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.
January 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Interested Bystander,
I’ll answer your post later, but I wanted to apologize for misstating your name – it was an accident and in no way intentional – my bad, sorry.
January 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm
“Slartibartfast Says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Interested Bystander,
I’ll answer your post later, but I wanted to apologize for misstating your name – it was an accident and in no way intentional – my bad, sorry.”
It’s all good, no offense taken.
January 16, 2011 at 2:41 am
Slartibartfast,
If you have the time, please read this article and let me know what you think of it:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/disclosure-required/
Could it be that the State of Hawaii is deliberately violating their own laws by keeping the long form birth certificate sealed?
NAAAAAAAAAA, a “Republican” Adminsitration would never do that.
Or would they?
January 16, 2011 at 2:57 am
IB,
I’ve looked at the article (not read it all) and my first impression is that no action of the Hawai’i DOH can invalidate President Obama’s right to privacy – if there was a crime here, President Obama would be the victim (if the Hawai’i DOH violated his privacy in some way) and I can’t imagine that he would file a complaint… I’ll answer in more detail later.
Mr. Anderson,
I note that there is a comment of mine hung up in moderation (most likely caught in your spam filter) – do you not allow commenters to include links? (There are 2 links in the comment)
January 16, 2011 at 5:24 am
Slartibartfast comments:
“I’ve looked at the article (not read it all) and my first impression is that no action of the Hawai’i DOH can invalidate President Obama’s right to privacy – if there was a crime here, President Obama would be the victim (if the Hawai’i DOH violated his privacy in some way) and I can’t imagine that he would file a complaint… I’ll answer in more detail later.”
But come on Slartibartfast, didn’t OBAMA give up his “right to privacy” when he posted the COLB on the internet AND wrote that letter to the hospital?
When I’ve asked folks why Kapiolani won’t verify Obama as his place of birth, the answer given is that State Law doesn’t allow it without consent. Obama consented when he sent that letter to Kapiolani, but yet they continue to give the “State Law” answer, and they took the letter down from thier site.
So Obama has given his permission, at least in my opinion, for the release of his long form birth certificate, by his actions.
I still don’t understand why Obama wouldn’t VOLUNARILY release the documents?
The “because he doesn’t have too” argument stinks of having something to hide.
The issue won’t go away, even after he leaves office, until the questions are answered.
As far as your other comment, I’ve noticed that if you link more than one article to your comment, the post goes to moderation.
That’s why my comments only have one link in them.
January 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
Slartibartfast,
I have been offline for a long weekend. Your comment submitted on 2011/01/14 at 4:00 am was automatically held, by WordPress, for moderation because it had 3 hyperlinks. I just double-checked the settings and it says, “Hold a comment in the queue if it contains 3 or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.)”
I’ll go release that comment now. I can see that it is quite a long one, and that you and Interested Bystander have exchanged a few long comments over the last three days. I’ve got some other things to catch up on after this weekend, so it may be a while before I have time to read through those comments. I did, though, note the opening of your previously-held comment…
You really want to make that argument?
It really makes you sound like Bill Clinton:
January 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Is the POTUS an employee?
Well, ask yourself: Is the POTUS paid a salary?
The answer is YES.
Every job position listed in this document (archived here) is employed by, and paid a salary by, We the People.
They work for us.
Remember when President Lincoln famously said:
We pay their salary. They work for us. They are our employees, and we are their employer.
January 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“Tollgrade”/”tellen”/”hardy”/”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.
January 18, 2011 at 10:39 am
White House Insider:
1) Obama Celebrates Shortly After Delivering Tucson Memorial Speech
2) “The birther stuff”
January 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm
The troll who goes by many names has left a comment
(which will be held in moderation until the troll explains why they deceptively go by many names)
which supposedly quotes Edwin Meese, et al, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005). The troll did not leave any link to substantiate their claim, but I may be able to view a copy of this reference at a library. In the mean time, I offer this quote from a Heritage Q&A:
Our country’s current immigration law (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) requires that:
The President is our employee. He must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and prove that he is not only eligible to work in the United States, but also eligible to hold the office of President. The only acceptable documentation to prove that is a birth certificate. We the People, as the employer of the President, have not only the right, but the LEGAL OBLIGATION to inspect this documentation.
January 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Also from Heritage:
January 18, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Also from Heritage:
January 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Note, too, that back in 2008 the “Fight the Smears” web site (paid for by “Obama for America”), claimed the following:
June 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
Archived to: http://www.webcitation.org/5vYudTgWu
July 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080731085031/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
Archived to: http://www.webcitation.org/5vYvZO9r0
You’ll note that what was posted then is different from what is posted now…
Today (Jan 2011)
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
http://www.webcitation.org/5vYveHuaJ
Note that they admit that the man claimed as Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That man was not permanently domiciled in the United States, so it the ruling in Wong Kim Ark (which ruled Wong Kim Ark a citizen, not a “natural born citizen”) is not applicable to Obama. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both permanently domiciled in the United States. Obama’s parents were not.
And, note that the current version of the “Fight the Smears” site goes on to say:
That same act [the British Nationality Act of 1948] governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Again, the larger quote:
Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject. So was his son.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born a subject of a foreign nation.
At the time of the passing of the 14th Amendment, it was understood at the time to mean, quoting then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull, “not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to Obama…
… and you’ll note that they no longer refer to the 14th Amendment on the “Fight the Smears” web site. They can try to scrub the site, but they can’t scrub the archives.
If the “Obama birth narrative” is true, then he was not born a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America.
The only way for Obama to have been born a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America would be if the “Obama birth narrative” is not true. And if the “Obama birth narrative” is not true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.
So, either way, he is not eligible to hold the office of President.
He’s either a usurper or he’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
January 18, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Mr. Anderson,
Thanks for releasing my comment from moderation. I’m fighting through a cold right now, so I doubt I will post much in the next couple of days, but I am enjoying this discussion and will respond to you and IB eventually. In the meantime enjoy the drubbing of the Wolfpack tomorrow night…
BIG! HIGH! SCHOOL!
BIGHIGHSCHOOL!
January 19, 2011 at 9:29 am
[...] have Questions for Speaker Boehner. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Hawaii Sent Two Certificates to Congress, [...]
January 19, 2011 at 11:00 am
January 19, 2011 at 12:29 pm
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/hawaii-governor-neil-abercrombie.html
January 19, 2011 at 12:29 pm
July 27, 2009
January 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Mr. Anderson,
The article from American Thinker which you posted is incorrect – the article says:
“Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”
This is actually a statement made by Auma to President Obama (as is clear from the context of the quote). This makes more sense – Auma would be MUCH more likely to be concerned about their father’s inheritance than a Harvard educated lawyer. Additionally, the term ‘mum’ is more apropos of a British English speaker than an American English speaker.
I would also note that I saw the Ed Meese quote from the Heritage Foundation over on Doc Conspiracy’s website in the past week or so – I’ll try to find it and provide you with a link.
January 19, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Mr. Anderson,
Thanks for releasing my comment – I’ll keep it to two links or less from now on…
As to my questioning the definition of ‘employee’ – if we were talking about using the term in casual conversation, I would agree with you, but in the context of a law the term likely has a more restrictive (and more precisely specified) meaning. It is my guess that the statue you cite is unlikely to apply to elected officials (in fact, it can’t apply to the president – a law cannot change the qualifications for the presidency.
January 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Mr. Anderson,
I see that you have posted some material from the person that goes by ‘Ulsterman’ – I thought you might like to know some more about your source…
http://ulster-man.blogspot.com/
January 19, 2011 at 10:25 pm
IB posted:
The right to privacy is a law that applies to the State of Hawai’i, not President Obama – his releasing of a copy of his birth certificate doesn’t violate that right, nor does it waive it. If you want to know more about HIPPA regulations, you can find out here:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html
Look at it this way – if having a letter read in public is waiving privacy, how is the state registrar supposed to know whether or not someone has done this? You want to treat President Obama differently than other citizens – not surprising since you want to subject him to different standards than his predecessors.
You have the right to your own opinion, however, that doesn’t change the law.
He released an image of a document that is proof that the allegation (of ineligibility) is false in any court in the land – given the reaction to that, I can’t imagine why he WOULD release anything in addition…
Honestly, I doubt that the issue ever crosses the President’s mind (I certainly hope it doesn’t – I want him concentrating on more important things). You are free to think that it ‘stinks of having something to hide’ (a sentiment that flies in the face of our principles of jurisprudence, by the way…) but since we know that in response to allegations that he wasn’t a natural born citizen, he provided an image of his birth certificate which has been inspected by a non-partisan group, had the pertinent information which it contained verified several times by Hawai’ian officials, and has been confirmed to be a copy of his birth certificate in testimony to the Hawai’ian legislature
I doubt that it will go away even then (if you mean that some people will think he’s still hiding something) but I don’t think that it will be a significant issue in the 2012 election (it was the kiss of death in the 2010 election for candidates like JD Hayworth). Already the Republicans are showing no inclination to touch the question – Speaker Bohner says Hawai’i word is good enough for him and Rep. Issa has put investigations into President Obama’s past (before he was president) off limits – it seems he doesn’t want a repeat of Whitewater (and the re-election and increased popularity of the president that came with it). The only one entertaining the question seems to be Governor Abercrombie – and I don’t think that you are going to like (or accept) whatever he gives you.
Yeah, I’ll probably use de-natured links in the future (‘.’ replaced with ‘(dot)’) as I tend to use a lot of sources and I don’t want to ask you to take my word for things – as I said before, if you want the link for the source of something I said, just ask. The two links I gave were pages with long lists of quotes supporting my (or the Ankeny court’s – you may assume that our views are the same) interpretation of ‘natural born citizen’ and the use of the terms ‘natural born’ and ‘native born’ interchangeably, by the way – you might want to check them out… (if only to try to debunk them).
January 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Mr. Anderson,
A further observation about the IRCA of 1986:
President Obama and Vice-President Biden were elected, not hired…
January 20, 2011 at 8:15 am
Slartibartfast,
I would agree that a simple law cannot alter the Constitution. In theory, only a Constitutional amendment can alter the Constitution. In practice, a court ruling by one or more liberal activist judges has also been known to alter the Constitution… like turning the First Amendment upside-down and turning the Declaration of Independence upside-down in order to create a “right” to infanticide that simply does not exist in the Constitution.
Coming back to your statement:
Again, I would agree that a simple law cannot alter the Constitution. But the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not change the qualifications for any job. It merely requires documentation to prove that the employee is legally authorized to hold that job. And the citizenship requirements required to legally hold the Presidency are higher than the citizenship requirements required to legally hold practically any other job in the country. (Some jobs that are highly sensitive regarding national security also require that the job holder be a natural born citizen of the United States).
The President and Vice-President are Constitutionally required to be natural born citizens of the United States.
Every employee hired after November 6, 1986 is legally required to provide documentary proof along with a completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to prove that they are legally eligible to hold that job.
As with many jobs, there were multiple candidates competing for the jobs of President and Vice-President. The election pertains to how they were chosen for the jobs. It doesn’t change the fact that they were hired to start performing their jobs on January 20, 2009, and started drawing their respective salaries for those positions.
It’s hard to believe that you are trying this hard to say that the POTUS and VPOTUS should not have to obey the law like everyone else.
Where is all that “transparency” that Obama promised?
January 20, 2011 at 8:29 am
The postings at that link are posted by someone going by the name of “Munsterwoman”. Tell me why I should doubt “Ulsterman” but trust “Munsterwoman”.
It’s no secret that the Natural Born Citizen issue is still very much an issue, despite 2.5 years worth of Obama’s handlers trying to make it all go away.
Lt. Col. Lakin asked for Obama to release his original, initial birth certificate, and Lt. Col. Lakin refused to deploy under orders originating from an undocumented Commander-in-Chief.
The fact remains that Obama would rather see Lt. Col. Lakin go to jail than authorize the release of his own Hawaiian vital records. I find that behavior to be despicable and reprehensible.
And illegal. If Obama has not provided this hard copy documentation along with a completed Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, then he is in violation of current Immigration law.
January 20, 2011 at 8:32 am
Again,
“Tollgrade”/”tellen”/”hardy”/”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.
January 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
The Contrapositive: If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent
January 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm
> You don’t believe that 70 cases is proof Obama is fighting this “tooth and nail”?
No. It is rather cynical to bring 70 bogus lawsuits against someone and then claim that this is “evidence” of the fact that this person is fighting “tooth and nail”. But that reasoning, if I get 70 of your neighbours to sue you for slander, it means you’re guilty because you’re “fighting tooth and nail” against these bogus claims?
> 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?
Your belief is irrelevant. Facts count. It is a fact that Obama paid about $2 million for his entire legal department since 2008. Assuming that 100% (or even 30%) went into birther lawsuits is both ridiculous and an irrelevant allegation.
Shall I enumerate in how many of these bogus lawsuits the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendent’s costs?
Shall we count in how many of these 70+ lawsuits Obama was actually the defendent? In most of them, he wasn’t.
> The LEAST expensive way to answer these questions would be to release the documents.
Again, a cynical argument. I could also sue you 100 times to release your private diary and at some point say “why are you spending $50,000 on your lawyers instead of just showing me your diary?”.
> 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.
The problem is simply that birthers will continue to claim 2+2=5, no matter how 2+2=4 is proven to them. Constantly moving the goalposts has been their favourite game for 2 years. You know, going from “long form BC” to “doctor’s signatures” to “kindergarten records” to “you need two citizen parents to be NBC” to “Hawaii isn’t even a bona-fide state”?
> 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.
I need not prove to toddlers that 1 + … + n = 1/2 * n * (n+1).
I need not prove to fools that Earth revolves around the Sun.
> Releasing the collaborating documents would only bolster Obama’s release of the COLB.
No, as the COLB has proven, it would just spur more inventive reasoning from the birthers why these documents are not enough or “faked” or whatever.
> And you continue to suggest that we are wrong for asking him to release the documents?
No, but you simply don’t have the right to have them produced. Just like you don’t have the right to be taken on a trip to the ISS to convince you Earth is not flat.
> The tact of fight these questions in the Court only bolsters my belief that he is hiding something.
Your belief is entirely irrelevant. Just like no sane Christian argues with a Jew or Buddhist whose faith “has it right”.
> As you go in to later there is the school registration form.
Which states “place of birth: Hawaii”. How very selective to ignore that, but take anything else on that form as “fact”.
> There is no evidence Lolo DIDN’T adopt Obama.
There is no evidence God didn’t bury the dinosaur skeletons. Yet no-one actually believes he did.
> 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.
Vague allegations do not constitute “reasonable doubt”.
It is also possible he beamed to Pakistan using his CIA friends’ super-secret transportation technology. So?
> 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”.
No, no-one is using such twisted logic. Except for birthers who claim things like “because I didn’t find anyone at Columbia who remembers Obama, this proves he didn’t attend Columbia”.
So much for now. ;)
January 21, 2011 at 3:48 am
IB,
Here’s a response to the first part of your long comment – I will continue responding as I have time to do so.
IB posted:
73 cases are proof that some people are fighting ‘tooth and nail’ AGAINST President Obama, an 0-72 record so far is an indication that those people’s cases lack merit, and some of the judges’ decisions indicate that many of the cases are frivolous (Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, and John Hemenway have all been fined, reprimanded, and/or had their cases called frivolous by judges). Do you think the eligibility question should be pursued through the courts? If so, how? I think that the only possible way this could be addressed by the courts is either by a challenge regarding ballot access (you should be looking for a candidate if you want to get standing) or via a challenge to a state eligibility law (which doesn’t look like it is going to happen). Your only other recourse is to work to get President Obama voted out of office in 2012 or wait until six years from today. Those are pretty much the choices the Constitution gives you.
The only number that I have seen that was properly sourced was a figure under $2 million for campaign legal fees (fighting eligibility lawsuits would certainly be the province of the campaign legal department) – that’s less that $2 million in TOTAL legal fees for the campaign – for a campaign that spent the better part of $1 billion, that seems reasonable to me.
I’m guessing that the President is represented by the Office of the White House Counsel, not the Justice Department – since he is the legitimate president (the established process was followed) he is entitled to the benefits of office, one of which is being represented by government counsel. I blame the bringers of frivolous lawsuits for the costs of said lawsuits (as the courts frequently do). In several of these cases, plaintiffs have been ordered to pay the costs for the defense – in these cases, defense lawyers have only claimed a few billable hours for their costs (in one they claimed no costs at all – pretty decent, in my opinion). You should also be aware that few of these cases actually named President Obama as a defendant, so for the most part each of the 72 cases cost him nothing.
This is simply not true. According to lawyers, the cheapest way to settle a case is to get it dismissed (the sooner the better) – which is exactly what the president’s lawyers have done. Also, as I have already mentioned, I don’t believe that ANY of these lawsuits would be settled by releasing records (none of President Obama’s records are relevant to the 2 citizen parent argument).
President Obama is talking about transparency in government (in my opinion, he’s been better than his predecessor on this but not as good as he could have been) not giving anyone who wants it free reign to go on a fishing expedition through his personal records. You will eventually get most of what you want – you’ll just have to wait for his presidential library…
Your metaphor is pretty muddled but, when teaching math (something that I have about a decade of experience doing, by the way), you only need to prove something once – that’s the point of proving it: once you’ve established the basics of arithmetic, 2+2=4 unquestionably. Pedagogically speaking, first you teach the principle (addition) then you teach the application (e.g. apples, pencils, or desks) – I would never try to teach someone an application before they had grasped the principle. In this case, given the available evidence, the president’s eligibility has been proven to a legal certainty (meaning that some new evidence would be required to call it into question in a court of law).
You can ask for anything you want, the question is what you think should happen when your request goes unanswered. Some people (and I am referring to neither you nor Mr. Anderson) in the eligibility movement have filed frivolous lawsuits (which they don’t have standing to bring and the courts don’t have the power to grant the remedy they ask for), suggested that none of his acts as president are valid, suggested that the military has a duty to refuse to obey their orders (ask an active duty member of the military how they feel about ‘blue falcons’ like convicted felon Lakin – you’ll find that they’re not exactly considered heroes…), and some have even advocated sedition (this is in addition to some truly hateful and bigoted language directed at the President and the First Lady – within people’s rights but despicable and unAmerican, in my opinion). These are not appropriate actions – President Obama was legally elected, certified, and inaugurated as president (even though it took Chief Justice Roberts two tries…). At this point, the only CONSTITUTIONAL ways to remove him are impeachment or a majority vote by his cabinet as to his disability to discharge the office. Anything else is basically a coup attempt. You’re free to say whatever you want, believe whatever you want and post whatever you want on the internet – and so am I. I believe that my theories are more reasonable and sources are more credible than yours, but anyone reading this gets to make up their own mind.
Not all questions are created equal – some are more important than others. I don’t think that the remaining unanswered questions are significant compared to, for example, actual questions of policy like health insurance reform, Wall Street reform, stimulus, etc. The COLB doesn’t answer ALL questions – it is just sufficient legal proof of natural born citizenship.
I didn’t hire a teacher as president, I hired a community organizer. I think the president would lose more votes if he spent time and effort on this issue than he would gain by releasing every scrap of information available. Would you vote for him if he released everything (assuming it was consistent with his birth narrative)?
You’re entitled to your beliefs.
No, people have filed frivolous lawsuits against him – personally, I tend to sympathize with the victim of frivolous lawsuits rather than the perpetrator… The courts are not an appropriate venue to ask these questions (not until someone has standing, anyway – my suggestion is to get a candidate on the ballot in a single state in order to have standing to question ballot access – and in any case, the end result of a court case will run along the lines of COLB + Wong Kim Ark (with some Minor v. Happerstat on the side)+ 14th Amendment + American common law (= English common law) + Calvin’s case = natural born citizen. That’s my prediction, anyway.
I’m sure the questions are legitimate to you, but I don’t think many people will take you seriously until you have some evidence of wrongdoing by President Obama (or anyone else). The burden of proof is on the accuser – until you (meaning the eligibility movement generally) can shoulder this burden, I wouldn’t expect to make any progress…
And how is the school registration ‘evidence’ of an adoption? Especially since, if adopted, it is highly unlikely that he would change his name to Soetoro (which would be an affront to the Obama family as well as Allah – hard to argue that a muslim in a muslim nation would do this…). Furthermore, none of this is significant since, even if the president had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he would not have lost his US citizenship or natural born status (see Perkins v. Elg)
No, I feel that a document that has been authenticated multiple times by Hawai’ian officials and would be considered proof of Hawai’ian birth (absent evidence to the contrary that has not yet come to light) and hence natural born citizenship in any courthouse in the United States (including the SCOTUS) is sufficient proof.
I should have said ‘no CREDIBLE evidence’ (and I suggested why the evidence wasn’t credible, in my opinion). You can keep looking if you like, but there’s nothing to see…
I didn’t say that Lolo was a man of good character, I said that I would consider someone telling a small lie to get their stepson an education an indication of good character (in my opinion) and stated that I believed such a scenario was the most likely explanation for his name being ‘Barry Soetoro’ (born in Hawai’i by the way – authenticate the school records as a source and you lose the whole ballgame…) in the school registration book. Mostly I don’t think about Mr. Soetoro – certainly I don’t base my evaluation of the president on anything about him…
I don’t really care about this as it has absolutely no bearing on President Obama’s eligibility – if you want to use his stepdad as a reason that you don’t like President Obama, that’s your right, but I think that it is silly and illogical.
Please don’t put words in my mouth – I don’t believe that nor did I ever say anything that could be construed as such. And that wasn’t an analogy – I think the word you wanted was ‘justification’ or ‘rationalization’. Unless you were trying to make an analogy between lying on a school registration and lying to stay in the country, in which case it is a false analogy because one act is altruistic and the other is selfish.
Yes, President Obama was OVER the age of 5. The pertinent Indonesian law is:
As you can see, in order for President Obama to have obtained Indonesian citizenship he would have needed to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN Indonesia BEFORE his 5th birthday. I trust we can dispense with Indonesian citizenship now? (It was always irrelevant, in any case…)
If you would like more information or links to the Indonesian statutes, you may find them here:
badfiction(dot)typepad(dot)com/badfiction/the-indonesian-citizenship-myth.html
Most reasonable people don’t put much credence in an accusation until there is credible evidence that it is true. In courts the burden of proof is always on the accuser. You fail to meet any reasonable standard for taking your assertion seriously.
Ask away, just don’t think that you have a right to get answers. Do you honestly think that there is a single person out there saying ‘Gee, I really like President Obama and I think that his policies are great, but I’m concerned about his eligibility and I wont vote for him unless I see his long form birth certificate’? There’s no political upside to answering questions (and a huge upside if they are raised by the Republicans), nor is there any moral or legal need for the president to do so – so why should he answer any questions again?
January 21, 2011 at 3:49 am
Oops – it looks like I missed a couple of s – sorry, my bad!
January 21, 2011 at 5:33 am
Mr. Anderson,
I’m posting my responses to you under the pseudonym ‘Agent Smith’ in order to distinguish them from my responses to IB as ‘Slartibartfast’ (and because it amuses me to do so ;-) not to try to deceive anyone as to my identity. Do you like my other gravatar?
Mr. Anderson posted:
You shouldn’t – you should read both and make up your own mind how much credence you give either of them – personally, I’m not inclined to give ‘Ulsterman’ much credibility, but everyone should make up their own mind based on all of the evidence.
I don’t think that it is nearly as significant as, say, health care and I think that the president’s handlers would love nothing more than for Speaker Bohner or Rep. Issa to pursue the issue. We’ll see how it plays out in the next 2 years, but I don’t think you will see any Republican legislators act on the eligibility issue in any way (maybe at the state level, but I still think it’s doubtful).
Convicted felon Lakin decided of his own free will (and, I believe, on the basis of poor legal advice) to disobey a valid order. Even if President Obama was ineligible for office, the order would still have been valid. According to military jurisprudence (the defacto officer doctrine and US v. New) the only illegal orders are orders that are illegal on their face, i.e. ‘shoot those civilians’ not ‘report to a base for deployment to Afghanistan’.
CF Lakin’s case would not have been changed had President Obama released every record he has – his fate was sealed when he decided to disobey his commanding officer (one of two active-duty medal of honor recipients, by the way). Furthermore, he put the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk when his replacement was forced to deal with a muti-casualty attack shortly after his arrival in the theater without the proper training (which CF Lakin had been given). I consider that behavior despicable and reprehensible – who do you think most members of the military would agree with?
I didn’t read the entire text of the bill, but to the best of my understanding, President Obama is not subject to this bill as he was elected not hired and if he were to be subject to this bill, then the bill would be unConstitutional due to changing the requirements for the presidency. President Obama was vetted by the same Constitutionally and legally established process as were his predecessors – if you think this process isn’t stringent enough you may work to change it, but you can’t apply a new standard retroactively to President Obama and a certified copy of the COLB will satisfy any Constitutional standard (that’s just my opinion, but my side has a much better record of predicting these things…). The President and Vice-President only have to obey laws which apply to them – if you believe that this law applies to them then you should file a FOIA request for the Form I-9 – then you would find out whether it was on file or if it doesn’t exist (or if the public had a right to see someone’s Form I-9). Whatever the response, you would get more information.
As for your comment regarding a ‘right to infanticide’ I will note that it is impossible to assert the rights of the fetus without compromising the rights of the mother – until an embryo can be removed and brought to term (not to mention raised) without the help of the mother this is necessarily true. In any case humanity cannot continue our current growth – the Earth’s carrying capacity will be exceeded if we continue our current birth rate (leading to things like food riots, famine, and war – the population WILL cease growing at its current rate, one way or the other) and if you’re familiar with exponential growth, you’d know this is a problem that must be tackled sooner rather than later – I’d prefer to do this with contraception (voluntary and freely available) and abortion being cheap, safe, and RARE (ideally, no unwanted pregnancies would occur) but in the meantime I believe in a woman’s right to choose.
If you want an example of President Obama being more transparent than his predecessor, I would refer you to the executive order he signed on his first day in office. It repealed a more restrictive executive order regarding presidential records (it doesn’t affect any records from prior to being elected president) issued by President Bush (II) and replaced it with a more transparent standard which is nearly word-for-word the same as an executive order issued by President Reagan. Don’t believe me? Good. You can find links to the text of all three executive orders here:
badfiction(dot)typepad(dot)com/badfiction/the-executive-order-13489-myth.html
January 21, 2011 at 8:37 am
Agent Smith,
I will permit your posting your responses to me under the pseudonym ‘Agent Smith’ in order to distinguish them from your responses to Interested Bystander as ‘Slartibartfast’. I can go along with the joke, and you have been upfront about who you are (even to the point of voluntarily revealing your true identity) and why you are using more than one pseudonym here. Clearly there is no deception intended, as there has been with previous commenters who used multiple pseudonyms and were moderated for doing so. You’re being honest and just having some fun, so you’re fine. And yes, I like both of your gravatars.
January 21, 2011 at 9:00 am
Agent Smith,
Your file of documentation on me (Mr. Anderson) is quite thick.
How many documents do you have for Mr. Obama?
January 21, 2011 at 11:48 am
Kevin,
In regards to your comments about abortion, please read what I wrote here.
January 21, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Mr. Anderson,
In regard to your comments about adoption, I would note that I am a big advocate of adoption being that I was adopted myself (before Roe v. Wade – I stand by my position even though it may have resulted in my never being born because I believe it to be the correct one). I believe that we can both agree that unwanted pregnancies should be rare (I don’t know your stand on contraception, but it is the only viable way to accomplish this), giving a baby up for adoption should be as easy as possible for the mother, and abortion should be as close to non-exsistant as possible (ideally only in cases where carrying the fetus to term would endanger the life of the mother – I could never support what I see as capital punishment for getting pregnant – and cases where the fetus isn’t viable – I see no reason to make a woman give birth to a dead baby. In both of these cases, I would note, a late term abortion may be necessary and must be available (although I could support a ban on late-term ELECTIVE abortions – if you can’t make up your mind in six months, then you can sit on the fence for 3 more and give the child up for adoption if you wish). Since we’re already discussing sensitive and contentious issues, I suggest we take whatever sliver of agreement we have on this and agree to disagree on the rest. My general inclination regarding issues not related to eligibility is to state my position but not defend it – I’m interested in a discussion about eligibility (and there’s certainly plenty of ground to cover there), not about abortion or my politics…
January 21, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I should have noticed that you addressed the abortion comment to ‘Kevin’ – which, if I understand you correctly, was a effort to distinguish that from the rest of our debate. Please consider that my previous post was from ‘Kevin’ rather than ‘Agent Smith’.
January 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Kevin,
unwanted pregnancy != unwanted baby
Even a woman with an “unwanted pregnancy” can sacrifice a little bit of her own life in order to save the life of someone else. Carry the child to term and give it up for adoption. The baby produced from that “unwanted pregnancy” is very much wanted by people who want to adopt.
As to “cases where carrying the fetus to term would endanger the life of the mother”, please read the two consecutive comments I wrote that start here.
Yet you do support capital punishment for getting pregnant, and you don’t even realize the irony of your statement. You don’t support capital punishment for the mother, but you do support capital punishment for the child. That is exactly what abortion is… capital punishment for the child.
January 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Agent Smith,
Please tell me what documents you have in your folder for Mr. Obama.
Alternatively, please name the members of Congress who have personally inspected the hard copy birth certificates for Barack Hussein Obama II and Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., as part of the Legislate Branch’s responsibility under the Constitution (Section 3 of the 20th Amendment) to determine whether or not the President and Vice-President qualify to hold the office of President (per the Article II Section 1 eligibility requirements).
January 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm
John (as in ‘John Doe’ since I don’t know your real name),
You may argue that the mother’s loss of rights is an acceptable sacrifice to respect the rights of the fetus, but it is a logical necessity that any right attaching to the fetus has a concomitant right being denied to the mother (do you like the word ‘concomitant’? I’ve never had a chance to try it out before…). I agree with your distinction between unwanted pregnancies and unwanted babies and respect that you have a well-articulated, logical position (and I hope you feel likewise). On this issue, I think that our disagreement is based on our differing assumptions – I don’t think either of us are making faulty arguments, I just think we’re starting from different axioms. What do you think about the inevitability of controlling our birthrate or suffering a malthusian catastrophe? Just because your god told you to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ doesn’t mean that it is the best course for the human race as a whole.
January 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Agent Smith is unavailable right now. He will get back to you as soon as possible, thank you for your patience.
January 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Kevin,
You can call me “Red Pill”, or “RP”, or “Red”. Just don’t call me late for dinner (ba-dum-tish!)
What right is being denied to the mother? Do find a “right to not be pregnant” in a “penumbra” of the Constitution?
I think “the inevitability of controlling our birthrate or suffering a malthusian catastrophe” is a faulty argument, as I do not believe that “a malthusian catastrophe” is an “inevitability” if we don’t “control our birthrate”.
What, in your opinion, is the optimal size for the human population, and why?
There are people who paid a lot of money to literally carve in stone, “MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE“. Reducing the world population from 6.8 Billion to 0.5 Billion would mean exterminating over 92% of the world’s population. I think that is Satanic.
January 21, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Red,
You said: “You can call me “Red Pill”, or “RP”, or “Red”. Just don’t call me late for dinner (ba-dum-tish!)”
I didn’t picture you as old enough to remember Ray Jay Johnson… =P
You said: “What right is being denied to the mother? Do [you] find a “right to not be pregnant” in [the] “penumbra” of the Constitution?” [I'm not trying to nitpick your grammar, just to clarify what you're saying - please correct me if I'm wrong.]
What I meant by rights being denied to the mother was that, in light of the fact that it is possible to perform an abortion (and hence possible for the woman to avoid going through a pregnancy), granting any rights to the fetus would, of necessity, force the mother to endure an experience that she might not want to do (especially in cases of rape or incest). A prohibition on abortion deprives a woman of her right to choose an available option – you may argue that this denial of rights is justified or that this shouldn’t be a right under the Constitution, but not that it doesn’t exist (at least you can’t argue it logically) or that it isn’t the law (unless Roe v. Wade is overturned).
You said: “I think “the inevitability of controlling our birthrate or suffering a malthusian catastrophe” is a faulty argument, as I do not believe that “a malthusian catastrophe” is an “inevitability” if we don’t “control our birthrate”.”
Fair enough. Let me ‘do the math’ for you. Assuming that global population was 2.6 billion in 1950 and 6.9 billion now and that growth is exponential (i.e. a constant birthrate), the Earth’s population will double every 43.3 years. The carrying capacity is the number of humans that the earth can currently support (this may change with time – technology, in particular, has a large impact on this). Assuming that the carrying capacity cannot grow exponentially (at least not at anywhere near the population growth rate) – which, as a mathematical biologist, I believe is a very reasonable assumption – means that the population will eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. When this happens the death rate will increase due to war, disease, famine or some other means – this is what is meant by a ‘Malthusian catastrophe’ (Named for political economist Thomas Malthus). I believe that I have just proved that a Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable if we don’t control our birthrate.
You said: “What, in your opinion, is the optimal size for the human population, and why?”
(1 – epsilon) * (carrying capacity of Earth) + (optimal sizes of any extra-terran human populations)
where epsilon is a parameter reflecting the relative importance of quantity of life and quality of life. I realize that this is not the sort of answer you were looking for, but I really do think this way – to me your question boils down to ‘what do you think epsilon should be?’ and I think that the best answer would be the value that gives the highest quality of life to the largest quantity of people. If that doesn’t answer your question I’d be happy to elaborate…
You said: “There are people who paid a lot of money to literally carve in stone, “MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE“. Reducing the world population from 6.8 Billion to 0.5 Billion would mean exterminating over 92% of the world’s population. I think that is Satanic.”
Assuming that the current total fertility rate (TFR) is 2.5 births per woman per lifetime (look up TFR in Wikipedia for more data on past and estimated TFR), that the replacement rate is 2.1 (the rate at which the population remains constant), and that the population doubles every 43 years at the current TFR, I calculate that reducing the TFR to 1 would reduce the population from 6.8 billion to 0.5 billion in a little over 38 years (the calculation is a little bit crude but should be roughly accurate). I wouldn’t call limiting women to 1 child for 4 decades ‘Satanic’, although I think it would be pretty extreme. I think that with available technology and technology that can be developed in the near future, the carrying capacity of the planet is probably in excess of 10 billion and that it would be theoretically possible to have a population in the neighborhood of what we have now with a minimum standard of living equivalent to that of the average American now – which would be, in my opinion, very near optimal. Also, I would not be in favor of legislating behavior (which always revokes rights and usually doesn’t work out quite as planned), but instead would advocate incentivizing the behavior I wanted – a tax credit for childless couples which was halved for couples with one child and quartered for couples with two children would be effective in regulating population (the birth rate could be controlled by changing the size of the credit). You’ll find that, in general, I advocate incentives for the desired behaviors and penalties (taxes) for undesirable behaviors. Elementary animal training and control theory tell us that those are the methods that work. Legislating ‘proper’ behavior, on the other hand, invites unintended consequences when people game the system in unforeseen ways and in some cases constitutes positive feedback which causes the system to oscillate out of control (this is at the root of the boom/bust cycles, in my opinion).
Well, I think that that probably wasn’t the answer that you were expecting, so I’ll give you some time to digest this as I need to reduce the amount of time I’m spending here, but I am enjoying our multi-threaded discussion and will continue it, albeit at a slower rate… (I’ll keep working on your post too, IB)
January 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Slartibartfast commented:
“The right to privacy is a law that applies to the State of Hawai’i, not President Obama – his releasing of a copy of his birth certificate doesn’t violate that right, nor does it waive it. If you want to know more about HIPPA regulations, you can find out here:”
I guess you simply do not get it.
It looks to us, and you defend Obama at every turn that it is his “right” to do so, that Obama is “hiding behind the law”.
It’s not a “law” issue, it is a MORAL issue.
The President should have the full faith of the “whole” of the Country, and if a few million people would be satisfied by Obama releasing his documents, then Obama should release them.
What is ironic to me, is that Obama won his seat in the Senate partly because documents were released about his opponent that had NOTHING to do with whether the candidate was eligible to hold the seat.
I believe that it was the media who sued to get the documents released, and the smear campaign was successful, and the candidate dropped out of the race (I may not have the whole story correct, but I believe that was the jist of the story).
Now I’m kind of interested in how someone can get some documents released using the law, especially when it has NOTHING to do with whether the candidate was eligible or not, but we can’t even get the President to voluntarily release information that DOES pertain to his eligibility, and using the law to justify him NOT releasing the documents?
It is hypocritical of the President.
Slartibartfast continues:
“Look at it this way – if having a letter read in public is waiving privacy, how is the state registrar supposed to know whether or not someone has done this? You want to treat President Obama differently than other citizens – not surprising since you want to subject him to different standards than his predecessors.”
Ok, I see your point, but I can not get over that the President won’t simply release the documents.
The letter was (and I would assume still is) on display at the hospital, so the letter wasn’t just “read in public”. And to be technical, the letter wasn’t read as written, so I’m sure there’s some law somewhere hidden deep in the bowels of the statutes that would state some gobbly goop.
That’s the whole point, MORALLY Obama should release the documents, but Obama is using a “song and dance” to keep them sealed.
It stinks is what it does. It smells like living down wind from a pig farm.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“He released an image of a document that is proof that the allegation (of ineligibility) is false in any court in the land – given the reaction to that, I can’t imagine why he WOULD release anything in addition…”
More “legal” gobbly goop. Interesting that this is the argment you keep coming up with.
Oh it’s a “valid” arguement, I’ll give you that, but it sure looks as if Obama is hiding behind the law, as I commented before.
You know, I tried a previous comment to express about how you want as much evidence as possible, and for Obama to be keeping these documents sealed, can’t you see how this sure does seem as if he is doing so to hide something?
If the documents backed up the COLB, I believe they would have been released already.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Honestly, I doubt that the issue ever crosses the President’s mind (I certainly hope it doesn’t – I want him concentrating on more important things). You are free to think that it ‘stinks of having something to hide’ (a sentiment that flies in the face of our principles of jurisprudence, by the way…) but since we know that in response to allegations that he wasn’t a natural born citizen, he provided an image of his birth certificate which has been inspected by a non-partisan group, had the pertinent information which it contained verified several times by Hawai’ian officials, and has been confirmed to be a copy of his birth certificate in testimony to the Hawai’ian legislature”
Then there should be no problem releasing the documents.
I guess I’m just not good at taking people’s word when there is a document that would verify.
His “provided document” is invalid with that line through the document number.
“Inspected by a “non-partisan” group” is laughable at best. NEITHER of those who “inspected” the document was a document expert, but yet your side continues to comment that it was determined to be genuine.
Now if fact check would have sent someone from the HDoH or an expert, or heck someone “familiar” with Hawaiian birth certificates to inspect the document, then there would have been valid verification.
Slartibartfast comments:
“I doubt that it will go away even then (if you mean that some people will think he’s still hiding something) but I don’t think that it will be a significant issue in the 2012 election (it was the kiss of death in the 2010 election for candidates like JD Hayworth). Already the Republicans are showing no inclination to touch the question – Speaker Bohner says Hawai’i word is good enough for him and Rep. Issa has put investigations into President Obama’s past (before he was president) off limits – it seems he doesn’t want a repeat of Whitewater (and the re-election and increased popularity of the president that came with it). The only one entertaining the question seems to be Governor Abercrombie – and I don’t think that you are going to like (or accept) whatever he gives you.”
I believe that the reason it hasn’t been, and probably won’t be pursued by Congress is because they are all involved in the cover up. Maybe not “knowingly” involved, but involved none the less.
I believe they are concerned about what could be found, and show the ignorance of our Legislators.
Again, I’m of the opinion that if someone asks a question, and there is a document that answers that question, you don’t simply take someone’s word for it, especially in something this important, you look at he document itself.
The bottom line is that the President sure does seem to be hiding behind the law.
It’s pretty simple, just release the documents.
On another issue,
I notice you didn’t respond to my “the more evidence the better” argument.
I’m wondering why not?
January 22, 2011 at 2:37 am
IB,
I’m assuming from your lack of example that we agree that President Obama has provided more documentation than any of his predecessors (no one else has released a birth certificate before they were elected as far as I am aware) given that he had written two autobiographies before running for president, I’m guessing that you can’t find another president about which more information has been known (pre-election) than there is known regarding President Obama. So his talk about openness isn’t just words – at least in this regard, it is true. How long did it take after after President Obama published an image of what we now know to be his authentic birth certificate on the web before the first lies calling it a forgery were posted on the web? How many people repeated the lies of pseudo-experts like ‘Dr. Polarik’ saying that the COLB was faked? Why would you expect a different reaction to the release of additional information? Additionally, what’s the upside for releasing information? Politically, in my opinion, the eligibility issue is a third rail for the Republicans that if left alone will be a festering problem for mainstream Republicans (I think people in your movement are going to get mad that none of the members of Congress will address this issue and that they are unlikely to be quiet about it – and in the event that a member of Congress brings up eligibility they will have given a big hug to a tar baby. So, having released the most reasonable document by which to prove his eligibility for the presidency and having been bombarded with a seemingly endless string of lies about its veracity, President Obama is in a position where not repeating his previous action (which would reveal no additional information pertinent to eligibility in any case) allows him to gain a political advantage (albeit a small one, in my opinion) – so why should he do it? I understand that you would like him to and that you believe not doing it is suspicious, but I don’t think that anyone who would consider voting for President Obama in 2012 shares your concerns.
President Obama’s senate opponent was Jack Ryan (likely the underdog in any case) who was forced to drop out of the race when it was revealed (from divorce documents, I believe) that he had taken his ex-wife Jeri Ryan to sex clubs in Paris. Should we be surprised that this story leaked in the media? Let’s see… a candidate for the US Senate is found to have taken his ex-wife, who just happens to be Seven of Nine from Star Trek, to sex clubs. Is it really any shock that the media dug up this story? Honestly, the idea that it was leaked by the Obama campaign is below ‘the Borg did it’ on my list of suspects… (Jeri Ryan being the most obvious suspect – especially if it was a contentious divorce). And as for it causing him to drop out of the race – he was caught getting his freak on with someone who could have been the poster girl for ‘I’m hot for teacher’ in Boston Public in a Paris red light district – kind of hard to court the ‘family values’ crowd after that…
Regarding your comments about the inspection by FactCheck and PolitiFact – although you are correct in saying that the inspections were not done by forensic experts, we now know that their assessment of the COLBs validity was accurate. The Annenberg connection is ludicrous, by the way – Annenberg was appointed to an ambassadorship by President Reagan, after all…
So Congress, in my opinion, wont touch this because it is a political tar baby and in your opinion they wont touch it because they are all (knowingly or not) in on it. My question to you is, if you are correct, why wont Alan West speak up? Or will he? (I think he could possibly ‘go rogue’ but if he did he would be reigned in by the party) What does your hypothesis predict will happen and what will that tell us about Rep. West?
Finally, I hope that I have made it clear that my response to your ‘the more evidence the better argument’ is that I think there is no advantage to releasing the records (in fact it would be a disadvantage) and that most people, shown the evidence currently available, would agree that your questions aren’t very important. Can you name a single person who would vote for President Obama in 2012 if he released his long form birth certificate and wont if he doesn’t release it?
January 22, 2011 at 10:31 am
The Magic M comments:
“No. It is rather cynical to bring 70 bogus lawsuits against someone and then claim that this is “evidence” of the fact that this person is fighting “tooth and nail”. But that reasoning, if I get 70 of your neighbours to sue you for slander, it means you’re guilty because you’re “fighting tooth and nail” against these bogus claims?”
Except that simply releasing the documents would have saved these 70+ suits from coming to Court.
Seems you have left that little tid bit out of your “reasoning”.
The Magic M continues:
“Your belief is irrelevant. Facts count. It is a fact that Obama paid about $2 million for his entire legal department since 2008. Assuming that 100% (or even 30%) went into birther lawsuits is both ridiculous and an irrelevant allegation.”
So what other cases is he paying lawyers to “fight”?
The fact is he could be saving this money by simply releasing the documents and HE has forced these suits in to the Courts. HE is the one fighting.
The Magic M goes on:
“Again, a cynical argument. I could also sue you 100 times to release your private diary and at some point say “why are you spending $50,000 on your lawyers instead of just showing me your diary?”.”
Another bogus example of something that has nothing to do with whether Obama is eligible to be President. I’m not running, nor do I plan to run for President, however if I did, I would release EVERYTHING.
Its called having integrity and character. Two things our current President lacks.
The Magic M next comments:
“The problem is simply that birthers will continue to claim 2+2=5, no matter how 2+2=4 is proven to them. Constantly moving the goalposts has been their favourite game for 2 years. You know, going from “long form BC” to “doctor’s signatures” to “kindergarten records” to “you need two citizen parents to be NBC” to “Hawaii isn’t even a bona-fide state”?”
Again, your side simply does not get it.
Let me comment this:
It’s easy to see why our Country’s education system has gone to pot. If people are supposed to simply believe something on the face of it, without questioning aspects of what is taught, then we are in a world of hurt.
Here’s the deal,
2+2 does NOT equal 5. It equals 4. What you are suggesting is that because we don’t accept the COLB on it’s face, then we are wrong.
That’s simply not the way it is. As a “teacher” you should use any means possible to get your point across. If it helps a couple of kids understand what is being taught, it would be worth while.
We KNOW there is supporting evidence to the COLB.
Why won’t Obama allow it’s release? He is voluntarily keeping it sealed. Not only that, but he is fighting every effort to get the document legally released.
Reasonable people can conclude that he is doing that because he is hiding something. Reasonable people can conclude that IF the documents supported his claim of being born in Hawaii at Kapiolani Hospital, they would have been released long ago. Reasonable people can conclude that all is not right with what is going on to keep the document sealed.
The Magic M throws name calling out:
“I need not prove to fools that Earth revolves around the Sun.”
No, but there was a time when people were taught the sun revolved around the earth, and they would have made the same argument you did back then.
The Magic M comments:
“No, as the COLB has proven, it would just spur more inventive reasoning from the birthers why these documents are not enough or “faked” or whatever.”
So what you are suggesting is that it is a “futile” effort for Obama to release the documents?
It’s the opposite argument of “If it saves one life………..”
I for one would be convinced that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii if the long form was released and it stated that. Isn’t that reason enough to release the document?
However, if the document states something other than Obama being born at Kapiolani, then there WOULD be more questions raised.
The Magic M continues:
“No, but you simply don’t have the right to have them produced. Just like you don’t have the right to be taken on a trip to the ISS to convince you Earth is not flat.”
Again, the “world is flat” lesson was taught, and what you are suggesting is that we don’t have the “right” to question that lesson.
I would suggest that very few people believed the world wasn’t flat back then, and the majority of people thought that the first attempt to sail around the world was “futile”, and that those believing the world was round were “fools”, and they had no “right” to even attempt it.
Heck, given your logic, we should all still be living in Africa and Europe and Asia, because no one should have asked the question, “What if the world isn’t flat?”
Thank goodness someone DID ask that question.
The Magic M gose on:
“Your belief is entirely irrelevant. Just like no sane Christian argues with a Jew or Buddhist whose faith “has it right”.”
Not in the same league as what you are suggesting in this comment.
There is EVIDENCE to support what Obama is saying. Documented EVIDENCE, which can not be produced in the argument you suggest in your comment.
Your comment is about what people BELIEVE, the evidence about Obama is REAL.
The Magic M next comments:
“Which states “place of birth: Hawaii”. How very selective to ignore that, but take anything else on that form as “fact”.”
I agree that the registration form states Obaba was born in Hawaii, but it also states his name was Soetoro, and that he was an Indonesian citizen, so if you accept one part as being fact, why has it been suggested that other parts are “white lies”?
The Magic M on Obama’s adoption:
“There is no evidence God didn’t bury the dinosaur skeletons. Yet no-one actually believes he did.”
Why don’t you try makiing a logical analogy?
The school registration form has Obama’s last name as Soetoro. THAT on it’s own suggests Lolo adopted Obama. Is it “conclusive” proof? Absolutely NOT, but it is evidence. Is the fact that Obama is mentioned in the devorce decree “conclusive” proof Lolo adopted him? Absolutely NOT, but it is evidence.
And we forget that Stanley married Lolo in 1965, when Obama was 4. Lolo had a year and four months to adopt Obama befor he turned 6 years old.
The Magic M makes another ridiculous analogy:
“Vague allegations do not constitute “reasonable doubt”.
It is also possible he beamed to Pakistan using his CIA friends’ super-secret transportation technology. So?”
But we don’t “know” what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan, now do we? All we can do is ASSUME, and when there is tangible evidence to answer the question, why would you want to assume?
The Magic M concludes on the Pakistan trip issue:
“No, no-one is using such twisted logic. Except for birthers who claim things like “because I didn’t find anyone at Columbia who remembers Obama, this proves he didn’t attend Columbia”.
So much for now. ;)”
You did above with your “the world is flat” and the “earth revolves around the sun” analogies.
January 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Slartibartfast starts with:
“73 cases are proof that some people are fighting ‘tooth and nail’ AGAINST President Obama, an 0-72 record so far is an indication that those people’s cases lack merit, and some of the judges’ decisions indicate that many of the cases are frivolous (Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, and John Hemenway have all been fined, reprimanded, and/or had their cases called frivolous by judges). Do you think the eligibility question should be pursued through the courts? If so, how? I think that the only possible way this could be addressed by the courts is either by a challenge regarding ballot access (you should be looking for a candidate if you want to get standing) or via a challenge to a state eligibility law (which doesn’t look like it is going to happen). Your only other recourse is to work to get President Obama voted out of office in 2012 or wait until six years from today. Those are pretty much the choices the Constitution gives you.”
Or Obama could simply release the documents and answer the questions once and for all. You forgot that option, which would be the MORAL option.
Slartibartfast comments:
“The only number that I have seen that was properly sourced was a figure under $2 million for campaign legal fees (fighting eligibility lawsuits would certainly be the province of the campaign legal department) – that’s less that $2 million in TOTAL legal fees for the campaign – for a campaign that spent the better part of $1 billion, that seems reasonable to me.”
Which would raise the question “why in the wide wide world of sports” would someone spend 1 BILLION dollars on a job that pays under 2 million for a four year term?
And why would you spend one dollar fighting to keep the documents sealed when it would cost a few bucks to simply release them?
It just doesn’t make sense.
Slartibartfast continues:
“I’m guessing that the President is represented by the Office of the White House Counsel, not the Justice Department – since he is the legitimate president (the established process was followed) he is entitled to the benefits of office, one of which is being represented by government counsel. I blame the bringers of frivolous lawsuits for the costs of said lawsuits (as the courts frequently do). In several of these cases, plaintiffs have been ordered to pay the costs for the defense – in these cases, defense lawyers have only claimed a few billable hours for their costs (in one they claimed no costs at all – pretty decent, in my opinion). You should also be aware that few of these cases actually named President Obama as a defendant, so for the most part each of the 72 cases cost him nothing.”
If the majority of these cases aren’t about Obama’s eligibility, then why are you bringing them up?
The only cases I am commenting on are the ones about Obama’s eligibilty to be President, and NOT the cases in which States, or our Government is being asked how they “vet” a candidate to ensure they are eligible.
I can see why you link the cases together, but in actuality, they are different issues.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“This is simply not true. According to lawyers, the cheapest way to settle a case is to get it dismissed (the sooner the better) – which is exactly what the president’s lawyers have done. Also, as I have already mentioned, I don’t believe that ANY of these lawsuits would be settled by releasing records (none of President Obama’s records are relevant to the 2 citizen parent argument).”
It IS “simply true”. I could care less what any lawyer says. Logic and reasonable thinking would conclude that releasing the documents would close 90% of these cases.
Slartibartfast comments:
“President Obama is talking about transparency in government (in my opinion, he’s been better than his predecessor on this but not as good as he could have been) not giving anyone who wants it free reign to go on a fishing expedition through his personal records. You will eventually get most of what you want – you’ll just have to wait for his presidential library…”
I doubt that Obama will release the documents even then. I think he relishes in knowing that HE alone holds the ability to prove his eligibility, and is thumbing his nose at those who are asking reasonable question.
Besdies, he hasn’t been very “transparent” in his openness in Government either. How many bills have been passed in the dark of the night, on a weekend?
I know, Obama can’t control Congress, however he gave the impression that he could, and he could suggest to the leadership how to handle pieces of legislation.
Slartibartfast continues:
“You can ask for anything you want, the question is what you think should happen when your request goes unanswered. Some people (and I am referring to neither you nor Mr. Anderson) in the eligibility movement have filed frivolous lawsuits (which they don’t have standing to bring and the courts don’t have the power to grant the remedy they ask for), suggested that none of his acts as president are valid, suggested that the military has a duty to refuse to obey their orders (ask an active duty member of the military how they feel about ‘blue falcons’ like convicted felon Lakin – you’ll find that they’re not exactly considered heroes…), and some have even advocated sedition (this is in addition to some truly hateful and bigoted language directed at the President and the First Lady – within people’s rights but despicable and unAmerican, in my opinion). These are not appropriate actions – President Obama was legally elected, certified, and inaugurated as president (even though it took Chief Justice Roberts two tries…). At this point, the only CONSTITUTIONAL ways to remove him are impeachment or a majority vote by his cabinet as to his disability to discharge the office. Anything else is basically a coup attempt. You’re free to say whatever you want, believe whatever you want and post whatever you want on the internet – and so am I. I believe that my theories are more reasonable and sources are more credible than yours, but anyone reading this gets to make up their own mind.”
But the simple solution to this whole issue would be for Obama to release the documents.
Obama has FORCED “we the people” to try any means necessary to get the documents released.
I for one, had not heard of “standing” before this issue arose. Now I know all too much about it.
Just another example of how Obama is using his “law degree” to hide behind the law.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Not all questions are created equal – some are more important than others. I don’t think that the remaining unanswered questions are significant compared to, for example, actual questions of policy like health insurance reform, Wall Street reform, stimulus, etc. The COLB doesn’t answer ALL questions – it is just sufficient legal proof of natural born citizenship.”
But to others the questions are higher up on their list than yours. Neither of us are wrong.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“I didn’t hire a teacher as president, I hired a community organizer. I think the president would lose more votes if he spent time and effort on this issue than he would gain by releasing every scrap of information available. Would you vote for him if he released everything (assuming it was consistent with his birth narrative)?”
He FAILED as a community organizer, and he is FAILING as President.
I guess you could conclude that he is consistant.
Releasing the documents would ease my mind on whether the President is eligible to hold the office. It should matter not who I would vote for.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“No, people have filed frivolous lawsuits against him – personally, I tend to sympathize with the victim of frivolous lawsuits rather than the perpetrator… The courts are not an appropriate venue to ask these questions (not until someone has standing, anyway – my suggestion is to get a candidate on the ballot in a single state in order to have standing to question ballot access – and in any case, the end result of a court case will run along the lines of COLB + Wong Kim Ark (with some Minor v. Happerstat on the side)+ 14th Amendment + American common law (= English common law) + Calvin’s case = natural born citizen. That’s my prediction, anyway.”
In other words, when you don’t get answers to your questions, you should just shut up? The questions were asked, and ignored, so there is no other choice but to try to get answers any way you can. One way is through the Courts, but yet they are unwilling to order discovery, because of something called “standing”.
A legal “loophole” for the elite, imagine that.
Slartibartfast comments:
“I’m sure the questions are legitimate to you, but I don’t think many people will take you seriously until you have some evidence of wrongdoing by President Obama (or anyone else). The burden of proof is on the accuser – until you (meaning the eligibility movement generally) can shoulder this burden, I wouldn’t expect to make any progress…”
There is plenty of evidence, you just pooh pooh it off.
Slartibartfast continues:
“No, I feel that a document that has been authenticated multiple times by Hawai’ian officials and would be considered proof of Hawai’ian birth (absent evidence to the contrary that has not yet come to light) and hence natural born citizenship in any courthouse in the United States (including the SCOTUS) is sufficient proof.”
But yet the document has not been submitted in to evidence in ANY Court that I know of.
The document has NEVER been authenticated by ANY Hawaiian official. As I pointed out, Fukino has NOT ONCE said that the document posted on the internet came from the HDoH.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“As you can see, in order for President Obama to have obtained Indonesian citizenship he would have needed to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN Indonesia BEFORE his 5th birthday. I trust we can dispense with Indonesian citizenship now? (It was always irrelevant, in any case…)”
Where does it state Obama had to be “physically present” before his 5th birth day?
And I was WRONG, because Obama was 4 when Lolo and Stanley got married in 1965. There is a four month window.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Glad you’re enjoying something – I just don’t think that anyone who hasn’t already made up their mind that the president is guilty of something thinks that these questions are significant. I don’t think that President Obama has any real reason to answer questions because I think that the eligibility movement is good for him politically (if it has any impact at all). You’ll notice that Speaker Bohner and Rep. Issa have made it very clear that they are staying away from this – why do you think that is? What do you think that they are telling their caucuses in private? I think that they’re making sure that no one touches this with a 10′ pole because they have nightmares about Vince Foster and Whitewater and President Clinton’s 75% approval rating. I think they know that any serious inquiry into this matter would likely result in a certified copy of the COLB (possibly with an affidavit from someone in the Hawai’i DOH) and the re-election of President Obama. Face it, the government is as sympathetic to your movement as it is likely to get right now and they are unwilling to pursue this issue. But don’t worry – if the past few presidents are any indication, you should be able to find out the answers to your questions 3 to 7 years after President Obama leaves office… (when President Obama’s library is dedicated).”
And if the documents prove he was INeligible, then what?
The “oh well, it’s over, it is what it is” answer?
Slartibartfast comments:
“Again, he was subjected to frivolous lawsuits (only a couple named him as a defendant, as Magic M pointed out) which were dealt with in the cheapest manner possible (by obtaining dismissals before discovery) and in most cases the plaintiffs were held responsible for the defendant’s legal expenses (which is another reason you shouldn’t bring frivolous lawsuits). You cannot cite a source for the millions of dollars that President Obama has allegedly spent defending eligibility cases and ‘sealing’ his records (nor can you say what he has done to ‘seal’ his records – nor anything that he has failed to disclose which his predecessors did). Without sources for your information or examples of how President Obama is hiding anything which his predecessors disclosed why should anyone take allegations seriously?
And finishes the comment with:
“It will also remain in the ‘very few people care’ column.”
It will NOT stop the questions from being answered. The “fight” will continue to get the documents released.
Slartibartfast continues:
“There is evidence – he wasn’t on his mother’s passport at times when he was known to have traveled internationally. Since, logically, he must have had a passport and we know that he was ineligible for Indonesian citizenship, there is no evidence of him ever having a British/Kenyan passport, and he has a document which would have allowed him to get a US passport this is strong circumstantial evidence that he did, in fact, have a US passport”
The lack of evidence is NOT evidence.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“It is, however, beyond the realm of possibility that President Obama held an Indonesian passport and beyond the realm of probability that he held a Kenyan passport.”
A Kenyan passport I agree with, the Indonesian passport I have reservations about.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“The trip didn’t fit in to the narrative he wanted to portray in his books – so what?”
The book was supposed to be an autobiography.
Shouldn’t an autobigoraphy include things like this, at least in ONE of his books about his life? Maybe it will be in his next one.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Can you give any example of something that President Obama has done to prevent the disclosure of records or documents that previous presidents and candidates have disclosed? I’m willing to hold President Obama to any standards that previous presidents were held to.”
No other President has the same “profile” that Obama has. Sorry, but your “previous Presidents” argument does not fly. No other President was KNOWN ot have been born to parentS who were not US citizens. No other President spent 4 years living abroad with his mother and step father. No other President was the son of someone here on a student visa. No other President was the step son of someone here on an exchange program where every aspect of their edication was paid for by OUR Government including housing, health care, wardrobe and even a spending allowance, and no other President visited their mother abroad before traveling to a Country that was under extreme political turmoil as Pakistan was in 1981.
When you find another President with those factors, then you can make your comparison.
Slartibartfast continues on Obama’s Pakistan trip:
“I would note that we don’t have proof – we have President Obama’s word (which I see no reason to doubt).”
You mean except for the FACT that he is a known LIAR?
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Again, please don’t put words in my mouth – I would have said that there was no reason to suspect he had gone to Pakistan but it was possible that he had.”
Ok, sorry for “putting words in your mouth”, but you don’t have the same opinion on other aspects of the eligibility issue.
So are you suggesting that you would comment, “there is no reason to believe Obama is ineligible, but it is possible he is not?”
I’m simply making the opposite argument. That being:
“There is reason to believe he is eligible, but he may not be.”
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Please cite an example of how this administration is less transparent than previous administrations.”
But I thought Obama said he was going to run things differently than “previous administrations”?
Isn’t that enough cause to hold him to a higher standard? He set himself up to be held to a higher standard, and now you are defending him for NOT holding himself to that pledge.
Interesting.
So is what you are suggesting is that the whole “Hope and Change” slogan was simply to “sell” Obama to the American people? Are you suggesting it was a ruse?
Slartibartfast comments:
“Because it is a waste of time and resources when there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on.”
In other words, it’s the States responsiblity, but it should be far down the totem pole of things on their agenda?
Slartibartfast continues:
“I disagree and, furthermore, I think that the bigger an issue this is, the more it will benefit President Obama. We’ll see who turns out to be right…”
I’ll go out on a limb and admit that YOU will be right.
The bigger question is WHY you will be right.
I wonder what the outcome would be IF the media was reporting this story “fairly”? It’s like how they report on the TEA Party, and how this or that, when this or that isn’t true (like being racist, or how there is hate speech at the rallies, or how the Party promotes violence).
The media portrays the eligibility issue in a very negative light. IF the media would portray it as a serious issue, the public would see it differently. It’s called indoctrination. The story should be reported FAIRLY, with both sides of the issue allowed to be heard.
I hope we can agree that the issue has been reported in a very BIASED way.
Slartibartfast goes on:
” I don’t expect you to convert to my way of thinking, but I hope you will believe that I hold these positions due to reasoning that I believe is sound and I am able to defend them using logic and facts.”
Defend away. I’m waiting how you would explain how health care will be more affordable now that the Government is going to handle it. Let’s start with that one.
I’ll wait for your reply.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“Neither I nor liberals in general are out to destroy the country – we honestly think that our positions are the best course of action (and we have empirical evidence that we are correct).”
Except that history is against your way of thinking. No Country has ever controlled it citizens, or it’s businesses and thrived. EVERY time it has been tried, it has FAILED.
Why is it different now?
Slartibartfast comments:
“I think John Wayne said it best when JFK beat Nixon: “I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president and I hope he does a good job”. That was exactly my attitude for 8 years after President Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS”
So you believe Bush was “appointed” huh?
What we do know about Bush is that he was ELIGIBLE to hold the office, which is less than we can state about Obama.
Slartibartfast continues:
“(unfortunately, President Bush was unable to fulfill that hope and I believe that he will be judged by history as the worst president since Hoover – or maybe ever)”
Maybe you don’t know about Jimmy Carter?
Yeah buddy, almost 5 years of continued economic growth, taxes cut (without budget cuts which should have been included with the tax cuts), unemployment that never rose above 7% and a time in our history where American Patriotism rose it’s head to a level not seen since WWII are things that Bush should be embarrassed by history for.
I didn’t agree with Bush on his budgets, I didn’t agree with Bush on a whole host of issues, but given the whole of his policies, Bush did a pretty good job of runnng the Country.
Obama on the other hand has increased our deficit in one year (2010) almost as much as Bush did in 8 years (two of which the Democrats held BOTH Houses of Congress), spent 800 BILLION plus on a “stimulus” package that has had NO return on the investment, ensured by his policies that unemployment will be held around 9% for years to come, and has INCREASED taxes on people who are in the middle class (when he promised that he wouldn’t).
I’m willing to allow history to decide who was the better President.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“so don’t expect me to give you any more credence than I did to people who said that President Bush was illegitimate due to his appointment by SCOTUS – and given that since Justice Scalia’s son worked for President Bush’s lawyer in the case he was required by law (albeit a law with no provision for enforcement) to recuse himself, it would seem that they have a better argument that those who question President Obama’s eligibility for his office.”
So if Scalia should have recused himself, why don’t you argue that Obama’s two SC appointees recuse themselves from the eligibility issue cases that come before the Court?
I get the feeling you didn’t like Bush very much. I could be wrong, but I get that “vibe” from your comment here.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“You’re entitled to have whatever reservations you want – I admittedly have very different positions than you do. I don’t want to get off-topic, so I wont defend any of my policy positions, but I’m willing to explain my positions and cite sources to support them regarding any aspect of the eligibility question that you would like.”
I was simply replying to a comment that you made.
We can keep the debate on topic. That’s fine with me.
January 22, 2011 at 2:52 pm
IB,
I’ll get to a more substantive rebuttal to you comment later (unless Magic M does so first, but there is a matter unrelated to eligibility that is something of a pet peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up. It was well known that the world was round for thousands of years before Columbus – smart people figured out that the world was round once seafaring technology advanced to the point where ships could sail far enough from shore for them to see that the body of the ship disappeared before the mast did. It is likely that no one was ever taught ‘the world was flat’ (except home-schooled children of flat earthers) because the people doing the teaching (once there were places of higher learning to ask the question of) knew better. I ask you to please stop using this apocryphal analogy.
January 22, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Slartibartfast starts his reply:
“I’m assuming from your lack of example that we agree that President Obama has provided more documentation than any of his predecessors (no one else has released a birth certificate before they were elected as far as I am aware) given that he had written two autobiographies before running for president, I’m guessing that you can’t find another president about which more information has been known (pre-election) than there is known regarding President Obama.”
You assume wrong, because as I stated in my reply, I would suggest that John McCain having released his LONG FORM birth certificate, plus the numerous books written about him, that McCain had more information released on him then Obama did.
Your reply to that would be????
Slartibartfast comments:
“So his talk about openness isn’t just words – at least in this regard, it is true.”
As pointed out above, NOT true.
Slartibartfast continues:
“How long did it take after after President Obama published an image of what we now know to be his authentic birth certificate on the web before the first lies calling it a forgery were posted on the web?”
A couple of days? Not sure. Doesn’t really matter, because even with the release of the COLB, given the statutes on the books at the time in Hawaii, it could have been gotten LEGALLY with the signature of a witness stating they were present at the time of birth in Hawaii.
But seeings how Obama has claimed that he was born at Kapiolani, that argument would go away with the release of the long form birth certificate IF it states he was born in Kapiolani.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“How many people repeated the lies of pseudo-experts like ‘Dr. Polarik’ saying that the COLB was faked?”
There are many problems with the COLB.
The first thing that pops in to my head is the border around the document.
The next is that Sr’s race is “African”.
The next is no visible raised seal on the document posted on Obama’s site.
Slartibartfast next asks:
“Why would you expect a different reaction to the release of additional information?”
We don’t know what the reaction would be. What I would comment is that if the BC showed Obama was born in Kapiolani, as he has said he was, then I would be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii. I would assume that there are a number of people who would conclude the same.
Why not give it a try?
Slartibartfast asks:
“Additionally, what’s the upside for releasing information?”
Answering REASONABLE questions?
Slartibartfast comments:
“Politically, in my opinion, the eligibility issue is a third rail for the Republicans that if left alone will be a festering problem for mainstream Republicans (I think people in your movement are going to get mad that none of the members of Congress will address this issue and that they are unlikely to be quiet about it – and in the event that a member of Congress brings up eligibility they will have given a big hug to a tar baby.”
Only because they would be vilified for bringing up the issue.
Although it would be the right thing to do, because their “reputation” might be damaged, they won’t do it.
Slartibartfast asks:
“So, having released the most reasonable document by which to prove his eligibility for the presidency and having been bombarded with a seemingly endless string of lies about its veracity, President Obama is in a position where not repeating his previous action (which would reveal no additional information pertinent to eligibility in any case) allows him to gain a political advantage (albeit a small one, in my opinion) – so why should he do it?”
Because it would be the MORAL thing to do.
Slartibartfast comments:
“I understand that you would like him to and that you believe not doing it is suspicious, but I don’t think that anyone who would consider voting for President Obama in 2012 shares your concerns.”
So there’s no need to “reach across the isle” although Obama preaches this when giving commencement addresses at Notre Dame and other places.
He commented this about abortion at Notre Dame, even though it won’t change anyones minds, it’s still good to have dialog.
Except on this issue I guess.
Slartibartfast comments:
“President Obama’s senate opponent was Jack Ryan (likely the underdog in any case) who was forced to drop out of the race when it was revealed (from divorce documents, I believe) that he had taken his ex-wife Jeri Ryan to sex clubs in Paris. Should we be surprised that this story leaked in the media?”
The issue has nothing to do with eligibility, but yet the documents were forced to be released. Where was the “standing” of those asking for the documents to be released?
Slartibartfast continues:
“Let’s see… a candidate for the US Senate is found to have taken his ex-wife, who just happens to be Seven of Nine from Star Trek, to sex clubs. Is it really any shock that the media dug up this story?”
The issue has nothing to do with eligibility, or the candidates ability to perform the job.
The woman wasn’t forced to attend the parties. She wasn’t tied up and dragged in to the clubs.
To me this was a non issue, but yet the media blew it up, and forced the candidate to drop out of the race.
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Honestly, the idea that it was leaked by the Obama campaign is below ‘the Borg did it’ on my list of suspects… (Jeri Ryan being the most obvious suspect – especially if it was a contentious divorce).”
I didn’t state Obama had the documents released, they were released by a Court order.
I made that clear in my reply. The media had “standing” on this issue, but US citizens do NOT have “standing” when asking the President for more information to prove he is eligible.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“And as for it causing him to drop out of the race – he was caught getting his freak on with someone who could have been the poster girl for ‘I’m hot for teacher’ in Boston Public in a Paris red light district – kind of hard to court the ‘family values’ crowd after that…”
I’m still not sure what two conseting adults do in a private club, or in the privacy of their own home, or the privacy of someone else’s home has any bearing on how he performs his job.
There has been any number of allegations about Obama’s “sexuality”, but I guess since he and Michelle haven’t divorced yet, it doesn’t matter.
Now the John Edwards story would be different. Edwards was CHEATING on his wife, as was the Governor of South Carolina, which is different in my opinion than two adults agreeing to go to a place where sexual activity takes place.
Slartibartfast comments:
“Regarding your comments about the inspection by FactCheck and PolitiFact – although you are correct in saying that the inspections were not done by forensic experts, we now know that their assessment of the COLBs validity was accurate.”
We “know” nothing of the sort. We can assume that the document that was examined is the same one posted on the internet by the Obama campaign, but with that black line through the certificate number, we can’t be sure.
Slartibartfast continues:
” The Annenberg connection is ludicrous, by the way – Annenberg was appointed to an ambassadorship by President Reagan, after all…”
And then his foundations were taken over by the likes of Ayers and his father, and the President of the United States, who I would suggest, has a little different view on things than President Reagan or Annenberg
Slartibartfast asks:
“So Congress, in my opinion, wont touch this because it is a political tar baby and in your opinion they wont touch it because they are all (knowingly or not) in on it. My question to you is, if you are correct, why wont Alan West speak up?”
He’s been in office a couple of weeks.
I’m not sure ANYONE will touch this thing simply because they will be portrayed in a negative light.
However it would be the RIGHT thing to do.
In the same token, Nancy Pelosi’s views are portrayed in a positive light generally by our media, but I couldn’t disagree with her more.
So if the media generally agrees with your views, then you get positive reporting, and if your views differ from the media then generally you are portrayed as a nut job.
Slartibartfast asks:
“Or will he?”
I doubt it.
Slartibartfast asks:
“(I think he could possibly ‘go rogue’ but if he did he would be reigned in by the party) What does your hypothesis predict will happen and what will that tell us about Rep. West?”
It would “tell” me that West had been convinced to not bring the subject up.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“Finally, I hope that I have made it clear that my response to your ‘the more evidence the better argument’ is that I think there is no advantage to releasing the records (in fact it would be a disadvantage) and that most people, shown the evidence currently available, would agree that your questions aren’t very important. Can you name a single person who would vote for President Obama in 2012 if he released his long form birth certificate and wont if he doesn’t release it?”
So if it doesn’t bolster your political asperations, then why do it?
Because it is the MORAL thing to do. That’s why.
It shouldn’t matter if it would sway votes. It SHOULD matter that the man would do EVERYHTING in his power to answer the questions.
He has chosen the “low road” in my opinion, by forcing these cases in to the Courts, frivolous or not, we have no other options given that Obama won’t voluntarily release the documents.
Look, if someone asked me to prove my eligibilty, and I produced a COLB like Obama did, and questions remained, then I would have no problem releasing my long form birth certificate.
If it was suggested that I was adopted, and lost my citizenship because of that adoption, I would at least comment on the issue.
If it was suggested that I received grants restricted to foriegn students while attending college, I would release the financial papers that showed whether I did or not.
If it was suggested that I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under something other than a US passport, then I would release my passport showing an entry for exit from the US and admission in to Indonesia, exit from Indonesia and admission in to Pakistan, and exit from Pakistan and admission in to the US.
Not because it would sway votes, but because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
IF Obama would release all of these documents then your arguments would have even that much more credibility, and the issue would for the most part go away.
He has chosen not to release the documents, which keep the questions in the “unanswered by choice” column.
Right there are four good examples of legitimate questions, that the President has chosen NOT to answer, even though he has the ability too with the release of a few documents.
Other than the Hawaiian birth issue, I don’t even know whether Obama has addressed the other issues. I do know that whenever a question was asked of Gibbs, he would laugh it off and not answer the question, and the questioner would be laughed at by his peers, but then they’d go on to a question where Gibbs would give the generic answer he was programed to give.
We aren’t asking for a piece of carpet with Stanley’s “water” mark on it to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
All we are asking for is the long form birth certificate, and if it shows he was born in Kapiolani, then I would state with that much more confidence that Obama was born there, and he would be eligible as far as being born in the United States, and we could move on to the adoption issue.
I would however still have reservations as far as the “natural born citizen” aspect because the Supreme Court won’t answer the question of defining who is a “natural born citizen”.
I find it hard to beleive that the founders believed that someone simply born in the United States would qualify to be President. I can’t fathom the thought of an “anchor baby” who is born to an ILLEGAL could one day beome our President. I have serious doubts that the founders felt the way you do.
But for right now, I do not disagree with the notion of concentrating on getting the long form released so that we can definatively answer whether Obama was born in Kapiolani as suggested, or whether the long form states somewhere else, such as a residence.
What I will state is that Obama is definately the most “unique” President we have had.
With his mom being caucasion, and dating minorities (and anyone else who wanted “some”, from what I have read) when it wasn’t “vogue” to do so, to there being no evidence that Stanley and Barack EVER lived together as husband and wife, and Sr abandoning his son after only a few weeks (maybe a few days), to Stanley absolving Sr of any liability to his son in the divorce papers, to Stanley marrying ANOTHER minority and taking Barack to Indonesia to live for a number of years and then abandoning him and sending him to be raised by her parents in Hawaii, to Obama befriending Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kahlidi and any other number of “men of great character”, to his attending Harvard and becoming the Editor of the Harvard Review, to his “community organizer” days, to his rise in politics from state legislator in Illinois to Senator and now President.
There’s no doubt about it, Obama isn’t anything like his predecessors, he is unique, and because of that, to get people to understand WHO Obama is, he should release anything he can to answer the questions.
January 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Slartibartfast comments:
“It is likely that no one was ever taught ‘the world was flat’ (except home-schooled children of flat earthers) because the people doing the teaching (once there were places of higher learning to ask the question of) knew better. I ask you to please stop using this apocryphal analogy.”
“It is LIKELY that no one was ever taught the world was flat” is not evidence that it wasn’t taught.
I was taught that it WAS thought that the world was flat until it was learned that it wasn’t, by whatever means it was learned that the earth was round, and the lesson was changed to reflect that at some point.
For you to suggest that it wasn’t EVER taught is preposterous. It was the belief for some time that if you sailed out so far, you would drop off the earth.
“Pet peeve” or not, it WAS taught, and it was believed by the majority and it took people who asked questions to learn different.
I’m sure the first person who sailed out and didn’t fall off the end of the earth, was vilified for even trying the “stunt”.
January 22, 2011 at 5:41 pm
IB posted:
He’s making a logical analogy that is directly on point – to wit, you generally cannot prove a negative. This is why the burden of proof is on the accuser – no one should be asked to respond to allegations that lack supporting evidence. Why should I take the assertion that the President wasn’t born in Hawai’i, for example, any more seriously than you would take someone asserting that you were guilty of treason because of the coup you were plotting. Can you prove that you are not plotting a coup? I don’t think you can – if the charge is given credence in the absence of evidence, how can you defend yourself? I would also note that the lack of character of many in the eligibility movement has been demonstrated by their accusations which lacked evidence and were later proved to be false (I can’t recall any of them saying ‘Sorry, I was wrong on that point’ once the facts came to light, either).