The Birth of The One
Why all the secrecy?
-
Tools:
At this festive time of year, we ought to be concentrating on the celebration of the birth of the One Who came to save us from our sins. Instead, we find ourselves ensnared in a bizarre argument over the natal circumstances of The One who comes bearing Hope and Change, none other than our presumptive President-Elect, Barack Hussein Obama II, as denoted on his birth certificate.
Or so we hear. And therein lies an important tale, for according to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Yet there are those who believe that Mr. Obama is disqualified from the office by this clause, and the question becomes more tangled the more you examine it.
Obama's Mama
Complaints about Mr. Obama's origins have been around for months now, and we've steadfastly ignored them until now. After all, there is no question that Stanley Ann Dunham (named thus because her parents had wanted a boy) is a natural-born U.S. Citizen, born in the United States to two natural-born U.S. Citizens, and nobody is saying that Barack Obama was born to someone else.
So, like John McCain, who was born to American parents but not in the United States, Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen regardless of where he was born, right? Case closed.
Not so fast; it's not quite that simple. The Constitution doesn't specifically define what "natural-born" means; that's left to statutory laws passed by Congress. Yes, the way the law reads now, if a child born today has one parent who is an American citizen, they can be delivered in Timbuktu and still be natural-born citizen, perfectly eligible to assume the Presidency. But on August 4, 1961, the law read:
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Ann Dunham was born in 1942. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never a U.S. citizen and has never claimed to be; he doesn't count for purposes of Barack Jr's America citizenship.
A little math reveals Ann to be 18 at the time of Barack Obama's birth. Clearly, she doesn't meet the requirement of the law for foreign-born U.S. citizens' parents - to live 5 years in the U.S. after the age of 16, you have to be at least 21 at the time of the birth unless you are possessed of even more miraculous powers than those credited to Mr. Obama.
All that's merely academic, or so it would seem. The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, a U.S. state, so no matter who his parents were, he would be a U.S. citizen.
If, that is, he really was born in Hawaii.
The Mystery of the Birth Certificate
Most Americans have had to prove their birth at one time or another in their lives and are familiar with how you do this: by presenting a birth certificate.
Unlike a U.S. passport or even a driver's license, birth certificates come in an infinite variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and formats. Nowadays, many states store the data in a computer system and simply print out and certify the vital information on an official form, but over the years each county, town, or even hospital has had their own form and format.
There is no national standard that declares what a birth certificate is supposed to look like. In other words, we prove where we came from using a document that almost nobody looking at has any way to tell whether it's genuine.
When the question of his birth arose some months back, the Obama campaign released a scanned image of his Hawaii birth certificate which you can readily view online. It looks more or less like you'd expect a birth certificate to look, but as noted elsewhere, that doesn't really mean anything because most of us aren't familiar with Hawaiian birth certificates.
You'd have to compare it to another Hawaii birth certificate to have any confidence in the image. Fortunately, the resources of the Internet and Google are helpful: here's the birth certificate for a Hawaiian named Patricia DeCosta. Comparing the two birth certificates and allowing for variations in scanning equipment, Mr. Obama's passes the smell test.
Web commentators complain that Mr. Obama's certificate is lacking the embossed seal and the stamp of certification. In Hawaii, those don't go on the front of the certificate; they go on the back, where you wouldn't necessarily see them. Sometimes the stamp shows through the paper, as with Ms. DeCosta's, but again, different computer scanners will have different results.
Representatives from FactCheck.org physically went to the Obama campaign offices, personally examined the birth certificate, and verified the presence of the stamp and seal. You can see their report and photographs on the FactCheck website.
Could the certificate still be a forgery? With the hundreds of millions of dollars the Obama campaign raised, you can buy an awful lot of chicanery. Fraud at some level is at least possible, but both the State of Hawaii Health Director and the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics certify that they personally examined the original birth certificate of Barack Obama in the vaults of Hawaii's archives and found it to be in order.
So unless there is a vast, far-reaching conspiracy, it's most unlikely that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. It is far, far more likely that he simply sent off to the Hawaii registrar for a copy, enclosing his check for the fee, and got the document in the mail just like anybody else.
Why, then, does the controversy continue? You'd think that Mr. Obama would simply ask Hawaiian officials to produce the original document at a press conference, to be examined by the media, forensic experts, and so on, just to put the question to rest. With such a simple solution immediately available, why let this drag on? It doesn't make sense. Something's missing.
Documents Are Not Reality
At this point, the trail collides with a major logical fallacy that is rarely noticed or addressed: Documents, no matter how detailed, no matter how genuine, are not the same as reality.
Consider the 9-11 hijackers. When they checked in for their ill-fated flights, they presented their driver's licenses. These licenses were perfectly genuine. The check-in staff only glanced at them, of course; a good forgery wouldn't have been caught anyway.
But the terrorists' false licenses weren't forged; they came from the DMV offices and were made using the official machines which were used to generate any other driver's license in the state. Had a policeman checked the DMV database, the hijackers' bogus identities would have been indicated as valid and correct.
But they weren't. Regardless of what the documents said, regardless of what the computers would have confirmed, the licenses were false. They'd been fraudulently created with the help of bribed officials.
An official document may be worthy evidence of a fact and in law may even be considered conclusive proof, but documents do not create reality. They merely reflect it, or not, as the case may be. Reality itself may be quite different, depending on how the document came to be created.
Are we suggesting that Obama's parents bribed the Hawaii registrar to fraudulently file a birth certificate? Absolutely not.
They would not have needed to. Hawaiian law provides a perfectly legal way to get a 100% valid Hawaiian birth certificate for someone not born in the United States.
The webpage of the Hawaii State Department of Health states:
Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
Hawaiian law says that persons who were born in foreign countries can obtain Hawaiian birth certificates. Who is allowed to get an amended birth certificate? Further down the same website, it's stated that adopted persons can get an amended Hawaii birth certificate recorded on their behalf.
It's been reported that Barack Hussein Obama II was adopted by his mother's second husband, an Indonesian. It's also been reported that he was eventually adopted by his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, now both deceased. Either of these adoptions would have taken place in Hawaii, as the location of both Ann Dunham's second marriage and her parents' home.
As provided in Hawaiian law, an adoption could, perfectly legally, have triggered a legal, valid, amended Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Obama even if he wasn't born in Hawaii.
Is that what actually happened? It should be easy to tell - the original birth certificate would normally be noted as an amended one, though that notification would not be on the certified copy Mr. Obama's campaign posted. On the other hand, if the official story of Mr. Obama's birth is true, the original birth certificate would show easily verified details such as the hospital and attending doctor. We're barred from finding out: by order of Hawaii's governor, Obama's birth records are sealed to everyone but himself.
Meanwhile, various contradictory reports swirl around. Mr. Obama's paternal grandmother, in Africa, was recorded as saying he was born there in her presence; Kenya has ordered all its national records regarding the Obamas sealed; and now, even our Supreme Court is contempating the question of his citizenship.
Murk for No Reason
It's ludicrous that we should even be having this discussion, especially now, weeks after the election. The time for such debates was a year ago; the time to examine documents was during the Democratic primary. The fact that this is still an issue is a vehement condemnation of our news media who utterly abandoned their most rudimentary journalistic responsibility; with few exceptions, the media throughout the campaign were nothing more than a choir of Obama cheerleaders.
Even more preposterous is the fact that there is such a simple, elementary way to instantly resolve the question and make everybody asking it look like a complete idiot - but it isn't happening.
The moment Hawaiian officials step forward holding the original document recording Mr. Obama's birth, certified as genuine and with all its associated information regarding the circumstances and locale of his birth disclosed for all the world to see, anyone who ever doubted it will appear ready for the tinfoil-hat brigade. The sound of derisive laughter will echo from all corners and many of Mr. Obama's right-wing opponents will turn beet-red in embarrassment.
What politician wouldn't enjoy such a scene? Why permit such a mountain to be made out of such a trivial molehill when it should be so easy to stop it?
It's easy to dismiss those demanding to view the original birth certificate as kooks, conspiracy theorists, and paranoiacs, but there are a couple of sayings with resonance and relevance with respect to such matters: even the paranoid have enemies; and, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
What is Mr. Obama hiding? And why? As things now stand, there's more public documentary evidence and testimony supporting the reality and circumstances of the birth of the original One two thousand years ago.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Patience said:
"we've all had to show our birth certificates to a government official sometime or another for far less important things than the Oval Office."
This is incorrect. I'm 45, and I've NEVER had to show the original document of my birth for anything. When I applied for a passport for a trip to Mexico a few years ago, I did not have to provide the actual, decades-old, authentic piece of paper. I merely had to provide a "certified copy" from the state.
Can you imagine requiring all the 60, 70, and 80-year olds out there, to provide the ORIGINAL document for anything? It's absurd.
In the case of Obama, first of all, it's undignified that the President-Elect should be subjected to this nonsense from disgruntled conspiracy theorists. Should Bush have been subjected to regular drug screenings to "prove" he was "clean", because some idiot suggested he was still using? Of course not. It would have deemed "beneath the office of the President".
Secondly, if in 100% of the other cases in which proof of birth is required, and a certified copy is acceptable, why is that not good enough in this case?
It's ridiculous and shrill to expect the office of the President to kowtow to the inane accusations of every nut job out there. You guys have to slander an entire family, the state government of Hawaii, and a foreign government with complicity, to even give breath to such a silly and desperate accusation.
At least THIS time, the US Supreme Court had the good sense to not get involved in such an obviously political witch hunt.
He won...Let it go.
Undignified? What does that mean? So I guess once you convince the electorate that you speak well (regardless of any legitimate qualification), you become immune to the law?
And to answer your question - YES, if the authorities determined that President Bush was still using drugs, then he should be arrested and tried same as anyone else.
Huh?
Well first of all, no one "convinces" others they speak well. Either they do, or they don't.
Secondly, you are making what's called "Straw Man" arguments and attacking THEM, instead of what I actually said.
My question (which was rhetorical by the way) wasn't whether Bush should be subject to law if he was actually committing a crime (using). The point was should he have to PROVE he wasn't committing a crime everytime some sour-grapes idiot(s) out there suggested he was?
And what's your deal anyway?
You basically said that you didn't think it likely that the charge is legitimate, so why are you responding to me when obviously I agree with you?
No one - Bush, Obama included - have to prove that they aren't breaking the law every time some "sour grapes idiot" says they are. It doesn't matter if you're the President or not. If someone brings evidence that Obama isn't a citizen or that Bush smokes drugs, and the government files charges, THAT is when it matters.
But you implied that suspicions should not be investigated because of the defendants "dignity". That's complete hooey.
It's a big internet, I'm sure the authors are glad you choose to spend your time here.
And, talk about hypocrisy! Remember the ruckus from the left about Trig Palin's true birth - and he wasn't even running for office.
My point -if you had understood it- is that the mere possibility that foul play could have occurred does not rise to "probable cause". And the President of the United States is not, and should not be bound to disprove baseless accusations and gossip.
That's stupid.
Everyone would have to be thouroughly vetted for everything, if simply raising the mere possibility of conceivable wrong doing, without a shred of evidence was enough to set the judicial wheels in motion.
Can you imagine the President having to stop and respond to every imbecilic charge leveled at him by the likes of Limbaugh and that "vast right wing conspiracy" (lol)? He would be paralyzed.
Read your own words: "If someone brings evidence that Obama isn't a citizen...". Not hearsay, suppositions, gossip, hunches or Ouija board spirits. EVIDENCE.
"It's a big internet, I'm sure the authors are glad you choose to spend your time here."
Why yes, you're right. Appreciation HAS been expressed for my presence here, and an invitation extended to continue offering my views.
The authors are intellectually mature enough to value intelligent dissent and disagreement.
So what's your point? LOL
Patience.
It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter. No one should be able to force the President (or candidate) of the United States to defend himself against politically motivated accusations having no evidentiary basis.
And further speaking of hypocrisy, A. We KNOW for a fact McCain was born outside the country. B. Has ANYONE seen HIS original birth certificate yet?
Would this article have been written here had McCain been President Elect?
For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was born in Kenya. Ok? So now what? Because really, when it comes down to it, As "Natural Born" was not defined in the Constitution, any attempts to differentiate between being born to a US Citizen in Panama and a US Citizen in Kenya are merely political and idealogical. In fact, the most logical interpretation would be that "Natural Born" meant someone born in the a recognized state, in the continental United States.
Yeah that whole "Trig thing" was stupid too. But I don't recall it going to the Supreme Court for resolution. ;-)
Does this mean that he was? Not necessarily. But it would certainly be enough probable cause to want to look at Hawaii's records, and Kenya's. Isn't it interesting that, for the first time, both jurisdictions have entirely sealed their archives to researchers and the media?
If you think it doesn't matter, you didn't read the article. Under the laws of citizenship, if Obama was not born in the U.S., he is not a natural-born American citizen. McCain, because he was born to 2 U.S. citizens over the age of 21, is a natural-born American citizen no matter where he was born. It's not that hard to wrap your mind around... I think you need to read this earlier Scragged article on citizenship laws:
http://scragged.com/articles/anchors-away.aspx
No one said he should. Read the article, perhaps a 3rd time, until you finally understand that. There is no implication that Obama should immediately resign or make personal efforts to face the rumors and personally deal with them.
The issue is that NO ONE is making it their business - even those who's job it is to MAKE it their business. No courts would even SEE the evidence. 4 of the 5 simply dismissed the case outright.
I do not believe that Obama is not a citizen. Like I said originally, it seems improbable given the magnitude of the issue.
But I also don't believe that the justice system shouldn't investigate issues like this just because the MSM and their liberal sycophants are giddy about Their Chosen One. If McCain had been elected, the same issue would have been brought up, but it wouldn't have been dismissed out of hand.
"imbecilic charge leveled at him by the likes of Limbaugh"
Can you name one imbecilic charge that you've heard Limbaugh make?
I love when people use that line. Sometimes they substitute Fox News for Limbaugh. Short of copy/pasting what ihatelimbaugh.com says, none of them can actually come up with anything legit. All those enemies, and no real grasp of what any of them say.
(I believe it's the people on your side that so often use the phrase "don't be a hater")
"And the President of the United States is not, and should not be bound to disprove baseless accusations and gossip"
lfon replied:
No one said he should. Read the article, perhaps a 3rd time, until you finally understand that. There is no implication that Obama should immediately resign or make personal efforts to face the rumors and personally deal with them.
Quote from article:
"You'd think that Mr. Obama would simply ask Hawaiian officials to produce the original document at a press conference, to be examined by the media, forensic experts, and so on, just to put the question to rest."
Meaning in other words, Obama should produce his actual birth certificate to PROVE that the accusations that he is not a citizen are false.
Ifon, it is apparent you have comprehension issues. Not only do you fail to understand what *I* wrote, you utterly fail to comprehend that which you accuse me of not understanding. The WHOLE point of the article is that in response to the allegations that he is not a natural born citizen, Obama should respond to the allegation by producing his birth certificate to "put the matter to rest", or PROVE that rumor is false.
Reading is fundamental, and you and I are done.
Listen, the fact that limbaugh is an overblown gas bag, and an idiot is well established, and I'm not going to waste my time quoting him. I have seen actual videos of him making ridiculous statements.
Besides, if I did quote him, you wouldn't even try to deny that he said it, all you would do is to try to debate me as to why his idiocy is in fact "the truth blah, blah, blah", and I have no interest in such a "debate".
Now, we've both played clever with our screen names, and that's over. If you want a response from me in the future, keep the insults to a minimum, and be civil. Otherwise you go on ignore.
"For one thing, there is a recording of Obama's African grandmother stating that she was present at his birth in Kenya"
It amuses me that you state that so matter-of-factly.
I searched high-and-low for that recording, and you know what? With the exception of a link to some obviously edited recording on YouTube purporting to be that conversation you speak of, after skimming through pages and pages of Google results, what I found was no more than hundreds of references to some guy CLAIMING to have a recording.
Now I'm not going to completely dismiss what you said as truth twisting. But I'd like for you to point me to a link to a clear verified recording of Obamas grandmother saying what you claim she said.
As far as the laws, fair enough, I'll concede that their cases would be different.
I don't find Kenya and Hawaii's actions interesting at all. Obama made the original document available to FactCheck.org, who verified it's authenticity. He obviously feels that that and the certified copy is enough. So why would Hawaii or Kenya make someones private records available against their will?
Why do Presidents have to release their medical records, if the media is generally free to rummage around in their private records? I'm sure that if Obama gave them permission, they would provide access to his records.
But my point remains, there is nothing I've seen or heard thus far, that rises above right-wing conspiracy theory, and thus should not be dignified any further by the President-Elect of the United States.
"You'd think he might" does not equal "he must". No reason to confuse what he might do with what he COULD do.
My debate with you is about your assertion that this is a juvenile, "imbecilic", undignified matter that everyone should ignore.
This is getting a bit silly. All I can hope is that you continue reading, and learning from, the articles here on Scragged. They will probably teach you more than your primary education ever did.
"Listen, the fact that limbaugh is an overblown gas bag, and an idiot is well established, and I'm not going to waste my time quoting him"
Exactly the response we all knew was coming.
I've "insulted" you. I'd be "wasting your time".
Ahh... Case closed.
"They will probably teach you more than your primary education ever did."
That would be my COLLEGE education sir. ;-)
Peace
I said:
"Listen, the fact that limbaugh is an overblown gas bag, and an idiot is well established, and I'm not going to waste my time quoting him"
twimbicile retorts:
"Exactly the response we all knew was coming."
Yeah, our aversion to wasting our time is pretty well established :-)
"I've 'insulted' you. I'd be 'wasting your time'.
Ahh... Case closed"
Huh?
Uh ok and the rammafran intersects the reticle at twenty three scadoo.
Ha! Busted you!
"rammafran intersects the reticle at twenty three scadoo"
Why are we bothering with this genius, you ask?
Here's why: http://www.scragged.com/articles/government-dont-know-jack-education.aspx
Over the next few years, when you see the buffoonery that Obama produces, think "Tony The Liberal voted for that" and smile.
Do you not know what an emoticon is?
";-)" Implies playfulness or sarcasm. In my case I was being playful. Your attempt to insult me, made me smile. That's all :-)...See?
Once again, you attempt to imply that I don't understand something, but in actuallity, it's you who has the "understanding gap".
I know what "primary education" means. The fact that you inferred from my retort that I didn't know something that rudimentary, speaks more to YOUR inability to understand, than anything else.
"That's COLLEGE education sir. ;-)" was a mock correction of your insult.
You know, like if someone called someone else a Facist, and they retorted "That's Nazi to you sir!". and then winked.
It doesn't mean that the person doesn't know what "Facist" means...okay?
Oh and the posting of the link to the definition...Lol...That was priceless.
But please, do keep schooling me. LOL :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-secondary_education
Wow...over your head huh? Really?
Typical dittohead intellect on display folks. :-)
"I posited that the lessons in these Scragged articles teach more about government, economics and society than any primary education on the market"
Ok, so I need to read Scragged's articles because they teach more about certain topics than I learned in grade school?
:::slapping hand on forehead and swiping face:::
Ho boy!
"Stop worrying about being insulted and stick the issues."
The fact that I blew off what I perceived to be an insult illustrates my concern, or lack thereof for any insults forthcoming from you.
Remember what I said about reading?
Talk about being over one's head. I actually find myself rereading my own posts to try to figure out how your responses are even remotely
responsive, let alone relevant to what I actually said.
"If you've gotten in over your head, it's okay to say that move on."
Lol...the ole "I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" defense eh?
Wow, I'm flummoxed by that one. Oh dear, I guess you really are too much for me.
Ok, I know when I've been outclassed, so I'll retire and let you have the last word.
:-D
Then you do a total bitch-out on lfon when he makes a straightforward, non-threatening comment about the education of these articles.
Are you sure your name really isn't Tonya? Tell the truth...
Explaining emoticons...
Using "LOL" like a 15 year old...
Making up words like "rammafran"...
Mispelling 23 skidoo...
Complaining about insults...
Hating on Limbaugh...
Wow. Life must not be real stimulating in Tony land.
Awwwwwwww...Aint that sweet, protecting your wittle friend lfon. Sounds kinda geigh to me.
You've done your homework on me.
Good boy.
Shows I'm inside your head. :-)
Take it easy twimbicile. Next time, perhaps you will actually try to contribute something meaningful to the discussion...If you can. :::said while flicking a buzzing twimicile off his knuckle like an annoying flea:::
Oh, I forgot. LOL!
Although I'm guilty of participating, I never initiate personal attacks without provocation, and even then I usually ignore them up to a point.
I just didn't feel like being the adult this time. Especially when you've got a guy here who had no intention of trying to have "mature, dignified debate".
This is the same guy who calls conservatives racist because they oppose Affirmative Action and welfare - policies that are axiomatic failures.
If you've followed my comments on Scragged elsewhere, you know that my comments here are special purpose only.
I don't understand how people like you do what you do and then expect to be taken seriously later. If you have any good points, they get completely lost in this sea of ridiculousness. Again, I reference Daily Kos- I can't read it objectively because of all the absurdity that is spewed by the posters and commenters. I would sure hate for that virus to infect one of my favorite websites (i.e. Scragged).
Perhaps one needs start with the cess pool they themselves inhabit, before looking to "take out the trash" elsewhere.
Melissa,
And what of the childish attacks I am responding to? What have you to say about "special purpose" comments?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but you appear to be only addressing your comments to me.
"I don't understand how people like you do what you do and then expect to be taken seriously later."
What "you" are you referring to?
I'm asking because I'd like to believe you are sincere in wanting dignified debate from EVERYBODY, and not just those you agree with.
Also, if you're going to try to characterize, my positions on things, at least try to to first interpret them correctly.
P.S. Again, I'm not going to fall into the trap of an off-topic debate with you. So any attempts to highjack THIS topic by cross-posting from another will be ignored.
You responded to my comment, and I was responding to you. That's the "you" I was referring to. My original point was that this was NOT the type of debate I was used to seeing on Scragged, and it disappointed me. You then responded to me with an attitude that seemed a little "yeah, I really hate it when people do that"... when you are just as guilty as everyone else. So yes, I was speaking to you.
I think derogatory puns off of others' screen names have pretty much been done to death now; let's have no more of them.
Scragged articles have always specialized in taking provocative points of view; the whole idea is to cause discussion and debate. But without exception, whenever we take a controversial position, we explain our REASONS for doing so, and provide EVIDENCE supporting the argument. Of course that evidence can be challenged, or our reasoning critiqued; that's the whole point.
Unfortunately, I don't see much of that going on here. Tony, it sounds like you are saying basically that you do not care to find out; that the President should be above question, and the whole burden of proof should rest on whoever is asking the question. If this were a criminal case, you'd be right; but it's not. I believe, and the Founding Fathers I think would agree, that the President or any politician should be prepared and willing to answer any rational question put to them in a reasonable way. Wasn't W's reluctance to hold open press conferences one of the sticks that the left beat him with, lo these last 8 years? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I stand by my article as written. In case there is any confusion, let me clarify my position.
1. I believe the birth certificate provided by Obama is 100% genuine, and is not a forgery. I simply don't believe this proves anything.
2. I believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen. I have yet to see evidence that he is a NATURAL-BORN U.S. Citizen. He may be; he may not be. But we ought to find out for sure.
3. I do not believe that Obama was born in Kenya, exactly. However, that's not because I believe he was born in Hawaii as he says. I simply don't know.
The reason I do not know is because, according to Hawaii state laws and regulations as cited in the article, it is both possible and perfectly legal for Obama to have a 100% genuine, valid, legal birth certificate exactly as he has presented, and yet not to have been born in the State of Hawaii or the United States. And under the Federal law in effect at the time of his birth, if he were not born in the US or its possessions, he would not be a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen. (The Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. possession at the time of John McCain's birth there, so anyone born there is a natural-born U.S. Citizen, just as people born in Puerto Rico or Guam today are.)
I think a lot of the confusion arises from the fact that there aren't many cases where being a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen matters - actually, I think eligibility for the presidency is the only one. In all other aspects of law and politics, a naturalized citizen is fully the equal of a Daughter of the American Revolution. So for almost anything else, Obama's birth certificate as presented would be perfectly sufficient.
Let me point out that he has NOT presented his original birth certificate, nor has he presented a copy of it. He has presented a certified SUMMARY birth certificate. This includes SOME information from the original, sworn to be on file in Hawaii's archives - but NOT ALL, specifically, not the elements which would be present if (as we suppose) he was born outside of the U.S. and adopted in Hawaii by an American citizen.
Isn't it the right of the American people to know? It's so easy, WHY does he refuse? Don't say it's beneath his dignity - obeying the U.S. Constitution is beneath nobody's dignity.
One last point. The very State of Hawaii itself which issued the document Obama presented, DOES NOT ACCEPT IT as proof of birth in Hawaii for purposes of its homestead program. I quote from the Hawaii Department of Home Lands:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
If it is important enough for the State of Hawaii itself to require a certified copy of the original, precisely BECAUSE it includes additional relevant information, surely the Presidency is important enough to demand the same.
Now, let's keep the discussion civil and fact-based, please.
I admited my part, so your characterization of "my attitude" doesn't hold water.
You claim that it was because *I* responded, yet you have not responded similarly to others who have responded. Even though lfon responded to you first.
I really thought you were sincere and really was interested in "dignified debate" from "all". But now, it's apparent that what you really wanted was for me to just shut up, and let your boys take their cheap shots.
Disappointing.
You and I have debated before, so you know that my style is generally one of respect to the person I'm addressing, even if I vehemently disagree with their point of view. You also know, that I generally ignored posters who's responses contain personal attacks and insults.
But it is too much to ask that I ignore all.
And there seems to be more than a few here whose first impulse, and seemingly only purpose for joining a discussion, is to hurl insults and personal attacks.
I wished you had responded earlier and cut things off before the discussion completely deteriorated.
To your post.
So tell me, what was it that FactCheck.org saw and touched?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
So, what did FactCheck.org examine? Let's take a look at their website:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
It includes numerous photos of the document, but the introduction contains a highly relevant error:
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."
NO. They have NOT done so - as they admit further down the report:
"Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate."
The ORIGINAL birth certificate is in Hawaii's archives, where nobody is allowed to go and look at it.
So, what did FactCheck examine? They actually give the right answer toward the bottom of their report:
"The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details."
In other words, they saw a computer printout of recent vintage, certified by the State of Hawaii.
I believe this to be an accurate statement. I do NOT believe Obama forged that document. I do believe that it was properly generated and certified by the appropriate officials of the State of Hawaii. I do believe that it reflects information on the original supporting documents, as the two Hawaiian officials cited swore that it did.
Here's the key point: All that can be 100% true, and 100% legal, and yet Obama could STILL not have been born in Hawaii, according to the laws of the State of Hawaii as cited in my original article, and statements to that effect made elsewhere. Are those statements correct and trustworthy? I have no idea. A look at the ORIGINAL birth certificate documents would lay the questions to rest once and for all.
So why won't he allow something so simple?
The fact is, there are quite a lot of circumstances in which perfectly legal birth certificates may say something factually untrue. Several states allow transsexuals to file for an amended birth certificate changing their sex. This would change the information in the database, so that when they requested a short-form printout like Obama's, it would display the sex they changed to. It would all be legal, properly certified. But it would NOT be true - as the original birth certificate on file at the state Dept. of Health would show the original birth gender.
Adoptions have the same effect in many states, specifically including Hawaii. It is perfectly legal and proper, on adopting a minor in Hawaii, to file for an amended birth certificate. This would result in a short-form certificate showing the "place of birth" as being the location of the court of jurisdiction. The original certificate and supporting documents on file in the archives, though, would show the full truth and all relevant details of what really took place.
Again, do I truly believe that's what actually happens? No. I don't know WHAT to believe - and that's exactly the problem. As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust - but verify."
"I directed my criticism of personal insults against everyone doing them; in my opinion, that sort of ad-hominem response on either side is a mark of a weak argument and a bad habit to get into. "
Yes, your remarks were a criticism of ALL the participants, and not some veiled attempt to rip one person, while pretending to be an objective observer.
I respect that.
It IS a bad habit to get into, and one I try to avoid.
"I do feel that the Bible offers wise advice on that point: to "turn the other cheek," and "a soft answer turneth away wrath."
While I agree, and ignore idiots most times, I should not have to play Scragged's punching bag, and silently endure constand attempts, however feeble, to insult me. I believe the onus is one the instigating party to act like a socialized being in the first place.
I believe one should not be criticized for self-defense...Ever. I'm kinda like the NRA in that regard. Take away my gun, then only the "criminals" have them.
Sorry.
I understand your point, and while I don't share the need or desire to have Obama respond to or disprove politically-motivated accusations and allegations, I do understand why some do.
You make good points Petrarch, and your arguments are thoughtful, but in the end, I am unswayed. Just as I am sure you are unswayed by mine.
I appreciate your clarification of the FactCheck.org document, but of course I will "verify". ;-)
Maybe next time we will have a chance to discuss before the topic is highjacked by those uninterested in meaningful dialog.
Peace
You say you were unswayed by my arguments. Obviously you do not believe Obama was born in Kenya. I wasn't trying to argue that - I haven't persuaded myself of it, much less anyone else.
But I do think there is legitimate grounds for inquiry here. So here are my questions for you:
1. Let us suppose, hypothetically speaking, that Obama was IN FACT born in Kenya, and therefore that under the Federal laws of the time he was NOT a natural-born U.S. Citizen.
a.) Would you want to know?
b.) Would you consider it appropriate for the American people to know?
c.) Whose job should it be to bring this to public attention?
d.) On whom should the burden of proof lie, one way or the other?
2. Again, let us assume that Obama was foreign born and not a natural-born U.S. Citizen.
a.) Do you think he should be denied the office of President on that basis, or summarily removed from office as unqualified if he had already assumed it?
b.) Put another way, do you think that the clear requirements of the Constitution should be ignored when politically convenient, rather than changed via the amendment process?
I am actually going somewhere with this, by the way...
I respect you enough to be totally honest. I hope I don't later come to regret that decision.
a.) Would you want to know?
In all honesty no. I think that Obama offers a real chance for this country to not only be great again, but to again assume it's place as the "moral light" of the world. I know that sound hokey, but I truly believe up until "W", we WERE viewed that way by most of the world.
I would say the same were we talking about another person bringing the same attributes to the office.
b.) Would you consider it appropriate for the American people to know?
Yes.
c.) Whose job should it be to bring this to public attention?
It should be the job of whoever obtained the information through an investigation initiated because hard evidence (probable cause) warranted such an investigation, and not as the result of a politically motivated fishing expedition.
d.) On whom should the burden of proof lie, one way or the other?
The burden of proof should lie with those making the allegation.
a.) Do you think he should be denied the office of President on that basis, or summarily removed from office as unqualified if he had already assumed it?
Only if 2/3rds of the Legistrative Branch voted to remove him, or some other otherwise insurmountable, partisan political obstruction were overcome.
Afterall, in my opinion, "W"'s election in 2000 (and 2004) was illegitimate, and only prevailed because of a politically-based supreme court decision.
b.) Put another way, do you think that the clear requirements of the Constitution should be ignored when politically convenient, rather than changed via the amendment process?
Generally no, but when it's been shown that an election can be won before counting all the ballots in the deciding state, I am in no mood to hear about removing a President because of a technicality. A technicality for which there is no basis, and which makes absolutely no sense. An 18-year old American is as much an American as a 21-year-old American.
If the most sacred of American rights (the right to vote, and have that vote counted) can be abridged for political expediency, well, what's good for the goose...
Now, having been totally honest, I know I will open myself up to various charges of being an anarchist, etc. And I accept that, because honesty is how I roll.
But the truth of the matter is, that the vast majority of the people who would make that call, agreed with the supreme court's legally unjustifiable decision which gave "W" the Presidency, not at the ballot box, but in a back room.
Those same people agreed with allowing thousands of Americans' votes crucial to the outcome of the election, to not be counted.
And, had it been shown, after Jan 20th, 2001, that "W" actually lost the election by vote, those same people would have agreed that "W" should have remained in office.
And nothing could ever convince me otherwise.
I believe they just wouldn't have the sack to admit it here as I have done.
Now, had we lived in a country where the laws applied equally to BOTH sides, and were immune to political manipulation, then my answer would be different.
In all honesty.
False and expedient charges of "arrogance" aside, thank you for confirming my suspicions concerning your motivations.
In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decided nothing at all. They said - rightly so - that the decision was not theirs to make and they punted it back to the State of Florida who made the decision. You say that that was "legally unjustifiable", but I can't imagine any more legal decision they COULD have made. This country used to respect state's rights. Furthermore, the popular vote (the choice of the ballot box) has NEVER decided the presidency.
I'm not trying to swing off topic here; I've just never understood why the left keeps banging that particular drum.
If I remember correctly, the supreme court issued an injunction or stay halting the counting of the ballots until the case was heard. As the count had to be completed by a certain date, the action by the supreme court, effectively prevented the ballots from being counted in the allotted time.
"You say that that was "legally unjustifiable", but I can't imagine any more legal decision they COULD have made. This country used to respect state's rights."
I have two cases for you.
1. Brown vs. Board of Education which basically overruled some states' policy of "seperate but equal".
1. Roe vs. Wade which overruled states' laws outlawing abortion.
Now you may not agree with those decisions (not saying you don't), but the supreme court obviously will step in on matters of national importance, and of course when the political makeup of the court is such to right bad state law.
I can think of no greater imperative to overrule a bad state law, as when that law threatens the sanctity of the Presidential election.
So by the court's initial action favorable to W, and then it's inaction, also favorable to W, they effectively decided the outcome of the election.
If the true intention of the court was to not interfere, then they should have added the time taken away by the injunction/stay, back to the counting process.
But of course that would have been impartial, and we know that wasn't going to happen with a conservative/conservative leaning majority.
"Furthermore, the popular vote (the choice of the ballot box) has NEVER decided the presidency."
Sigh, I KNOW elections are decided by the electoral college. But you and I both know that the electoral college has never voted against the popular vote of the state in which it is seated.
THAT'S why we keep beating that drum.
You have said, more or less, that "the end justifies the means." In other words, the elevation of Obama to the Presidency is such a Great Thing - a moral imperative, indeed - that nothing, not even the U.S. Constitution, should be allowed to stand in the way.
We see much the same philosophy throughout all of liberalism. Overwhelming majorities in various states wish to prohibit abortion? Force it on them via Roe vs. Wade (a decision even many liberals consider to be legally very poor.) Voters, time after time, reject marriage between homosexuals? Force it down their throats by judicial fiat! This is the very antithesis, not only of democracy, but of the very principle of the rule of law.
Do I accuse you of being an anarchist? I do not. In my mind, you espouse a philosophy far worse than mere anarchism. You argue for un-blind justice - a justice system to whom the facts of the case matter far less than who you are, what your motivation was, and what your political persuasion is. In a word, tyranny.
It is this I fear about Mr. Obama, far more than any specific policy he proposes. He does not, like FDR once did, clearly lay out his socialistic ideals, argue in favor of them, and persuade the voters to his way of thinking. That's legitimate politics, and if a socialist succeeds in it, it's only the fault of his weak opponents.
No, he uses rhetoric to bring along his followers with a sense of such urgency, such history, that his goals are a moral imperative overriding due process, rule of law, debate, and separation of powers. The Founding Fathers quite intentionally designed our government to operate in a slow and deliberate fashion, with the various branches commonly working at cross-purposes to slow the whole thing down.
The ability of Obama to cause swooning across our entire power structure is fantastically dangerous, and philosophically, it would appear liberals and the left in general are well prepared to welcome it. As a student of history, it reminds me of nothing so much as the advent of fascism - which, you may recall, was welcomed not only by Germany, Italy, and Japan, but also had powerful movements and supporters in England, France, the U.S., and basically everywhere that wasn't Communist, until its true evils were revealed - but, too late for half the world.
I thank God that Mr. Obama has shown not the slightest sign of the latent evil that was Hitler. But our liberties are nevertheless at risk, when so many Americans who view themselves as patriotic, are willing to wave aside the laws and Constitution that our forefathers fought and died for.
I'll leave you with a famous quote from the play A Man for All Seasons:
---
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
---
You propose that our laws and traditions be cast aside to make way for Hope and Change. Change is good - through proper democratic debate, honest discussion, and fair elections according to the rules. If these can be bent at will with nary a cry of protest, our liberty is nothing more than a sham, a mockery, and an illusion.
I'm sorry, but I have to admit I'm very disappointed with your response, and not just because it's a complete mischaracterization of my response.
In my opinion it reads like a pre-packaged conservative screed, because it doesn't even attempt to address the nuance, qualifications, and even direct statements in my response, that directly contradict your labeling and intentional (I believe) mis-characterizations.
I was going to respond to the content of this "response", but decided against it, because in my mind, your post is unresponsive to to my response (which frankly, I put a lot of thought into), and we'd be off on a tangent, having never really discussed my answers to your questions.
A proper dialog is an exchange between participants in which aside from the first speaker's statments, all the other statements flow from, and are responsive to statements made by the other participant(s). The exception being when all the participants agree to a change in topic.
A speech is a one-sided address by a lone participant expressing his/her personal thoughts, opinions and/or ideas on a topic. It does not have to take into account or be responsive to anything said or expressed by someon else.
In my opinion, your response was a speech.
If you wish to continue this "discussion", then respond with something that takes into account AND ADDRESSES the actual statements and reasoning expressed in my response.
Or in otherwords, a response that indicates it is part of a dialog.
Next time when I see "I'm going somewhere with this" in one of your responses to me, I'll consider myself duly warned.
In other words, ignore the law and the Constitution to accomplish an end you see as good. Highly pertinent, and on topic.
However, since you view my response as a speech, perhaps you might be interested in an opportunity to respond at length. I have spoken with the Editors, and they would consider publishing a full-length article by you, on the subject of "Why I Don't Care Where Obama Was Born", giving you the chance to fully explain your reasoning. I can't guarantee that they will, of course, but if it's well crafted I think they would.
Ya think? Quite an understatement.
Your response was akin to my answering the question: "Is the sky blue?", with "Well sometimes, and at other times during storms, overcast days, etc., it's not blue", and then you responding, trumpeting the fact that "See, Liberals don't even think the sky is blue!".
Tabloid writing at it's best.
"In other words, ignore the law and the Constitution to accomplish an end you see as good. Highly pertinent, and on topic."
Pertinent to what? Conservative talking points?
Consider a court martial of a soldier who refused to follow an order, even though that order was to kill innocent civilians. Yeah, he refused to follow an order, but he had valid justifications for doing so. A judge with the mindset indicated by your responses, would prevent such mitigating factors from being presented in court.
Lastly I find it quite hysterical that all this bluster about "ignoring the law and Constitution" is coming from someone whose side brought us the:
a. Outing of a CIA agent.
b. Illegal wiretapping.
c. Denial of habeas corpus under the guise of
detaining "enemy combatants".
d. Rendition.
e. Authorizing war crimes (ie. torture).
f. Voter disenfranchisement.
f. And my personal favorite, using a biased
court to facillitate a favorable outcome
of a Presidential election.
g. Other offenses to numerous to enummerate.
Yeah, you and your guys have a real history of moral authority from which to lecture others concerning the rule of law.
And as to your offer, well I have to say, I'm actually flattered. :-)
But, I would never be so foolish as to write an article under such a topic title. One, it's not true, and two, "Because the other side has gotten away with much worse", is only a moral justification, and is not defensible from a purely legal standpoint.
And I am totally uninterested in fending off hypocrital outrage of the type contained in your original response to my answers to your questions.
I tell you what, you write an article about "Why I don't care that Bush administration outed CIA agent, Valerie Plame" on the Daily Kos, or Huffington Post, and maybe I'll reconsider. :-)
Seriously though, if I actually had the time, and the inclination, I'd be more interested in writing sort of a rebuttal piece to your "Racist Election" article, which would incorporate my previously expressed views on that, and why "Blacks don't vote republican".
Perhaps, sometime in the future, I will submit such an article for consideration.
http://www.slate.com/id/2148555/
But if your friends at DK or HuffPo extend me an invitation and courteous hearing, I'll be glad to have a go at it. I wonder whose comments pages are more filled with vitriol and discourtesy, ours or theirs?
Concerning the other issues, we've addressed a couple of them tangentially, though I admit the specific practices of the War on Terror have not been an aspect of special Scragged emphasis. I could give a point-by-point rebuttal of your list but I imagine you'd dismiss it as conservative talking points.
And you'd be right. Talking points are what you believe in, for good or ill. What really matters are the underlying arguments and point of view, which is what I was trying to discuss earlier.
If you'd rather write a rebuttal for a different Scragged article, I'm sure that would be considered as well. Just remember one thing: be sure to explain your full reasoning, not only WHAT you believe but also WHY, with evidence that can be discussed on its merits, not just (as you say) "the other side is worse."
Merry Christmas!
Yes Armitage was the one who disclosed Plame's identity to Novak. But he didn't know she was a covert CIA agent. Guess who did, and confirmed Plame's CIA status?
Karl Rove.
"Plame was not a covert CIA agent (covert agents don't drive openly to CIA HQ in Langley as she did, for the simple reason that enemy agents are known to watch the drive and keep logs of who goes in there, and always have), it would be very easy to write an article by that title. "
See here is another attempt to whitewash/rationalize bad behavior on the part of conservatives.
Valerie Plame was in fact a Covert CIA agent at the time of the disclosure.
Don't take my word for it, read it in the "UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF VALERIE WILSON'S CIA EMPLOYMENT AND COVER HISTORY" here:
http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/30/plame/
And I quote: "At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States"
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
"I could give a point-by-point rebuttal of your list but I imagine you'd dismiss it as conservative talking points."
What, like the rebuttal you just offered?
Yes, I'd dismiss them, and rightfully so, probably as talking points, but more likely as outright conservative fabrications.
"What really matters are the underlying arguments and point of view, which is what I was trying to discuss earlier"
Sorry my friend, but you absolutely were not trying to discuss "underlying arguments and point of view", earlier.
THAT was the main problem I had with your initial response. You addressed none of my actual reasoning or arguments, but instead resorted to the typical tactic of ascribing right wing fantasies of liberal's motives, to my answers instead.
"I wonder whose comments pages are more filled with vitriol and discourtesy, ours or theirs?"
Lol...Is that a trick question? I think the reason there's less rancor here is because as far as I can tell, I seem to be one of few, if not THE only liberal posting over here. Perhaps as more people of opposing viewpoints find their way here, and you experience more dissent, I expect more of your hooligans will make their presence felt...lol.
Trust me, if your editors were ever kind enough to publish an article of mine, the itellectual reasoning and support of my arguments would be meticulous. :-)
Thank you, and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours!
Quoth the man that previously said it would be okay to ignore the Constitution, given a rapturous enough President-elect.
"the itellectual reasoning and support of my arguments would be meticulous"
Let's find out.
I thought you were gone.
I find it interesting you didn't have a response to my post regarding your "Why do liberals keep banging the 'George Bush stole the Election' drum.
It appears that you are now quite satisfied to "pot shot" from behind cover.
But no worries...It's a big internet, I'm sure the authors are glad you choose to spend your time here. ;-)
Anyway.
I said:
"See here is another attempt to whitewash/rationalize bad behavior on the part of conservatives"
To which you responded:
"Quoth the man that previously said it would be okay to ignore the Constitution, given a rapturous enough President-elect."
Right. But remember that was in RESPONSE to what I would characterize as "hypocritical conservative outrage" to my position. Ever heard the saying about the ability to "swallow a camel, while gagging on a gnat"?
In other words, you (conservatives) have sat idlely by while this administration has broken one law after another, been imbroiled in more scandal, and have trampled more constitutional laws than any adminstration in US history, without so much as a peep. And NOW you want to talk about "the rule of law"?
Don't make me laugh.
You guys are in no position to lecture ANYONE about the "rule of law" and upholding the Constitution.
That was my point.
I didn't respond because I didn't want to go down a rabbit trail on something that we obviously will never agree on. On most issues here, it seems our facts originate at completely opposite ends of the internet. You'll find a web site to back your agenda, then I'll find one that backs mine, and so on...
I think the one (and maybe ONLY) thing we can all agree on is - it is, indeed, a big internet.
Insightful comment.
"On most issues here, it seems our facts originate at completely opposite ends of the internet."
True, but you will agree that sometimes things come down to either "it happened or did not", "he did, or he did not", "she said, or she didn't say", etc.
And to be honest, in our case, either the Supreme court acted as I said they did or the did not, and failed to remedy the harm of their actions/inaction, or they did not.
Based on your reasoning, I do respect your decision not to pursue a debate on the matter.
But again, I do agree. A lot of the issues and people's motivations are open to interpretation one way or another depending on one's bias(es).
Guess that's what makes it fun. :-)
Peace