"Birthers" Get More And More Unhinged
"Birthers", including formerly relevant Idaho blogger Clayton Cramer, were orgasmic this week when nutcase lawyer Orly Taitz produced a forged Kenyan "Birth Certificate" for President Obama. Cramer went so far as to say he would "need some serious proof that it isn't a forgery".
Hey, Clayton, will this proof do? Finding the document on which the forgery is based seems like some pretty serious proof to me. Seriously, if you want to find what you're looking for in Africa, I suggest you respond to some E-mails from some helpful Nigerian public servants. Here's a clue to tell is something is forged or not in the computer age: if you really, really want to find a document that is unlikely to exist, and it just conveniently falls into your lap from an anonymous source, there's a good chance it's forged.
(Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills, and the "Birthers" will be just as undissuaded from their beliefs as the 9/11 "Truthers" by any actual facts. Still, it's fun to mock and belittle them as they continue to marginalize themselves with their stubborn refusal to understand how the world really works. Do they honestly believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have used this angle if it had any chance of working?)
Update 1520 06 Aug: Birther Clayton Cramer has another post up on the "Kenyan Birth Certificate"; of course, he doesn't address the proof of forgery provided above, but he repeats the Birther claim the President Obama has spent "a million dollars" defending himself from the Birthers. Of course, he provides no link to that claim, because there is absolutely no proof that President Obama has spent even a small fraction of that amount defending himself against the frivolous lawsuits. I challenge Cramer to come up with any proof other than "other Birthers said so" to back up this new claim of his.
Update 0905 07 Aug: Now even WorldNetDaily is admitting that the "Kenyan Birth Certificate" is a fraud. Interestingly, when they were first flogging the story, they claimed that they had been "able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical". It now appears that they were lying when they said that, since they now admit the form is not at all the same.
posted by Bubblehead at 2:21 PM
75 Comments:
Pretty good history here and discussion of birther forgeries: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/third-obama-birth-certificate-appears-in-court/
I happen to live in the congressional district of the loony-tunes who, at the start of this session of Congress, introduced the bill requiring documented proof of resident birth to run for president, helping to set off this charade*. My thesis has been that the Rs in the House pick the dumbest freshman they can find and trick him into introducing the dumbest bill they can invent, thus Bill Posey, Florida 15th, and thus his bill.
Joe Klein of Time.com made an interesting point on the origins of all this (as quoted in The Week): "It's not hard to explain, said Joe Klein in Time.com. Barack Obama 'is the first chief executive of this grand and good nation not to be melanin-deprived.' This badly upsets 'a fair number of frightened, ignorant, idiot white folks,' and they just refuse to believe that an African-American man 'named Barrack Hussein Obama could actually have been elected president.'"
* I don't think it's clear that Congress can go beyond the Constitution in setting requirements for President ... and even if it is, what's chances that the bill would get signed into law? Somehow we've gotten 220 years along without this nonsense and no issues till now, with even the Ds easily passing over the non-native birth (Canal Zone) of John McCain.
8/04/2009 4:00 PM
RD, as off-base as some of these "Birthers" are, I don't see that a bill specifying the way in which native birth (a requirement for the office) is to be certified as "going beyond the Constitution." The Constitution is replete with cases where it says "what" and it is left to Congress to say "how."
Further, I fail to see how Klein's garden-variety boilerplate accusation that birthers are all a bunch of ignorant, racist white-folks scared of the black man qualifies as either "interesting" or a "point." I will grant that there are, in all likelyhood, racists who subscribe to the birther theory, but to assume that anyone questioning the President's country of origin must be racist or afrophobic is little better than, for example, hearing of a white policeman arresting a black man and immediately assuming that there has to be a racist component to the incident.
8/04/2009 5:19 PM
"what's chances that the bill would get signed into law?"
Boy, wouldn't a veto really add fuel to their fire. Heh, I'd pay to see that.
8/04/2009 5:21 PM
Seems like this whole thing could be put to bed if The One just produced his darned birth certificate.
Maybe this already happened, and I missed it because this whole thing isn't worth paying attention to.
Just sayin...
8/04/2009 5:35 PM
"Seems like this whole thing could be put to bed if The One just produced his darned birth certificate..."
Check page 19 of the 10/17 Aug issue of Time magazine for (yet another) photo of Obama's certificate of live birth.
Here are a few more:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://simmerdown3.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/barack-obama-birth-certificate_472x460.jpg&imgrefurl=http://simmerdown3.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/cnns-roland-martin-calls-out-crazies-over-birth-certificate-nonsense/&usg=__UX1Azr11kTw-XCGtkp0XAGf-Huc=&h=460&w=472&sz=43&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=j62hjJZfq5AS7M:&tbnh=126&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://trueslant.com/donovan/2009/07/27/elected-members-of-birther-movement/
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/24/Obama%2520birth%2520certificate.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/obama_mccain_us_citizens_once.html&usg=__BWKogy_yL4FIEv5i-nUO2ytGoIk=&h=575&w=585&sz=108&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=bhmZN1ytW7HxMM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/obama-birth-certificate.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.alan.com/2009/06/23/alright-already-with-the-birthers-heres-the-proof/&usg=__DtGhn7mhvNqpLbIMmifx6ZuAL6g=&h=414&w=424&sz=39&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=fOUPnKqmErvKZM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://markrileymedia.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obama-birth-certificate1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://markrileymedia.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/obama-a-us-citizen-some-in-congress-still-doubt/&usg=__1OnP8GJCeTxd8aKckDGESDyFaNY=&h=786&w=811&sz=93&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=U45RbG7YaugH0M:&tbnh=140&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-12/barack-obama-birth-certificate_43705180.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-birth-certificate-photo,0,7688869.photo&usg=__dfgKHzkW8W7hovxiol9ytCxOLYk=&h=488&w=500&sz=36&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=RKR2g72zJCmqvM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
submandave: tinfoil hat getting a bit tight?
8/04/2009 6:12 PM
At this point, it's become a meme. Like the "if only he would produce a birth certificate" - which will surely be followed with moving goalposts and "if only he could produce this other type of certificate"... to the point where even stamped, dated, and notarized video of his birth as narrated by Dwight Eisenhower himself wouldn't convince them.
Although, in fairness, if someone produced such an Eisenhower narrated video, I'd be suspicious too...
8/04/2009 6:44 PM
RD, a little bipartisan advice from an independent:
Unlike citizens of most nations on earth, Americans are rightfully entitled to the expectation of arduous fact-finding by their government before decisions of import to the country are made.
Let's suppose the pronouncements of Obama's natural U.S. birth are 100% accurate. Legitimate legal questions arise only because:
1. The evidence submitted to date has been 3rd-party heresay (e.g. John McCain). How can we be sure those asserting Obama's qualification actually know based upon substantive fact?
2. Efforts for forensic examination of relevant evidence (that is, in court) have been summarily and consistently thwarted. (Obama appoints lower court judges).
3. The only explanations the public has received (and there have been many since day one) have been from political mouthpieces, political appointees (yes, the clerk in Hawaii included), or our lowest-approval-rating ever Congress.
4. NONE of the attestations by anyone to date (other than Obama) has been under a penalty of perjury. All the public wants is a more reliable answer. Given the assurances provided thus far, if they can be beleved, prima facie evidence could be produced immediately, inexpensively, and without court intervention. Yet, the only document produced is what can be termed a "questioned document".
Any voter who blames a more diligent public for skepticism is cutting his own throat in the long run.
On the otherhand, such allegiance to a Commander-in Chief is certainly commendable, and we are glad you are willing to commit your children and grankids to whatever conflicts Obama deems necessary to prosecute.
8/04/2009 7:20 PM
I think at this point it would be worse for the country to find out he was not born in Hawaii. Too much chaos that we don’t need.
On the other hand and with all due respect to RD, A Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth is not the same thing as a Hawaii Birth Certificate. I understand that it is possible to have the former and not actually have been born in Hawaii? I don’t know why they have this dual system but it is cause for great confusion in this particular case. So, it probably would be a good idea for future presidential candidates to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Constitution.
Anyway, this particular horse has left the barn.
Chris S.
8/04/2009 7:21 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/04/2009 8:16 PM
Oh, and I cannot produce a birth certificate. Neither can my home state. The county hall of records burned to the ground a few years ago. I have to be careful not to let my passport expire...
And I better not run for President. Except, that, since I am white, no one would care.
8/04/2009 8:19 PM
(Gross typo is fixed)
John McCain, born in Panama. Senate passed a resolution declaring him a US citizen. Was that needed? Barry Goldwater, born in the AZ territory...not a citizen? Really?
What about those born in Guam? Puerto Rico? to American servicemen stationed overseas?
Idiotic drivel I say.
Oh, and for all the idiots who think -any- senators sign on to this crap about our CinC?
Read the text of US Senate resolution 225 of the 111th congress.
Passed by unanimous consent, it officially recognizes HI as the CinCs birthplace.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr111-225
Suck on that birthers.
Hey, anyone hear about the RU subs off the US east coast...oooh! I'm not gonna be able to sleep tonight!
8/04/2009 8:21 PM
Srvd_SSN_CO,
Having served 5 different SSN COs, myself, I tend to regard the possibility of a sitting president allowing birthers to unnecessarily believe he may have committed a material perjury as a possible indication of an unaccountable-to-anyone attiude.
We have recent evidence of another president, also a lawyer, dragging the country through impeachment proceedings and getting disbarred for similar "drivel".
The birth issue is certainly lame, as you say. The perjury issue is a live torpedo in the water.
Please do not accuse birthers of falling for the former. -Rex
8/04/2009 8:55 PM
Even more ominous than the possibility that Barrack Obama may not be native born is the rumor that he actually got 52.9% of the popular vote. Some people really believe this. In fact, I'm told that there's even a small group claiming that he got 365 electoral votes.
When will this charade end? When will people stop believing that we elected an African-American to the highest office in the land? What does it take for proof?
You can see the fingerprints of the mainstream media all over this. Even worse is the role of the Democratic Party in claiming victory.
One can only conclude that the people who believe all this have not lost their minds like the rest of us!
8/05/2009 4:29 AM
I am looking very closely at images of the birth certificate... There is some small type at the bottom. My reading vision isn't quite what it used to be, so I have to go to a high res screen and magnify it. I read the words
"This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceding"
Can anyone tell me what this means?
http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/obama-phony-birth-certificate.jpg
8/05/2009 5:49 AM
Let's see... evidence of Obama's birth in HI:
1. Certification of Live Birth (enough, by the way, for a passport) from HI has been released and viewed.
2. Original birth certificate (which by HI law CANNOT be released to the public) has been viewed by various state officials and non-partisan media groups, ALL of which say it's legitimate.
3. TWO different independent Hawaii newspapers reporting in August of 1961 that he was born in HI.
Evidence against:
... ok, an obviously forged "Kenyan" birth certificate.
A terrible quality phone call from a biased lawyer through a translator to Obama's step-grandmother where she allegedly says "yes" when asked if he was born in Kenya, but then when the translator repeats the question to her, she says "no, no, no, that's not what I meant".
Basically, no evidence he was born anywhere but HI.
It boggles the mind how people can believe something with no evidence for it, and lots and lots of contrary evidence.
8/05/2009 5:57 AM
Rex,
Perjury? What are talking about? Are you saying that the president commits perjury whenever a small group of people cling to silly delusions?
8/05/2009 6:12 AM
I just want to know where Dan Rather stands on this "forged" African birth certificate. He is the expert on forged documents after all.
Rackburn
8/05/2009 6:38 AM
Count me as being with Vigilis on this one.
Moreover, wwhy hasn't the doctor who delivered Obama simply stepped forward and put all this to rest?
The hysterics in this argument seem clearly to favor the anti-"birthers." I know I don't sit well with any attempt at being shouted down, and have a basic Missourian "show me" attitude toward all this.
Like many others, I can do without all the histrionics and bullshit from both sides of this issue. Let's all hope that this does eventually get pulled into court, so that some reasonable intelligence & professional forensics are brought to bear.
8/05/2009 9:53 AM
"Moreover, wwhy hasn't the doctor who delivered Obama simply stepped forward and put all this to rest?"
You realize that was 48 years ago, right? Chances are, the doctor is dead.
Not every argument deserves its "day in court". I put the "birthers" in the same category as the Flat Earth Society, or holocaust deniers (in terms of evidence). Some arguments have no merit whatsoever, and deserve ridicule.
8/05/2009 10:13 AM
And to Vigilis- why is Barack Obama obliged to provide even more proof? Did we require McCain? Bush? Gore? Clinton? Reagan?
Why is Obama assumed "guilty" on this question, and most provide even more evidence (which seems to go way beyond a "reasonable doubt" already)? There's simply NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary.
8/05/2009 10:16 AM
"Moreover, why hasn't the doctor who delivered Obama simply stepped forward and put all this to rest?"
My mother's doc delivered me and then went into the next room and had her own baby. No shit.
Something tells me that she would not remember delivering me. And I bet she doesn't keep records that long either. If she's still alive.
8/05/2009 10:22 AM
This is a fringe issue that has been settled. Obama was born in Hawaii, was elected president, and the "birthers" ought to be consigned to the backwaters of the Internet, where they belong.
Joel - I hope this isn't an indication of where you, the Sage of Submarine Bloggers, resides.
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Obama, but this one has no validity and no place in serious discussions about the disaster that is the Obama administration (though I am still hoping that a serious setback on health care and rebukes in Virginia, New Jersey and 2010 Congressional elections could turn this administration into Clinton 2).
I'd also like to point out that much of the recent birther discussion is coming from mainstream sources critical of it. Trying to paint your foes as lunatics is a pretty tried and true political tactic (especially when you're losing), and Obama is nothing if not a practitioner of the Saul Alinsky and Chicago schools.
8/05/2009 11:57 AM
Jay,
The media was late, but are now doing terrific job in doing what needs to be done. That is dispelling ignorance and misinformation, and thoroughly discrediting the kooks spreading it.
I don't know if Taitz and her ilk are lunatics or something worse, but when this is all over I hope and expect they will be irrelevant. Our country will be better for it.
8/05/2009 2:06 PM
Perjury? Rex are you really one of those dumbasses who believes the $40M Ken Starr spent to prove the President lied about a BJ was money well spent?
The problem with birthers is that they cannot be satisfied. We never went to the moon...the illuminati run everything...Oswald did not act alone...FDR deliberately let Pearl Harbor happen...9/11 was a military attack. Quick, get the tinfoil hats!
You just cannot disprove idiocy.
8/05/2009 2:32 PM
The fact Obama exists is prima facie evidence of his birth! Birthers don't question that our good president was born, but, like our founders reasoned, want basic assurances of his LOYALTY to the USA. That is precisely the reason a birth restriction was ever contemplated. (Otherwise looney folks might want a lawyer unqualified for a security clearance to be US president someday).
and, iandyii - you ask:
"Did we require McCain? Bush? Gore? Clinton? Reagan?"
No, EACH of the FELLOWS YOU NAMED SERVED in our country's MILITARY, except Clinton, who had served his Southern state as Governor for quite a bit longer than all of Obama's executive experience to date.
and, SRVD CO -
"..the $40M Ken Starr spent to prove the President lied about a BJ was money well spent?"
Are you really calling me one of those @#2%! lawyers who appropriated or received the $40M?
Due to your faithful (just my guess) military service, you would not need a birth certificate to be president. You mentioned Maj. General Barry Goldwater had some citizenship problems, like Obama. I suppose that rules out your snap jugement of birther racsim. City boy, were you?
But, if I were you I would get a replacement certificate anyway. After all, illegal immigrants seem to have little difficulty with such minor details.
8/05/2009 4:01 PM
I too find reality burdensome on occasion and wish to wonder sometimes in the vale of madness. But alas, I lack the imagination that would allow me to loop along as vapidly and reason-free as Vigilis and his loony band. Such a tenuous grasp on sanity: seek help.
8/05/2009 4:22 PM
Vigilis, the Constitution says nothing about military service as qualification for President. It says that the President must be a "natural born citizen", something that is not clearly defined in the Constitution.
You're completely sidestepping the issue- if you want assurances of his "loyalty", would even more proof (say, a video of his birth next to Don Ho playing the ukulele) he was born in HI assuage your concerns? I highly doubt it. So what is it really about?
Where is the evidence? Why are you so inclined to believe something with NO evidence, and LOTS of contrary evidence?
By the way, plenty of US service men and women (including a fine QM and FT I served with on an SSN) were not born in the United States. Does that make them less loyal?
8/05/2009 4:55 PM
Jay,
The 2nd part of the "mission statement" on the top of my blog says I "mock and belittle general foolishness wherever it may be found". I think Birthers, like Truthers, are foolish, and I call it as I see it.
8/05/2009 5:13 PM
Yawn..... Can't believe you'all still debating this nonsense.
Lets get real!! Lets go after all them Russian submarines invading our fishin waters!! Dangit! Next thing ya know they'll be wantin to use the Atlantic Missle Range to test that Buliva missile thingy they're havin problems with! Don't let'em get away with it!! Gotta organize Lou Dobbs, Fox News, and the birthers to stop them dang ol'russians--again!!!
Keep a zero bubble............
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
8/05/2009 9:56 PM
You know what? I thank the fuck Christ I am not a Missile Tech on an Akula or Typhoon(Buffoon)class boat, I really am.
The Bulava BM (Bowel movement)is literally a P.O.S. Did you know there have been 11 to 12 tests in the last six years? 6 of those tests were failures. There's even been three different configurations for it. The Russians are trying to get the damn thing to do too many things all at once. Too many features can actually be a bad thing. Ever heard of programmable guidance? I would like to go into this in further detail but most of you know what I'm referring to. I'm just glad I'm here and not there.
MT1 WidgetHead
8/05/2009 10:46 PM
"submandave: tinfoil hat getting a bit tight?"
RD, ever bother to actually read what someone writes instead of taking a knee-jerk response? My comments on the subject boil down to two:
1. It is within Congress' purview to specify how the Constitutional "native born" requirement is to be satisfied, if it chooses to, and
2. blanket accusations of racism in defense of Pres. Obama have become more pedestrian than interresting.
I find it instructive that you seem unable to address these points without resorting to ad hominem accusations.
8/06/2009 11:02 AM
Dave,
The problem is that there is no credible evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. And as is clear now, no amount of evidence (birth certificates, newspaper announcements, etc.) that is remotely likely to come out could ever assuage the "concerns" of the birthers.
I don't think that all people who question Obama's "birth story" are racist, but I think many, perhaps most, have questionable grasps of the nature of reality and how the world works.
8/06/2009 11:20 AM
iiandy -
"By the way, plenty of US service men and women (including a fine QM and FT I served with on an SSN) were not born in the United States. Does that make them less loyal?"
Do you not bother to read?
According to my statement, creditable service in the U.S. military provides evidence of loyalty and you are making my point. Thanks, I guess.
8/06/2009 12:13 PM
According to your statement, Vigilis, his place of birth has something to do with his loyalty. You said that you wanted assurances he was LOYAL to the US. Therefore, you implied (unintentionally, I guess), that people who are not born in the US are NOT LOYAL. So what does his birth have to do with loyalty? And what would prove to you that he was loyal to the US (an absurd demand to make, it seems to me... it's virtually impossible to determine someone's motivations- in my opinion, it's only possible to judge someone's actions).
8/06/2009 1:14 PM
"RD, ever bother to actually read what someone writes instead of taking a knee-jerk response? My comments on the subject boil down to two:
1. It is within Congress' purview to specify how the Constitutional "native born" requirement is to be satisfied, if it chooses to, and
2. blanket accusations of racism in defense of Pres. Obama have become more pedestrian than interresting.
I find it instructive that you seem unable to address these points without resorting to ad hominem accusations."
1. As said, it is not clear that Congress can go beyond the black letter of the Constitution specifying conditions for the Chief Executive. Not clear.
2. Send this point to Joe Klein. Me da messenger.
And I've got your ad hominem hanging. Wingnuts are in season.
8/06/2009 3:33 PM
aye,aye,andy...
"According to your statement, Vigilis, his place of birth has something to do with his loyalty. You said that you wanted assurances he was LOYAL to the US. Therefore, you implied (unintentionally, I guess), that people who are not born in the US are NOT LOYAL."
Nice try. DO NOT put words in my mouth.
As readers can see above, what I actually said was "creditable service in the U.S. military provides evidence of loyalty and you are making my point."
You waste my time and try my patience, dude. This is my last response to your repetition of primitive talking points and obvious preference for opinions over fact.
Vigilis cautions thoughtful readers to take your loose words with extreme caution, and this ends my reading of anything further YOU allege under your ridiculous pseudonym.
8/06/2009 6:47 PM
Vigilis... opinion over fact? That's rich... considering you are pushing something with NO facts, and NO evidence. I guess the Earth might be flat too, huh? The holocaust didn't happen? Way to ignore my main point, which is that you are all to happy to believe something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
8/07/2009 3:46 AM
Looks like Taitz has been "Punked"
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99344/Punking_the_Obama_birthers
8/07/2009 8:57 AM
And in case you are bored, you too can claim a Kenyan birth certificate of your very own. Good for certain Californian lawyers...
http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/
8/07/2009 9:04 AM
iiandyiii,
You accuse Vigilis [your words] "of pushing something with NO facts, and NO evidence. I guess the Earth might be flat too, huh?"
To me, he is pushing only {ref: #4- 8/04/2009 7:20 PM] what all the evidence you, yourself, cite should make possible and easy (producing BHO's actual birth certificate:
"Given the assurances provided thus far, if they can be beleved, prima facie evidence could be produced immediately, inexpensively, and without court intervention. Yet, the only document produced is what can be termed a 'questioned document'."
Moreover, he has rebutted every arument you throw back at him using cheap debating tactics exactly as carefully outlined TODAY at EagleSpeak by Eagle1 (who is a retired Navy Capt. and a real lawyer) here
My guess is you are merely an over zealous, pre-law student. You know nothing about the real world.
I am more likely to believe Eagle1 than you. -Paul
8/07/2009 5:18 PM
Paul,
One cannot debate the nature of the moon with a person who denies the moon exists.
8/08/2009 5:54 AM
Paul,
The document produced is only a "questioned" document by the deluded. It is the same document that Hawaiians use to get a passport. The same document they use to get a security clearance for a federal job. The fact that a strange, vocal minority won't accept this document, plus the two newspaper announcements, shows me that they won't accept a "long-form" birth certificate either- they'll say it's a forgery, or say it's not the right document, or whatever.
And again- there's NO evidence that Obama was born anywhere else. Why the determination to believe something with no evidence?
Over-zealous pre-law student? Wow, that's far off. Not that this should matter, but I'm a former Submarine Junior Officer, I majored in physics in college, and now I work as a logistics analyst for the Virginia class program.
8/08/2009 7:29 AM
andy
"there's NO evidence that Obama was born anywhere else. Why the determination to believe something with no evidence?"
You seem to subscribe to this fallacy:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
In addition to failing to keep his transparency promise in a demonstrable way, Obama is allowing a lower standard to be set (a precedent) for vetting future presidential candidates.
Regardless of how important other issues on Obama's plate may seem now, many people in the electorate (we are not just talking "birthers" here) do not wish the presidential vetting standard to be lowered. National loyalty is subconsciously a supreme issue to voters. Do I think Obama's national loyalty is in question? No, nor do I believe McCain's was. Paul
8/08/2009 9:43 AM
Paul, iiandyiii is quite correct. The evidence is that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence otherwise. Have a good day
8/08/2009 10:01 AM
Paul,
Again- evidence for Obama's birth in HI: certification of live birth (enough for a passport or security clearance), 2 different newspaper announcements.
Evidence against- NADA. Nothing.
The fact is, short of showing a video of his birth on the summit of Mount Kilauea, he's proven he was born in HI. The "controversy" is fake. And if you still believe he was born elsewhere, you should reexamine your criteria for believing something.
8/09/2009 7:58 AM
Part of the fuss is Obama's non-citizen father, right? Although it doesn't affect his citizenship. He may also be a Kenyan citizen- I don't know their rules, but my gf (born & raised here) is considered a citizen of Mexico by the Estados Unitas of Mexico.
I was born in Guam, of 2 US citizens. It isn't likely to come up for me, but claims that Goldwater of McCain are ineligible are ridiculous. This is where Congress or the courts could clarify the definition of "natural born".
I consider military service in an election, but do not take it as evidence of loyalty. An indication, sure, but the Pueblo's machines would've been useless without Walker.
-3383
8/09/2009 2:25 PM
RD, you continue to evade my point.
U.S. Constitution, Atr II Sec 1:
"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"
In the Naturalization act of 1790 Congress, many of whom at that time were Framers of the Constitution, specifically stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . ." This clearly supports the idea that while Congress may may create additional requirements for the office, defining exactly what constitutes a "natural born citizen" is within their prerogative. It seems logical to me that the criteria or documentation by which the Federal Election Commission certifies a candidate as "natural born" might as well. While I don't think this legislation has a snowball's chance, nor am I convinced it is necessary, I completely fail to see merit in you contention that it constitutes going "beyond the Contitutional requirements."
As to Klein's statement, while I don't agree with it my point was more a rebuttal of your characterization of it as being "interesting." Were I to find a statement by some racist hate group saying that the economic and cultural problems in America were the result of our mixing of the races and election of a black man as President, I certainly wouldn't find it interesting; it would be predictable drivel. So, too, do I find Klein's comments. The main distinction between his standard, predictable stereotyping racist comments and those in my hypothetical is that his are accepted and praised as being insightful by the political class currently in power.
8/10/2009 10:10 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/10/2009 11:52 AM
Dates are wrong...
Hi submandave,
The 14th Amendment gives guidance around citizenship, and thus congress may be limited on legislating how restrictive citizenship can be (2007, Ho, LA Times). The 14th amendment was passed 1868, after the Naturalization act of 1790. (BTW, the naturalization act has been superceded a number of times).
Here is my reference:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-ho10mar10,1,3646198.story?coll=la-news-comment
8/10/2009 11:54 AM
phw, thank you for reading and offering relevent and supported comment. I did not intend to imply that a law passed in 1790 was the final word, but was using it to show that Congressional action in clarifying the "natural born" requirement had precedent.
Personally, I agree that most of these folks are as ridiculous as the "use of DU munitions is a war crime" crowd. What I object to is any trendency to take any disagreement with any part of an argument and jump to an immediate assumption that I am diametrically on the other side of the issue. I recently had a similar experience with an old NROTC classmate and a discussion of DADT.
It's hard to have a constructive discussion when there are so many bristling at any opportunity to beat down a heretic.
8/10/2009 1:03 PM
phw, wrt the 14th Amendment, I don't see that anything in there regarding who is to be considered a "natural born citizen" precludes action to specify proper and legal verification of such in order to qualify as a Presidential candidate. For example, under the 14th Amendment my friends' daughter who was born in the US, despite both of her parents being Japanese citizens, would meet the "natural born" requirement to hold the office of President. A law requiring her to provide proof of such via birth certificate or some other means does not, I believe, infringe upon her right nor place undue burden in executing this right.
8/10/2009 1:11 PM
Submandave,
Let me just say this. The birthers’ argument is based around the concept that Obama is not a US citizen, so any document that suggests the contrary must be a forgery. No amount of evident will change their minds. Nothing I say here will change the minds of these idiots.
You are not arguing that Obama is not a US citizen. You seem to be arguing that we need to apply a strict birth-vetting to anyone who would be President beyond what Hawaii has already provided. I am saying that what Hawaii provided should be sufficient as it indicates
(1) A birth date (establishing the fact that Obama is old enough)
(2) A place of birth (establishing the fact that Obama was born in the US)
(3) A certification (establishing the proper authority—the State of Hawaii)
(4) Parentage (establishing that Obama is not the child of foreign diplomats, for example)
Let’s agree to the following:
(1) A natural born citizen in any person born in this country.
(2) Any natural born citizen is eligible to be President of the US.
If we agree to these two points, let’s continue.
There are those who argue that people need to show “the long form”, containing such items as attending physician, hospital, and so forth. Such information is not always known. For example, it is not necessary for a natural-born citizen to have a physician or midwife at birth. A mother or father may not have a home. The child may have been left on a doorstep. To pass a law otherwise will exclude anyone born of unknown circumstances-- but otherwise born in the USA-- from ever being President. Due process denied.
Another group of people excluded would be adoptees. Often adoptees have their “long form” birth certificate sealed, and an amended certificate released containing their adopted parents’ names and their city of birth recorded. Adoptees cannot get their original birth certificates because they are sealed by the courts. This is done, BTW, to protect the people who gave up their children (when they are known). In all cases, however, the actual city of birth is shown in the birth certificate (ie My daughter’s birth certificate (the “short form”) indicates that she was born in Guatemala City, Guatemala). To pass a law requiring the public unsealing of adoption records for anyone wanting to be President would violate the rights of those who do not want to be identified. Also due process denied.
Lastly, let’s consider the history of the matter. How many former Presidents could provide more than what the short form indicates? Could Abraham Lincoln provide the name of the attending physician present at his birth, or even a street address? How many Presidents born in the 19th or late 18th century provide such details? Chances are what were used to establish birth was their race and church records. Nothing more.
We should be very careful in attempting to change laws defining who is a citizen and who is not—even when considering eligibility to be President of the US. I think the short form should be sufficient.
8/10/2009 4:23 PM
Great comment by John Glisch, the editorial page editor at Florida Today, the home newspaper in Congressman Bill Posey's district:
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2009
Congressman Posey Meets 'Doonesbury'
Congressman Bill Posey has become the poster-boy for the tinfoil hat crowd that believes President Obama wasn't born in the United States and so is not really chief executive of the USA.
It's utter nonsense, of course, repeatedly disproven and rebuked by leading conservative publications and officials.
It has even been attacked by two talking head patron saints of the right - Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter - who have condemned the "birthers" and likened them to the conspiracy nuts who blamed the Bush adminstration for engineering 9/11.
But none of that is stopping the Rockledge Republican from embarassing himself by continuing to push a bill he has sponsored that would require all presidential candidates to prove they were born here.
With a straight face, Posey says it's about preventing this kind of controversy in the future. But it's really about throwing raw meat to the GOP's Flat Earth Society fringe.
Posey should end this absurd venture and withdraw the bill. But he won't, apparently believing the old Hollywood PR maxim that says "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
To that end, he showed up today as the featured object of ridicule in the "Doonesbury" comic strip about his "birther" bill. The strip also takes a shot at CNN for allowing Lou Dobbs to continue talking about this sillyness.
Posey represents a super-red district so chances are slim any of this will affect him when he runs for reelection next year. But it's a sad statement for the Space Coast when one of its two members of Congress shows up on the comics page rather than gaining attention for helping solve the serious problems facing our nation.
What do you think about Posey, his bill and the "birther" fringe?
POSTED BY JOHN J. GLISCH AT 2:40 PM
8/10/2009 4:51 PM
I saw the Doonesbury comic. Very funny. There is also a nice collection of funny editorial comics at www.cagle.com.
8/10/2009 8:44 PM
"You seem to be arguing that we need to apply a strict birth-vetting to anyone who would be President beyond what Hawaii has already provided." - phw
"While I don't think this legislation has a snowball's chance, nor am I convinced it is necessary, I completely fail to see merit in you contention that it constitutes going 'beyond the Contitutional requirements.'" - me (emphasis added)
As I said, I don't necessarilly believe there needs to be additional legislation on this, partly because I haven't bothered to research what the current requirements for certification of eligibility are. But simply stating that the bill before Congress in unconstitutional seems to be more of a dodge than an actual argument.
I will now, for the first time, state my opinion on the "birther" premise: I am unconvinced either way. Pres. Obama in all likelihood was born in HI, but the concerted efforts by the head of the administration dedicated to "restoring transparancy to the government" to seal all records of such (along with health and education records) certainly does nothing to discourage the contraversy. Personally, I believe in choosing one's battles, and even if he was born in Kenya attended by the local mullah and a witch doctor this is a battle the "birthers" will never win, and is therefore stupid to fight. I would not be surprised if the sealing of records was an intentional effort to keep this nonsense alive and in the forefront. After all, keeping this going benefits the President by reducing the bandwidth of legitimate reasoned criticism of policy and political philosophy while simultaneously allowing them to dismiss any legitimate critism that does get through as just being more of the same conspiracy-minded nonsense.
8/11/2009 9:51 AM
Dave-
You're "unconvinced either way". Yet you state in all likelihood he was born in HI. That is some impressively weird and convoluted reasoning. What would convince you?
He sealed his health/education records? One- prove it. Two- so what? I wouldn't want strangers going through my education and ESPECIALLY my health records... would you? And he didn't seal any birth records- that's impossible. He released the normally available document from Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii is following its normal procedure by not releasing personal records to anyone who asks.
Its mind boggling how people won't accept a preponderance of evidence, and Occam's Razor- in this case, the simplest explanation is that he was born in HI, his parents notified the local papers, and that was it.
8/11/2009 10:12 AM
Andyii..
Who decides a preponderance of evidence? Not you or me, bud.
Jurors under oath in a duly constituted court of law. There is no other recognized method short of this:
An immediate and inexpensive way to satisfy doubters and posterity is for Obama to publicize his long form certificate. The danger to our country is the precedent this president is now sets by withholding one, silly document.
No candidate in the future will ever have to do more. So sad a legacy for a Harvard grad.
So what if a few birthers still claim it was forged? Who would believe them? Paul
8/11/2009 12:33 PM
Paul,
Any doubters left have shown they're not interested in what the evidence has to say about Obama's birth- ALL OF IT indicates he was born in HI. NO EVIDENCE indicates he was born anywhere else.
For serious people, there is no question here, any more than there is a question as to whether the earth is flat or round.
I shouldn't have said "preponderance of evidence". I should have said ALL THE EVIDENCE. Because all the evidence points to one conclusion- Obama was born in HI. That's the simplest explanation, and that's the only explanation with any evidence.
Who would believe them, if some people still claimed his "long form" certificate was forged? Probably the same people who currently believe that Obama's mother flew to Kenya from Hawaii while extremely pregnant to have a baby, then flew back to Hawaii almost immediately after his birth, and called up the two local newspapers to report a new baby... because even though he would already be a citizen (by virtue of having been born to an American parent), she wanted to ensure that he could run for President someday.
Of course, if that was her goal, it would have been much easier for her to NOT FLY TO KENYA WHILE PREGNANT!
Basically, the people who believe that scenario are the same types who believe the moon landing was a hoax, LBJ killed Kennedy, and the government is trying to take our "precious bodily fluids" with flouridated water.
8/11/2009 12:46 PM
Andyiiii,
Not only do you not know for certain whereof you speak, your unsubstantive repetition proves you really do not understand the nature of legal evidence.
Sooner or later, you will have to come to grips with better knowledge of the legal system under which you live.
8/12/2009 7:22 PM
It's not a question of "legal evidence", even though there is NO evidence of ANY sort that indicates Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. It's a question of common $#$%@!% sense. You've shown that evidence of ANY sort doesn't much matter to you.
8/13/2009 3:57 AM
It's not a question of "legal evidence", even though there is NO evidence of ANY sort that indicates Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. It's a question of common $#$%@!% sense. You've shown that evidence of ANY sort doesn't much matter to you.
8/13/2009 3:57 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/13/2009 7:36 AM
Anonymous@1922 12 Aug stated
"Not only do you not know for certain whereof you speak, your unsubstantive repetition proves you really do not understand the nature of legal evidence.
Sooner or later, you will have to come to grips with better knowledge of the legal system under which you live."
You don't seem to be adding anything to the conversation. Why don't you enlighten us with your knowledg
8/13/2009 7:37 AM
"You're "unconvinced either way". Yet you state in all likelihood he was born in HI. That is some impressively weird and convoluted reasoning. What would convince you?"
Yes, I'm unconvinced, because on the one hand I hear a bunch of folks who don't like Pres. Obama saying he should be kicked out of office because of problems, inconsistencies, technicalities, what have you. Yes, a pretty strong and seemingly ridiculous charge. But on the other hand, I have the assurances of people who love Pres. Obama and seemingly bought his BS about not knowing what Rev. Wright was all about without blinking an eye. I'd say their ability to impartially judge anything concerning this man is suspect. In short I am unconvinced, because I simply don't care enough to objectively look at the "evidence" both sides have put forward because, as I said, this seems so much stum und dang signifying nothing. Per your observation, I've largely come to my conclusion that "in all likelihood he was born in HI" by applying the very principle of good sir Occam that you felt needed to be shaken in my face.
Honestly, I fail to see why folks like you and RD are so jumpy to get in my face. If you think I'm being obtuse or thick, then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I've never argued the merits of either side. Perhaps there is a "teachable moment" in the fact that the "birthers" don't seem to feel a need to confront and insult an agnostic like myself, while O-supporters do.
8/13/2009 12:35 PM
FWIW, I, too, would not want my birth records, school transcripts and health records open to teh public, but then again I never wanted to be President. Right or wrong, these sorts of disclosures have been expected by the press of recent candidates and presidents, except they conviently choose to respect the desire for privacy from their golden boy. Funny how the same presumption of privacy was not granted to the leaked records of Joe Wurzelbacher when he embarassed their candidate of choice.
(I know the last was well off-topic, but I still stand by my point that the President cannot reasonably expect to be afforded the same degree of privacy that either you or I can)
8/13/2009 12:42 PM
The posting just above makes a point tight on point: it is the nature of modern politics that a rival candidate's flaws are outed very rapidly. Opposition Research is science and art combined, highly effective and always done in major races.
The speed with which Joe the Plumber was shown to be a phony is nothing like the short time it would have taken to make public all the damning facts on our 44th President's birth status ... if they had a shred, an iota, even one atom of truth to them.
There's no there there. It's just right-wing blather, and yes dear soul, a great deal of it has a distinct racist origin.
Enough pig wrestling. It's time to close the thread.
8/13/2009 1:59 PM
phw, andy, Rd
Phillip Berg, the Democrat lawyer and an expert witness in the area of controversy started this debate.
I have only one question? Has Berg changed his mind yet about Obama's qualification for office based upon natural born citizenship?
The answer, all of you "experts", is that Mr. Berg has NOT changed his mind. Paul
8/13/2009 8:27 PM
From what I know of Phillip Berg, he is simply a foolish man wasting everyone's time with frivilous lawsuits.
If he is the best you got, then you don't have much.
A snippet of the "success" of Berg.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
8/14/2009 5:41 AM
"The speed with which Joe the Plumber was shown to be a phony ..."
Oh, than you, RD. I didn't realize there was never a person named Joe Wurzelbacher, that he really didn't live at the house where he was working in the front yard, that he wasn't just an average citizen that asked candidate Obama a question and that the candidate didn't then embarass himself with a standard "spread the wealth" liberal/socialist dismissive answer. Yes, sir, I am sure am glad to learn that having personal financial and/or legal data illegally leaked to national media by public employees makes one a "phony."
"It's time to close the thread."
Yes, by all means, before you say more mindlessly illogical things.
8/14/2009 8:53 AM
So why should we believe Berg? What's so great about him?
8/14/2009 9:17 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
8/14/2009 9:41 AM
Damn, I keep on leaving out words... Trying again.
Berg's just another Taitz. He can't get a real job, so he files frivolous lawsuits based around conspiracy theories.
8/14/2009 9:42 AM
If you believe Obama's record, you'll believe anything your party tells you to believe:
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
Pathetic. Don't expect logical adults to follow your lead; the stupid shall be punished!
Don Argent
8/28/2009 9:51 PM
Ok Don,
Put your tin hat back on...
8/31/2009 2:44 PM
Cramer said he needed proof that it was NOT a forgery. That is, he believes it is a forgery, he needs proof to think it is not.
9/05/2009 9:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home