of The Daily Pen
NEW YORK, NY – MIT Political Science Professor, Dr. Adam
Berinsky, says he has been tracking beliefs about Barack Obama’s citizenship
for some time.
From this, we will
venture that he must be tracking those beliefs in concert with his vigorous interest
to determine if Obama is eligible to be president. Strangely, however, he does not say if this
is his objective. Perhaps he is just
interested in Obama’s geographic origins, benignly and ignorantly. Who knows?
Berinsky’s bio says, “...he is a
specialist in the fields of political behavior and public opinion.” However, in his efforts to plumb the depths of his version
of the truth in this matter, Berinsky plots the results of a recent survey in
which 1000 Americans are asked the absolute “wrongest” possible question about
Obama’s eligibility to be president. In
true or false format, he asks respondents if they believe if Barack Obama was
born in the U.S.
The question, “Was Barack Obama born in the U.S.?” is not
the right question. In fact, there are
two far more important, relevant and desperately unanswered questions which
must be answered first.
First, “Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen?” is the most
important question. After all, isn't this the preeminent question our Constitution actually asks about the eligibility of our presidential candidates. Article II echoes the patriotic absolution to those seeking the most powerful office...born after our bloody revolution against tyranny, "Are you a Natural Born citizen?"
For all his MIT-ness and lauded grey matter, Berinsky seems to lack the intellectual depth to see the sardonic association between the metrics of natural born citizenship and the minor affiliation of one’s geographic natal origin to it.
For all his MIT-ness and lauded grey matter, Berinsky seems to lack the intellectual depth to see the sardonic association between the metrics of natural born citizenship and the minor affiliation of one’s geographic natal origin to it.
Sadly, by example of Berinky’s survey, American pedagogues and media have failed in
their duty to reach a reasonable version of inquiry into this matter.
Second, and far more legal-worthy, the question, “Is the
digitally manufactured .pdf image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live
Birth posted by Obama operatives to his own official White House website, two full
days after the State of Hawaii
allegedly issued two paper copies of the, ‘as yet unseen by anyone outside of
Obama’s pod’ documents…an authentic representation of the facts surrounding
Obama’s birth?” is a far more important question to waste 1000 northeasterners’
time with.
If the answer to those far more important questions by all
of Berinsky’s 1000 is anything other than “False”, the future of MIT, and
America, is in serious peril.
Instead of seeking a deeper realization about the danger
Obama’s biographical obscurity and likely ineligibility poses against our
constitutional sovereignty, not to mention the offense of an ineligible
president against the blood ransom paid by those far worthier than all of us
for 250 years, Berinsky was content to surmise that “birtherism” is a problem
of “republicanism”. Ah, yes. The “party affiliation” excuse for liberal
lechery and moral inferiority.
Berinsky writes:
“Throughout
the year, I have been tracking beliefs about President Obama’s citizenship.
From September 15-17, 2012, YouGov.com again surveyed 1000 Americans and asked
whether “Barack Obama was born in the United States of America.” In the table
below, I present these results, alongside the polls that I presented in my
earlier posts.
"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Full
Sample
|
|||||
April 2011
|
January 2012
|
July 2012
|
Sept 2012
|
||
Before release of birth certificate
|
After release of birth certificate
|
||||
True
|
55%
|
67%
|
59%
|
55%
|
59%
|
False
|
15%
|
13%
|
17%
|
20%
|
21%
|
Not
sure
|
30%
|
20%
|
24%
|
25%
|
19%
|
These polls
demonstrate the hint of some movement toward the belief that Obama was born in
the United States. However the percentage of people who think that Obama was
not born in the United States has held steady throughout the year, and perhaps
even increased slightly.
As I noted
in earlier posts, the incidence
of Birtherism is especially pronounced among Republicans. A
plurality of Republicans believes that Obama was not born in the United States.
Indeed the level of Birtherism among Republicans is the highest it has been
this year.
"Barack Obama was born in the United States":
Republicans Only
|
|||||
April 2011
|
January 2012
|
July 2012
|
Sept 2012
|
||
Before release of birth certificate
|
After release of birth certificate
|
||||
True
|
30%
|
47%
|
27%
|
31%
|
27%
|
False
|
25%
|
23%
|
37%
|
33%
|
39%
|
Not
sure
|
45%
|
29%
|
35%
|
36%
|
34%
|
Maybe Republicans lend themselves to seeking the truth
better. Maybe Republicans are more
willing to risk venturing outside the bounds of social conformity as a matter
of measuring character in leadership, not demographic worthiness. Maybe Republicans are just more caring about
America. Maybe Republicans love freedom
and security more. Maybe Republicans
have more of an affinity for the universal values of honesty and decency.
Or, simply, maybe Berinsky’s conclusion are explained by the
fact that Republicans have a better understanding of the truth in “natural law”
as defined by a power higher than themselves.
Maybe they understand without tolerance that a natural born
citizen is one who was born subject to the natural laws of both GEOGRAPHY and
PARENTAGE.
And, since we know Obama’s father was not an American, maybe
Republicans know that Obama is not a natural born citizen and that their answer
to such a stupid question doesn’t bring resolution to the problem anyway.
Maybe, only Republican understand the most important
question of all is, “Is Barack Obama a liar?”
The results of that poll would be more useful than this
one.
Given the technical nature of the analysis needed
to actually seek and discover the truth about Obama’s natal history, whether you take the fake birth documents or the testimony of partisans, it’s
astonishing to think they are so ignorant, as well as cynical, at one of the most
technically adept universities on the planet.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.
ReplyDelete"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Continuing:
DeleteFarrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
On October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down two birther appeals of the last of the Georgia ruling, Farrar, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
Dan I wish you would have a look at "Dreams from my real father" by Joel Gilbert. He has done a significant amount of research and the facts seem to fit his explanation of Obama's origin very well.
ReplyDeleteJim,
DeleteWe had the occasion of viewing Mr. Gilbert's film some months ago. While we agree that all of his research is highly significant leading to probable conclusions about Obama's natal history and covert past, he abandons three primary facts which would otherwise lend even more credibility to his work. First, within the course of his analysis, he fails to address the lack of veracity of the digitally fabricated image of Obama's alleged birth record posted to the official WH website. While he explicitly states that Obama's father is actually FMD, he refuses to therefore state in plain terms that the birth certificate image is a counterfeited ruse which violates several state and federal laws in its production. Second, Gilbert fails to address the logistical conflicts surrounding Obama's parentage and the historical records the media have failed to present. i.e. SAD's absence from February 1961 and September 1961. Whether an analysis of this should be pursued with interest to explain the absence of common evidence or the presence of it, Mr. Gilbert fails to address significant logistical, substantive and documented lapses in the facts surrounding the biographical information about Obama's STATED parentage. Finally, Gilbert fails to integrate evidence showing that Obama is not eligible to be president with his claims that FMD is his real father. For example, if Obama became a citizen of indonesia, he is ineligible to be president. Natural born citizenship cannot be "reclaimed" after it is renounced, hence the founders stating NATURAL BORN as the state of citizenship as the only form of citizen eligible to be POTUS. We do not believe that Mr. Gilbert's work in anyway is in conflict with the fact that Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the office of president, or that Obama has never shown documented proof to the contrary. We embrace Mr. Gilbert's work as a integral part of Obama's fraudulent identity and his attempts to deceive the American electorate about his intentions to diminish America while exacting revenge for what he believes are the injustices of colonialism, slavery and economic disparity based on race. We support Mr. Gilbert and are aligned with much of his work.
Thank you for reading us. Please keep in touch.
D-Croz
@smrstrauss
ReplyDeleteMinor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)(unanimous SCOTUS decision)
"...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,..."
Justin,
DeleteYes. Thank you for reading us.
D-Croz.
Re: "
ReplyDelete"...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,...""
Why not give the complete quote. It says that IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT
"...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,..."
Well, it was never doubted that all people who wore suspenders and a belt would hold their pants up either. Now is the time to start thinking. What are the two possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen? The parents and the place of birth. And what are the two possible ways of holding your pants up? Suspenders and a belt.
Does either sentence say that both of the two possible ways are required? Does it actually say that having both US parents and birth in the country is REQUIRED? NO, it does not.
It says that it was never doubted that if you had both you would be a Natural Born Citizen. That implies that there may well be doubts if you have only one of the two possible criteria. But it still does NOT say that you have to have both. Having both makes it logically certain that you are, as was Virginia Minor, a Natural Born Citizen. But one of them may be sufficient, just as wearing only suspenders may be sufficient or wearing only a belt may be sufficient.
If it does not say that both are required, it certainly is not a ruling that says that both are required. That is why courts consider the Minor vs Happersett ruling DICTA as far as Natural Born status is concerned. And in any case, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, so the Wong Kim Ark ruling had the power to overturn Minor vs Happersett.
On October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down two birther appeals of the last of the Georgia ruling, Farrar, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the Farrar ruling to stand.
The law in the USA, as laid down by the Wong Kim Ark case, and confirmed by the seven state court rulings and one federal court ruling on Obama and the one (Hollinder v McCain) on McCain, and by the US Supreme Court rejection of the appeals of the Farrar ruling, and confirmed by Meese and Hatch and other experts is that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
HaHa! You say I left out something well so did you, "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts,". I think your pants are around your knees.
DeleteAs for Wong it supports my argument not yours. The important part is, " becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.". The SCOTUS did not call him a natural born citizen even though the lower court had. Claiming Wong defines natural born citizen is merely a figment of your imagination.
SEVEN state courts and one federal court have ruled on Obama that the Wong Kim Ark case defined Natural Born Citizen as coming from the common law and referring to the PLACE OF BIRTH. No court, including the Minor vs Happersett ruling, has ever said that two citizen parents are required to be a US citizen.
Delete“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
On October 1, the US Supreme Court rejected two birther appeals of the Georgia ruling, Farrar (et al.) v. Obama, that had held that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." The result of the US Supreme Court turning down that appeal is that the Georgia ruling STANDS.
YOU claim that the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not define Natural Born Citizen as coming from the common law and referring to the PLACE of birth, but seven state courts and one federal court disagree with you. The fact that it found Wong Kim Ark a US citizen and did not declare him a Natural Born Citizen is irrelevant. The purpose of the case was to determine whether he was a citizen or not; naturally the bottom line was to rule that he was. It was a citizenship case, not an issue of eligibility for the presidency. BUT the definition of Natural Born is in the ruling despite this. And it says that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth----hence not the parents.
Whatever you have doesn't trump the opinion of nine Supreme Court Justices. I never said people born here are not citizens. I said they were not natural born citizens. Your error is the belief that "born a citizen" equals "natural born citizen". The latter is a subset of the prior. For your information over 160 countries, including England, don't even grant jus soli citizenship to the children of non-resident aliens. So your idea that it confers natural born status is absurd and ignorant.
DeleteAnswer: "Born a citizen" does equal a Natural Born Citizen. That is what it means. All those who were born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. Only those citizens who were naturalized, hence not born citizens, are not Natural Born Citizens.
DeleteAs the Wall Street Journal put it: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
Re: "over 160 countries including England, don't"
But we are the USA, and we are EXCEPTIONAL, and we DO.
Some examples.
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
What makes the third child different from her siblings? Only one thing. She was born in the USA. Notice that the court states that not only is she a citizen, but she is a Natural Born US citizen.
Continuing:
DeleteRe "Doesn't trump the opinion of nine Supreme Court justices."
HOWEVER, that is precisely what the US Supreme Court DID rule in the Wong Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett and hence had the power to overturn it, if Minor were even a ruling, which it wasn't). And the Wong Kim Ark case ruled six to two, one justice not voting that:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
That very clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel or natural law), and it says that it refers to the place of birth (no mention of parents at all), and it says that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN, and it says that the same law applied in England, and in the 13 original colonies, and in the early states, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
That is why Meese had this in his book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Other articles on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
Re: "if Obama became a citizen of indonesia, he is ineligible to be president..."
ReplyDeleteFirst, Obama never became a citizen of Indonesia, as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.
Second, renunciation of US citizenship can only be done IN WRITING before the appropriate US government official, in this case the US consulate in Indonesia, and if there had been such a document, it would have been found years ago.
Lost among the Obotic horde, many have fallen away not only from the precedents of ancient truth in this matter, but from understanding of the preeminent laws established by God Almighty Who declared, even as man first began to seek leadership from among a perishing world, that he shall be led only by “…one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Deut 17:15. (God v. Man et al, circa 3000 B.C.)
ReplyDeleteDestruction comes upon the argument because I choose to invoke the truth that God determined natural born citizenship through the natural laws of parentage founded in the Covenantal Ark, which predates your statutory autism and an obvious lust for an irrelevant god found in cases like Wong Kim Ark.
Moreover, like so many we have utterly defeated before you, by the blood of Christ our King, you too will find emptiness and darkness at the end of this perishing dilemma. “… for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it. “ Ex. 20
Re: "you may not set a foreigner over you..."
ReplyDeleteSince every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a US citizen, we didn't "set a foreigner over" us.
Officials of Hawaii has stated that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates of Hawaii to Obama, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file and that the facts on it match those on the birth certificate in the files, and there were birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.
ReplyDeleteRecently the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm other facts on his published birth certificate. Hawaii did, and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.
Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii. Obama’s father was studying in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them went from Hawaii to any other country in 1961—and certainly not to Kenya, where the Kenyan government said that it checked on the “born in Kenya” claim and found that it was false. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and pregnant women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and yet birthers apparently think that there could be a chance that Obama was born outside of the USA and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data, and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961—-are all lying about that fact.
Please read our next story: "The State of Hawaii Admits .PDF Images Of Birth Records Are Not Official Records"
DeleteNo state municipality can legally provide certified .pdf images of their official birth certificates to applicants.
According to two Hawaiian Health Dept. officials, "No, .pdf images are not official records. The State of Hawaii cannot legally certify a .pdf copy of a vital record."
Of course PDF images are not official records. BUT Hawaii stated that it had sent the official physical copies of the birth certificate (both the short form and the long form) to Obama.
DeletePDF record are not official copies. Nor is any Web image an official document. Mitt Romney has showed ONLY a Web image of a photocopy of his short form birth certificate. And no official in Michigan has ever said that it sent the physical copy to Mitt Romney.
In contrast, the officials in Hawaii have said that they sent the physical copy of the short form and the long form to Obama, and he has in fact showed the physical copies of both of them to the press.
Repeating the key point:
Recently the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm other facts on his published birth certificate. Hawaii did do that, and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.
Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii. Obama’s father was studying in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them went from Hawaii to any other country in 1961—--and certainly not to Kenya, where the Kenyan government said that it checked on the “born in Kenya” claim and found that it was false. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and pregnant women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and yet birthers apparently think that there could be a chance that Obama was born outside of the USA and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data, and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961--—-are all lying about that fact.
Quote "In contrast, the officials in Hawaii have said that they sent the physical copy of the short form and the long form to Obama, and he has in fact showed the physical copies of both of them to the press."
DeleteIf you are claiming that the State of Hawaii said he (Obama) "has, in fact, shown the physical copies of them to the press," that is a blatent lie. The State of Hawaii has never said, nor do they know if, Obama actually displayed the actual certified copies the HDH issued. Moreover, the press has not corroborating testimony from anyone in Hawaii that the "paper" copies they received were, in fact, copies of the same document released by the State. In fact, four separate reporters who attended the "unplugged" press briefing prior to Obama's response to the BC release on April 27, 2011 have gone on record as saying they had no way of knowing the copy of the BC they were given was an actual representation of the authentic document issued by the State of Hawaii BECAUSE the State of Hawaii refused to acknowledge whether it was or not.
So, we have a problem. If we are to believe the State of Hawaii released official copies of Obama's original birth records on April 25, as claimed, to his Perkins Coie attorney's...and, then, we are to believe the .pdf image of those documents is an accurate exact digitally created representation of those documents, then WHO from the State of Hawaii gave the legal permission for someone in the White House to digitally transfer "officially certified" vital records information into a digital .pdf image format which the State of Hawaii has explicitly said, and I quote from our correspondence with two HDOH officials (as provided in sworn affidavit)...they neither "...certify nor utilize Adobe .pdf's as a software application or externally endorsed method for the transference, copy or reproduction of vital records or information legally protected under Hawaii Statutes. Any digital or photo reproduction of any vital record which takes place outside the physical location of this facility renders that record and vital information within it invalid. We only provide such records in paper form with direct "wet stamp" certification to qualified applicants only, and we only provide them in sealed envelopes. Our methodology is designed in coordination with the state's Public Health Regulations and the State of Hawaii legislative body to protect the agency against liability and the privacy of the record recipient."
Therefore, you have a problem...and the alpha question remains. As Christ said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is invalid." So, what is/are the name(s) of the individual(s) who removed the "officially certified" paper versions of Obama's birth certificates from the sealed envelopes and created an unauthorized .pdf image of Obama's vital records and then posted that unauthorized image to an official government website?
If you are intellectually unable to comprehend and accept that the very fact that a .pdf exists utterly destroys the validity and credibility of the information within it because there is no possible way to verify its veracity with the original records, EVEN IF the .pdf is an accurate, exact replica of the records, then you are not qualified to have this discussion. The State of Hawaii refuses to compare the two versions and verify the accuracy of the .pdf. And, we certainly know no one in the Obama Administration will do this and we wouldn't believe them if they did. At the very moment the .pdf image was created outside the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, Obama's presidency was confirmed fraudulent. Until you are able to reconcile the disparity of facts in this case, you remain in outter darkness arguing pointless ramblings which are irrelevant to the ramifications of this fraud and deception.
Please take time to consider.
Thank you for taking time to correspond.
I will take your claims in order.
DeleteRe: “If you are claiming that the State of Hawaii said he (Obama) "has, in fact, shown the physical copies of them to the press," that is a blatent lie. “
Answer: I DID NOT say that Hawaii said that Obama showed the physical copies to the press. In fact, the press did. Both FactCheck and Politifact for the short form and Savannah Gutherie for the long form. All three of them said that they got copies of the physical birth certificate, and Gutherie says that she felt the seal, and the photoimages of the short form that FactCheck published shows the raised seal in detail.
Re: “The State of Hawaii has never said, nor do they know if, Obama actually displayed the actual certified copies the HDH issued. “
Answer: HOWEVER, the state of Hawaii stated in two confirmations that the facts on the long form birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as on the one in the files. Would there be much point in forging a birth certificate in which ALL the facts are the same?
Moreover, the fact that there is a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files that says on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 (which it must say since the facts are EXACTLY the same) is itself proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Re: “Moreover, the press has not corroborating testimony from anyone in Hawaii that the "paper" copies they received were, in fact, copies of the same document released by the State.”
Answer. No, they cannot say that the documents they were handed are authentic because they are not document experts. But they stated that they had examined the short form and long form birth certificates, and Hawaii said that it had SENT them, and Hawaii said that the facts on the long form was EXACTLY the same.
BTW, no member of the press has been given a physical copy of Mitt Romney’s Michigan “birth certificate”. He has only posted an image of a photocopy of it online.
Answer: Agreed. They are not document experts. Nevertheless, there is a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files (unless the officials of BOTH parties are lying) and it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Re: “then, we are to believe the .pdf image of those documents is an accurate exact digitally created representation of those documents….”
Answer: NO, we do not have to believe that at all. The software could very well have enhanced the document. The scanner could have made mistakes (and it did, notice the word “TXE”---—well that should be THE), and the color of the paper could be all wrong.
Security paper is SUPPOSED to mess up images. So the fact that the image of the birth certificate does not look exactly like the one in the files is not surprising. The idea that it is or should be “an accurate exact digitally created representation” is your notion---and a bad one. It is the facts on it that have to be EXACTLY the same, and that is what Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed. Want to see the two confirmations in which Hawaii says that the facts MATCH those that are in the files????
Re: “then WHO from the State of Hawaii gave the legal permission for someone in the White House to digitally transfer "officially certified" vital records information into a digital .pdf image format which the State of Hawaii has explicitly said, and I quote from our correspondence with two HDOH officials (as provided in sworn affidavit)...they neither "...certify nor utilize Adobe .pdf's as a software application or externally endorsed method for the transference, copy or reproduction of vital records or information legally protected under Hawaii Statutes.”
Answer: Hawaii did not say that Obama could not make a copy and show it on the web, and neither did Michigan say that Romney could not make a copy and show it on the Web. In both cases the image that is on the Web is not a legal copy. What is a legal copy is the official physical copy, the one (actually two, the short form and the long form) with the seal on it----which oddly no birther organization has even asked to see.
Continuing:
DeleteBut this is not a court of law. We do not have to see the original or even the official physical copy. The fact that there IS a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files and that it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that this is confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, and by there being no evidence that Obama’s mother traveled outside of the USA in 1961, and Kenya saying that she certainly did not give birth there----is sufficient.
Re: “Any digital or photo reproduction of any vital record which takes place outside the physical location of this facility renders that record and vital information within it invalid. “
Answer: The pdf is not a legal document. The official physical copies of the birth certificates—short form and long form---are the legal copies, but we know that Obama has both of them.
How do we know? Because Hawaii says it sent them to him. Moreover, it remains nutty to think that if there is a birth certificate in Hawaii files and that it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii (which it must if the facts MATCH, as Hawaii says) that Obama could possibly have been born somewhere other than Hawaii. The fact that there were copies made to put on the Web does not affect the physical copy at all.
Re: “So, what is/are the name(s) of the individual(s) who removed the "officially certified" paper versions of Obama's birth certificates from the sealed envelopes and created an unauthorized .pdf image of Obama's vital records and then posted that unauthorized image to an official government website?”
Answer: Probably a White House intern who does not know the difference between pdf and jpg (too bad). But, to repeat, there is nothing in the law that says you cannot make copies of the birth certificate, only that the image of one is not a legal document. (Who ever thought that a Web image WOULD be a legal document anyway? You?)
Re: “If you are intellectually unable to comprehend and accept that the very fact that a .pdf exists utterly destroys the validity and credibility of the information within it because there is no possible way to verify its veracity with the original records…”
Answer: Absurd. There is the paper copy that was copied and now there is the image. Both exist. The image may not look very much like the paper copy because security paper is DESIGNED to make them look different, and pdf has its own problems (notice again the representation of the word THE as TXE), but the fact that a copy was made to show on the Web is not illegal, and it does not invalidate anything.
Continuing:
DeleteRe: “ EVEN IF the .pdf is an accurate, exact replica of the records,”
Answer. As noted it isn’t. Security paper is DESIGNED to make the copy look DIFFERENT.
Re; “The State of Hawaii refuses to compare the two versions and verify the accuracy of the .pdf. “
Answer: Once again, because security paper is designed to make the copy look DIFFERENT, they cannot compare the two documents to see if they look the same. They are not supposed to look the same.
Moreover, software may ENHANCE a document. An enhanced document does not look like the original, but it is not supposed to---and in any case, it is not illegal to enhance a document. Once again, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the facts MATCH (that was their word) and that is all that they can do because the images will of course look different (what ever gave you the idea that they would look exactly the same?).
And, the bottom line is that it is the FACTS that count. If all the letters in the image that Obama showed were transformed from roman to italics and the FACTS were the same, and they say that Obama was born in Hawaii, then he was born in Hawaii.
Re: “At the very moment the .pdf image was created outside the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, Obama's presidency was confirmed fraudulent. ‘
Answer: Are you intentionally trying to seem crazy? Take a deep breath. Think again, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have showed Web images of their birth certificates. Obviously it is not and cannot be illegal to make copies of birth certificates and put them on the Web.
Re: “Please take time to consider.”
I have. Now you consider:
What is the evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii? What is the likelihood of it happening since it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days? What are the chances that the DOH of Hawaii sent birth notices to the Hawaii newspapers (and only the DOH could send those notices to that section of the paper in 1961) if Obama were not born in Hawaii? What are the chances that a clerk in 2007, when Obama’s name was hardly known, would lie that there was a document in the files from which she or he copied the fact “born in Honolulu.” What are the chances that three Republican officials in Hawaii including the former governor would lie about there being a birth certificate for Obama in the files that says that he was born in Hawaii?
And yet dear Obama apologist smrstrauss, Obama cannot and has not provided ONE untampered with document, ever. Keep up the *hope*, you need it.
ReplyDeleteRe "One untampered with document." Not one document was tampered with.
ReplyDeleteOnly birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and impartial---say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate.
The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.
There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.
As for Sheriff Joe and his posse:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/exposed-sheriff-joe-arpaio-corsi-birther-scam-heres-the-proof-that-arpaios-posse-fabricated-evidence-and-lied-to-the-nation/
and
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/
It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review certainly do not.
And the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm specified facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, stating that it compared the image of Obama's birth certificate with the file copy (which is an additional confirmation that there was a file copy BTW) and that Obama was born there and that the facts match. The secretary of state of Arizona accepted this confirmation and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November. This indicates that he does not believe the claims that the birth certificate is forged (including those of Sheriff Joe) and that he does believe the officials in Hawaii.
Obama, who really was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the officials of both parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show, was re-elected President of the United States last night. He won both a majority of the popular vote and a clear majority of the votes of the Electoral College.
ReplyDelete