some sort of fraud. You can ask the president to show you his long form and threaten not to vote for him in 2012 if he doesn’t (although I doubt that you would vote for him if he personally handed you the archived original document…) but that’s about the limit of your legal leverage (Constitutionally speaking) and you’re free to say whatever you want about it (as long as you don’t threaten the president), but don’t expect to convince anyone with the case you have so far…”

    But yet his “presidential records” were all sealed by the first EO Obama signed.

    Besides, my “case” is better than your “because he doesn’t have too” answer you continue to give.

    I sure hope you aren’t or have ever been a teacher, and if you were a teacher, I’m glad my kids weren’t in your class.

    Then Slartibartfast comments this:

    “Again, that would not invalidate the COLB as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii (and hence proof of natural born citizenship). If, in the unlikely event that happened, people wanted to see more information before voting for President Obama for a second term, that’s their right – the president would then do as he chose to and would have to accept the consequences. I’m guessing that even in the highly improbable scenario that the President was not born at Kapiolani very few people would base their vote on whether or not he released more information. I know mine wouldn’t.”

    Of course you wouldn’t be influenced by information contrary to what you have admitting to believing.

    You believe it, so it has to be true.

    To me the questions remain, and deserve to be answered.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “And President Obama has released more information regarding his eligibility than any of his predecessors – campaign promise fulfilled!”

    Again, simply because you make the statement does not make it true.

    Obama has released ONE document, the rest of the released information has been released by PEOPLE who rarely had any ties to Obama.

    McCain released his long form BC, so you can NOT claim Obama has released “more” information.

    McCain has him beat.

    This is undebatable.

    Slartibartfast states:

    “She said “President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website”. How much clearer does she need to be?”

    She didn’t say “ceritified” copy, or that he had “obtained that copy” from the State of Hawaii, now did she?

    I could find on the internet a blank copy of a Hawaiian COLB, fill in the blanks, post it on the internet and Fukino would have been correct in making that statement about me.

    I wasn’t born there, but the statement would still be true.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “I’m familiar with those questions and I find them highly dubious (the methodology of the investigations which raised the questions is suspect at best…). You are welcome to attempt to raise such questions in front of a judge, but remember what I said about fines…”

    But yet you want to try to use the intimidation of fines as your arguement to NOT raise the question.

    Interesting that although you admit the question is legitimate (although in your opinion “dubious”), you want to keep us from asking the question with the “but there may be consequences to asking that question” tactic.

    Very interesting indeed.

    I have to break this next comment from Slartibartfast down:

    “Why are you keeping all of your documents sealed?”

    No one has asked for them to be released. Besides, this tactic is common also.

    Look, I’m not the President, and I don’t think I’ll be running for President any time soon. The bottom line is that I WOULD release the documents, no ands, ifs or buts about it. I would look at the issue, and tell my staff to release EVERYTHING they want released. But then earlier I believe you suggested something about “character” or something.

    For ANYONE to suggest that the answer to people asking questions is making a law that makes it illegal to ask the question, is irresponsible and an irrational tact to take.

    That’s what Hawaii is doing. 50 inquiries a month, and the State of Hawaii wants to make it illegal for the people to ask the Government to do their job.

    I shake my head in disgust at these tactics.

    Does the Presdient have to be held to a “higher” standard?

    ABSOLUTELY.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “You have spent as much money as President Obama has to seal your personal records… none at all – they are protected from release by law.”

    UMMMMMMMMMM, I’m sorry, but you admitted earlier that Obama HAD some expense for keeping the documents sealed, and now you claim Obama has spent “nothing”?

    Unbelievable to me.

    Obama has spent OVER 1.4 MILLION dollars defending against releasing the documents.

    THAT is documented, and was released under law by the Administration itself.

    Oh I can’t prove that ALL of that money went toward defending the eligibility issue, but I would suggest a HUGE chunk of it did, and continues to be spent on the issue.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “Look at it from the opposite point of view: What reason does President Obama have to release any additional documents?”

    Because it would help answer the questions.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “There are no unreleased documents with additional information pertinent to the president’s eligibility.”

    Yes there are, and you know it, either that or you have your head in the sand.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “While there may be a few critics who are convinced by releasing documents, the vast majority of them will not (no document will mollify anyone who believes the two citizen parent theory). Releasing the COLB certainly didn’t make the problem go away – repeating the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.”

    Those who questioned the Global Warming issue were deemed “insane” also, but yet now they have been vindicated by the very words from those who were making the “insanity” claim.

    Interesting how somethings go down isn’t it?

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “Why? They wouldn’t have silenced his critics nor has similar information ever been released by another president or presidential candidate.”

    But Obama isn’t “another president or presidential candidate.”

    I guess if we would have simply listened to Rather back in the “Bush Military documents” issue, then the issue was closed, wasn’t it?

    It’s a good thing people did ask questions about the documents.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “Since ‘keeping them sealed’ requires only that the president take no action and there’s no upside to releasing them (unless you’ll vote for him if he does ;-) doing nothing in this case seems pretty logical to me. I sincerely hope that the president doesn’t spend any time at all thinking about this and I’m confident that is the case.”

    I agree, he is “graying” fast enough as it is. That is my attempt at humor, I hope you understand that.

    I’ll admit, he’s got the law on his side, including the Supreme Court.

    But in the “court of public opinion” the questions remain, and are only bolstered by the FACT that he is keeping them sealed.

    Slartibartfast comments:

    “You’re entitled to believe this, but, personally, I don’t think that this is the case. More importantly, I doubt that the president’s campaign staff is spending any of their time worrying about it. Personally I hope that either a state passes an eligibility bill (which I believe must either accept the COLB as sufficient or fail a Constitutional challenge) or a candidate gets standing to challenge ballot access in court in the run-up to the 2012 elections (which I believe will result in a court ruling substantially the same as the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny and the refusal of the SCOTUS to hear an appeal – why do you think the Ankeny decision wasn’t appealed to the SCOTUS?).”

    Personally, I believe the SC should take the case to answer the “Natural Born Citizen” issue once and for all.

    Then ALL of the questions would be answered.

    The way your side seems to be defending his ability to keep the documents sealed, I am skeptical of your comment.

    Slartibartfast starts his conclusion with this:

    “At the memorial in Tucson our president spoke of the need of a more civil dialogue for the good of our Republic. In the spirit of that, I ask you to consider the possibility that you may be wrong about the president’s eligibility and what the ramifications of that would be.”

    Our President spoke like the hypocrite he is saying that.

    How can the man talk about “civil dialogue” after making the “Cambridge police acted stupidly” comment, or the “sit in the back” comment, or the “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” comment, or the “get in their face” comment, or the…………………need I go on?

    I do understand the ramifications of Obama being found to be ineligible, and for the GOOD of our Country, I am willing to face those ramifications, and I’d rather do it NOW than wait until Obama is dead, and it is found out that he wasn’t eligible.

    Of course your answer then will be “what’s done is done”, forgetting that there were those of us out here simply asking LEGITIMATE questions that remain unanswered.

    Slartibartfast continues his conclusion:

    “To do myself what I’m asking of you, if it turned out that I was mistaken, then I would still be confident that all of the statements that I had made were based on a rational interpretation of the available facts made in good faith.”

    But you just don’t get it. You defend this man, and honestly, you try to vilify those simply asking questions, and then you make a comment like this?

    No, Slartibartfast, you couldn’t make that claim.

    What you COULD claim is that you took the LEAST amount of evidence, and concluded definatively that Obama was eligible. You COULD claim that with this LEAST amount of evidence, it was enough for you to conclude something that was based on a FACT, but not allowing other questions to be raised.

    “Because I said so”, I understand may be a “true” answer, however giving the “because I said so” answer doesn’t make it “completely” true.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “While I think that such an eventuality would be devastating for our country, I would not hesitate to call for the president’s resignation in such a case (although I can’t imagine what could outweigh all of the evidence that I’ve seen to date short of a ruling by the SCOTUS that ‘natural born’ status requires two citizen parents…).”

    But yet you allow the questions to remain “completely” unanswered.

    What you comment is true, I give you that, however there remains questions. Those questions could be answered by the President releasing a few pieces of paper. The President CHOOSES not to release the documents. Does he HAVE to release the documents? Absolutely not. SHOULD he release the documents? Absolutely.

    How about in the realm of “civil dialogue”? Why is he continuing to fight “civil dialogue” by hiding behind the Courts?

    It is my opinion he is doing this because he is hiding something, and he is hypocritically using the “civil dialogue” line as a cover up for what his actual agenda is.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “Think about all of the seditious rhetoric that’s been used by people questioning eligibility – if they are wrong, then they are maligning good, patriotic Americans who, acting in good faith, believe that a different course is best for our nation.”

    The “seditious rhetoric” has come from BOTH sides. It is NOT just one side that spews “seditious rhetoric”.

    That’s evident in this past week by the media suggesting without evidence that Loughner was a “right winger”, and all of the Palin crap that has been reported this week.

    You see, if people wouldn’t have asked questions, we would have thought he was some “right wing” lunatic who listened to Rush and Hannity, visited Palin’s website daily and was against all democrats.

    When you learn the TRUTH, the picture painted by the media was totally wrong.

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “Have we fallen so far that the quintessentially American idea that you would spend your last breath telling someone that what they’re saying is a load of crap while defending their right to say it is dead?”

    I guess my mind can’t process this comment. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

    I have to take these one by one:

    “I’m a progressive that thinks that President Obama’s polices haven’t been liberal enough – I would have liked a bigger stimulus”

    You mean the “stimulus” that was BORROWED money from China and Social Security?

    That “supposed stimulus” that has created or “saved” how many jobs?

    The “stimulus”, I believe has been a collossal FAILURE. It “stimulated” NOTHING, and the FACT that the money for the “stimulus” was BORROWED money just bolsters my thoughts.

    Next up:

    “a public option (medicare buy-in)”

    When will you “progressives” understand that your “centralized everything” policy has been, continues to be, and will be in the future a complete and utter failure?

    “medicare buy-in”, don’t you know that we can’t pay for medicare NOW, let alone if we expand it.

    This comment, in my opinion is an example of the irresponsibility of “progessives”.

    Next:

    “tougher Wall Street reform”

    Centeralized decision making is NOT the answer. LOCAL regulation of Wall Street is what is needed. In the current situation, the State believes that it is the Feds responsibility to regulate, and the Feds aren’t, weren’t and won’t in the future enforce the regulations on Wall Street. They will however keep throwing BORROWED money at Wall Street to “prop it up” whenever it is in trouble.

    It’s like the immigration issue. The Feds say a State CAN’T enforce it’s immigration laws because they claim it is a Federal issue, but yet the Feds WON’T enforce the laws on the books.

    And yet you believe centralized decision making is the answer.

    There are multiple examples of how centralized decision making is INeffective, but yet you “progressives” believe that at some point in time a Utopia will be achieved.

    Next:

    “more unemployment benefits (the most stimulative form of spending possible, bar none – over $1.70 worth of economic activity for every $1 spent)”

    Let me explain that I was unemployed for OVER two years, so I believe I can comment on this more informed than others could.

    My unemployment “benefit” was 390 dollars a week. Add to this a 25 dollar “bonus” (part of that “stimulus” package you believe wasn’t big enough), and I was given 415 dollars a week for simply going on line once a week, and filling out a “voucher” that claimed I submitted resumes to three perspective employers.

    Not only that, but my State set me up a bank account that the money was deposited in to, and sent me a visa card that I could use pretty much anywhere I wanted too. I could have went to the local Casino and withdrawn my money and fed it to the slots all day.

    So unless a company wanted to offer me 14 or 15 dollars an hour, what is the incentive for me to go out and seek employment? And to allow that for THREE years now?

    THAT is what you are supporting by making this comment.

    Now to be honest, I have to comment that in the over two years I was without employment, I only collected the full “benefit” for the week ONCE.

    What I did was register with all of the temporary agencies in my area, waited at home for a phone call, and went on the assignments most of the time. There was a few instances when I would get called, and have to decline because of this reason or that, but 90% pf the time, I went to the assignment knowing it could last one day, or a week, or if I was lucky a few months.

    Unemployment paid for the difference between what I made and my “benefit”, and it did help.

    I know of people who were on unemployment and received GRANTS to attend school. I mean internet schools where you can sit at your computer and take the “classes”. One in particular received 14 THOUSAND dollars to attend one of these internet schools. I talked to the wife of the man who received this grant, and she admitted it to me. As a matter of fact, she was PROUD that her husband was doing this. Forget that he completed the course and remained unemployed, and still is as far as I know (it was at one of those temporary assignments that I met this person).

    My question to you would be “for how long and to what ends do we go too”? It was supposed to be 26 weeks, and now we have extended it to 3 YEARS.

    It’s irresponsible for you to suggest this. Don’t you understand that we can’t afford to continue down this road?

    For you to suggest that 70 cents can magically appear out of nowhere is another irresponsible response. Look, simply because it is said, doesn’t make it true. To suggest that 1 dollar in spending can reap a 1.70 “activity” is preposterous. The ONLY way it could happen is if that 70 cents come from SOMEWHERE (like a Government subsidy), it doesn’t magically appear from the heavens.

    You did claim to be a mathematician earlier didn’t you? Explain to me how you can achieve $1.70 from spending $1.00.

    Maybe it’s that “new” math I keep hearing about.

    and Last:

    “prosecution of war crimes (torture – I’m not happy about President Obama’s Justice Department asserting that he has the right to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil, either…)”

    I’m all for “prosecution of war crimes”.

    What happened at GITMO was NOT torture, in my opinion.

    You must be FUMING that Obama hasn’t closed GITMO yet especially after he signed that EO ordering it closed within one year of it’s signing.

    I’m not sure how old you are, I’m guessing early or mid thirties, but I’m thinking that you don’t understand how war SHOULD be executed.

    I’m no expert on the issue either, but I am retired military, and I can comment on this issue with “some” experience.

    We NEVER would have won WWII if we had in place the regulations on war that we have now. The atrocities commited by our military are well documented, but yet the bottom line is we won. For the good of the whole, sometimes things have to be done that aren’t pretty. You have to sink lower than your enemy to defeat them in some instances. Some people you can’t “talk it out” with, and a swift kick in the head is what is needed. It doesn’t happen often, but when it is necessary, dirty tactics are necessary to defeat the enemy. I would suggest that in the long run, those dirty tactics are justified. If pouring water up someone’s nose gets us needed information, then so be it.

    Generally there has to be guidelines, but in SOME instances, drastic measures MUST be taken.

    The pictures from Abu Grahib are a good example of something that was NOT justified, and those who were involved were punished, and rightfully so.

    The waterboarding of the GITMO 3 was justified, and no punishment is warranted.

    That’s my opinion.

    Slartibartfast goes on:

    “I can support all of these positions (and more ;-) with rational arguments – I’m not trying to institute communism or bring down the American government, I’m trying to save our country from the unregulated free-market capitalism which is annihilating the middle class (in my opinion – which I can support with facts and logical reasoning) and is being championed by the right.”

    Your arguments are NOT “rational” in my mind, they are irresponsible AND irrational.

    I can understand how you came to believe these “rational” arguments, because I understand that it started back before you and I were born. The indoctrination process of being taught that the Government is the answer to all of our problems was started back in the 40′s, and has evolved in to what you believe today.

    For you to comment that our “free market” system is “unregulated” is either you being uniformed, or you spouting something that has been pounded in to your head for decades.

    We have NEVER been more regulated than we are right now. And what good has it done? Regulation BREEDS corruption and fraud.

    The Global Warming example comes to mind.

    When will you learn?

    Slartibartfast continues:

    “If people don’t realize that just because someone disagrees with you does not make them evil pretty soon, then civil discourse will cease to exist and the Republic will fall (okay, that’s a little bit of hyperbole…).”

    As long as your comment is made with the understanding that the rhetoric comes from BOTH sides, then I would agree.

    The problem with this is that “civil discourse” ceased to exist long ago. You can claim that “centralized decision making” is the right way to go, but history teaches us that it is a FAILED policy that given the ability to expand eventually will force the Republic to fail.

    You are flawed in believing that Government is the answer to all of our problems. It won’t happen, not in our lifetime, or even after we are long gone. A “golden Utopia” is not possible. We can not manufacture a “perfect society”. We can discuss doing this or that, but the problem is, you “progressives” are never satisfied. You can never get enough “control” over each and every aspect of our lives.

    Oh you can tout this story about this or that “success”, but as a whole these policies are FAILURES, especially when you factor in the “activity” quotient you referred to earlier.

    The bottom line is this,

    Social Security is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Medicare is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Medicaid is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Agriculture subsidies are a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Education regulation is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Transportation regulation is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE
    Immigration regulation is a FAILURE and has over decades been expanded to become a bigger FAILURE

    You see a pattern here?

    I am more than willing to debate policy with you.

    Slartibartfast finally concludes his final comment with this:

    “I hope that throughout this comment I have shown you appropriate respect and always assumed that, even when I thought that your facts or your reasoning were faulty, your intentions were good (yours too, Mr. Anderson) and I ask that you extend the same courtesy to me. In return I promise to answer any questions you may have honestly and to the best of my ability.”

    You were very respectful Slartibartfast, and I hope you find my responses respectful of you.

    My comments are heart felt, and stem from my belief that Obama hasn’t shown ALL of the evidence that would prove he is eligible to be President.

    I have always contended that asking the questions are the right thing to do.

    The way the answers are given, at least in my opinion, “speak” volumes.

    IS Obama Constitutionally eligible to be President?

    I’m not sure

    Has Obama given proof that he is eligible to be President?

    Yes, unless as you commented above, the SC would finally and decisively (not a 5-4 decision) give a definition of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.

    Has Obama provided ALL of the proof that he is eligible to be President?

    Absolutely NOT

    It has taken me quite a while to type all of this, so please excuse any misspellings.

    It has been nice debating you.

  46. Interested Bystander says:

    Darn that’s a long comment!!!!!!!!!!

    LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s