Facts be damned
Posted by Brad at 9:19am Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, opponents of Barack Obama have persistently raised questions about the legitimacy of his citizenship. Some fringe hardcore Clinton activists raised the issue early in the primary campaign, trying desperately to dig something up to use against their foe. That furor was eventually put to rest only to be resurrected in the general campaign by right-wing conspiracists. Again, the claims were debunked repeatedly both by the Obama campaign and several independent organizations.
Unable to accept reality, several right-wing bloggers (including some Okie bloggers) continue to perpetuate the myth that Obama’s citizenship is false or unproven. Yesterday, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and the American Independent Party filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court over the issue, seeking “to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States,” NBC-Augusta.com reported.
Okie blogger Jim Martin of Fried Green Onions has posted many times questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, raising the issue anew yesterday in a post referencing an Atlas Shrugs post:
Here is the evidence: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN (7/20/08). This provides “reasonable suspicion”.
Here is the ad. Release the vault copy. Period.
The ad claims there are three unanswered questions:
- Was Barack Obama Born in Kenya?
- Is He really a Citizen of Indonesia?
- Does the Constitution still Matter?
The answer to question 1 and 2 is a resounding “no.” The answer to question 3: The Constitution matters to some people, but not to everyone — just ask the current administration. But that has nothing to do with the veracity of Obama’s citizenship.
Although reality and facts don’t seem to matter to those hell-bent on invalidating the popularly elected presidency of Barack Obama, I’ve included here some relevant findings from a couple of different fact-checking organizations.
From PoliFact:
SUMMARY: For months we’ve been asking for a birth certificate to sort out rumors about Barack Obama’s real name. Confirmed by the state of Hawaii, here it is.
It hit our in-box just like the chain e-mail attacks that made us want it in the first place. It’s the final piece to a puzzle we’ve been sorting out for months.
Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
“I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate,” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in a June 12, 2008, e-mail.
The birth certificate wasn’t available before because Obama’s birth state of Hawaii does not make such records public and the campaign did not release it.
Shortly after we posted this document on June 12, 2008, some PolitiFact readers questioned its authenticity.
“You have shown a Certificate of Live Birth — not a birth certificate,” one e-mailed. “There is a difference. Look at state laws regarding the completion of both forms.”
Another wrote: “I have serious doubts about the purported ‘birth certificate’ you were sent.”
To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.
*
Factcheck.org checked into it as well. (I’ve highlighted in bold red a section dedicated to Atlas Shrugs that Jim Martin pointed to.)
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.”
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
[...]
Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a “false birth certificate” on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Doocy: Well, couldn’t it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it’s a — there’s been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it’s been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It’s a fake document that’s on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
- The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.
- It isn’t signed.
- No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
- In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.
- The certificate number is blacked out.
- The date bleeding through from the back seems to say “2007,” but the document wasn’t released until 2008.
- The document is a “certification of birth,” not a “certificate of birth.”
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp
The raised seal
Blowup of textYou can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.” The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
Blowup of certificate numberSome of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible “scenario” without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen.”
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: “It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.”
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama’s birth announcementThe announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said “The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised.” He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for “all reasonable purposes.”
[...]
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night.
Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: “This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.” . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? “I hope so,” Fukino said. “We need to get some work done.”
Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
*
The evidence seems pretty convincing to me, but then again I have a bias toward factual documentation and evidence. I don’t expect this or any amount of evidence to convince the self-delusional.
| Filed under America, Blogosphere, Mythbuster, Politics, Things That Make You Shake Your Head, Worth Considering
On Nov 19, 2008, Brian said:
When one is desperate, he/she will pretty much grasp at anything…
Such a sad waste of time for so many…
On Nov 19, 2008, David McAfee said:
I would call everything you have posted misinformation. Are you interested in finding out the truth or being a lackey for the Obama camp? What is wrong with asking Obama to provide certifiable proof of his eligibility? It is a simple request and one that he could clear up in a heartbeat, but why the secrecy?
I would not consider Phillip Berg, a lifelong democrat, as someone who has an interest in a republican agenda. I would consider him to be racist either since he is a member of the NAACP. I wouldn’t consider him as being a nutcase since he is a former deputy attorny general and a democratic party chairman.
Maybe you should dig a little deeper and try to be a little more objective.
On Nov 19, 2008, Brad said:
What specifically with either organization’s report do you dispute and on what basis?
I’m always interested in the truth. And I’m not a lackey for anyone.
Nothing. What is wrong with the proof that has been offered to date? (See above referenced information.)
I don’t see the secrecy. Government officials have produced the birth certificate and verified its authenticity.
I’m not looking at this issue as republican vs. democrat. I’m looking at it as a conspiracist issue, with people who summarily reject the evidence presented so far — evidence that “has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport” —and continue to find a conspiracy where none exists.
Specifically with regard to Mr. Berg, there’s no telling what ax he has to grind. His allegations are much more lacking of any supporting evidence than Obama’s claim to citizenship.
On Nov 19, 2008, Brian said:
Mr. McAfee, are you serious???
Let us look at who is interested in finding the truth or digging deeper. You respond to a post with detailed information from two separate fact checking organizations with not one shred of objective challenge to the information presented. What is the misinformation exactly?
I cannot imagine what you guys want from the man. He has offered the very certifiable proof of his eligibility that you contend he needs to do and yet you challenge that he continues to need to do so.
It is a simple request, it should have been cleared up in a heartbeat and there is no reason for secrecy. This is probably why Mr. Obama did comply with the simple request which has cleared it up for 100% of people with an objective view of reality.
If Mr. Obama were to drive to every one of these conspiracists houses with the birth certificate in hand to let them personally validate the authenticity of the document, they still would not be satisfied because they are not satisfied with the man himself (or perhaps have a more bigoted reason to continue the insanity).
This nonsense really is one of the craziest non issues I have ever seen and you are anything but objective for continuing to believe the nonsense.
On Nov 19, 2008, David McAfee said:
What you have posted on your website is a contemporary copy (certification, date June 6, 2007) and not a vault certificate. Secondly, I am not willing to accept anything from factcheck or politfact as being objective proof given the relationship they have with Obama and those who would support him.
Brad, you say: I don’t see the secrecy. Government officials have produced the birth certificate and verified its authenticity.
Which government officials would that be? The secrecy is that when Obama had the opportunity in the Berg case to present to a judge proof of his eligibility, rather than being open as he has promised, he has done the opposite and in effect, admitted that the Berg case had merit.
BTW…Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. Read the statement again. All that is said is “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.”
Dr. Fukino does not confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Your website give misinformation because it does not deal with the specific probing questions that need to be answered. I call that subterfuge.
On Nov 19, 2008, Brad said:
Are you calling my blog post “subterfuge”? If so, you’re simply wrong. I have done nothing intentionally deceiving nor am I hiding anything. I am not shilling for anyone. I’m writing on my own after doing ALOT of reading on this, even Mr. Berg’s allegations, which I found less than compelling.
Before I buy your argument that FactCheck.org and PoliFact has a “relationship with Obama and those who would support him” and that their analyses are biased and incorrect, you’ll need to provide your own objective proof that demonstrates their measurable bias and/or hidden agenda.
If and when you are proven incorrect, will you come back here and admit your error? I certainly will have no hesitation to admit mine, but I’m not too worried about it.
On Nov 19, 2008, Ted said:
You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html
On Nov 19, 2008, David McAfee said:
Actually, the burdon of proof is in Obama’s court not only in filing his candidacy for POTUS, but in failing to answer in the Berg case.
But let me offer to tone down what appears to be an escalating dialog since I am a Christian, a pastor, and a native of Oklahoma (although I am in New Mexico now).
Like so many others who want to know the truth in this matter, it seems like a very simple and easy thing for Obama to do which is to address this issue head on. I am also concerned that the media has been very influencial in purposely not covering this issue not to mention their unfair bias towards Obama in the election process.
Finally, I believe this will come to a head sooner and not later. I see that Justice Clarence Thomas has sent the Donofrio case to conference and that there is another case that has been filed in Texas. I ask you…are all these people, in your mind, whacko because they want to know the truth? Many who have filed these lawsuits seeking proof have their reputations on the line.
On Nov 19, 2008, a. mcewen said:
David
It doesn’t matter what Obama does because you will always give yourself a caveat.
Obama did what he needed to do. This is a meaningless lawsuit and will be proved as such.
On Nov 19, 2008, Joe (the Commenter) said:
Offering a ‘tone down’?!? Since I am a Virgo, an avid reader, and a resident of Texas (although I used to live in other places), let me offer a slightly different perspective.
On another person’s blog, you ‘tone up’ the discussion by using terms like ‘misinformation’, ‘lackey’ and ’subterfuge’ and then you are the one to tone it down? I would tell you to get real but reading your comments, reality isn’t really what you seem to be shooting for.
I think I understand the grand conspiracy now - everyone (save Ditto heads) is in bed with Obama - including all of the courts which have dismissed these ridiculous lawsuits.
The original burden of proof is on the accuser to provide some reasonable evidence which would lead a court to believe there is a basis for the suit. Clearly, that burden of proof has not been satisfied.
Is the issue with the Supreme Court interesting, does it raise one’s eyebrows about why Mr. Obama doesn’t simply put the issue to rest by producing a copy of the ‘full document’ birth certificate. Sure, it is mildly interesting — but this is not proof of anything — it is breeding ground for conspiracy hacks.
Of course the right wing hacks will continue to state that Mr. Obama is wasting the American people’s time, taxpayer dollars, the court’s time, etc etc by not just responding to baseless claims by Berg, Keyes and any other hack looking for a conspiracy against the nation’s first non white President Elect (oh wait, this is purely a constitutional issue - I have to remember to keep that other stuff on the down low).
‘If’ the Supreme Court considers the case (a big if in my mind considering the scrutiny the court will receive after Bush v Gore) and ‘if’ they require Mr. Obama to produce additional evidence or ‘if’ they send it back to the Federal court — and when the proper evidence is provided — who will have wasted all these resources? A bunch of paranoid bigots who will do anything in their power to discredit a Democrat before he has an opportunity to govern.
This is nothing different than the tactics used against the Clintons. Once this issue is put to rest, delusional nut jobs (sorry - concerned citizens) will take up another ridiculous issue because they care about ‘country first’ of course.
Do we honestly expect the Obama administration to spend their time responding to every wing nut partisan who wants to throw a retarded distracting issue at them. I would certainly hope not.
If you will take off the tin foil hat for a moment, you will understand that the Obama team has more important things to address than responding to baseless and senseless law suits by sore losers in a political campaign.
There is a reason that only the right wing nutosphere continues to push the blather — you just can’t seem to see it. There is also a reason why the general public is not responding to the tantrum about protecting the consitution — it has been right wing ideologues that have shredded the constitution over the past 8 years and you guys have simply lost credibility on that issue.
For the first time in a long time, I find myself agreeing with Michael Medved – “It’s more important right now to focus on the spirit of the upcoming holidays – giving thanks, rejoicing in family, demonstrating our commitment to patriotism, peace and good will, and dropping discussions of Obama’s birth certificate (what a stupid obsession!) and past radical associations. Surely, even the most embittered battler must welcome the idea of giving rock ‘em/sock ‘em partisan politics a brief rest. It’s also a sure thing that the American people will feel profoundly grateful if we do so.”
On Nov 19, 2008, anonymous said:
The computer record generated by the State of Hawaii is not the issue. The underlying document which is the vault birth certificate signed by the doctor and showing the hospital has not been produced. This is of import and interest because from 1911 to 1972, Hawaii would record a birth of a person over the age of l upon an affidavit stating that the person/child was born at home. This statute was on the books because many people during the time that Hawaii was a terrority (and even thereafter) were born at home. If Obama was given a birth certificate based upon his mother’s or grandmother’s affidavit, it would lend credence to the claims of his Kenyan grandmother that he was born in Kenya. This entire matter could be resolved in an instant if Obama would produce the “vault” birth certificate - however, for some reason he refuses. Thus, there are numerous lawsuits. And if you think that Obama would not do something so stupid, think of Elliott Spitzer, McGreevy and John Edwards - politicians with something to hide - who pursued office despite major problems. Let Obama “finish off” the wingnuts and provide the vault certificate!
On Nov 20, 2008, David McAfee said:
To Joe:
I chose to tone down the rhetoric because I realized my words were probably of poor choice. The problem is that when I see people defending Obama, it is more often the party line and not objective reasoning and you, et al, prove my point by mocking my comments. But that’s OK….I’m not made of wax….but I will respond.
Again, the burden of proof is on Obama. Aside from the fact that this is an important Constitutional issue that seeks to clarify who is responsible to confirm eligibility of a presidential candidate, Barack Obama is the one who offered himself as a candidate and who also promised an “open” campaign. Mr. Obama would not be “wasting” the taxpayers time since he is no longer on the federal payroll. I’m sure he can come up with a little “change” in lieu of the millions he raised in very questionable ways.
As far as the tactics used against the Clintons, they made their bed and seem to be doing quite well. Bill certainly made his with Monica and effectually defiled the White House and the Presidency. But now, since leaving office, I would say they haven’t faired too poorly financially either….600 million for a library?
As for you other comments…well…I’ll pass.
On Nov 20, 2008, Brad said:
Mr. McAfee,
Whether you are lumping me personally into this category or not, I will state the following for the record:
1) I’m not defending Obama on the citizenship matter as much as I am expressing my disbelief and disdain for the perpetuating conspiracy theories despite the amount of fact-checking by many organizations and constitutional scholars who have clarified this issue to the satisfaction of most people.
2) I’m not following any party line. I don’t have a party to follow in line with. I may have voted for Obama, but I’m not a member of, supporter of or follower of the Democratic party.
3) I do not know how you can definitely claim that my conclusions are not based on any objective reasoning. How can you honestly know? You are making assumptions based on little more than your own conjecture — and they are simply false assumptions.
You continue to maintain that the burden of proof is on Obama. I continue to argue that it is not. Government officials have definitively declared that the document is valid. Ultimately, I suppose, a court will determine if the evidence is sufficent. Based on the information I’ve seen to date, it should be a quick and easy decision on the part of the judge.
Perhaps Obama is not addressing this currently because in his mind, in the minds of many well respected scholars on the matter and in the minds of the rest of Washington, D.C. (including his former election foes), the matter is settled. He certainly has more important things to do than respond to each and every conspiratorial attack.
I have previously asked you, Mr. McAfee, at least two questions that you have yet to answer:
1) What objective proof can you provide that clearly demonstrates the measurable bias and/or hidden agenda of both FactCheck.org and PoliFact? What specifically disqualifies the information they have presented regarding this specific issue?
2) If and when you are proven incorrect, will you come back here and admit your error?
Finally, this paragraph, which others have picked up on, struck me as odd:
What struck me as odd about it was your statement implies that you were toning the “escalating dialog” because you were a Christian, a pastor, and a native of Oklahoma. Would you not have toned it down if you were not any or all of those things?
In any case, I appreciate your willingness to participate in this dialog.
On Nov 20, 2008, Joe (the objective) said:
To David:
Perhaps it would have been more conciliatory to say that specifically rather than perching yourself on the “Christian/Pastor/Native Oklahoman” pedestal
Funny, I have the exact same criticism of the opposite party line and you in this instance. But back to the objective reasoning issue (although I am not sure that word means what you think it means)…you do not trust FactCheck or PoliFact but they are presenting objective evidence. You on the other hand are not presenting one shred of evidence to the contrary. Cynicism is not the same thing as objectivity. Based on all of the available evidence, you have absolutely not one shred of objective evidence that can lead you to believe Mr. Obama is anything but a citizen. You are buying into the paranoid ranting of those who want it not to be true. I am a US Citizen and yet if you asked me to prove it, I would tell you to go stuff it… you could chose to believe that makes me not a citizen until you see proof but it would not change objective truth. You assume because Obama can and has not produced the ‘vault certificate’ he must not be able to. That is not objective proof – that is conjecture.
No… not yet it isn’t. Perhaps at some point the Supreme Court will demand such proof but they have not done so yet. Perhaps one of the Federal courts will at some point demand it but currently they are not. In fact, just about everything has been summarily dismissed by the courts thus far. Once again, it is right wing hacks that are demanding the proof and Obama has no burden of proof with that group – whether you want it or not.
It is not an important constitutional issue until he is found out not to be a citizen – which has not happened. It has not been any more important than the previous 43 people who have held the office. The only difference is a bunch of bigots did not want this black man in the White House and started trumping up conspiracy theories about him being Muslim and Kenyan – I wonder why this same level of “proof” has not been demanded by any of the previous President elects??? Curious.
I understand you want to trump up the rhetoric so it sounds like the fate of the country rests in its being answered but once again, it is only right wing hacks that elevate it to that level. I understand you think everyone has drunk the Kool-aid but that still does not provide any objective evidence counter to what has been presented in defense of his citizenship.
Whose responsibility is not in question – it is the political party who nominates the individual as their nominee who bears the responsibility. The question right wing hacks want to know is whether an average citizen has ‘standing’ to sue a nominee and require proof of citizenship. Currently the courts say that they don’t – right wing hacks say that they should.
And if there were a credible institution or significant % of the electorate that demanded such openness in this case, I have no doubt he would oblige. Since currently, purely partisan hacks are the only ones pushing the issue – it is not worth their attention. In the same way we do not like the concept of negotiating with terrorists because it would only encourage more terrorism, I completely understand why Mr. Obama is not in the habit of responding to every nonsensical charge – which this is.
Yes… “questionable ways” — back to “objectivity” rather than conjecture. You should consider looking up the word objective to make sure it means what you think it means.
Some might argue that he is wasting tax payer dollars because the court personnel are paid through taxpayer dollars and of course, the time wasted by Hawaii state officials since they are being bombarded with requests – or the police stationed at the two hospitals Obama’s sister named. I am surprised I had to point this out for you.
Your apparent obsession with Clinton’s morality aside, the point is that millions and millions of tax payer dollars were wasted trying to trump up any and everything they could dig up on the Clintons and what we ended up with was a stupid affair with an intern that I think the Presidency and the White House survived (even despite the attempts by its current occupant to destroy its credibility). Any objective look at the two administrations in comparison would demonstrate that Clinton was vastly superior to W on nearly every front. With Clinton, we had Ken Starr. With Bush the second, we had… [crickets chirping]. Now back to a Democrat, we are certain to start seeing trumped up false conspiracies starting with an asinine fable about Obama being born in Kenya — or is it that he was born in Hawaii, lost his citizenship and did not repatriate? The very fact that Mr. Berg does not even have a notion for which it might be suggests a lack of positive evidence of something contrary to what is believed today – as was confirmed by the state officials who have indicated that they have the ‘vault copy’ on file today. Did they use the verbiage that made you happy? Clearly not — but everyone not determined to believe in a conspiracy understands the sentiment they were trying to express and do not assume they are parsing their words because they are part of the greatest conspiracy perpetuated on the American people.
Might they be lying, might the certificate of live birth really mean they applied for a certificate for someone less that 1 year, might the DNC be risking their political future on a candidate who they did not verify, might Mr. Obama have even been unaware of the issue until recently, maybe the notice in the paper was planted by conspiring grandparents, maybe every court that has looked at it thus far has been part of the conspiracy, might Obama be trying to hide something else on his ‘vault certificate’, might ‘24’ be reality passed off as fiction, might W be remembered as one of our greatest presidents in history… these are all possible and I could be one that chooses to believe they are all true without proof of the opposite (not particularly logical or objective) or I could find them all interesting speculation until there is evidence to support it.
On Nov 20, 2008, Lane said:
You really should give up writing if you are going to post garbage like this!
The above photo of the “birth certificate” is not a COLB at all. It is a forged certification copy.
The laws of Hawaii allow an alien to record their birth after the fact. That is the bottom line. Unless and until Obama releases a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth ( COLB ), he could very well could be an illegal alien.
Having lived my life in the courts I can tell you this. When sued, if you have a document that you can file with the court as an exhibit for a Summary Judgment to close the case, you do that every single time. You don’t pay three law firms to fight a suit on legal technicalities.
Any Presidential Candidate who was sued for proof of his citizenship, after collecting over $600 million in campaign donations, would immediately produce that document to the court if there was nothing to hide. The case would be closed. But Obama has now failed to do that in 17 separate lawsuits!
Obama rolled the dice that the mainstream media would not expose him and his gamble paid off. Had this story been aired, as it certainly should have been, Obama would not have won this election.
A Constitutional crises in now in the making as this is not going away!
Get your facts straight! Obviously you have drunk the Obama Kool Aid or worse.
On Nov 20, 2008, Joe (the objective) said:
Oh, thank you Lane… now that you have interjected so much evidence… my eyes have been opened.
I assume you can prove anything you are saying — something required in courts by the way — but I would assume you would know this better than I after spending your life in them.
He could very well be an alien… but 1) you have no proof that he is and 2) so might some of our previous Presidents (unless you have personally inspected every one of their birth certificates as well you really can’t ‘know’ can you)
On Nov 20, 2008, David McAfee said:
Answer to number 1) Factcheck and Polifact as well as your blog provides images of a computer generated certification of live birth that does not answer the important information of a vault copy of a birth certificate. These images are not proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. I refer you also to the anonymous posting previously that said:
“The computer record generated by the State of Hawaii is not the issue. The underlying document which is the vault birth certificate signed by the doctor and showing the hospital has not been produced. This is of import and interest because from 1911 to 1972, Hawaii would record a birth of a person over the age of l upon an affidavit stating that the person/child was born at home.”
Answer to number 2) Yes, I will be willing to come back and admit “my” error when it is proven that Obama is indeed a natural born US citizen and that he has not renounced his US citizenship (which is also a distinct possibility). Are you willing to admit that for whatever reason Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro might have fraudulently registered her son as having been born in Hawaii? I’m sure you have probably heard about the audio tape where Obama’s grandmother has said she was present at Barack’s birth in Kenya.
The possibility of Obama being a dual citizen also comes into play here as well as the question of how Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when that country was not allowing American citizen passports into the country.
I concur with Mr. Leo Donfrio that the Certification of Live birth is a distraction. Please allow me to cut and paste what he has said:
Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;
That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
My toning down was an attempt to apologize for accusing you of participating in defending Obama in step with the incomplete information provided by Factcheck and Polifact. My hope is that you will consider what is plausibly true here.
Joe, since I have just seen your reply to my last post I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until tomorrow for my reply, if it matters.
On Nov 20, 2008, Brad said:
Thank you for your replies to my answer, Mr. McAfee.
Your answer to #1 addressed the second part of my question although I disagree with your conclusion. You did not, however, address the first part of my question: What objective proof can you provide that clearly demonstrates the measurable bias and/or hidden agenda of both FactCheck.org and PoliFact?
Regarding your answer to #2, I stated the first time I asked that question that I would readily admit my error if it’s established in a court of law that the birth certificate is invalid and/or that Obama fails the citizenship requirements of the Constitution to be President of the United States.
Regarding your question to me — “Are you willing to admit that for whatever reason Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro might have fraudulently registered her son as having been born in Hawaii?” — I’m not going to concede anything without more information and more explanation about what their motive would have been in 1961 to fraudently register the newborn Obama. And it seems a little odd that there was a birth announcement within a couple of weeks of Obama’s birth, meaning they went to extraordinary lengths to perpetrate this fraud at a time that Obama’s achievements couldn’t have been even imagined.
No matter if anyone wants to believe me or not, I have read Mr. Berg’s allegations, others’ “proof” and “evidence” casting doubt on the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, read about the tape of Obama’s paternal grandmother and others’ explanations about how he’s a citizen of Kenya and/or a citizen of Indonesia. Conversely, I’ve read the rebuttals, debunking and analysis — both by Obama supporters and detractors. I’ve read about this issue ad naseum.
I remain unconvinced that a grand conspiracy exists to cover up Obama’s alleged disqualification to be President.
He has been through more than 24 months of intense scrutiny and exhaustive vetting. His campaign opponents tried to dig up whatever dirt they could find and played every card they could to claim he was not qualified or not up to the presidency. If the accusers were as credible as conspiracists claim they are and/or if the accusations had genuine merit, I can’t believe that his opponents wouldn’t have made it a bigger issue.
Politicians don’t easily or often ignore any shred of dirt that will hurt their opponent; each is too hungry for power to let any possible allegation with even a shred of legitimacy go by the wayside. Certainly, the Clintons are too politically savvy to let such an issue go if it had legitimacy.
While I disagree with Mr. McAfee, I appreciate his efforts at having a reasoned and reasonable dialogue (after we got past a little ugliness at the outset).
Those who resort simply to ad hominem attacks don’t merit a response.
On Nov 21, 2008, Joe (the objective) said:
David, somehow I doubt that it will matter.
This is such a silly discussion, I am not even sure why I am participating in it.
If you believe this massive conspiracy is possible, don’t you think that in the end, this will be covered up at some level to avoid a national crisis? Perhaps SCOTUS makes the issue moot by declaring him a natural born citizen. It seems more likely the lawsuits continue to be dismissed out of hand and those who do not like Obama will continue to annoy the living hell out of the rest of us by bringing it up over and over for 8 years.
What would be really really sad is if the NSA and CIA would allow a person to receive top secret presidential security briefings and he isn’t even a citizen of our country. I guess I am to believe that those responsible for vetting for security clearance just missed this one or are they also in the tank for Obama or are they also part of the conspiracy?
At some point Occam’s razor must be applied.
One can assume the following…
The MSM has failed and turned a blind eye…
The courts are clearly liberal, incompetent or both…
Even without a shred of proof that Mr. Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii, clearly he was born in Kenya…
The State Officials in Hawaii are clearly willing to parse words to mislead those who want to know…
The NSA and CIA are incompetent about who they will release top secret briefings to…
Scholars are either too liberal to be honest or too stupid to grasp that Obama is a British citizen…
Hilary Clinton, John McCain and every other political opponent of Obama missed the simple fact that Obama was ineligible to be President…
Obama has been a sitting Senator and is not even a citizen…
Or…
Obama is a natural born citizen born in Hawaii
Either might be true but I am going to opt for Occam’s razor in this instance until there is anything that actually looks or smells like actual evidence to the contrary.
I look forward to your explanation of the naivety of my kool-aid drinking choice.
On Nov 21, 2008, Brian said:
As much as I think I understand why Obama does not want to lend credibity to every out of hand attack by responding to their request… at this point, I wish he would bring out the original birth certificate and at least let it be examined by some credible entity that agrees not to divulge whatever he might not want divulged so at least we could put this issue to bed…
I will say, as much as I think it is very far fetched… if for some reason he was found not to be eligible for the office… God help us at this point.
On Nov 21, 2008, David McAfee said:
To Joe the objective/commentator
My responses, which will be the last to these long exchanges, are in parenthesis.
“I chose to tone down the rhetoric because I realized my words were probably of poor choice.”
Perhaps it would have been more conciliatory to say that specifically rather than perching yourself on the “Christian/Pastor/Native Oklahoman” pedestal
(I’ve never heard of that being called a pedestal!)
“The problem is that when I see people defending Obama, it is more often the party line and not objective reasoning and you, et al, prove my point by mocking my comments. But that’s OK….I’m not made of wax….but I will respond.”
Funny, I have the exact same criticism of the opposite party line and you in this instance. But back to the objective reasoning issue (although I am not sure that word means what you think it means)…you do not trust FactCheck or PoliFact but they are presenting objective evidence.
(The issue is not just whether Obama was born in Hawaii, see my previous post) You on the other hand are not presenting one shred of evidence to the contrary. Cynicism is not the same thing as objectivity. Based on all of the available evidence, you have absolutely not one shred of objective evidence that can lead you to believe Mr. Obama is anything but a citizen.
(Honestly, you know I personally cannot produce evidence. That is why some are appealing to the courts.) You are buying into the paranoid ranting of those who want it not to be true. I am a US Citizen and yet if you asked me to prove it, I would tell you to go stuff it… you could chose to believe that makes me not a citizen until you see proof but it would not change objective truth.
(You are not running for President otherwise, I would ask you to prove it. Obama in essence, has already told me to “stuff it” as you say, along my many other credible people who have a right to question Obama’s eligibility given his curious past, as well as his associations.)
You assume because Obama can and has not produced the ‘vault certificate’ he must not be able to. That is not objective proof – that is conjecture.
(I doubt he can produce it but the fact that he has refused to do so in court in the Berg case has certainly raised many eyebrows.)
“Again, the burden of proof is on Obama.”
No… not yet it isn’t. Perhaps at some point the Supreme Court will demand such proof but they have not done so yet. Perhaps one of the Federal courts will at some point demand it but currently they are not. In fact, just about everything has been summarily dismissed by the courts thus far. Once again, it is right wing hacks that are demanding the proof and Obama has no burden of proof with that group – whether you want it or not.
“Aside from the fact that this is an important Constitutional issue that seeks to clarify who is responsible to confirm eligibility of a presidential candidate”
It is not an important constitutional issue until he is found out not to be a citizen – which has not happened. It has not been any more important than the previous 43 people who have held the office. The only difference is a bunch of bigots did not want this black man in the White House and started trumping up conspiracy theories about him being Muslim and Kenyan –
(This is not a logical argument at all, but I will say this: I am willing to accept Barack’s testimony that he is a Christian. However, from a theological standpoint, I think his definition of a Christian is far from mine given his twenty year association/attendance in Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology church. I also have a theological issue with people who name the name of Christ and support abortion and gay rights, both of which are diametrically opposed, but that is not what is at debate here. To categorically lump those who oppose Obama’s questionable eligibility to serve as POTUS as bigots is a stretch into hyperspace. I have voted more than once for Alan Keyes even though I am white. Dr. Keyes’ qualifications eclipse those of Mr. Obama’s. Who would have ever thought a man with only two years experience in the US Senate would consider himself ready for the White House?)
I wonder why this same level of “proof” has not been demanded by any of the previous President elects??? Curious.
(As I’m sure you realize, the purpose of the courts and more specifically the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter when disputes like these arise. The question of who determines a presidential candidates eligibility has recently come before us and it is not unreasonable to ask the courts to respond. The previous lawsuits that have been filed have only dealt with the issue of standing, but hopefully this will be settled by SCOTUS in the Berg and Donofrio cases.)
I understand you want to trump up the rhetoric so it sounds like the fate of the country rests in its being answered but once again,
(Oh, I definitely think our country IS in danger on many fronts, and especially IF it is true that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS. I am deeply concerned about his socialist agenda.)
it is only right wing hacks that elevate it to that level. I understand you think everyone has drunk the Kool-aid but that still does not provide any objective evidence counter to what has been presented in defense of his citizenship.
Whose responsibility is not in question – it is the political party who nominates the individual as their nominee who bears the responsibility. The question right wing hacks want to know is whether an average citizen has ‘standing’ to sue a nominee and require proof of citizenship. Currently the courts say that they don’t – right wing hacks say that they should.
(I seem to recall that the Constitution offers to right of a citizen to appeal for redress of grievances to the Supreme Court. If the tables were turned, I’m sure you would be demanding the same. )
“Barack Obama is the one who offered himself as a candidate and who also promised an “open” campaign”.”
And if there were a credible institution or significant % of the electorate that demanded such openness in this case, I have no doubt he would oblige.
(I would say in the Berg case in Pennsylvania, that Obama had a chance to oblige, but I wonder why he didn’t? As far as a significant percentage of the electorate is concerned, they would more than likely demand openness if they were made aware of this question concerning Obama’s eligibility, but since the media has refused to put effort into investigating these things and at least given fair coverage, most of that percentage is unware…but that will change.)
Since currently, purely partisan hacks are the only ones pushing the issue – it is not worth their attention. (I would not consider Phillip Berg a partisan hack). In the same way we do not like the concept of negotiating with terrorists because it would only encourage more terrorism, I completely understand why Mr. Obama is not in the habit of responding to every nonsensical charge – which this is.
(Probably not a good analogy.)
“Mr. Obama would not be “wasting” the taxpayers time since he is no longer on the federal payroll. I’m sure he can come up with a little “change” in lieu of the millions he raised in very questionable ways.”
Yes… “questionable ways”(are you agreeing with me or avoiding the fact that his fund raising is very questionable?) — back to “objectivity” rather than conjecture. You should consider looking up the word objective to make sure it means what you think it means.
Some might argue that he is wasting tax payer dollars because the court personnel are paid through taxpayer dollars and of course, the time wasted by Hawaii state officials since they are being bombarded with requests – or the police stationed at the two hospitals Obama’s sister named. I am surprised I had to point this out for you. (Again, this could have easily been avoided and we could probably banter back and forth about this
“As far as the tactics used against the Clintons, they made their bed and seem to be doing quite well. Bill certainly made his with Monica and effectually defiled the White House and the Presidency”
Your apparent obsession with Clinton’s morality aside,
(morality is and was the very issue with the Clinton White House and every POTUS since our countries founding. There should be a reasonable expectation that the POTUS would be a moral leader as well as in his other duties.)
the point is that millions and millions of tax payer dollars were wasted trying to trump up any and everything they could dig up on the Clintons and what we ended up with was a stupid affair with an intern that I think the Presidency and the White House survived (even despite the attempts by its current occupant to destroy its credibility).
(The cost of Mr. Clinton’s trist to the country’s moral landscape has yet to be calculated) Any objective look at the two administrations in comparison would demonstrate that Clinton was vastly superior to W on nearly every front. With Clinton, we had Ken Starr. With Bush the second, we had… [crickets chirping]. Now back to a Democrat, we are certain to start seeing trumped up false conspiracies starting with an asinine fable about Obama being born in Kenya — or is it that he was born in Hawaii, lost his citizenship and did not repatriate? The very fact that Mr. Berg does not even have a notion for which it might be suggests a lack of positive evidence of something contrary to what is believed today – as was confirmed by the state officials who have indicated that they have the ‘vault copy’ on file today. (Yes, but what does that vault copy indicate?) Did they use the verbiage that made you happy? Clearly not — but everyone not determined to believe in a conspiracy understands the sentiment they were trying to express and do not assume they are parsing their words because they are part of the greatest conspiracy perpetuated on the American people.
Might they be lying, might the certificate of live birth really mean they applied for a certificate for someone less that 1 year, might the DNC be risking their political future on a candidate who they did not verify, might Mr. Obama have even been unaware of the issue until recently, maybe the notice in the paper was planted by conspiring grandparents, maybe every court that has looked at it thus far has been part of the conspiracy, might Obama be trying to hide something else on his ‘vault certificate’, might ‘24’ be reality passed off as fiction, might W be remembered as one of our greatest presidents in history… these are all possible and I could be one that chooses to believe they are all true without proof of the opposite (not particularly logical or objective) or I could find them all interesting speculation until there is evidence to support it.
On Nov 21, 2008, David McAfee said:
Brad,
Sorry…I hit the wrong key…
YOU SAID: You did not, however, address the first part of my question: What objective proof can you provide that clearly demonstrates the measurable bias and/or hidden agenda of both FactCheck.org and PoliFact?
You know that I personally do not have access to this information and therefore cannot adequately address the question other than my concerns about those organizations past affiliation with Obama. But then, access is increasingly being denied to others (see the Andy Martin case dismissal).
Then again, the birth certificate issue is not the only one (Donofrio is in conference before SCOTUS) and I really believe if the media would step up and give more coverage to these cases, there would be much more of a demand for resolution of this issue. I too would love to move beyond all of this and deal with the other important issues we face.
At this point, I think I have said enough on this forum about this matter until something more significant comes up (which could be as soon as December 1st or the 5th).
Let me extend this offer to you though. I will be in Del City (my hometown) for the Thanksgiving holidays. Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee?
On Nov 21, 2008, Brad said:
You haven’t even offered any supporting evidence of any past affiliation with Obama by either organization. You’ve disqualified them without explaining how you came to your conclusions. That’s your right, but it doesn’t give your arguments or comments more weight than two otherwise widely respected organizations.
I agree that we’ve certainly reached a stalemate on the discussion and I won’t be devoting any more time to it. I’ve continued the dialogue with you simply because I wanted to afford your comments the courtesy of reading them and answering them accordingly in a continuing reasonable discussion. I’ll revisit this issue with a new post when there’s more news about this issue and you can add to that discussion if you so choose.
Thank you for the offer, but I actually will be sharing Thanksgiving with my parents in Enid over the holiday weekend. Sincere holiday wishes to you and your family for the Thanksgiving holiday and safe passage to and fro.
On Nov 21, 2008, Joe (the objective) said:
To David the reasonable:
Sadly, I am too petty not to respond so this will be my last unless you respond, it irritates me and I feel compelled to respond (which tends to happen most of the time)
Really, so you pointing out your faith, profession and previous residence was simply irrelevant information – it seemed like you were trying to suggest those factors were why you were ‘toning it down’. It would seem like if the first two in particular were valid reasons to be at peace whenever possible or to hold onto one’s tongue, that would have been the tone from the beginning (or did you become more of a Christian and Pastor after the conversation got started). If you made an error in your faith, it would seem like you could state the error and seek reconciliation by being open about your error.
That is the implied pedestal that I speak of.
Actually that is the issue because since he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of his own right and everything else is academic nonsense.
Thank you for the honesty. I hope you can see that implied in your statement is the admission that you believe something might be true without any empirical evidence to support it. You see validity in challenging the Certificate Obama has produced (the standard document produced in Hawaii when BC are requested) with absolutely nothing but conjecture to assume it is not sufficient to support Obama’s claim as a natural born citizen (even though its validity has been validated by the state officials)
Did you ask any previous presidential candidate to “prove it”? Why was it not in question for any previous presidential candidate? What, pray tell, is unique about Mr. Obama that would make him the lucky recipient of this increased scrutiny?
They think they have the right – that is why they brought law suits. The courts (the deciders of such a claim) have said that they do not have that right/standing. Right wing bloggers are now attempting to try it in the court of public opinion because they do not like the court’s decision and disagreement with your general position.
1) I have no doubt that he can produce it (he might very well be trying to hide something on the full birth certificate but that doesn’t mean a valid one does not exist showing he was born in Honolulu.) The very fact that a public notice was posted in the paper 9 days after his birth and has since been validated through the Dept of Vital Statistics with almost absolute certainty as having been transmitted by their office to the paper – partly because of the format of the notice but mostly due to the placement of the notice in the paper which were not purchased notices. There was simply not time for that posting to exist if the notice had come through application for live birth outside of a hospital – not to mention such an application must be accompanied by prenatal records and a sworn affidavit from a midwife or person who delivered the child to ensure the birth was indeed in Hawaii (a process which has been extremely oversimplified to suggest his COLB might very well suggest he was born outside of a hospital – they were not handing these things out like candy as some would like to imply)
2) One must first be ordered by the court to produce a document in order to ‘refuse’ producing it. As the cases have been dismissed due to the fact that Mr. Berg and everyone else does not (in the court’s opinion) have the right he and others believe they have.
3) The only eye brows it has raised are in the right wing blogosphere. No one else finds it credible enough to consider.
Thankfully for Mr. Obama you are not the final arbitrator for whether his is theologically sound or a true Christian.
“who name the name of Christ” – what does that even mean – there are quite a few who despise Christ who have stated his name – you imply that he uses his faith as a platform to defend those issues. I have never seen him use the name of Christ to support abortion or gay rights – do you have any remote reference point to support that nonsense or are you just interjecting an unsupportable smear? You just don’t like someone who is a Christian who politically supports those issues. That is your right but many would see your view of the issues as very myopic.
I never stated categorically that all are bigots – to the contrary, I think most are just idiots. I do think that the original motivation for many who started this conspiracy was quite bigoted.
And once again, you currently have no valid basis to question his eligibility – you only have conspiracy conjecture.
I am not sure what this is even supposed to mean or how it is remotely relevant to the discussion.
Apparently more than 66 million of your fellow citizens thought him the right man for the job.
I do realize and I am willing to let them decide. If and when a court demands a particular document (whatever that might be), I would stand behind your contention 100% that Mr. Obama needs to comply with the court’s request. To date, no court has made such a demand and have stated that Mr. Berg and others specifically do not have standing with the issue. It is not me who is not letting the courts be the final arbiter.
That is the part that is so interesting to me. How is it that this issue has just become such an issue? Once again, what is unique about Mr. Obama… it seems I had heard on some news stations that this election was unique for some reason… like he was the first something… I am sure it is just because he is such a liberal politician (no doubt FDR faced the same scrutiny)
The lawsuit was demanding votes be discredited. The issue of standing was the courts saying it was none of Mr. Berg’s business.
I think you should be set to be disappointed with SCOTUS. I know many from the right are all abuzz about the possibility of SCOTUS revealing something. I think there is about a 90% chance they will confer and decide not to take up the issue.
Our country is not in danger by the British/Kenyan/Indonesian muslim that won in a recent decisive election. That is what many from the right are trying to imply.
Obama no more has a ’socialist agenda’ than you have a ‘fascist agenda’. At some point you should do some additional study of a political spectrum so you can understand that while Obama is more socialist than you, you are more fascist than he. Using the terms is inflammatory but not even remotely productive.
They have the right to appeal but many many ridiculous appeals get made to the Supreme Court every year and the vast majority are not heard because they do not merit the court’s time. This one is more high profile so will get some attention but that does not guarantee the court spends its time on it.
I beg to differ if the shoe were on the other foot. Unless I had actual reason to challenge ones claim to eligibility, I would not waste the courts time when there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest the challenge is likely asinine.
If people want to agree that some independent system needs to be established to validate in advance (using specific requirements) whether a candidate is truly eligible under our constitution, I am with them 100%.
Sure he had a chance to be a nice guy and offer a political opponent personal documentation that he had no business to so perhaps he could find anything to use against him.
If I were in the same boat and a political enemy was asking me for additional proof simply because they didn’t like the proof I had provided – I would wait until a court required it. Of course, since they haven’t, Mr. Obama is ‘raising eyebrows’ because he didn’t give Mr. Berg what he wants (oh and the right wing blogosphere as well).
Perhaps you are right. This is a story that could receive massive airtime (lots of potential controversy) which could bring in big dollars – especially because they are so desperately trying to extend the ratings boom that was the campaign. Why is it that they are refusing to cover the baseless story – I mean we spent weeks on the Rev Wright issue.
It is very intriguing to me that no one other than the right wing blogosphere is pushing this story. This truly must be a massive conspiracy.
If you choose to see partisan as only meaning Republican v Democrat. If it means loyal to a particular party/person – that would be Clinton, not Obama and he did have a motive to discredit Obama’s eligibility to support his partisan cause. That does mean he can’t attempt to do so but it also shouldn’t give him credibility simply because he was listed as a Democrat. The ultimate question about whether he is a hack is whether he has any truly legal basis for his challenge which currently he does not appear to have.
No, it was. But if you prefer another I can offer it in more conservative speak – if we offer a handout to welfare queens, we only encourage their insistence on that handout.
If I attempt to work within the conspirator mindset, perhaps I could agree with you. I mean, I have no actual basis to think his fund raising is questionable but since he has not disclosed to my/our satisfaction where every penny came from, it must mean something really shady.
It could have been avoided by partisan hacks who are bringing baseless lawsuits with no evidence supporting his lack of citizenship.
As a Christian/Pastor, do you hold the same contempt for King David? Funny how God still called him a man after his own heart even after he had an affair and lied about it. Is there room for redemption in your faith? Is Clinton’s morality only measured by the mistakes he made of having the affair and lying to the American people? How does this compare to a President who lies us into war against a sovereign nation as a matter of choice (considering the innocent life that is lost)?
Jeremiah 22:16 ‘He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know Me?’ declares the Lord.”
When one compares the morality of President Clinton to Bush 43 using the yardstick of Jer 22:16, what has Mr. Bush done in his 8 years that has remotely defended the cause of the poor and the needy? Isn’t that what it means to truly know the Lord?
You should consider a broader moral compass than simply sexual stupidity. How many of our Presidents would have been disqualified by that measure?
Whatever it is, it will pale in comparison to the already apparent costs of having Bush 43 for 8 years.
Oh, I have no doubt it is very juicy. Conspirator minds want to know.
Good day and God Bless if I do not hear from you again
On Nov 25, 2008, David McAfee said:
I offer a couple of links for your review in case you haven’t already seen them:
This is a detailed expose’ on the COLB
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com
This is a video on YouTube byt the same author:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ
On Nov 25, 2008, David McAfee said:
Cool flags Brad! Did you do those?
On Nov 25, 2008, Brad said:
Regarding the flags, I actually picked those up from 3dflags.com. Click on one of the flags and it will take you there.
On Nov 25, 2008, Joe (the objective) said:
Mr. McAfee, it is nice and refreshing to see you providing actual evidence of your suspicion. I have actually read Dr. Polarik’s ‘final’ and ‘conclusive’ report proving the Certificate provided by Obama was a forgery.
As, no doubt, Dr. Polarik is going to spend infinitely more time than you or I looking into the topic, it comes down to the issue of credibility since his claims have been challenged by others (for instance http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626) who clearly have more expertise on the topic than you or I.
You find Dr. Polarik’s claim credible and I don’t. Moreover, much of the right wing blogosphere sees Dr. Polarik’s report as exhaustive and conclusive while it seems like everyone outside of the right wing blogosphere does not.
Unfortunately for the right wing blog o people, fact checking organizations like FactCheck have developed more credibility as a fact checking organization than people like Dr. Polarik and there has been very little to support why their evidence and subsequent conclusion should not be taken seriously.
There have been too many in this ‘debate’ which have contacted Hawaii state officials to determine if the Certificate provided to date appears to be a valid state issued and certified version - which they have on many occasions. They can’t speak to the specific image of course but have confirmed that they did issue Mr. Obama a state certified copy at the time which is shown on the date stamp and the electronic copy sent to them appears to be valid.
Moreover, Hawaii state officials have confirmed that a valid Hawaii birth certificate is on file, they have seen it and the claims that Mr. Obama has produced a forged state certified copy are silly.
Neither you nor I have any more evidence than has been presented by all sides. No doubt, if Mr. Obama produced a copy of the full certificate, it would make it easier for people like me and more difficult for people like you. I also have no doubt that it would start a new round of ‘questions’ by those who seek to discredit Mr. Obama.
Here is what I find implausible. 1) The Hawaii state officials would have to be intentionally misleading the general public because there can be no doubt what everyone is after 2) no one in Hawaii’s state offices would have leaked an incredibly juicy story to the media that Mr. Obama was not eligible to be POTUS 3) Hawaii’s Republican Governor would have to be in on the collusion since she ordered the records sealed 4)the FEC would have been seriously remiss since they require a copy of a state certified birth certificate when someone wants to run as POTUS 5) the CIA, Dept of Homeland Security and NSA would all be seriously negligent in allowing top secret Presidential security briefings to someone who might not even be a citizen of our country 6) a notice was cleverly placed in the newspaper (one confirmed by Hawaii DVS as being transmitted by their office) 9 days after his birth to plant evidence decades before he ran for POTUS 7) there is a massive an inexplicable blackout of media coverage of this apparently obvious hoax perpetuated on the American people.
Is this all possible and could it be resolved to the naysayers satisfaction by producing additional evidence? It is possible but highly unlikely but it is even more unlikely that producing this additional evidence out of the kindness of his heart would do much to satisfy the naysayers.
It seems entirely possible to me that he has, in private, shown those that need to know the additional evidence that the right wing bloggers so desperately want to see. What is his reason for not releasing it to the general public? Who knows but I for one don’t really care. It is simply too hard to believe that the FEC, CIA, Dept of Homeland Security and NSA simply didn’t care to do their job here (while there is an inexplicable massive cover up of the issue and blackout by any form of media).
Clearly there is not going to be much to compel you but it is highly unlikely anything is going to happen before January 20th that is going to compel you either way.
At the very least, I would hope at your core and for the good of the country, you hope that you are wrong and he is eligible for the post because the ramifications of the opposite are almost unthinkable.