The Obama administration is cheering on Donald Trump as he considers a presidential run. “I saw Donald Trump kind of rising in the polls,” noted David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, on ABC’s This Week. “Given his behavior, and the spectacle of the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising.”
Trump’s rising profile, Plouffe argued, is becoming a problem for Republicans, especially as the high-profile businessman investigates the president’s birth records. “There is zero chance that Donald Trump would ever be hired by the American people to do this job,” he said. “There may be a small part of the country that believes these things, but mainstream Americans think it’s a sideshow.”
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I thought I was done with this topic, but Larry has made assertions that are not correct.
-One, I don’t believe that either Mata, or myself, ever actually uttered a belief that Obama was not born in Hawaii. We have said, that regardless of the truth, the issue is a non-starter for us. There are too many other, legitimate, issues that should disqualify Obama as President, at least in the minds of “We the People”.
-Two, You include Sarah Palin in with Trump, and those questioning Obama’s place of birth. She has been quoted as saying she believes he was born in Hawaii. The caveat she issued on the birth is that it’s possible there is something within the official record that he is hiding, otherwise it would have been released. What you are doing is taking a number of people, some who post here, and some who are national figures, and if there is any negatives to what they say about Obama and his birth, you lump them all within the inclusive term “birthers”, and then argue against them as if all of them are questioning his actual birthplace. Do you not see how you are making a mistake in doing that?
-Three, you are elevating the utterances of a government official to a level of trust that is unimpeachable. And it’s not about whether I, or Mata, think she is lying or not. We just believe that taking the word of someone within government service on anything, without reservation, should never be done. “Trust, but verify”, and all attempts at verification have been thwarted.
-Four, the birth certificate itself. Read the article at this site, and you might just understand why there are questions about Obama’s actual birth.
There is a “short form” birth certificate, called a Certification of Live Birth, and this is what the Obama campaign presented. There is also a “long form” birth certificate, called a Certificate of Live Birth that contains much more in the way of information. It also contains info that would lead one to find out how the birth certificate was issued, and that is the issue at hand in many of the lawsuits out there. It is also the only document that would verify, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether Obama is, indeed, qualified, per the Constitution, to be President of the United States. It is also available for release, by request from Obama himself.
Now, I don’t go along with Hard Right’s assertion that you never change your mind, or allow that you were wrong. The other week you admitted to me to being wrong about China’s oil usage compared to the U.S., so I know that statement by him is wrong. However, it seems to me that you are pinning your argument on the birther issue by lumping anyone who has the slightest doubt about his birth, whether it’s location of birth, parentage, or other, into one group, and then arguing against that group with statements made by one person, regardless of their relation to the case. To my knowledge, no one but her has seen the actual vault certificate, and when a later attempt to locate it failed, you come in with a theory on how easily it could have been lost(not saying your theory isn’t possible, just one of many).
The simple fact of the matter is, that Obama could stop all doubt, lawsuits, and any other negative reactions by simply requesting the vault certificate be released to the public for examination. It would end all doubt. To date, he has not done so, but rather has let this argument fester amongst the public, and in the court system(no matter what total dollar amount has really been spent). He has the power to stop all the hoopla over this, and isn’t doing so. Of course people are going to wonder why that is, even to the point of conspiracy theories about his birth.
Now, wouldn’t you want him to release the vault certificate, for public inspection, so that all doubt can be erased?
@mata:
You say:
Tell me, precisely, what makes Obama “not innocent.” This is why I am correct in labeling you a “birther.” You are smearing him, based on no evidence what so ever.
What document has he failed to produce?
You can’t say.
What document has he produced?
His official birth certificate. Every bit as official as the birth certificate which exists for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney or John McCain. Or for any other person born in the State of Hawaii.
So how is he “not innocent?”
You made the charge. Now back it up.
I re-read my #34. I was responding to your charge that I was using “partisan talking points.” No, I wasn’t. And I stand 100% by my charge that your statements — previously and up to the present — are all simply speculation and conjecture.
The last two paragraphs in your #58 were uncalled for.
@Old Trooper: So you tell me, also. What document do you feel that Obama has failed to submit to establish his citizenship which should have been submitted? What document is he withholding? Tell me directly, and we can then discuss it.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntingon Beach, CA
You really need a time out, Larry. What “charge” did I make, save in your demented mind? I didn’t use conjecture or speculation by pointing out there are legal briefs that describe and provide evidence. Yet you seem to think it was me, personally, who did all that investigating and wrote the briefs.
I, unlike you, read several briefs that challenge the documents authenticity. Therefore I have no opinion as to his guilt or innocence because I simply don’t know. That is not a “charge”, but a statement of fact that apparently is above your level of acceptability. No one, save your medical professional angel, has seen that document, and she is not capable of labeling a document a fraud or genuine. Unless, of course, they’re adding some odd curriculum to medical school.
Your entire attitude towards me of late, and particularly on this, is uncalled for. Now, you can talk to the hand. I have little time, and even less patience for you and your personal insults. You’ve slung them at me, I will sling them back with more force. It’s a wasted exercise on both our parts because, just as I don’t care about Obama’s birth certificate battles, I care even less to spend another moment playing games with someone as lazy and glossy eyed as you.
Larry I stand corrected. Now if you’ll excuse me I have a heart attack to tend to.
BTW, I wasn’t even hinting that you were lying.
John, minor quible. I didn’t say Larry never admits he is wrong, just that I haven’t seen him do so. Even on the magazine issue he didn’t admit to changing his mind nor do I recall him reversing his previous position. If he says he changed on that, I’ll go with it. I missed his post on the oil issue.
OLD TROOPER 2, HI, that is the reason why so many are questioning, because It would have been easy
to just show it and done with, but the fact that he spend so much to hide it, is telling.
what come to mind right now is; WHY did HILLARY went to KENYA just around that time of intence questionning? nobody knows either why.
@Hard Right:
Wasn’t meant as a slight to you, Hard Right. Just an observation of mine. I know there are items of discussion that I haven’t seen that might change my perspective about people, although, since I haven’t seen those discussions yet, I have nothing to base a change of perspective on.
@johngalt:
Don’t worry, no slight taken.
In this case being wrong about Larry improves my opinion of him.
@mata: good grief. Your “charge” was that I was using political talking points. No, I wasn’t. I was talking about a birth certificate — talking in specifics about a birth certificate. And I dare say that accusing someone of using “talking points” around here comes far closer to being a personal insult than anything I said to you on this entire thread, to say nothing of references to my hormone levels, slavish devotion to my master, etc. etc.
@johngalt: Thanks for the detailed explanation of your point of view, with specific points, which can actually be addressed, as opposed to simply telling me that there are aspects to this case that are obvious to anyone who’s actually read the legal briefs, but I’m not going to tell you what they are and you can just try to figure out what I’m thinking about and go find them for yourself.
With regard to the whole long form/short form issue and whether or not Obama is in compliance, I’m currently a bit confused — maybe you can help me further with this, to wit:
????
And then we’ve got the direct statements of the Hawaiian Health director (not simply “spokesman”), previously quoted.
So what’s the evidence that Obama has “withheld” anything?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, my point is that submission of Documentation required for a DOD or NSA TS Security Clearance is a more exhaustive and invasive process than getting Your name on the Ballot for the House, Senate, Cabinet Level Position or CiC. I was vetted for my Position and Clearance by Competent Authorities. Attempts to Obfuscate on my part would have resulted in a very early retirement for Me.
That is My Sole point. Attempting to make that anything else is pointless. I rest my case. Unless You have been through that process You quite frankly have no relevant reference point. The argument is a He said She said at this point and carries zero value for Me.
@Trooper. You have a perfectly valid point: you are saying that the requirements for being Commander in Chief are far lower than what is required for those who serve under his command. Perhaps that’s a flaw in the system which should be fixed. But my only point is that Obama has played by the rules currently in existence, and it’s wrong to imply that he has in some fashion pulled off what Trump has stated would be the “greatest con job in history,” through withholding his birth certificate.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It is a game of words with Obama and his people. A Certification of Live Birth, while being an official record of birth, and allowable for official use elsewhere, contains very little in the way of info, and certainly not to the extent of determining Obama’s Presidential eligibility in regards to Constitutional requirements. For that, a Certificate of Live Birth is required, as those court cases suggest, and other discussions around the web also suggest. The info around the web that supposedly “puts the issue to bed” rests solely on the release of the Certification of Live Birth, which does nothing to answer the Constitutional eligibility question. Hence, Mata’s assertion that in her eyes, Obama is neither guilty, or innocent, of fraud concerning his eligibility to be President.
The site below answers the question of whether or not Obama has the ability to get, and release, the “long form” birth certificate, called the Certificate of Live Birth.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
I have explained the differences in a Certification of Live Birth and a Certificate of Live Birth. As the website above discusses, a request of the Certificate of Live Birth can be made, as long as the person making the request “has a direct and tangible interest in the record”, which I believe Obama does, being that it is HIS own record. This is not the record seen around the web, but it is the alleged record that the Hawaiian government official claims to have seen. That record is the one in question, and as shown by the discussion on the above website, Obama has the power to have the record released. Others born around the same time frame have done so, but to date, Obama has not.
As for info on the court cases, they are too involved, and lengthy, to have any real discussion of them here, which is why Mata, and myself, suggested you peruse the info on the web pertaining to them yourself. It is also, and not the least of which, Mata herself has said they don’t mean much to her, as they will be years upon years in the making, most likely finally coming to a head well after Obama is done with a possible second term.
For info on the court cases, including legal briefs and legal term discussions, go here:
http://obamaeligibility.org/
@Old Trooper 2, that is exactly what I said in @my comment #32. There need be no changes in Constitutional law INRE the eligibility of POTUS candidates. But there certainly needs to be a more thorough check than what political parties apply now.
Larry, by the way, Trump is not on my selection list for Dog Catcher in my County in Montana. He like Obama, is not qualified for that Office.
I have Served under a variety of Temporary Residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but have been recalled to Active Duty twice because their Foreign Policy fell on it’s ass. I have never seen a CiC recalled.
In less than I month I will be retired and home. UN, NATO or any others can retain my Services if they care to meet my price but I doubt it. My service to the Nation is complete with no regrets.
@Trooper: You’ve had an amazing career in our service. Thanks for sharing a little of it with us over time. Here’s one grateful citizen who wishes you a safe final month and a well deserved break, until your next mission/phase in life, which I hope will give you rewards well deserved.
– Larry W/HB
@MataHarley:
We’re the same age. H. was goofy sounding and goofy looking. He came out of nowhere and no one knew who he was. No similarity to Trump, who already has a solid brand among the hoi polloi.
You and I, we pay close attention to what is going on. We can differentiate between Allen West and Herman Cain; we know who Charles Schumer is and we don’t mix him up with Charlie Rangle. This is not most people. I would guess (and I am just throwing numbers out there) that 20% of Americans are conservatives with a clue and 10% are liberals with a clue. There’s another 10% of so of each who will vote Republican or Democrat, pretty much, no matter what; but they have no idea what is going on.
Then there is the great unwashed, those who knew almost nothing, the ones who voted Obama into office because he was young and cool, on the cover of every magazine, and smart. We both know those kind of people. That is who elected Obama; and that is who will elect Trump.
The percentages are just made up on the spot, but you get my drift on this.
Now, if Trump runs a 3rd party thing, that will insure that Obama gets elected. He’s talked about it. That worries me (and maybe that is strategy on his part?).
@MataHarley:
This is the key to why he will win. Remember Obama going on all of those inconsequential shows like Ellen? They were very consequential.
That is what all the pundits say–publicity hound, sideshow, out there to get attention. I don’t doubt he is testing the waters, but I don’t doubt that he will jump in seriously. He’s gotten a lot of mileage on that meaningless birther issue.
A big question is the money question, and Obama will use that against him. Do you run using your own money like Romney did? He then risks the chance of seeming like he is buying the office. That is his weakest point (it is his weakest point because people are stupid). None of the other stuff is.
@johngalt:
I cross him off my list last time around. I hated him running anti-Republican ads that disparaged the other candidates unfairly. I am all for pos/neg ads that say, “Here is what I believe and here is what so-and-so believes;” as long as they are accurate. Most of the ads he ran (or the things that he said) were very negative and quite inaccurate.
Gary K. In previous posts you assured us, in your inimitable way, that “The Donald” would win the Repub. nom. and be elected POTUS. WRONG. What do you really know about this flip flopping egomaniac?
@MataHarley:
We agree almost entirely. West may have enough background in the military to do alright, despite his meager political background. I’d like to see another military man in charge. Also, I like Newt. Other than that, I agree with pretty much the rest of what you said.
@johngalt: Thanks for providing the link to the website which is a clearinghouse, of sorts, for the various cases and charges. Quite obviously, it’s a prodigious amount of reading, but I’ll look it over. Is there any particular document and/or specific issue, argument, testimony, or whatever which you consider to be most important?
Mata’s point is that I am unqualified to address the very simple, limited issue of Obama’s being forthcoming about his birth records, solely because I am not an expert legal scholar on all aspects of the birther cases — which have gone nowhere in the lower courts and which have been declined for review by SCOTUS. I think that this is an unreasonable standard, in the absence of some specific statement as to what it is in these various cases which directly indicates that Obama did not comply with all relevant legal standards to establish his eligibility for the Presidency.
I read the Hawaiian web link you provided, which also contained links to two official affidavits from the Hawaiian Health Director, Dr. Fukino, the first of which stated the following:
The second affidavit confirmed the first.
The above are not hearsay news quotes. They are official government affidavits.
The news story I quoted (and of which Mata was derisively dismissive) stated exactly the same thing.
The Hawaiian website you linked just described the law as pertains to outside request for birth records.
There wasn’t anything on the Hawaiian website to indicate that a different document (other than the certification of live birth) is being withheld and would only be issued with the approval of Obama. I read that explanation as being that in order to receive a copy of the certification of live birth, one would need Obama’s approval; but that’s irrelevant, as Obama has already made this document public.
I’m reluctant to devote a lot of time to becoming a birther scholar. I know that there are all manner of accusations concerning alleged statements from his alleged grandmother, etc. The only issue on which I was commenting was the narrow issue of the legal documentation of his birth in Hawaii, which constitutes, by far, the best evidence. So I’d be interested in seeing:
1. Some documentation that Obama is withholding a relevant birth document.
2. Some documentation that Obama is refusing to grant permission for Hawaii to release a birth document which would be otherwise available.
3. Any smidgeon of evidence to contradict the official government affidavits of the Hawaiian Health Director, Dr. Fukino.
In the absence of the above, and without any direction at all regarding what I am supposed to dig up in the “Birther Briefs,” I’m kind of reluctant to enroll in Birther College. Watching “The Good Wife” seems a more appealing option for tonight.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a “lower court”? Only, perhaps if you are comparing to SCOTUS. In which case every court is a “lower” court. Otherwise, it is immediately below SCOTUS in judicial hierarchy.
SCOTUS has not declined review. It has not gotten there yet.
And finally, an affidavit that says “yup, I saw it” is apparently all the evidence that some need to vet the highest office in the nation, and the leader of the free world.
sigh…. I’d say Larry has proven his point he is “unqualified” quite nicely.
It’s certainly be nice if some would at least bone up on some of the basics so that they didn’t make the embarrassing faux pas stated above.
Mata says:
au contraire, ma soeur
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/07/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-from-birther-advocate/
She said it; I didn’t.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
As I pointed out to Mr. Scholar way above, when he was arguing about the stated figures for Obama’s defense costs, there are a plethora of cases. I narrowed it down to the more major cases that are still hanging around… last I knew. The latest I had seen was in 2010, getting scheduled on the court dockets.
But that doesn’t stop Mr. Scholar from tossing an apple into the orange crate, and declaring added inventory. Congratulations on figuring out that media who determines Obama’s court costs, based on using only one case when there are multiple cases that required cash to litigate, are simply painting a false picture.
Hollister is not one of the big three… Kerchner, Berg, Keyes. In fact, did you even see me mention Hollister above?? And I’m not even addressing that wacko, Orly Taitz as a fourth. In the amount of those that filed, more have fallen by the wayside than have survived. None of them on the merits of the evidence, but merely because the judges say “nope.. we won’t allow you to complain”, or we don’t want to go there. If the plaintiff doesn’t have the cash to continue, they cease and desist. Getting to the Supreme’s ain’t a cheap endeavor, so only the cream of the crop with the weight of cash behind them make it there.
Kerchner’s Writ of Certiorari petition was submitted to SCOTUS Nov 2010. Again, to my knowledge, it has not been declined for review, nor addressed yet. Don’t know about Berg’s. Haven’t followed Keyes. And, in fact, wouldn’t bother even now save for Larry’s pathetic attempts to diss our rule of law, and throw his blind support behind someone’s statement that such a document exists or/and is genuine. That’s the courts’ job to decide. Not the media, not Larry, and not some medical professional.
However the courts want to steer clear of potentially examining a POTUS eligibility after the fact because of the very ugly repercussions were the evidence valid. Or, as District Court, Judge Roberts, said of retired AF Hollister:
Hollister’s “standing” may be frivolous and laughable to the District Court. One could debate the rights of citizens to question the legitimacy of the POTUS all day and night. But I find it offensive that not only does a justice find it prudent to dismiss a US citizen’s right to raise issues in our court system, but that they place the onus of eligibility on Twitter, bloggers and citizens, and not the legal avenues such a high office should demand. But then, I’ve not been a fan of the court systems and activists judges for quite some time.
Keyes, IMHO, had a better potential since he was a POTUS candidate with vested interests.
@Larry
You have failed again to understand that there is a difference in documents, and the volume of information contained in both. The Obama campaign has released only the “short form”, called the Certification of Live Birth. The document that the Hawaiian government official asserts she has seen, is the one contained in the official records, and is the “long form”, or Certificate of Live Birth.
Until you realize that there are, in fact two different documents, and that the one the Obama campaign released is useless regarding establishing Constitutional eligibility, and that the one the gov. official asserts as seeing is the one document, that Obama has the ability to release, and since January, is not able to be found, you cannot hope to have a solid discussion on this topic. Your own reluctance to make yourself aware of the facts of the issue, is fine, you don’t have to. Just don’t expect that your blanket statements on the subject at hand will have any meaningful relevance, when your path to your conclusions lack all relevant information.
I am not a “birther”. I admit to curiosity on the subject, and also admit that there may be evidence that shows Obama as not eligible. I do not, however, claim that there is, nor do I really care, because, as Mata has stated, the conclusion of the court cases will not come before it would be too late to do anything about it, and as such, is nowhere near the top of my concerns about Obama.
@mata (#82):
Exactly who is tossing an apple into an orange crate? The thrust of this entire debate has been about the existence of a birth certificate, proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, and whether or not Obama has been completely forthcoming in releasing said birth certificate and in giving approval for said document to be released.
The dollar amount spent by Obama on defending this was a one sentence throwaway issue. I made a statement. You provided a rejoinder. And I let the issue drop as being a trivial distraction. What this has been about is a very simple issue: did Obama release the official birth certificate which is provided by the State of Hawaii to certify the birth of anyone who was born there to be used for all legal purposes? And is this document backed up by the bound original birth records maintained by the State? And has Obama taken any action to prevent the release of any documents relating to his birth?
You said that the issue hadn’t been dismissed by SCOTUS. In fact, various cases have been dismissed, several times, in fact (in the link I provided). Whether or not there are lingering cases working their way through the system does not negate my statement that lower courts had dismissed the cases and that SCOTUS also dismissed them. So you were wrong about this, while accusing me of failing to do my homework.
On the basis of all available evidence, you claim that Obama “isn’t guilty but isn’t innocent, either.”
I want to ask you, point blank: What precisely do you allege that Obama has done (or not done) that he needs to be “proven innocent?” “Innocent” of what? Innocent of not changing Hawaii’s regulations regarding what type of official birth certificate they issue to people who are born there? Or what?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
No, Larry. The “thurst of this entire debate” has not been about the “existence” of a birth certificate. But it’s convenient you’d like to make it that now. We all know there is a form of a certificate.
The genuine subject here was first, Trump. You decided to throw the birther issue in yourself with #1. To which both Curt and I laughed that anyone who knows anything about Trump would consider him a “top tier” candidate.
You then continued to push the birther issue… off topic… with #12, discussing Obama defense costs. To that, I pointed out that they were only addressing a single lawsuit and a single case and not the plethora of cases that have been filed. Therefore that article is incorrect, and the figure could easily be $2 million when all were combined. Personally, I don’t know the number, and don’t care… so don’t ask. As I’ve repeatedly said, the only ones that seemed to have well defined briefs were the Keyes, Kerchner and Berg. Those are the only ones that I may notice when news comes up, because none of the others seemed to have enough going for it to pay attention. And, as both johngalt and I have both stated, we simply don’t care. This isn’t an avenue either of us want to pay attention to.
After that, you were off and running, full throttle, with your apologist ideology.
But, ya know, you talk to someone like you long enough, and crap happens. So here’s your bone. Wow… SCOTUS declined to address Hollister… not for evidence, but for standing. I’m wrong. I’m sure it won’t mean much to you to go back and note that I’ve never spoken of Hollister, but only those three. And throughout all, I have also made the disclaimer, “to my knowledge”. And to my knowledge, SCOTUS has not addressed Kerchner, Keyes or Berg at this time.
But I’ll give you your point for word parsing. I will also lay full responsibility of this being so far off topic all on you. And I will also reiterate that your personal opinions of birthers doesn’t much differ from either mine or johngalts, but that doesn’t stop you from labeling us with your insults.
It’s not a criminal case. It’s a civil case. So I used a common word that isn’t applicable. In civil, it’s more responsibilibility than “innocent” or “guilty”. And “I” don’t “allege” anything. I don’t have a lawsuit filed. To answer you question – POINT BLANK AS I’VE DONE MULTIPLE TIMES ABOVE – I simply don’t know if his documentation for birth is genuine or not. Unlike you, I don’t sway so easily. And that’s the entire crux of the argument, tho you wish it to be more.
I don’t know how long it takes to get a point thru your stubborness, and frankly I find you tiresome, pointless, unncessarily argumentive and judgmental. You want to play “gotcha” in order to justify your labeling of many of us here, just because we don’t blindly accept what you do as fact. I said it above, and I will again repeat it. I find birthers offensive, but I find you even more so.
To attempt to put an end to Larry’s perpetual apologist comments, I’ve had to waste time to check up on current stats of three lawsuits that I don’t give a shit about….
Keyes: Argument revolved around the State of California’s responsibility to insure anyone on their ballot for POTUS met eligibility requirements. 3rd District in California judge said that’s Congressional responsibility. This was back in March 2009, and no clue if keyes pursued it further.
Kerchner: Petitioned SCOTUS for writ of certiorari Nov 2010, and Western Center for Journalism asked to be granted filing brief as amicus curiae. SCOTUS denied the writ of certiorari (which isn’t uncommon for them… out of the thousands they receive annual, only about 100 are granted). Again, lack of standing. SCOTUS allowed the amicus curiae grant. The more curious types can read sundry docs here. Don’t know what they are doing now. Don’t care.
Berg: pretty much same as above… lack of standing for the judgments I saw. Don’t know when it went down, but I believe Kerchner is the most recent of all. Don’t care. Simply don’t follow this stuff that closely.
Now leave me alone with this crap, Larry. I didn’t file the lawsuits. And as far as I can say, not one court has said anything but they don’t give any of the plaintiffs standing to file the complaints. It’s Congress’s duty to vet the candidates, and conveniently enough, you can’t sue Congress.
So we’re back to square one. Haven’t got a clue if Obama’s documentation is genuine or not. And I still don’t care.
INRE you’re holy grail source, Atty Mario Apuzzo has many corrections on the MSNBC article you cling desperately to.
Larry #84 says Obama has provided the type of official birth certificate issued to people born in Hawaii. Now if someone is actually CRAZY enough to believe he was born in Kenya,The Soviet Union, Mars, The Lower Forty etc. this is probably something you should take up with your health care provider..
@johngalt:
You say:
Of course there are two documents. There is the original, in a bound volume, which Dr. Fukino attested she saw, in two official government affadavits, in 2008, and there is the official birth document issued to everyone who is born in Hawaii, which is used for all legal purposes, including obtaining passports and being sworn in to be President.
Obama hasn’t blocked anything. The State of Hawaii doesn’t issue photocopies of the original birth document in the bound volume in their Health Department records. All they issue, to the individual involved or when directed to do so by the individual involved, is the exact document which Obama provided, well in advance of the election. Dr. Fukino certified that this accurately reflected the information on the original birth document.
As far as the original (bound) birth document goes, the only person allowed to see it is the individual in question, who has to go there personally to view it. They don’t have any provision to escort third parties for private viewings. So absolutely nothing inappropriate was done. At least, there’s no evidence whatsoever that anything inappropriate was done.
Now, as to the bound volume currently going missing, what to make of that? Conspiracy by state officials to hide it? Realizing that Hawaii was governed by a Republican McCain supporter at the time when Dr. Fukino was asked to view the original document in the bound volume, who was satisified with Dr. Fukino’s report.
So why is it missing? I doubt that the Health Department has Fort Knox-level security. It’s like Lance Armstrong’s urine, stored in a French lab. It appears that someone walked off with the volume containing Obama’s original birth certificate, sometime between the summer of 2008 and the winter of 2011.
Is this Obama’s fault? What on earth should he do? Give the Hawaii state police a block grant to catch the perp?
The point is that Obama has been suspected of being a non-citizen and he’s been accused (including on this very thread) of blocking or failing to give permission or withholding. Well, no, as a matter of fact, he’s done none of the preceding.
People around here obviously feel that Hawaii should have different birth records policies than it does. Perhaps so, but that’s not Obama’s fault.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Mata: No, I don’t want to play “gotcha.”
I was directly responding to the following statement:
You now state:
With regard to SCOTUS only dismissing Hollister and not your other cases, you are wrong on that, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation
Regarding Berg:
Regarding Kerchner:
Regarding Keyes:
So that’s the score: 3 SCOTUS dismissals; 1 pending.
I’ve certainly had some “embarrassing faux pas(es)” in my life, but statements made on this thread don’t fall to that level.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, what part of “to my knowledge” don’t you understand? I’ve repeatedly said I don’t follow these and in order to just get you to stop flying off tangent into your hormonal hysteria, I’ve also done the same thing in my comment above. But I went to court dockets to get specifics and not your 8th grade level Wikipedia news source.
So no… I am not embarrassed in the least. You forced me to waste time updating on items I don’t care about…. all done within the past 8-9 months. (Berg was July 2010, I believe, Kerchner Nov 29,2010, and Keyes last in with CA Supremes was Feb 2011). So I’ll take a faux pas here, Larry. Congratulations on your petty “gotcha”. I’m just not up on the latest/greatest birther news. ho hum.
Doesn’t do much for your accusation that I’m a birther, does it?
What’s even more interesting is that you didn’t know jack shit until you went on your personal vendetta and hunt just to do a “gotcha”. You don’t much care what the rulings were for, do you? Instead, you still remain contentedly clueless and uncurious as to what the courts at all levels refused to look at.
I guess justice, along with you Obama devotees, really do prefer to remain blind to anything but what you want to see.
Oh, BTW, Keyes did not petition SCOTUS. The last action was February of this year, when the CA Supremes refused to hear it. I do not see where it’s “pending”. Maybe you, the newly informed and expert anti-birther, can tell us.
Here’s where you really shine on your “gotcha” mentality, Larry. You deliberately chose to ignore my pertinent statements…
soooooo inconvenient, eh?
@Old Trooper 2: Well said. Why is the commander in chief above the requirements of the troops. Only a substandard leader would fail to understand the significance of failing to meet basic requirements that the troops must meet.
MATA, hi, just the fact that those people are demanding to follow up on this issue is enough telling,
to AMERICANS that there is something wrong somewhere,
those are very smart people who has done their home work, and when they get to the judges,
that is when they are dismiss, again there is something not right in there too,
who’s protecting who,? It’s sure not the people, so why are the judges doing there,? aren’t they suppose to work for the people or the PRESIDENT? and IS nt the PRESIDENT suppose to be there to serve the people and answer their concerns, when there is so many doubts subsisting on the subject, and when the people have so many questions to be answered, where else can they go? if the judges dont want to do their jobs, I can understand their frustration about it,
Yes, Bees… it’s too bad that judges take an activist stance and refuse to address evidence, and instead choose to rule only on the plaintiff’s right to bring a lawsuit instead. What’s pathetic is that Larry would spend his valuable time, searching to find any that SCOTUS refused to review (not the evidence, but the standing), but still refuses to read what evidence they were attempting to bring into court. Ergo, he doesn’t want to know. He just wants something that says “SCOTUS” turned away the lawsuit, thereby it can’t possibly be true. That’s not the way the court works. In almost all instances, the Supreme’s only deal with the decision of the courts. And it was never on whether the documentation was in question. Only on the ability of the plaintiffs to bring the lawsuit.
It’s a stick your fingers in your ear, and scream LALALALALALA loudly mentality. Personally, I would have like the courts to have looked at the evidence, and simply put the matter to bed once and for all. Now, it only leaves more questions than answers, and perpetuates what, for me, is a non issue. That, however, appeals to those of Larry’s mentality. It’s such a great way to smear an entire movement just because they’d like those questions addressed.
MATA, when you hear of people in high offices, I am thinking of COLONEL LARKING,
correct me if I did not put the right name, but a COLONEL who put his career on the table to challenge,
that issue, among others, tis is not a game they play for fun, noway, they are convince that there is some wrong done and It’s deeper than just the question they want answer , It even challenge the legality of the presidency being given to an imposter,
@Mata: I’m not “clinging desperately” to anything. Here’s what the lawyer in your linked blogpost writes:
These weren’t just direct quotes but they were present on official government affidavits, written by Dr. Fukino herself and published on the official Hawaiian government website. As for that alleged other health worker allegedly contradicting Fukino, there are a lots of completely obvious explanations.
With regard to “gotchas,” no, that wasn’t a gotcha. It started when I made the (true) statement that SCOTUS had dismissed birther lawsuits. You then made the following derisive statement:
Now, I knew that I’d read that SCOTUS had dismissed not just one but, in fact, several cases. So I went and dug them up in the fastest and easiest place I could find them (wiki). You know, the place where “8th graders” would go, as opposed to the Stanford Law library, where you presumably spend your time. Rather than simply admitting you were wrong, you continue on with your tirade of personal attacks. I’ve read over everything I wrote on this thread. And I’ve read what you wrote. When it comes to personal attacks, there’s no comparison.
You accused me of “personal attacks” (quote below) in my #34.
Here is the most “personal” attack I made in #34:
To my knowledge, I’ve never once attacked you on a personal level. ever. I attack your arguments; I don’t attack you. The worst name I ever called you was a “birther,” and I explained why I felt you deserved this term, in the context of this discussion. I had a reason for using this term, in the context in which I used it. It was intended as a political label and not as a personal insult. But I admit that this was an unwarranted exaggeration, which you might interpret as being personal, given your own expressed views about birthers. Apology now tendered. I’m sorry that I called you a birther.
If the worst name you are ever called on this blog is a “birther,” then you’ll have lost little skin.
Here’s some things which you’ve said about me, on this very thread. I don’t have any problem at all with you attacking my ideas or my arguments or my sources. But you repeatedly crossed a line that I’ve never knowingly crossed, in all my long series of debates with you.
What is it with you that you have to change language and state your own misdrawn conclusions as fact, Larry?
I didn’t say “personal attacks”. In #58, I said you were “inflating and alluding to things I didn’t say, or believe.” i.e. you accused me of “circuitously hinting”.
Or that you call it “speculation” and “conjecture” because I point out there are lawsuits with what they believe is evidence that calls the document that no one has seen into question for legitimacy. You still desperately clung to the Salon story, citing finances relating to one lawsuit and one attorney firm, then accuse me of making something up when I point out that is incorrect since there are multiple lawsuits, multiple firms, and it’s entirely possible the costs have added up to $2 million. We sure know that Salon wasn’t even close in their quasi-defense.
You then went on to insults, calling me a birther – which we all know you consider fringe lunatics.
I return what’s delivered, Larry… and frankly I don’t mince my words by “circuitously hinting” at anything… unlike you. As I said, I started this debate with you civilly. When you started playing games with information I passed on – assuming it to be of my own making instead of court briefs I read – then followed up with what you consider “circuitously hinting” at birther issues, you left the realm of civility and my gloves come off.
Live with it, or don’t bother to address me in the future with your own cute rewrites of what I said, and who I am. Just because you like dance around, delivering what you believe are palatable insults, doesn’t mean I intend to do the same. I’m quite direct.
Out of that entire article, that’s all you walk away with? Amazing you miss one of the largest counters to your argument INRE obtaining copies of that original:
oops
Why is there an anonymous Obama campaign official requesting the documents? Anonymous??
Like I said, I wish the courts would just agree to hear the evidence, and settle this once and for all. But they won’t go near that. None will take the responsibility of possibly discovering that he was not properly vetted afterall. Instead, it seems more politically expedient to leave the issue with more unanswered questions than clarity. Case in point, people like you can sling “birther” insults if anyone even dares to consider that maybe, just maybe, evidence that no court wants to hear might prove to have substance. But I’ll guess we’ll never know. Courts don’t care, and O’faithful always need ample and fresh supplies of mud to sling.
openid.aol.com/runnswim hi, you must surely know by now that MATA knows her ticket thoroughly in the subject she posted since she does, because she study all the corners before .
One thing I notice about you, If you allow me to say; is that you are very gracious
to have answer OLD TROOPER 2 the way you did by wishing the best for his next life projects,
and that was very nice of you to do it graciously.
I would never have guessed that Obama’s birth certificate could have caused this much discussion.
MATA, wow, you are an eagle decending in a straight line down for the kill,
I did said that before hey, and now they will beleive me.
that is most credible, and COLONEL LAKINS SHOULD BE RELEASE AT ONCE BEFORE
WE ALL BEGIN TO LOOK AT THE ONE WHO ORDER HIS CONFINMENT , AS THE TRAITOR
TO HAVE PUT AN HONEST MILITARY IN THAT SITUATION WITHOUT PROOFS AND TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF HIGH COMMAND TO CONTINIUE A LIE AND SAVE HIS DEBILITATING SKIN.
GET HIM OUT AND PUT THE TRAITOR IN HIS PLACE,
Bees, as I said… don’t know who all these lawsuits are. Might have to ask some of those dedicated birthers. But you did have me curious as to who you were talking about.
You mean Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, – an 18 year active duty physician who was refusing to go on his second Af/Pak deployment with Obama as CiC. See… I don’t do well as a “birther”, do I? Didn’t even know of him until you mentioned him, nor that in Dec 2010, he was dishonorably discharged, found guilty of refusing orders, and sentenced to six months in prison, where he still is today. Also ran across his prison diaries.
Well, Bees… it’s one thing for him to bring a lawsuit. But you won’t find me arguing against military trials and sentencing for anyone who refuses orders. Two separate issues. Now it would be different if he deployed, but was still tried and discharged while serving just because he did bring the lawsuit. But when soldiers refuse orders, there’s a problem and a repercussion for that problem.
But it appears many of the lawsuits discussed here today… Kerchner, Hollister and Lakin are all either active or retired military. In July 2009, Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a lawsuit in GA federal courts, and was joined in the complaint by retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff. It seems all of these military men have the same thing in common… they don’t want hearsay, grey areas, and courts that refuse to hear evidence when it comes to who is their Commander in Chief. But that’s another lawsuit that I do not know the fate of. I’m sure Mr. Wiki Scholar and anti-birther will be happy to fill us in if some court, somewhere, dismissed it because it was filed on pink colored paper with no numbered lines, single spaced…. or some other equally offensive and lame judicial dodge.
One has to say, Obama’s presidency sure has been a boom for the lawyers and court systems. Lots of bogus foreclosures, lots of birther lawsuits, lots of no O’healthcare lawsuits. Wonder if he planned this, or just makes it up as he goes along? LOL
PS: That last line is a joke, Larry…. knowing that one would go right over your head. It’s a line from Pirates of the Caribbean about Capt Jack Sparrow.
GARY KUKIS, yes and I got the 100 because of your last comment bye
@Larry
I’m not going to try to explain it anymore to you. I have tried, numerous different ways, to explain it simply enough for anyone to understand. If you still choose not to see what I’m talking about, then there can be no discussion between us.
@Mata
Patience is too thin with Larry for me to continue, and it seems for you as well. I’m done here.
Given all of the discussion here, among fairly rational people; maybe Trump can get away with this birther issue? Maybe he figures the upside is, people will simple ask, “Why not just release the damn thing; what is he hiding?” That casts suspicion and doubt upon our president. A reasonable political maneuver. You will notice that Trump never gets into the weeds on his issue. So, if Obama reveals the birth certificate, and it is clean, then everyone will wonder, “What was the big deal? Why did he wait so long?” If there is some bit of info on there that is problematic (he is declared a Muslim…and I have no idea if that is found on a birth certificate), then it will cause more suspicion (“What else is he hiding?”).
I think that all of this is simply political calculation, Obama figuring that, with the help of the press, he could cast all opposition as birthers, and not deal with the real issues; Trump figured, with very little, he can dig away at the credibility and leadership of Obama; and he is less likely to be diminished for making these statements, given who he is.
Politics is quite fascinating. I admit, it would have never occurred to me that a major candidate would raise this issue and do is so effectively (despite its absolute unimportance at this point).