How Congress Was Fooled

According to this post, United States Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) believes:

Senator Obama’s campaign provided his birth certificate to the media amid allegations that he did not meet this qualification. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that he was born in Hawaii.

But are those beliefs based upon fact? 
Sadly, no.

Senator Obama’s campaign did NOT provide his birth certificate.  They provided a Certification of Live Birth, which is a separate document and not accepted by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to prove Hawaiian birth.

Was either document (the original birth certificate or the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth) provided to the media?  No! 

The original birth certificate was not allowed to be seen by anyone other than Fukino and Onaka.  (No one else has been deemed to have a “tangible interest” in the document, even though every citizen of the United States has a “tangible interest” in knowing if the President-elect was born in this country!)  The original birth certificate was NOT provided to the media or any other group or individual outside of Fukino and Onaka.

The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth was only provided to Annenberg Political Fact Check, and NOT to the media.

The media neither received, nor published, either the original birth certificate or the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth.  The Associated Press only published misstatements (a.k.a. lies) about Dr. Fukino’s statement.

Was the original birth certificate “confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic”?  No.  Fukino only said they had it on file.

Does the original birth certificate “show that he was born in Hawaii”?  Only Fukino and Onaka know the answer to that question.  And in Fukino’s statement, she did NOT confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Was the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) “confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic”?  No.  They made absolutely NO claims about the COLB.  They never said the COLB is authentic.

Does the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) “show that he was born in Hawaii”?  Yes, it does.  But the authenticity of this document is suspect.  It first appeared on DailyKos, within minutes of a clear forgery and a mostly-blank template used to make the forgery.  Common sense says that “Obama’s” COLB on DailyKos is no more authentic than the forgery or the template.  In addition, a forensic document expert says that the “Obama COLB” is a clear forgery.

Congress has a clear Constitutional obligation to ensure that Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates meet the Constitutional requirements.  Congress inspected one certificate from the State of Hawaii, the certificate of the Electoral College vote, but they did not inspect another certificate from the State of Hawaii: the original birth certificate of the candidate known as Barack Hussein Obama II. 

In the words of the great President Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify“.

Congress and VP Cheney failed to honor their oath of office.  Congress and VP Cheney failed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  This malpractice of the Legislative and Executive branches requires Judicial branch review.  If the Judicial branch fails to act, then all three branches of our government have aided and abetted a usurper of the Presidency of the United States.

Instead of these myths:

Senator Obama’s campaign provided his birth certificate to the media amid allegations that he did not meet this qualification. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that he was born in Hawaii.

The truth is:

Senator Obama’s campaign provided his birth certificate Certification of Live Birth to the media Annenberg Political Fact Check and no one else amid allegations that he did not meet this qualification. The certificate certification, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic document experts as a forgery, shows that he was born in Hawaii.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to How Congress Was Fooled

  1. Jax says:

    “If the Judicial branch fails to act, then all three branches of our government have aided and abetted a usurper of the Presidency of the United States.”

    … OR you’re wrong.

    You know which one I have my money on, but let’s see how this plays out.

    In Future News: Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States.

  2. Ryan says:

    All three branches of government, the courts, members of both political parties, liberal and conservative bloggers, and … oh … THE PEOPLE are OK with this man leading the country, and are satisfied that he has met the requirements.

    Does that mean nothing to you? If not, then you really don’t have the interests of the country or its citizens in mind.

  3. Ryan,

    The people were lied to by the Associated Press. Most of the people were not properly informed, and believed the lies they were told.

    Also, you once again mistake our Republic (rule of LAW) for a Democracy (rule of popular vote majority).

    Not even 100% of the popular vote can override the law and “qualify” an unqualified candidate.

    What means everything to me is our Constitution and the rule of Law in our Constitutional Republic.

    There is no excuse for Obama’s failure to produce any document authenticated by the state of Hawaii.

    There is no excuse for Congress and VP Cheyney’s failure to require a birth certificate authenticated by the state of Hawaii.

    An authentic certificate was required from the state of Hawaii for the Electoral College vote, and inspected by members of Congress.

    Why wasn’t an authentic certificate required from the state of Hawaii for Obama’s birth?

    There is no excuse. It is Congress’ Constitutional responsibility to ensure that the candidate qualifies.

    Obama failed to produce an authentic certificate from the state of Hawaii, and Congress failed to require it and inspect it before certifying the vote.

    What document did members of Congress inspect to ensure Obama is Constitutionally eligible?

    The answer: NONE.

    Therefore, Obama has failed to qualify, if for no other reason than that the Congress never “qualified” him.

    The solution is to have the State of Hawaii release the original birth certificate, and for the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of “natural born citizen” (i.e., whether or not “natural born citizen” still means “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”, as it did in 1787).

  4. Ryan says:

    The United States is a Representational Democracy, as are all democratic countries n the world. Please don’t make yourself look any more silly by saying the US is not a democracy.

    “What document did members of Congress inspect to ensure Obama is Constitutionally eligible?”

    Do think members of Congress have ever “Inspected a document” They don’t hand around original copies of documents for inspection. They check with officials in the state where the records are kept, and ask for verification.

    There’s nothing they could do to make you happy anyway. If they released a copy of the original birth certificate, you would say it is a fake. You already stated that the Hawaiian officials are lying. If they are lying, and committing fraud, why not just put out the original document? They could easily put it out, fake or not, since they are already on the hook for fraud.

  5. The only part of our government that is Constitutionally created as a Representational Democracy is the House of Representatives.

    Our government as a whole is a Constitutional Republic.

    The pledge of allegiance is to the flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

    1) Hawaii release the original birth certificate and
    2) SCOTUS rule on the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether or not Obama qualifies under that definition.

    That would make me happy.

    There is no excuse for not doing those two things.

  6. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Perhaps if your side could find a halfway competent lawyer to put together your case then maybe you could get a court to look at the argument. Unfortunately for you that hasn’t happened yet, and I strongly doubt whether it will happen, because as yet there is no single coherent, grounded in law argument. The fact that a competent lawyer hasn’t grabbed the case indicates to me at least that there isn’t anything in it.

    He was born in Kenya! No, he was born in Canada! No, he was born in Honolulu, but renounced his citizenship! No, he’s a citizen, but not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject! Barack Obama Snr. wasn’t his father, it was Malcolm X!

  7. Frin,

    This will not go away until:
    1) Hawaii releases the original birth certificate, and
    2) SCOTUS rules on the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether or not Obama qualifies under that definition.

    Members of our military don’t know whether the President-elect is qualified to hold the office, and hence they don’t know whether any orders by him as Commander-in-Chief would be legal or illegal.

    This issue cannot be swept under the rug. The truth will out.

  8. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Thats a shame for you that it won’t go away, because I really doubt that either of the two things that you listed will happen. And, if you can be distance yourself from your argument for a second, do *you* honestly thing that either of things are going to happen?

    Hawaii won’t release the original Birth Certificate because they don’t have to. Congress has verified his eligibility – obviously not to your satisfaction, but they have to their satisfaction. Do you think every member of Congress personally saw and verified Bush’s BC before he took office? If you don’t like the way they did it, don’t vote for them next time.

    And as I said previously, the Supreme Court won’t rule on the issue because no competent lawyer has put forward a case that meets the requirements to be heard. Does that not tell you something – that maybe there isn’t a case?

    Come 20th Jan, Obama will be the President. Any orders he issues as C-in-C will be legal. There will be no military coup. Life will go on as normal.

    This is a serious question – have you ever considered that the truth might already be out there, and that you might be wrong?

  9. Yes, I honestly believe that lawsuits will continue to seek the truth until the truth is revealled.

    Explain to me exactly how you think “Congress has verified his eligibility”. They absolutely did not. They shirked their responsibility. They outsourced it to Annenberg Political Fact Check and the Associated Press.

    Congress has a duty to ensure the candidate is qualified as a natural born citizen. They may have never checked birth certificates before, I don’t know, but they should have.

    In the public arena, there was never any question about Bush’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.

    The situation is far different now.

    In regards to your last question, part of the truth is already out there – the truth that Obama had British citizenship at birth.

    And by both the commonly understood meaning of “natural born citizen” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification AND as defined by the framers of the 14th amendment, Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States.

  10. on January 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm Miri

    ITookTheRedPill: Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it stated that his original BC remains unaccessed by ANYONE, including Fukino and Onaka? Didn’t they say that they did NOT view the document but they confirmed that it’s on file there in accordance with Hawaiian law?

    I remember, but don’t have a link to, someone saying the original BC had not been accessed.

    But Fukino appeared to say that she and Onaka had examined the original BC:

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

    So, did Fukino and Onaka see the BC itself?

    Or, did they merely see something that indicates that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record?

    Nuance, nuance, nuance.

  11. What EXACTLY did Fukino “verify”?

    I think Miri is on to something here…

    on January 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm Miri

    I don’t think Fukino and Onaka know what the original BC says.

    I don’t think they WANT to know what it says.

    Remember how their system works: you get back on a COLB only whatever you entered (correctly) into the request screen.

    Is it possible that they entered ONLY “Barack H. Obama Jr.” or “Barry Soetoro” or “Barry Dunham” and got back a COLB with just a name on it (no birthplace)?

    If anything came back at all, then they COULD state that an original “exists” in their files according to their laws, because the original BCs provide the source data for the database, from which all COLBs are generated.

    In this way, they could “verify” than AN original exists, without accessing it to see what it says.

    One possible reason for that trip to Hawaii was to oversee the process–maybe to provide the needed search data (the correct NAME) and to make sure that nobody saw any OTHER data (such as true birthplace), all sufficient to allow Fukino and Onaka to make that confusing, misleading, and (sorry, PUMAs) Clintonesque statement.

    Convoluted, but you can follow my reasoning.

  12. Jax says:

    I swear to God, January 20th is going to be so much fun on this site. I’m going to pop popcorn. This has been worth every frustrating moment of the Bush presidency. I knew the right wing would throw a hissy fit, like the spoiled children they are, but this has exceeded my wildest expectations. Thank you all so much.

    My personal favorites are the comfortable suburbanites telling their kids, or their friends’ kids, who are shipping off to boot, not to follow the advice of the incoming CiC. Good advice, armchair warrior! That’s just what a young soldier needs to hear. Nothing to start off a promising military career like a court martial.

  13. Jax says:

    “Advice,” jeez. “Orders of the incoming CiC” is what I meant to say.

  14. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I note that you’ve said a few times that Congress outsourced the verification process. Do you have evidence of that? (Note that I don’t think unverifiable conversations with staff of elected representatives that you’ve alluded to earlier counts).

    What you state is the the commonly understood meaning of natural born citizen is clearly not so common after all – otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?

  15. Frin,

    1) Provide evidence that even a single member of Congress requested to see, and personally inspected, a birth document for Obama issued directly from the State of Hawaii. None of them verified his eligibility directly. They relied on (inaccurate and deceptive) statements made by Annenberg Political Fact Check and the Associated Press. That is what I mean by “Congress outsourced the verification process”.

    2) The commonly understood meaning of “natural born citizen” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification AND as defined by the framers of the 14th amendment. It’s not “commonly understood” anymore because law students hardly study Vattel anymore, but Vattel was part of the curriculum then.

  16. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I can point you to something in writing, drawn from your own site: https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/ok-speaker-pelosi-how-did-the-dnc-certify-obamas-eligibility/

    I know it probably doesn’t mean anything to you, because you’ll just say that she didn’t verify anything etc etc. But the thing is, that certificate is signed by a member of Congress, and a Notary Public, and it verifies Obama’s eligibility.

    Now you point me to somewhere where a member of Congress said – oh we just thought because FactCheck.org said he was ok, then he was ok. I bet you can’t.

    And I know that you put a lot of faith in Vattel, but you fail to talk about British Common Law, which would have formed the background to those that drafted the Constitution. Lets look at the Case of the United States vs Wong Kim Ark. In this case, they argued over his status as a “born citizen”, the same argument as we are having now. I know that you have talked about this before, but its very relevant here. The majority (of 6) cited British Common Law, (and found that Wong *was* an born citizen) the 2 dissenters cited Vattel. To me, that kinda establishes some precent that works for Obama, not for your case, right?

  17. Jax says:

    Frin,

    I appreciate what you’re trying to do, and God knows I did it myself, but there is nothing… AT ALL… that will convince Red that he’s delusional. There’s a great article about this whole thing at Salon.com:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

    Red isn’t carefully examining this issue from all sides and then making his conclusion. He has one thesis: Barack Obama can’t be president. Any facts that contradict that thesis will either be ignored or twisted to fit the thesis.

    There’s very little to be done other than sit back and watch the kaleidoscope of crazy twirl. But hey, that’s fun too, right?

  18. Frin,

    1) Provide evidence that even a single member of Congress requested to see, and personally inspected, a birth document for Obama issued directly from the State of Hawaii.

    Pelosi’s statement was her telling the state of Hawaii that Obama was qualified, not the other way around. I want to see where any member of Congress actually inspected Obama’s birth certificate. They didn’t.

    2) SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” – CURRENT COURT PURPOSELY FUMBLED

  19. Jax,

    “Any facts that contradict that thesis will either be ignored or twisted to fit the thesis.”

    The facts and the truth are exactly what I’m after.

    No Hawaiian official has ever said that the COLB produced at Obama’s campaign headquarters is authentic.

    No Hawaiian official has ever said that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Trust, but verify.

    Why won’t Obama authorize the release of any birth document, whether it be the original vault birth certificate OR a computer-generated COLB, directly from the State of Hawaii to anyone?

    Why did he only show a highly questionable COLB, to a hand-picked group of people, at his campaign headquarters in Chicago?

    Something stinks in Chicago…

    Let’s get to the truth, and let’s get it straight from Hawaii.

    But to do that, we need Obama to keep his promise to be “open, transparent, and accountable“.

  20. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Ok – I’m giving up on the whole eligibility question because its going around in circles. I understand that you don’t think he’s proved his eligibility to anyone. I, and most others including Congress, believe that he has. No point discussing it any further.

    I’m a little confused here. You’ve stated previously that you would be satisfied if the Supreme Court ruled on the natural born citizen clause. Then, when pointed to a case where they have ruled but not in the way that you like, you then determine that they were wrong and point to a blog entry that actually calls the Supreme Court “… a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.”

    I’m starting to really agree with Jax – there is nothing that I can say that will make you stop for a second and think, hmmm… “maybe some of the stuff that I’ve been saying isn’t true, or doesn’t apply, or isn’t part of some big conspiracy…”

  21. Frin,

    I have said this:

    In order for Barack Hussein Obama II to be qualified to hold the office of President of the United States, as a “natural born citizen”, the court must find that:
    1) BHOII was born on U.S. soil
    2) Father’s and son’s British citizenship doesn’t matter
    3) BHOII never relinquished U.S. citizenship

    #1 could have been easily resolved by BHOII agreeing to let Dr. Fukino release his original birth certificate.

    and this:

    1) Hawaii release the original birth certificate and
    2) SCOTUS rule on the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether or not Obama qualifies under that definition.

    That would make me happy.

    There is no excuse for not doing those two things.

    and this:

    This will not go away until:
    1) Hawaii releases the original birth certificate, and
    2) SCOTUS rules on the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether or not Obama qualifies under that definition.

    My point with the Donofrio link was not to bash the SCOTUS (in fact, I commented on his post letting him know that he might not want to bash them since his case is still technically “PENDING“).

    My point in giving you the link to Leo’s post was to show that the court DID NOT rule on “natural born citizen” in Wong Kim Ark…they PUNTED on the issue of “natural born citizen” and merely addressed “citizen”…which also goes to show that there is, in fact, a difference between the two terms. Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a “citizen”, born in the USA, but the court chose NOT to rule on whether he was a “natural born citizen”.

  22. Jax says:

    Yeah, no, you’re not. You’re a kid who drank some Kool-Aid and became ideologically lost to the far right, and you don’t want Obama to be President. Obama could produce his birth certificate to you, personally, notarized by George W. Bush and Jesus Christ himself, and you would still be finding some way to spin this. That’s how conspiracy theories work.

    But hey, at least it’s amusing. Gives us grownups something to have a chuckle at after a hard day of work fixing the country you lot have spent the past eight years screwing up.

  23. Hey Jax,

    Do you know that the people who really did “drink the Kool-Aid” were followers of “Liberation Theology“…

    …and that the church Obama attended for 20+ years teaches “Liberation Theology“?

    And you think I drank the Kool-Aid?

  24. Jax says:

    Kool-Aid has many flavors, Red. And yes, you drank it up.

  25. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Actually, during Wong Kim Ark the court did not *punt* on citizen vs natural born, if you have a read of the findings then you’ll find quite clearly that they found that the British Common Law definition applies, meaning that children of aliens born in a country are natural born citizens of that country. What Leo refers to is a quote from Minor vs Happersett, which did not feel the need to rule on citizen vs natural born.

    Ok – I’m just going to point you to here : http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

    I think it provides a pretty objective overview of the relevant case law and secondary sources such as Vattel. Have a read of it, then let me know if you think that there is any precendent there that supports your argument. To me, it looks like its been considered a few times, every time coming out with an answer that supports Obama’s eligibility. Some excerpts here:

    From Lynch vs Clarke 1844: “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

    Again from Lynch vs Clarke 1844: “. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (Non-Whites) (1862): “It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never “passes by descent.” It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by law.”

    Perkins vs Elg 1939: “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here… The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States””

    And so on and so forth….

  26. Jax says:

    Oh, you screwed up now, Frin. Now you’re part of the conspiracy…

  27. Frin says:

    Oh Noes Jax you’ve found me out!

    Seeing as the conspiracy includes Hawaiian records people, the Supreme Court, every elected Representative of the the People, the Republicans and Democrat Party, all of the MSM and most of the blogosphere it might as well include me :-)

  28. Jax says:

    I particularly like when Red implicated Dick Cheney in the conspiracy.

    Red, Dick Cheney is one of the most evil SOBs I’ve ever even heard of. If he’s involved in the conspiracy… you don’t have a damn chance. He’s sneaking up behind you right now to break your neck.

    You’ll never even hear hi…

  29. Jax,

    I don’t trust anyone who is part of the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Cheney is part of both.

  30. John says:

    Mr. Red Pill Escaped the Matrix,

    Why do you suppose it is that such “confident” advocates for the lack of any need to prove the elegibility of this unknown person are still here, still so shrill, still trying to make you look like a fool for simply asking the right question?

    RIGHT QUESTION: (Should an unknown person who would be president dispell everyone’s increasingly nagging doubts by showing everyone some real documentary evidence that he is eligible for this office?)

    Jax, and Ryan, and Frin have all made it clear that it is unimportant to them that the Constitution be followed and that real documentary evidence that it is being followed is nothing they care about or need. In fact, it is so “unimportant” to them that they are still here, still mocking, still snickering, still trying to make you and others, who simply ask a reasonable question (i.e., ‘Where is the documentary proof?”), look silly (their dearest wish).

    Contrast that, now, with our reason for being here. We think this question is important to the future of the country and that it needs to be answered. We are not laughing at anyone. In fact, we are taking this business quite seriously.

    Every time, though, they answer in exactly the same way: i.e., “there is no need for a document because only a fool would ask for a document, because a document isn’t needed by anyone because it isn’t needed by me, because the documents, SEE! TIME’S UP! … and because … you all look silly asking for a document, and … blather, blather.”

    Why are they so desperate to “prove” that there is no need for proof?

    Why are they so passionate about disclaiming any interest in this question?

    THIS! … while simultaneously trying to create the false impression that they knowledgeably represent every “cool-guy” who has considered the question and dismissed it, in order to accomplish exactly what? … to do no more than find fault with you for persisting in having an interest in this question? Something does not smell right here.

    Shakespeare had it about right when he put this in a character’s line of dialog: “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” (WAY TOO MUCH IN THIS CASE!)

    This is the behavior of those bully punks who are accustomed to using peer-pressure among the easily embarrassed to dominate a conversation–because at heart, every bully is a coward who horribly fears the truth and anyone courageous enough to demand it.

    This is why the collective noise from all the Jaxs, Ryans, and Flimflams in this debate smells so much to me like a DELIBERATE lie.

    As though we’re hearing:
    “Paper? What paper? Oh, that! The one behind my back? I’m not hiding anything behind my back!” Shuffling sounds, twisting of belt and rumpled shirt … and the hands come empty from behind the back. “See. Nothing in my hands… And you’re a poo-poo head for saying there was!”

    Or as Bullwinkle would say, “Nothing up my sleeve …”

    That moose was ahead of his time, mocking anyone who dared to doubt the honesty of fast-talking politicians.

    But I smell a much smaller animal on this stage: a lying rat.

    In fact, I can smell a whole sewer full of them.

    –John

    P.S. That nonsense about never asking for Bush’s birth certificate is just an absurdity–a red herring, another attempt to distract the easily fooled, another signature mark of the dishonest and shallow minds that are at work here. It had not been widely reported that Bush’s father was a citizen of another country or that he had spent his formative years in Indonesia. These two facts, on the other hand, are indeed among the very few things that truly are widely known about the mystery person. The need for real documentation in this case could not possibly be more clear, so, too, the relevant differences between this and others. To pretend otherwise is just more lies. More lies. And more lies. From those who keep repeating lies, and mocking those who doubt them–again, the signature behavior of liars who speak lies.

  31. Jax says:

    Red,

    John is on YOUR side. When one is on the side that attracts the twitchy paranoiacs, it’s important to reassess the real estate.

  32. Frin says:

    John,

    “Why do you suppose it is that such “confident” advocates for the lack of any need to prove the elegibility of this unknown person are still here, still so shrill, still trying to make you look like a fool for simply asking the right question?”

    Ummm, isn’t that the whole point of having an Internet blog? To discuss issues? Why are you still here posting if you are so confident that you are right?

    You know, I quite enjoy talking to Mr Pill. He’s always very polite. I’ve always been very polite to him. If all you’ve got to add to the discussion is calling us bully punks, lying rats and liars then you’re not helping your side. It would be much more constructive if you could point out where we’ve lied. I would really appreciate it if you could – along with any real evidence to support your claims. Actually, if your side could produce *any* sort of real evidence to support your argument then that would be great. If you could point to any case law that supports you, then that would be good as well. Because thats how you follow the Constitution, not by making up Constitutional Crises and advocating a Revolution just because you don’t like the new President.

  33. Jax says:

    OR AM I SAYING THAT TO FURTHER THE CONSPIRACY???

  34. Jax,

    It’s not paranoia to expect honesty and transparency from our elected officials.

    It’s not paranoia to expect honesty and transparency from the man who wants to hold the highest office in the land (an office which uniquely requires “natural born” citizenship), and who promised to be “open, transparent, and accountable“.

    Or was Obama lying when he promised that?

    Were those “just words”?

    Being “open, transparent, and accountable” here means Barack Obama authorizing the state of Hawaii to release his original vault birth certificate. That is necessary for him to prove his documented birth location.

    Being “open, transparent, and accountable” here means having the Supreme Court rule on the definition of “natural born citizen” and whether Barack Obama is qualified (or disqualified based on his British citizenship at birth and/or subsequent Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship).

    John is right, whether or not you and Frin like his style.

    We are taking this business quite seriously.

    And members of Congress were lied to and bullied. Misled (but not technically lied to) by Dr. Fukino. Lied to by Annenberg Political Fact Check. Lied to by the Associated Press. And bullied into believing that any further questioning of Obama’s qualifications would be political suicide for them, and also lead to riots by Obama supporters. Members of Congress didn’t have to be part of a conspiracy. They only had to give into peer pressure and believe the lies they were told.

    In the process, Cheney and Congress committed maplractice.

  35. Frin,

    Thank you for being polite. I appreciate that.

    You ask for:

    evidence to support your claims. Actually, if your side could produce *any* sort of real evidence to support your argument then that would be great.

    Yet that is exactly what we are asking for… real evidence, directly from the State of Hawaii (not DailyKOS or Obama’s campaign headquarters).

    This is not a criminal case, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    This is an issue of eligibility, and in any issue of eligibility the candidate is presumed unqualified until they prove themselves qualified.

    The Burden of Proof is, and always has been, on the candidate.

    The Burden of Proof is, and always has been, on Barack Obama.

    You think Obama has already proven he was born in Hawaii?

    …the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country

    …the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America…

    we are the home of the President-elect of the USA…

    Who said that?

    Was that in the Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Department Of Health Director?

    No!

    It was in the Official Report of the Kenyan National Assembly Wednesday, 5th November, 2008!

    You say:

    making up Constitutional Crises and advocating a Revolution just because you don’t like the new President.

    I’m not creating a Constitutional Crisis. Obama is.

    And this isn’t about not liking him, or about him belonging to a different political party than me.

    I don’t believe that John McCain is a “natural born citizen” either. McCain’s birth certificate shows he was born in Colon hospital in the city of Colon, Panama. That city was not, and has never been, U.S. Territory. McCain is a citizen of the U.S., but not a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.

    There was even a third uneligible Presidential candidate this year. Róger Calero, Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in several states, was born in Nicaragua.

    It is a true Constitutional crisis when the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of all of our Armed Forces are not enforced. Cheney and Congress checked the Certificate of the Electoral Vote of the state of Hawaii, to ensure it seemed regular in form and authentic, and to record the contents in the Congressional Record. That was in line with their Constitutional duty. Cheney and Congress failed to check the Certificate of Live Birth of the state of Hawaii, to ensure it seemed regular in form and authentic, and to record the contents in the Congressional Record. That failure was a miscarriage of justice and a dereliction of their Constitutional duty.

    Two things are required to put this Constitutional crisis to rest:
    1) Proof, from the State of Hawaii, that Obama was born there
    2) A ruling from the Supreme Court on the meaning of “natural born citizen” and whether or not Obama qualifies.

    Barack Obama has no excuse for refusing to release his original birth certificate, while at the same time allowing the Associated Press to blatently lie to the American public with the headline “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine“.

    But with or without the original birth certificate, if the Supreme Court defines “natural born citizen” the same way Vattel defined “natural born citizen”, then Obama is not qualified.

  36. Jax says:

    So the fact that he’s a different party from you and you hate him is… what? A bonus?

  37. Jax,

    I don’t hate Obama. I love him. Jesus taught me to.

    And I love you, too, Jax.

  38. Jax says:

    Awww. I’m glad you love him.

    He’s going to be President, you know.

  39. John says:

    Jax said:

    “Why are you still here posting if you are so confident that you are right?”

    Yawn. More of the same lies, yes, I said “lies”. (Despite the wide-eyed, and, yes, deceptive, ‘What? Who, me?’ above.)

    It would not be helpful to call someone a liar if that were not true, yes. I fully understand that principle. I don’t believe that principle applies in this case. Nothing you can do about that, Jax, unless perhaps visibly change your ways. I won’t hold my breath for it, though.

    The obvious implication of your statement is that it is somehow incongruous with my purpose for me to ask why Jax and Ryan and the other Flimflams are still coming here to tell us that there is nothing to talk about.

    That doesn’t make sense. These things are not incongruous. I am here repeating, and will repeat as long as I have breath to do so, that there is a matter here that needs to be addressed. Repeating, all the more so, I say again, because fewer than I would prefer are apparently yet aware of this, or if aware, are not yet convinced of its truth and importance. Thus I say again, what I have said many times. My hope is that some new ear will open this time.

    That purpose is consistent with repeating myself.

    That purpose is consistent with saying that this is important.

    On the other hand, quite by contrast (and entirely consistent with what I said above), why is it, again, that you are here, again, to tell us that there is no reason nor need to be here, again, saying anything about this, again, because you wish to say, again, that there is nothing important here to discuss? If it isn’t important to you, why do you bother? I know why I am here. I just told you. (Do you need to hear it again?)

    Oh, nevermind. We already know that we are debating with deliberately misleading (with intent to mislead) pre-recorded propaganda loops. I withdraw my question as though posed for reply, and simply leave it posted for contemplation.

    –John

    P.S. I’m simply saying what I believe to be true. If you feel hostility, I don’t deny feeling it, but I may not hate what you do, nor even what you think I do. I love truth. I hate lies. Make of that whatever you will. Don’t expect me to lose sleep over your opinion about that.

  40. Frin says:

    John,

    Actually, it was me that asked you to point out where I had lied, not Jax. And as yet, you haven’t. Please point out, specifically, where I have lied. You even state that a question that I asked you is a lie – which I’m not even sure is possible in the English language.

    Oh well, enjoy the inaguration – I know I will :-)

  41. John says:

    Frin,

    You said,
    “Actually, it was me that asked you to point out where I had lied, not Jax. And as yet, you haven’t. Please point out, specifically, where I have lied. You even state that a question that I asked you is a lie – which I’m not even sure is possible in the English language.”

    If a question cannot be a lie, then ..
    please, tell us, when did you stop beating your wife?

    I pose this question, plainly insincerely with a clearly fictional implication, to illustrate the point: a question certainly can be a lie.

    You “nothing-to-see-it’s-over-move-along” propagandists have been routinely, recklessly, wildly making clearly dishonest statements and implications (without even mentioning the dishonest leading questions).

    That is quite precisely what makes it so obvious that this eligibility issue revolves around a deliberate lie. The legions of obscurants that have been sent out from the smoking furnace to decieve the whole world all smell like smoke.

    My favorite is: “You Obama-haters wouldn’t believe any evidence if it was presented to you anyway,” which, in the general form paraphrased here, contains a pair of presumptuous hostile speculative statements that happen to be contrary to fact (i.e., lies), certainly in my own case I will insist, and it additionally (and critically) contains a (likewise) very mean-spirited and dishonest insinuation.

    (a) Response to Deceptive Insinuation: This absurdity implies that we have repeatedly been shown irrefutable documentary evidence and have repeatedly resused to believe any of it. The truth is exactly to the contrary: we have repeatedly been distracted with hearsay and arguments purporting to justify the lack of any need for documentary evidence and we are (yes, still) simply asking for a first instance of that only. Hearsay is not evidence. Just show us a real one.
    (b) Response to Lie: Those of us that will not let go of this issue don’t hate Obama, we hate lies. Just show us a real one.
    (c) Response to Lie: Show us something, anything, that can be handled and examined by examiners mutually trusted by both sides in the dispute, as a first instance of any such thing. Then we’ll all have a basis to evaluate the (I say false) accusation that we will not believe it. Show us a real one.

    You wanted a specific citation? (Done.) You wanted one from your own words? (Oh, you want an exact quote? Well, … okay, if you insist.)

    “Because thats how you follow the Constitution, not by making up Constitutional Crises and advocating a Revolution just because you don’t like the new President.” –Frin

    That statement contains three seriously damaging implicative lies. I have never “advocat[ed] a [r]evolution”. I’ll leave it to the community to identify the other two, equally obvious. Now, again, your point was …?

    –John

  42. John says:

    To Whom the Truth Matters,

    Frim said:

    “Because thats how you follow the Constitution, not by making up Constitutional Crises and advocating a Revolution just because you don’t like the new President.” –Frin

    Remember this multiple lie. Especially remember it when it later becomes (even more) clear that those who did manufacture this crisis of credibility do indeed want a revolution. Remember that they are already planting the seeds for lies that will later be useful to them when they want to shift the blame to some other party for the evil that they are doing themselves.

    –John

    P.S. Yes, that is what I said. Yes it means what it appears to mean.

  43. Ryan says:

    John,

    I don’t think you actually said anything in your last two posts.

    Frin has asked you very politely to let us know where we have lied. You and Monsieur Pill have proposed that a conspiracy of mammoth proportions has taken place before the very eyes of hundreds of millions of people. A conspiracy that must have involved thousands of people over the last 40 years, all of whom have remained silent and committed.

    We have put forward several arguments as to why this could not have happened, and you have not answered any of them.

    If you want us to leave, then you can request that Mr Pill ask us to leave, or he could block us. But since the best blogs are ones that allow debate, I would not recommend it.

  44. Jax says:

    John has a sign on his desk that says the following:

    Rule 1. Lying liars lie. Explain this to them.

    Rule 2. If lying liars claim to be telling the truth, see Rule 1.

  45. John says:

    Since the enemies of truth cannot bring facts, cannot bring reason, cannot bring honesty to the debate …

    … they always turn to ridicule and false accusation as their first line of attack …

    … and then just keep repeating more of the same.

    Thus they always clearly identify themselves as such, sufficiently demon-
    strating the falsity of their ideas to every sincerely seeking honest heart.

  46. Jax says:

    So once again, your point is:

    You are right.

    Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

    And that’s about it.

    Thanks for your input. Keep kicking in your thoughts as often as possible until your mom cuts off your internet access.

  47. Ryan says:

    John, I am not an enemy of truth. Show me evidence for anything at all, and I will consider it a valid theory. Once evidence is brought forward, we can all work together for truth. That’s how science works. But you are not looking for evidence. You are looking for the truth you hope for. You also speak of reason, but do not use it. The entire basis of the religion you have chosen is that reason is to be ignored in lieu of faith. In lieu of believing that which cannot be proven.

    I am not your enemy. You think that I am because you have been brainwashed into thinking that people who do not profess their love for Jesus are warriors of Satan. Christianity is carefully crafted to “sharkproof” the thoughts of dissenting views. I do not hate you. I just hate the fact that you are probably a very intelligent person whose ability to reason is clouded by a blind faith.

    I know many many Christians, and most of them are extraordinary people (and you may be too). The biggest thing I hate is that these people have given their lives away, in hopes of something that may never come.

  48. John says:

    Truth is a moral entity.

    It can only be known by a conscience. It cannot be found by the “scientific method” because it is not a ‘fact’ it is a moral good.

    When you show up with the soldiers, the cross, the hammer and the nails, and you go to kiss me and tell me that you are not my enemy, suppose, just suppose, that at such a time, I spit in your face. Would you forgive me for it?

    Save all that sugar-coated cr*p, till you find a toilet to dump it in.

    It doesn’t sell in my marketplace of ideas.

  49. Ryan says:

    The shelves in your marketplace of ideas are near bare,

    The shelves in your library have only one book.

    I think the two may be related.

  50. John says:

    You lie.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s