Rush: “Barack Obama has yet to prove he’s a citizen”
As fellow blogger Rev. Sam Sewell says on his TheSteadyDrip site:
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
First, the nation’s number one talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh mentioned a few times, on the air, in response to Newsweek’s Evan Thomas’ comment about Mr. Obama being “like a god,” that the President does, in fact, have a least one thing in common with God:
…Barack Obama has one thing in common with God — do you know what it is? God does not have a birth certificate either.
Now, after a slew of press coverage over Cook v. Good, El Rushbo took on the eligibility issue a second time on today’s radio show in two separate instances.
One instance came about as Mr. Limbaugh was comparing how he has to justify in multiple ways how he spends his resources in New York City versus how Mr. Obama hasn’t had to justify his eligibility:
Here’s a partial transcript:
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama has yet to have to prove he’s a citizen. All he’d have to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he’s — I have to show them 14 different ways where the hell I am every day of the year for three years.
Another arguably more important instance involved a number of citizens at a town hall meeting with Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE). Here’s the YouTube video of the citizen encounter and Mr. Limbaugh’s response below:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is a town meeting in Delaware. An unidentified woman and Representative Mike Castle have the following exchange. It’s about Obama’s birth certificate.
WOMAN: I want to go back to January 20th, and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate? (cheers and applause) He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya. I am American. My father worked — fought in World War II with the Greatest Generation in the Pacific theater for this country, and I don’t want this flag to change. I want my country back! (cheers and applause)
CASTLE: If you’re referring to the president there, he is a citizen of the United States. (crowd shouting)
WOMAN: All the men and women who died for this country in 1776 ’til the present time. I think we should all stand up and give Pledge of Allegiance to that wonderful flag (cheers and applause) people that sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Everybody stand up.
RUSH: State of Delaware, Mike Castle, town meeting, woman wants to know why nobody’s interested in the fact that he hasn’t shown anybody his birth certificate. If you couldn’t understand her, she was saying he’s a citizen of Kenya. I’m American. My father worked, fought in World War II, the greatest generation, Pacific theater for this country, and I don’t want this flag to change. The crowd went nuts. There’s all kinds of stuff bubbling up out there.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material…
• Politico: ‘You Can Boo’
It should be rather obvious to the casual reader of this site — much less many other sites on the Internet — that the eligibility issue is not going away. In fact, the references above clearly point to the fact that the issue is merely in its infancy.
Nobody can guarantee when the issue will be formally settled, but I think it’s clear that the issue is begging to be settled sooner or later. The more comfortable that media figures are in covering the issue, the more traction that the issue is going to get.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy PopOnThePop.com
j.raymond,
Thanks for visiting my site.
As far as political parties are concerned, they are irrelevant to me when it comes to matters of constitutional importance. If individuals have an issue with this stance, then they can go elsewhere.
-Phil
To all, have you not wasted so much energy on a non subject like Obamas birth certificate… Think of all the good you could have done making good conservative points and trying to bolster the party … Please quit listening to the wacks in the media because we have to many just plan making a buck at the expense of the Republican Party, when will someone step up and lead?
C. N. natus:
So far so good. You have been getting that wrong for weeks, in spite of my repeatedly correcting you. Finally, you have made one step forward. Sadly, you then immediately make another step back.
No, I was never a Marine Pilot either. I have no idea of your sources, or why you find me so fascinating that you would do “opposition research.” But the fact that you get so much wrong gives me even more reason to be amused that you think it is somehow intimidating.
But more than amused, I find it downright hilarious that you imagine I would respect your opinion on my loyalty. Remind me, what branch of the service did you serve in? Exactly?
No, Obama is not “my Messiah.” I’m not even a Democrat.
So, by the way, was Pope John-Paul II. Please, don’t tell me that you hate Roman Catholics too?
I am absolutely an anti-Creationist. That’s because creationism is false, not because God is. Your reasoning continues to betray you.
Then it is a good thing that your personal “understanding” is not the standard by which truth is measured. We would all be in deep trouble.
“Hate the truth.” Did you even think about that concept for one second before proposing it? It is frankly a bizarre idea. How could anyone survive past childhood if they actually “hated the truth?” But at least it gives me credit for something I cannot bring myself to credit you with: Actually knowing what “the truth” is in the first place.
Civis Naturaliter Natus,
Keep things civil, please. Let’s not get too personal with conversations around here.
Thanks,
-Phil
HD,
You are not an ex-Air Force Pilot, you went to West Point:
Arduini Francis J class of 78 E£ USMA Class year groups, West Point
You are an ex-Marine Pilot, not Air Force; which in my opinion makes your lack of loyalty to the constitution more shameful!
As for believing in God, you said so; I guess you mean Obama, your Messiah….
You are or were a member of the Friends of Charles Darwin, and a reader of Sceptic Magazine.
So, since I must judge you by your record, you speak, write, talk and present yourself as an Atheist, anti-creationist: ergo what walks and sounds like a duck is a duck…
But I understand you are just being contrarian because you hate the truth…
ergo…
Simple Interest says:
July 24, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Black Lion says:
July 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“I guess I am not understanding your position. I am little simple….You keep stating what the COLB says, where it is not conclusive that Hawaii even presented the document or that it’s authentic at all. In addition, a COLB is similar to a Birth Card that fits in your pocket that most states issues. It is not an official document and is not accepted in the place of the original birth certificate.”
You must not read. The state of HI has already stated that the COLB is an official document that is accepted. Please see the quote from the HI website…
“The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
And as for the US State department…
A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
And if you look at President Obama’s COLB, it has all of the requirements that the State Department requires for a COLB being given by a US citizen.
“As to his Kenyan citizenship, that’s all we know. I can tell you are well versed on the law. Can you tell me that there is not way a child can be born in another country and registered in Hawaii? ”
What Kenyan citizenship? Was there some evidence presented that shows the President being born in HI? No evidence at last check. And the infamous step-grandmother tape says HI. Yes there is a supposed law. It is under HI statute 338. And it came into being in 1982, when President Obama was 21. And it would state the city you were born in. For instance if you were born in Jakarta, the HI COLB would state for the city of birth, Jakarta, not Honolulu. You can look that up.
“Your argument of proof seems to deviate from the laws of that state. Is it possible for his mother to give birth in another country and register the birth in Hawaii?”
No. Can you show us where this is possible or where it has happened. Again you are thinking about HI 338, which again was instituted in 1982. The President’s BC was filed with the HI department of vital statistics 4 days after birth. The 2 newspaper articles, which were found originally by the infamous Texas Darlin, who was a PUMA and now a birther, states that they received the information regarding the President’s birth from the HI department of Vital Statistics, who in turn received it from the hospital he was born in.
“I disagree and being real about, I was shocked that he presented 3 media outlets with 3 different documents, with different fonts and the one from factcheck with the raised seal…why wouldn’t the other 2 documents show an image of the presence of the seal.”
You can disagree, but that does not mean it is not the case. And the statement is not true. Can you show us where he submitted 3 so called different copies?
“We know that the language is not consistent with 1961 speech.”
Again not true. How do you know what 1961 speech was? This has been debunked also. Another birther piece of fiction. The race section was filled out by the parents. You could choose to call youself what you want.
“I’m glad that some people are quoting Hawaii’s Gov’t officials but none of them validated that this document that is circulating is authentic.”
True. They did validate that it met all of the requirements of a COLB that the state issues. However they cannot say anything else due to Federal Privacy laws.
“The birth announcement and the paper’s protocol at that time has not been determined, but it has been reported that today individuals publish these announcements.”
Not true. This is another birther lie. The papers get the announcements from the HI department of vital statistics.
Please conduct research before repeating statements that have already been proven not to be true.
Black Lion says:
July 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I guess I am not understanding your position. I am little simple….You keep stating what the COLB says, where it is not conclusive that Hawaii even presented the document or that it’s authentic at all. In addition, a COLB is similar to a Birth Card that fits in your pocket that most states issues. It is not an official document and is not accepted in the place of the original birth certificate. As to his Kenyan citizenship, that’s all we know. I can tell you are well versed on the law. Can you tell me that there is not way a child can be born in another country and registered in Hawaii? Your argument of proof seems to deviate from the laws of that state. Is it possible for his mother to give birth in another country and register the birth in Hawaii? I disagree and being real about, I was shocked that he presented 3 media outlets with 3 different documents, with different fonts and the one from factcheck with the raised seal…why wouldn’t the other 2 documents show an image of the presence of the seal. We know that the language is not consistent with 1961 speech. I’m glad that some people are quoting Hawaii’s Gov’t officials but none of them validated that this document that is circulating is authentic. The birth announcement and the paper’s protocol at that time has not been determined, but it has been reported that today individuals publish these announcements.
Kevin J:
And why do you imagine for a second I would patronize you by chasing the same red herring you want so badly to chase? Is the issue, or is it not really about Obama’s eligibility? I mean, seriously, are you just pretending that your issue here has something to do with the Constitution? Because the Constitution does not seem to be concerned with satisfying your personal prurient interest.
There is nothing, there can be nothing on the long form certificate that has anything to do with Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency that is not on the COLB. Whatever it is you are fishing for is something that you clearly have no right to see.
And let’s make no bones about it. The long Birther documentary wish list is absolutely a fishing expedition; nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. As the judge ruled in Keyes v. Bowen, those documents have nothing to do with the issue of Obama’s eligibility. It is therefore wrong to make them available… if defense of the Constitution really is the issue Birthers are concerned about.
Absolutely not.
I have been crystal clear on this issue dozens of times here. Obama is not fighting against what you are fighting for. This is a key reason Birthers continue to be baffled and confused by their repeated smack downs at every judicial level. You guys actually believe that Obama is fighting to keep his long form birth certificate hidden.
He’s not.
As President of the United States, the precedent he sets in his response to politically motivated nuisance lawsuits (even suits as wacky and meretricious as the Birther suits) has huge consequences to the functioning of the government and the office of the presidency. As long as the suits are in play, he cannot so much as release the initials of his attending physician without eviscerating the legal foundation of standing. Birthers, having absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their actions, can afford to ignore that and pretend it is some meaningless technicality. As president of the United States, he cannot.
That said, if you consider Obama’s Kindergarten Grades a “deflection,” then perhaps you guys should stop asking about them.
The COLB needs no corroboration until such time as you guys come up with a single piece of evidence that contradicts it.
First off, you must take a breath and actually read more carefully. McCain did not provide the document, the person suing him did. He did not forge the document. Somebody trying to prove he was not a natural-born citizen forged it.
And this is a perfect opportunity for a learning moment, and it is my hope that you will take advantage of it. You do not need to be a “professional document examiner” to demonstrate that a fake is a fake. You simply need to pay closer attention than most Birthers appear capable of.
The demonstration of its forgery is here. Enjoy:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
Yes you did. And I answered. What exactly about the US State Department Regulation do you not understand?
And once again I will correct your willful and by now louse ridden straw man. Maybe this time you will pay attention.
A Certification of Live Birth (if it meets the cited State Department Regulations) is sufficient proof of natural born citizenship. Full stop.
Putting its image on-line was never about proving his citizenship status. It was about letting as many people as possible see that the proof exists.
The FactCheck investigation was not about proving his citizenship either. It was about proving that Birther claims regarding its digital forgery were untrue.
Now… if you have evidence, any evidence whatsoever that contradicts the COLB, please present it now. Because without such evidence, Obama’s citizenship is absolutely legally proven merely by the existence of that COLB.
Joseph Maine:
By simple definition. If a document meets the definition of legal proof, then that is exactly what it is. Period. This is why we have standards in the first place, to make it unambiguously clear what is or is not legal proof so that people with another agenda cannot try to quibble about the issue.
The standard exists so we know when to tell crazy people, “Go away, the issue is legally settled.”
The birth certificate is legal proof of whatever it is actually legal proof of, regardless of whether or not you put it on the Internet. Putting it on the Internet just lets as many people as possible see it.
And yet Obama has been President for six months now. So, I hope you’re laughing.
Miller and Hennig would actually do very well in court if the issue was whether or not the Obama COLB was real, and the Birther claims about a digital forgery were a lie.
The COLB itself would stand up in court as it says on the certificate itself. The full faith and credit of the State of Hawaii stands behind it. Unless you have evidence that contradicts it (and you have none) it all by itself with no additional support, corroboration or forensic examination is absolute legal proof of Obama’s citizenship.
You mean, like the US Department of State?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer
Will ironies never cease? A Birther trying to determine what is or is not absurd.
Here’s my standard for absurdity: Believing with a passion that for which you have exactly zero evidence.
Benaiah,
Ha! At least I would be more than happy to prove my natural born citizenship!
-Phil
Black Lion, Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the USA,he was a foreigner. Foreigners don’t go traipsing around the world depositing natural born citizens where ever they go!
G.Gordon Liddy v Chris Matthews, latest video, Matthews,”the NBC issue will all play out in the next few weeks”. This is, the beginning of the end, of the greatest fraud, ever perpetrated, on Americans. Matthews, sounded like, he was, educating the masses, for what is coming, in the next few weeks, as to the NBC issue and the demise of the usurper.
I pray someone explains to Rush that it’s not a question if Obama is a citizen; it’s if Obama was BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL. Even my father who was not born in America is a citizen for crying out loud, but the USA constitution says a president must be BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL.
Still, was nice of Rush to toss us a bone with the mention.
Doesn’t Rush have anyone on his staff that can hip him to what the real issue is in Obama not being born on United States soil AND that Obama held dual citizenship at the time of his birth?
PLEASE!
Historian,
Again, how can anything be legal proof, when NO ONE CHECKS. That means law isn’t involved.
If I put my birth certificate on the internet, is that legal proof of anything I want you to believe? Of course not! It’s merely an image.
Your assertions are a joke.
It’s only legal proof if it would stand up in court. Miller and Hennig would be laughed out of court, the dumbest lawyer in the whole world wouldn’t even think of using them. Why? Who the F are they and why should we care???
When you get a state or gov’t official, that is, those with authority, to actually verify official documents of the United States of America, then talk to me.
Till then, please stop lying or misleading, whichever way you want to look at it.
You don’t see the absurdity in having a website of random journalists “verify” or “authenticate” a state’s official document of identity? If you can’t admit that this sort of thing is just stupid, let alone inconsequential, please just stop posting at this board, because either you can’t think or we have a different premise.
JM
HistorianDude,
I asked what on Obama’s BC is so private that we don’t already know about, of course I was referring to the long-form as you well know. But good of you tp deflect about grades and yada, yada, yada. Can we agree that Obama has fought several cases so as not show in evidence his BC (Long form). What is he hiding on the long form that we don’t already know about that is SO private? Answers might be the Dr’s name the Midwife’s name or the Hospital. Oh wait, those are corroborating pieces of evidence and they happen to be such pieces that have not been claimed by anyone.
From your logic it sounds like from here on out the controlling legal authority will be some yahoo’s like factcheck.org.
Please cite for me the professional document examiner that states that McCain’s BC that I’ve seen online is a forgery. The one I have seen states that he was born in Colon Hospital and NOT on a US military base, so why would he forge a document that proves that he was not born on “psuedo-US soil”?
You pasted in the State Dept regs on “PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES” but I clearly asked you to cite what you “What proof do you think would be sufficient for Obama to prove he is a “natural born citizen”?” (your response was) “Well… by US State Department regulations, the COLB alone is “sufficient.” (to be “.
So, once again I ask you please cite the US State Dept regulation that states that an online CerificaTION of Live Birth is sufficient proof of “natural born citizen” status. That is what you claimed isn’t it?
Simple Interest:
Just touching on one false point among your fleet of false points:
In point of fact, Birther investigators were the first to reveal that the Hawaiian Birth announcements in 1961 came exclusively from the Department of Health. They were not submitted by family members.
MGB:
I asked him on the Obama Crimes Blog. Back in September of last year.
On June 13, 2008. On the same day they released the Internet image, Tommy Vietor of the Obama campaign sent copies and a message to the media that the original was at their Chicago campaign headquarters available for inspection. FactCheck was the only news organization that bothered to go inspect it.
You don’t believe me? Call FactCheck, Politifact or Fox News.
I don’t know. You are welcome to give it try.
No judge has asked to see it.
That would be setting exactly the precedent that Obama must avoid to protect the presidency from a precedent that would create an ad hoc judicial filibuster.
Nonsense. The Birther movement has been in full flower since August of last year. That was three months before the election. You were a tiny fringe movement then, and you remain a tiny fringe movement today.
I believe the media reported accurately and completely on the controversy by ignoring it. The increased reporting today is not about Obama’s eligibility, it is about the Birthers. You are being reported on the same way the press reports on people who have 100 pound tumors removed, or who engage in nude bicycle races on college campuses.
Nope.
If he revealed it while Birther lawsuits were in progress, it would eviscerate the foundational legal framework of standing. As such, it would create an ad hoc judicial filibuster. Anybody with a gripe, a web page and a printer could paralyze any organ of government, business or person by filing frivolous nuisance lawsuits.
You know… like Orly has explicitly threatened to do.
Elspeth:
I find it interesting that you believe that. Because in point of fact, it is not true.
Have you honestly never heard of theistic evolution?
Phil,
I think you would be an excellent POTUS.
Hence, “Phil in 2012″.
Benaiah
Benaiah,
…for or to do what???
-Phil
Phil said:
For the record (and to really give HistorianDude something else to write about), I’m not just a creationist, but I’m a “young Earth” creationist at that, believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
I find it interesting that creationism allows for evolutionism, but evolutionism does not allow for creationism.
Just sayin’.
Simple Interest says:
July 23, 2009 at 9:48 am
Phil,
I agree that there are answered questions, but I don’t see them in the same light as others might. My proposal is that
1) We know that Obama is a Kenyan because there is no proof that he did not take an oath of allegience to Kenya (that’s for him to prove because we know he is a Kenyan according to his own admission)
Not true. We do NOT know that. He is an American because he was born in HI. According to the 14th amendment, SCOTUS cases Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Eng, a person born on the soil of the US is a born citizen of the US, immigrant status does not affect citizenship, and even if as a minor you became a citizen of another country, you CANNOT lose your US citizenship. In his book he never said he was Kenyan or British. He said that his birth in HI was subject to the BNA and later Kenyan law. Either way being born in HI makes that null and void Simple.
2) We know that Obama is an Indonesian (again from his own records that he has not refuted)
What records? The only record ever produced that makes that claim was a school record that was submitted by his mother’s husband at the time. And it states that he was born in Honolulu. So again because of Perkins v. Elg, whether or not he was a citizen of Indonesia is irrelevant.
3) We don’t know that Obama’s mother gave birth in America (he proclaims this point as part of his dual citizenship argument)
Yes we do. It is called the COLB issued by the state of HI. We do not have any PROOF that his mother gave birth anyplace else.
4) He traveled to Pakistan on a passport but it is not known if it was granted by U.S.
Possibly true. We don’t know if it was a US passport but we do know that Americans were allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1981.
5) His father did not seek naturalization to this country, although he married a 17 year old young lady from this country.
Again possible true, but that doesn’t matter. As long as he was born in HI, the citizenship status of his parents doesn’t matter. SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark case.
“With all the facts, aside from speculation from both sides, Obama is a Kenyan and Indonesian, based upon his own statements.”
Not true. With all of the facts, the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings, he is an American citizen.
“As far as the dual citizenship argument, it is not applicable until he proves that he is a citizen of the United States.”
Not true. You would need to prove that he was a citizen of these other countries. And dual citizenship is not prohibited in the Constitution and SCOTUS case Perkins v. Elg inherents makes that argument.
“The Birth Announcement is not applicable either because her mother or other family memeber could have submitted the information while she was still in Kenya or in the U.S. It is an announcement. In fact, even today, marriage announcements are not furnished by the Chancery Court Clerk upon application but by the people getting married. It is an announcement that a child was born on August 4, 1961 and the news paper did not have access to such an announcement unless the family supplied the statement. Again, the birth announcement is nonsense because actually the mother could have sent the information via U.S. Mail Service or other delivery service.”
Again not true. The newspapers stated that they get the birth information directly from the state of HI Department of vital statistics. That is why the announcements are identical.
“He has to provide proof that he is an American and until he can show via by birth or naturalization, he is a foreign citizen, maybe he does not want to be but he is!!!”
He has provided proof. It is called the COLB. Whether you like it, think that it is a forgery or not, the fact is that it is accepted by the State Department. Unless you can provide legally admissible evidence that contradicts the document, it is accepted to be geniuine and legitimate.
Good morning, Sue!
Historian Dude said “He provided that last June. It is not his fault that only FactCheck took him up on the offer. “Polarik” never bothered to try. Neither (by the way) did any Birther lawyer, even though Phil Berg was publicly and personally offered subsidized air fare to make the trip.”
Uh, where do you get these “facts”? How do you know that Polarik “never bothered to try?” When did the campaign invite anyone other than FactCheck to visit the document?
I would be more than happy to go to Chicago to visit the document and see it with my own eyes. Do you think they will show it to me?
When did they make this “offer?” Since you seem to know so much.
By the way, I don’t personally need to see the birth certificate. It would be sufficient if he would present it to any of the judges in the legal cases. Or to Dr. Orly Taitz. Or to Alan Keyes.
The November election is meaningless since the issue of his eligibility was not widely known. What do you think would be the election results today, had the media accurately and completely reported on the controversy?
You say that when you need surgery, you go to an actual physician. When somebody owes you money, will you accept a digital image of dollar bills, that you can download and use as legal tender?
What would be the dangerous precedent set by his revealing his birth certificate?
Aristotle the Hun:
Too bad that nowhere in the article does any Hawaiian official ever say anything vaguely resembling that. Another big letdown from our anonymous amateur “Dr. Ron Polarik.”
Joseph Main:
Here we go again. I know that I am a minor thorn in the side of the Birthers here (or perhaps the thorn that keeps bursting your balloons) but if youare going to accuse me of a lie, you must actually demonstrate that I lied, not merely that I said something that you subjectively disagree with. This latest post is a case in point:
It is true because the standard for conclusive legal proof of citizenship at birth was published long ago by the US Department of State, and the COLB meets it perfectly.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
No. I am saying that the document itself is legal proof. Miller and Hennig’s testimony would not have to hold up in court. It only has to serve the purpose of providing readers who will never in their lives have access to the same document an independent, third party verification that it is real and that the Birther claims about its digital forgery are false.
You seem to think that the COLB (were it ever to be presented in court) would have to be accompanied by some expert forensic opinion regarding its authenticity. You are sadly in error. Absent any evidence that contradicts it (and as we all know, there is none) it alone is prima facie evidence and conclusively establishes preponderance of evidence (i.e. legal proof).
No further investigation would even be considered unless your side was able to provide a rational reason for asserting its forgery. And you have none.
In the absence of any evidence to contradict it, it is by US law and regulation (cited above) “PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES” (caps in original).
So… where exactly is this lie you accuse me of? Again?
Read the State Department’s response to Strunk. They contradict you under oath.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597639/Strunk-Answer
Kevin J:
You keep changing the question, Kevin. You asked how he was entitled to “hide his documentation,” and I gave you the answer; an answer with which you appear to agree.
You also asked about his “documentation” in general meaning (I assume) the entire absurd Birther wish list from his Kindergarten records to the imaginary adoption papers. I have no problem myself coming up with one or two things that “we don’t already have knowledge of” in them, such as his grade in fingerpainting.
As to the birth information (your new different question) we already know for a fact he is hiding nothing. He released that information over a year ago.
How ironic. You have seen no such thing.
You have seen the forged (yes, it’s actually forged, isn’t that a hoot?) birth certificate provided by the plaintiff in the Hollander v. McCain suit. You remember the one. It was the second of two suits where McCain moved for dismissal based on lack of standing. McCain himself has consistently refused to release his birth certificate even in the face of repeated press requests.
So much for “harder to forge.”
So what? The standard for proof is the same, regardless of the complexity of “their background.”
There you go… equivocating again since you have no actual evidence to support your own position. If you are going to disagree with me, please be gracious enough to disagree with what I have actually said, versus what I have not.
The State Department Regulations for proof of citizenship at birth cane be found here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
You will note that Obama’s COLB satisfies these requirements perfectly.
As to an “on-line” COLB, nobody would claim that the on-line image is proof of anything. The actual document (which has been declared authentic by every person who has offered an opinion after handling the real thing) is the proof. But since you will never, ever, ever hold the actual document in your own hand, the on-line image is merely the closest you will ever personally get to the real thing.
It is just goofy that Birthers seem to think they will ever get anything better than an image. I guess wishful thinking knows no common sense.
And when you are able to present a fraction of the evidence for Obama’s Kenyan birth that believers in Nessie have provided for her existence, then I’ll pretend the Birther movement deserves to be taken seriously.
C. n. natus:
Phil in 2012…
Civis naturaliter natus,
Part of the reason why I allow HistorianDude to continue commenting on my blog has to do with his good will of remaining reasonably civil (yes, he’s called me various sorts of things in the past, but I know I can take it and I don’t need his validation on anything). Beyond that, it is true that I have realized (and I’m sure he thinks the reciprocal of me) discussions tend to go nowhere with him.
As a complete aside, philosophically, there is no such thing as an atheist, because that would be akin to saying, “There is no such thing as God,” which is a completely irrational argument, for it presupposes that one knows enough about the entire universe — both seen and unseen and at all conceivable levels — to say that there is no God. Rather, atheists are really agnostics: “I don’t have enough evidence to know for sure that there is a God,” which, obviously, puts the onus of conviction regarding the existence of God on the individual — where, in truth, is as it has been and will always be, in reality, until Kingdom come. This is quite clearly the more rational argument of the two.
For the record (and to really give HistorianDude something else to write about), I’m not just a creationist, but I’m a “young Earth” creationist at that, believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
OK. While my intention with this site was originally to also cover theologically-based discussions, this is not the post to do so, unless you simply want to brow-beat me for the way I think (which is, of course, allowed; remember, I can handle it). Otherwise, let’s stay on track. And yes, since I’m the moderator, I reserve the right to go into such forays every once in a while, if for no other reason than to make a quick point.
-Phil
Phil,
I agree that there are answered questions, but I don’t see them in the same light as others might. My proposal is that
1) We know that Obama is a Kenyan because there is no proof that he did not take an oath of allegience to Kenya (that’s for him to prove because we know he is a Kenyan according to his own admission)
2) We know that Obama is an Indonesian (again from his own records that he has not refuted)
3) We don’t know that Obama’s mother gave birth in America (he proclaims this point as part of his dual citizenship argument)
4) He traveled to Pakistan on a passport but it is not known if it was granted by U.S.
5) His father did not seek naturalization to this country, although he married a 17 year old young lady from this country.
With all the facts, aside from speculation from both sides, Obama is a Kenyan and Indonesian, based upon his own statements. As far as the dual citizenship argument, it is not applicable until he proves that he is a citizen of the United States. The Birth Announcement is not applicable either because her mother or other family memeber could have submitted the information while she was still in Kenya or in the U.S. It is an announcement. In fact, even today, marriage announcements are not furnished by the Chancery Court Clerk upon application but by the people getting married. It is an announcement that a child was born on August 4, 1961 and the news paper did not have access to such an announcement unless the family supplied the statement. Again, the birth announcement is nonsense because actually the mother could have sent the information via U.S. Mail Service or other delivery service. He has to provide proof that he is an American and until he can show via by birth or naturalization, he is a foreign citizen, maybe he does not want to be but he is!!!
HistorianDude:
I’m not running for public office so yes, I do have a right to privacy. What type of fact is on his BC that is so private that we don’t already have knowledge of? Can you cite a single example? He offered the COLB, so he’s not concerned about the privacy of any of those “facts”.
I’ve seen a hand-written (read “harder to forge”), long form online copy of McCain’s BC. It’s not hard to find. Maybe Bush 43 and Clinton got away with not showing there’s because there was reasonable expectation that they were natural born citizens. There is no equivalency with McCain or Obama since we know their backgrounds as they have admitted are not as clear-cut.
Since you mentioned it, it should be easy for you to cite the US State Dept regulation that states that an online CerificaTION of Live Birth is sufficient proof of “natural born citizen” status. We’ll wait here.
When the Loch Ness monster runs for and/or serves as President I’ll worry about it’s origins too.
Phil,
Heads up. A friend who spoke with Orly said that shortly (today or next few days, I suppose) she will publish on her blog info about the Classmate of Obama who says he openly admitted he was born in the Former British Colony, now knows as the Republic of Kenya…
Black Lion,
I am sorry for being “unfair”: but sometimes the truth is “unfair”; and sometimes good speculation is also “unfair”, because when a sentimentalist is loosing the debate he tends to call a lot of things “unfair”…
———
Folks who want to tangle with HD:
He is an ardent Athesit,
The author of
http://ncseweb.org/cej/7/1/design-created-kinds-engineering
From my little experience with atheists, I know one thing: they will always argue, and they will never admit a truth which leads them to see that they are wrong.
You can bang you head on a wall, that will accomplish something: but you cannot argue with an Atheist, because his will strangles his reason, and he is determined not to use human speech for the same purpose that the rest of humanity does: to communicate the truth.
So you can be guaranteed to get a fiesty rebuttal from HD everytime.
But in the end it is not worth it, unless you like to get some debate practice in…
Historian, you are one of the people that should be called names, because you flat out lie, and I have caught you before.
You said, “[The COLB] is conclusive legal proof.”
How is that possibly true? I’m trying to get creative to give you the benefit of the doubt even, figuring out how you could possibly even twist this in your mind to make it so.
Are you telling me that Joe Miller and Jess Hennig’s testimony about a document that ONLY they saw and touched is LEGAL proof? That would hold up in court? Who are they again? Are they Hawaii state officials by honorary bestowing?
Just think about what you are saying, man. It is really really really unconscionable and has no basis in truth in any possible scenario.
Unbelievable. You think “birthers” are crazy? Holding on to the assertion that Obama did anything involving legal proof regarding his supposed documents is willing suspension of reason and common sense. He has gone out of his way to NOT show anything or prove it by legitimate state or governmental officials/agencies.
We all have a clear moral imperative to keep Historian Dude occupied lest he infest another forum or blog who has not yet been vaccinated or taken proper pest control prophylactic procedures. (I so love alliteration!)
It’s Official! Hawaii never issued Obama’s 2007 Certification of Live Birth
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2009/07/14/its_official!_hawaii_never_issued_obamas_2007_certification_of_live_birth.thtml
“But, the real killer of this birth certificate scam is that Hawaii never made a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, never issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and never confirmed anything about this bogus 2007 COLB that Obama, his staff, and Factcheck have insisted is a real document. ”
I asked Dr. Onaka if the COLBs are stamped using a machine or by hand. He said, “Both.” Hawaii uses a machine that applies the Seal and stamps electronically and simultaneously. That’s why they appear to be placed in the same position, from year to year – except in years where the large Seal design is used. He said that they use a desktop Seal embosser, similar to what notaries use, but much longer, so as to place the Seal higher up on the paper.
I asked him, “Why is the border on 2007 COLB different from the 2008 COLB, why is the Seal larger, and why is your signature stamp located off to the side instead of directly under the Seal? He told me that they alternate the Seal design and border design, and when the Seal (the larger one) doesn’t leave enough room to place the signature stamp below it, it’s put off to the side. Evidentally, this larger Seal is what is applied by hand, as in every case where it has been used, the Seal impression appears in a different spot on the paper.
Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
“Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
After reviewing Dr. Polarik’s analysis, Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Black Lion,
This isn’t a Courtroom; this is the court of public opinion. Lots of individuals from both sides have purported many things across my site alone that have yet to be wholly substantiated.
-Phil
Jacqlyn Smith, you have to be kidding. I have four children and live in the U.S. I always kept their birth certificates and vaccination records together in my safe. I always needed them for some type of registration–be it sports, camp or whatever. So, this issue is not a Kenya thing, it’s just parents being able to access the birth certificate or vaccination records when needed.
Kevin J:
A. The same reason you are entitled. It’s called the right to privacy and it is the law.
B. Neither Clinton, Bush (43) nor McCain have ever released their birth certificates. McCain even fought doing so in court before Obama did.
C. Obama has already revealed more documentation regarding his citizenship than any other president in American History.
Jbh did. That’s whose post I was answering.
Well… by US State Department regulations, the COLB alone is “sufficient.”
Given the total lack of any evidence that contradicts it, the COLB he has already released is more than just “sufficient.” It is conclusive legal proof.
Neither is belief in the Loch Ness Monster.
MGB:
First, the results of the November 4th election.
Second, his current approval ratings.
Well, I don’t know where you’ve been, MGB. But I’ve seen his birth certificate. So have most Birthers I know. I suspect you have as well.
Sadly though, you are still parroting the fake Birther factoid that a COLB is not a birth certificate. It does not matter how many times you repeat that falsehood. It will never magically become true.
So then… how then do you propose that you will ever get to “see” it? Because I guess I have to break to you the same news I have had to break to so many other Birthers, and I hope you will not find it too discouraging.
They best you will ever get is to see “an image” of the document, either digital or analog. If you find this surprising, then you must not have been thinking about it very hard.
So there you go.
Sure. Here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
As to ‘forensic examination” of the document image you have been sadly misled. You must be referring to the anonymous and thoroughly discredited amateurs “TechDude” and “Polarik.” Neither performed a “forensic” anything.
You know, when I needed surgery, I actually went to a Surgeon, and not some anonymous guy on the World-Wide-Web. Perhaps you should consider leaving “forensic examination” to actual forensic experts rather than random bloggers with no identifiable competence in the field.
He provided that last June. It is not his fault that only FactCheck took him up on the offer. “Polarik” never bothered to try. Neither (by the way) did any Birther lawyer, even though Phil Berg was publicly and personally offered subsidized air fare to make the trip.
Sadly, now that it’s in the courts, he can no longer do so without establishing a disastrous precedent. This is just one of the great ironies of the Birther conspiracy theory.
Well that’s not exactly true, in at least a couple of different ways.
First, it is again just another fake Birther factoid that any significant sum of money has been spent fighting Birther lawsuits. On the one hand, Obama has not even been a defendant in most of them; most have been against State Secretaries of State and other such non-Obama people. On the other, you may have noticed that none of them have gone to trial. Trials are expensive. Dismissed suits are not. This does not include that at least some of the lawyers involved have already said they’re doing it pro bono.
Second, the COLB is the “real document.” The Hawaii DoH says so. The US DoS says so. And they are the only two legal entities whose opinion matters on that issue.
Sure he could. But why bother? Really? You guys didn’t believe the first one. You guys have already preemptively dismissed even a “long form” certificate as a forgery. And you guys have already gone through Plans B through E to come up with fallback positions that don’t concern a birth certificate at all.
There are a lot of things the president could do, but why do anything if it doesn’t matter one way or the other? And you know, in those dark quiet moments when you allow yourself to be honest with yourself, it doesn’t matter to you one way or the other.
NBC News obviously abandoned any semblance of journalism in their newscast tonight.
My comments to them:
“How very disappointing to hear you misrepresent so many facts in the issue of Obama’s eligibility.
“Please step away from the Obama Kool-Aid dispenser and do some actual investigative reporting.”
- – - – - – - –
To flood their In Box, try this link…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29104230/
…or scroll down and find “contact us” on the main page.
Good Afternoon MGB,
Per Historian Dude: “1. By every objective measure, at this point most people in America are already completely satisfied. Even those who have seen no birth certificate whatsoever.”
Apparently, Historian Dude knows ‘most people in America.’ If that’s so, then it would follow that he knows ALL people in his native Italy.
Quite a guy, eh?
This site has an interesting update on the Weigel assertion that Hawaii has confirmed the authenticity of the COLB:
http://24ahead.com/dave-weigel-misleads-about-obama-certificate-issue-again-jan
The site also has a great summary of the issue to date. Most interesting is that they cite the Hawaiian law that Okubo et al would be breaking IF they said anything at all about his COLB. Also note how the spokesperson hemmed and hawed and did everything to avoid saying anything at all about the online COLB. So, they have NOT verified it. They WILL NOT verify it.
Phil says:
July 22, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Black Lion,
Phil, Civis naturaliter natus can’t source things that aren’t true. …
I beg your pardon, but are you “Civis naturaliter natus?” No, I didn’t think so.
I think commenters can speak for themselves regardless of the outcome of questions.
-Phil
___________________________________________________________
No I am not Civis naturaliter natus but that does not change the facts. Just like the statement regarding his state requiring the so called “long form BC” that he could not back up, this is more of the same. Saying that someone said something without supplying any proof is unfair. There is a reason that for the most part “hearsay”, saying that someone said something without supplying proof, is inadmissible in a court of law.
Phil says:
July 22, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Black Lion,
When all that the opposition has in response to questions by those sympathetic with questioning this President’s eligibility are simply ad hominems and pejoratives, then we absolutely know two things for sure:
1. The questions remain unanswered;
2. The opposition has nothing substantive with which to answer those questions.
In context of the questions, appealing to ignorance (e.g.: “Well, all those ‘birthers’ either won’t accept our answers or they’ll simply demand more”) is intellectually vacant and disingenuous. After all, as my site has clearly shown, a reasonable but vigorous debate can be had regarding this issue; part of the debate has shown that both sides, as it were, have varying degrees of assumptions with respect to candidate eligibility.
-Phil
__________________________________________________________________
Phil,
You are right. I do think that a reasonable debate is useful regarding this issue and I respect the researched opinion of anyone. Especially if they feel passionate about the issue.
Black Lion says:
July 22, 2009 at 11:24 am
The birthers seem to be getting what they wanted. Media attention. The mainstream media is getting involved. The following is from CNN…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/rick-sanchez-takes-on-oba_n_242261.html
“It’s a “completely unfounded story,” Sanchez said, and then repeated himself for emphasis. “There’s something strange about even having to do this story,” he said, but so many people believe it that “it needs to be addressed.”
The best part was the ending….He basically sums it up for every rational person out there….
“Sanchez ended with even more evidence — the birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. But its doubtful that anyone who has held onto this delusion in the face of so much evidence can be convinced.”
He is right…It is doubtful that anyone that believes in the delusion that the President was not born in the US will never be convinced otherwise no matter how much evidence it presented….
Another mainstream network addressing the issue…
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907210040
It is funny to see the GOP sponsors of the infamous bill try and defend themselves…
Or Liz Cheney, who should be more worried about the crimes her Dad committed rather than being part of the birther nonsense…”I want my country back”? These people are unhinged.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220007
Liz needs to tell the truth…the actual reason her racist, nut case crowd is “fundamentally uncomfortable” with Obama is because he is black. What Carville says is true…you cannot denounce the nuts because they are your base and can’t afford to alienate them. It has nothing to do with “defending America”. It is an underlying race issue. If you just read some of the postings on Orly’s site, you will see it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/07/22/liz_cheney_and_birthers/index.html
And of course there is good old Lou Dobbs, still stirring up the controversy. It is amazing the idiots that he has on his shows. Obviously these people don’t even know what they are talking about. The one guy could not pronounce the word “live” and assumed that there was another document that the President could just order from the state of HI, and even then he said the only thing this certificate shows is the place you were born. Are these people for real? Is there something else you need to show in order to prove that you were born in the US other than the city you were born in? What is the use of putting people on if they are completely ignorant of the facts at hand. But it is Lou Dobbs. He only wanted people on that agree with him.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907210047
The bottom line is that Orly, Berg, and their supporters wanted the so called issue out there in the mainstream media. However it is a perfect example of “be careful of what you wish for”. When Orly and Keyes were on CNN last week, they came off looking crazy. Now as the mainstream media picks up on this issue, and you see people like that woman at the Town Hall meeting for Mike Castle of DE, most Americans are beginning to see these people as unhinged and crazy. The GOP, who seems to being giving tacit support to the movement, is being associated with them and are beginning to look foolish also. Most Obama supporters are happy that this issue is coming to light, just like they welcome the hearings in court. We are a nation of laws and the law will eventually support Obama. These individuals will continue to look dumb and foolish and eventually the politicians that support them will begin to run for their lives because they will be afraid of being voted out of office.
*****************************************************************************************
Isn’t it too bad that many of them don’t have their facts straight and are reporting LIES and are even now trying to attack Mr. Dobbs who is one MSM person trying to get to the truth…..now he knows how Sarah Palin feels and many of us other truth seekers!!!
Phil,
you wrote: “On my blog, you either need to back up your claims or keep them to yourself (and that goes for anyone).”
I thought it was merely repeating what I heard. A claim is where one originates an assertion, is it not?
I will clarify: I am not a firsthand source of this story about the Classmate who remembers Obama explaining openly that he was born in Kenya.
But I will take your advice and keep the source to myself, and will not speak anymore about it, till I can give you a URL link or audio file of the affidavit, etc..
Thank you…
One of the interesting pieces of this puzzle is the Media’s response to this. They are basically presenting an ad hominem attack against those who are believed to be a threat. Instead of doing the very thing that is presumably the Media’s job, and that is gather the actual facts.
So I challenge the Media, do what you are supposed to do, and find the facts. We know that you CAN do it when properly motivated.
If all of this is nonsense, then it should not be difficult for the large media outlets to get to the truth. Smother us with so much irrefutable evidence that it could not possibly be questioned. Answer the specific questions that have been raised. Don’t redirect or cop out pointing to things that you know darn good and well you would not accept for yourselves if you were really investigating something. Prove that you really aren’t biased.
Of course, I say all of this tongue in cheek, because the large media outlets would never do such a thing. They stopped being non-partisan, objective news gatherers long ago. In fact, they are so steeped in their own ideology that they can’t see for themselves how biased they really are. That is why the Internet will ultimately determine new winners in this arena. As more and more incidents are misreported, not-reported, or worse yet, obviously reported misleadingly. People will simply look for more accurate sources of news. I personally think they are doomed to fail, mostly because of their own arrogance.
Black Lion,
When all that the opposition has in response to questions by those sympathetic with questioning this President’s eligibility are simply ad hominems and pejoratives, then we absolutely know two things for sure:
1. The questions remain unanswered;
2. The opposition has nothing substantive with which to answer those questions.
In context of the questions, appealing to ignorance (e.g.: “Well, all those ‘birthers’ either won’t accept our answers or they’ll simply demand more”) is intellectually vacant and disingenuous. After all, as my site has clearly shown, a reasonable but vigorous debate can be had regarding this issue; part of the debate has shown that both sides, as it were, have varying degrees of assumptions with respect to candidate eligibility.
-Phil
Civis naturaliter natus,
The difference is that I actually have an email address that is “attached” to my name on every comment I make.
Otherwise, I’m not so sure that I would go around gallivanting that I had super-secret information that I simply just cannot share with anyone. On my blog, you either need to back up your claims or keep them to yourself (and that goes for anyone).
-Phil