Dr. Conspiracy
The inspiration for this article came from, of all places, a fortune cookie at lunch today. It said, “Trust, but verify. — Ronald Reagan.” I’ve run across this saying from Conservatives from time to time and on occasion, from “birthers”. I thought it might be interesting to apply it to the birther controversy by describing my own experience trying to trust, but verify.
The most basic weapon in any birther’s arsenal is the belief that Barack Obama’s maternal step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, said on tape that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. While it doesn’t appear on the recording, “hospital in Mombasa” is often added to the story. My first step was to try to verify that the audio recording was itself authentic and over time it became clear that it was; however, in my search to verify its authenticity, I came across the fact that it was incomplete. When I heard the complete tape, it became obvious that the earlier comment by Sarah Obama was simply misunderstood. She states quite plainly (through her translator) later on that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The complete audio recording and the transcript are in my article: Sarah Obama Speaks!
Barack Obama’s campaign published a Certification of Live Birth in June 2008 that was quickly called a forgery on the Israel Insider web site and other places. One claim was that the web document was made by altering the birth certificate of Barack Obama’s sister, Maya (I was able to determine that Maya Soetoro-Ng never had a Hawaiian birth certificate). One of the two oft-cited anonymous document experts, TechDude, turned out to be a fraud, publishing a list of impressive credentials that belonged to someone else. The other anonymous document expert, Dr. Ron Polarik, published an extensive analysis that grew over the months into a massive, mind-numbing rant accompanied by many images from authentic Hawaiian birth certificates. I tried to verify the technical arguments in Polarik’s Final Analysis that claimed that the birth certificate was forgery, but I was never able to make sense of what he was saying, or to see what he claimed to see in the images. Polarik even claimed that all of the Obama school pictures from Hawaii were faked. I was never able to verify any of the forgery claims. My failure was later explained when the State of Hawaii Department of Health officially reported that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
One of the things put forward by attorney Phil Berg in the Hollister case was the idea that Barack Obama lost his American citizenship by being adopted by an Indonesian national, Lolo Soetoro. The idea comes from handwritten school registration page from Indonesia where Obama’s name is listed as “Barry Soetoro”, and his nationality is listed as “Indonesian”. Berg put forward a number of references to Indonesian law in support of his theory. I tried to verify Berg’s argument, and came up short. The Indonesian laws didn’t say what Berg claimed. Not only that, I found that Indonesian law prevented dual citizenship, and specifically someone cannot become an Indonesian citizen unless there exists a mechanism for then to renounce their former citizenship. It is well-known from the Supreme Court decision in Perkins v Elg that the action of parents cannot expatriate someone, nor can a child expatriate himself. I wrote about my experience in the article Hollister v Indonesian Citizenship Law.
Another frequently-cited birther idea is that Barack Obama has spent millions trying to seal his records. This is another claim that I was unable to verify. There are 70+ birther lawsuits, but many of them do not name Obama as a defendant, and as such he has no legal expenses for them. At least one of the lawsuits Obama did defend in California was handled pro bono by attorney Frederic Woocher. More importantly, my extensive reading of the legal complaints showed that none of these lawsuits could be satisfied by Barack Obama producing a document, and that none of them asked that any record be “sealed.” What I found is that the record availability of any Obama document is exactly the same as it was two years ago before the first lawsuit; nothing got “sealed.” Birthers claim that now President Obama is represented by the US Attorneys Office and the taxpayers are paying the astronomical legal bills. One US Attorney described their effort as “not taking too long.” I wrote about my experience trying to verify this idea in my article: More information on Obama’s legal bills.
A number of claims center around President Obama’s citizenship related to his Kenyan father. The claim I spent the most time on was the idea that the Constitution requires that a US President have two US citizen parents (which Barack Obama does not). I really worked hard on this one. I read old books full of early state legislation, early textbooks, early commentaries on the Constitution, Congressional testimony, and state and federal court decisions (such as Lynch v. Clarke and US v Wong). The two-citizen requirement is just not in the mainstream public record. Simply being born in the United States makes one a natural born citizen (except for a few uncommon technical exceptions). I’ve probably written more on this than anything else in dozens of articles here.
I could go on through pretty much every claim made by the “birthers,” from postmarks on selective service registrations to Hawaiian vital records law, but the experience has always been the same. Either the claim is false, or the claim is true but irrelevant. I tried my best to verify, but these things are just not true.
You have done a great service running down these stories. What gets me is that we make decisions every day on far less evidence than has come forward in support of President Obama’s eligibility. When I was flying combat missions, I routinely relied upon the word of people I did not know and had never seen before, and relied upon paperwork prepared by people I did not know and never saw. When we drive, we rely on our belief that if we have a green light that the cross traffic has a red light. Why we should create out of whole cloth conspiracy theories where the COLB establishes birth in Hawaii is beyond me, and if I were still flying I would hope that the controller clearing me off for a mission thousands of miles away over Afghanistan is not a “Birther,” but, rather, a rational thinker based upon facts. My life depended upon it. How “Birthers” can go out every day and interact with society without conjuring up vast conspiracies, but can come home and invent them on the internet, is a mystery.
If someone in my unit said that President Obama was a Muslim, a foreigner, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or the like, I would not put my life in their hands.
And before some of your visitors attack me, I voted for Sen McCain, and will likely not vote for President Obama for re-election. His policy failings, however, are irrelevant to his eligibility.
Interesting and well stated. Thanks.
According to the Gary Kreep the recording was investigated by persons in Kenya familiar with the language. On the tape, background commotion can be heard by others. According to Kreep, persons in Kenya were able to determine that this is where Sarah Obama is attemptting to defend her statment that she was present at the time of Obama’s birth while the others in the room are trying to refute what Sarah Obama is saying. This is the same conclusion reached by the Priest and translator who actually present during the interview. The sound quality of the interview was bad but perhaps Kreep was able to enhance it to reach the same conclusion as the preist and translator. You can get the inside scoop from Kreep himself at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhbjzPTrr8
It have never been verified that the COLB seen on the internet at any website actually came from the Hawaii DOH but only as to much the COLB represents what Hawaii DOH would issue had such a COLB be requested. I remember Mario Apuzzo stating that Obama has yet to produce his “Real” Birth Certificate or even the COLB. To this day, we do not know if Obama’s COLB exist is in the “Real World” as something tangible. And in fact, no one has ever been able to show the BC of Obama in the “Real World”. FactCheck only show images so they don’t count. However, Lucas Smith did show Obama’s BC in the “Real World” and it was a Kenyan Birth Certificate.
Sarah Obama’s claim is corroborated by the Kenyan Ambassador’s Claim made a day after Obama’s election. It further corroborated by the Kenyan government official who said Obama was born in Kenya. No evidence has ever been shown that Obama was really born in Hawaii. The Hawaii DOH says he was born there but since nothing has been released it is essentially a meaningless statement.
Gary Kreep is neither objective nor truthful. FAIL.
Wrong. It was verified by the Governor of Hawaii. FAIL.
Wrong. The Kenyan ambassador said no such thing, and the Kenyan legislator who erroneously through President Obama had been born there was quickly corrected. FAIL.
Amscray, ertherbay.
Jason, all I can say to you is get help, here’s a good place to start:
Delusional Disorder Treatment
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx11t.htm
Jason,
In support of one’s argument, it’s always a bad idea to begin, “According to the Gary Kreep . . .” Yes, Gary is a creep, but avoid revealing that until you’ve won over the reader . . . which in your case, just ain’t gonna’ happen. : )
I agree. As Dr. C. has pointed out this is a advocacy site for reason and evidence, not for President Obama (although sometimes the two get blurred).
According to Kreep according to Kreep. And who are these unnamed Kenyans you speak of? The translator said no such thing. The street preacher was the one making the claims and trying to lead her by continuously mixing up Son and Grandson
Why is it you say the DOH’s statement is meaningless and yet at the same time think a kenyan official’s claim is true without anything being released? The Hawaii official’s claim is corroborated by the COLB Obama scanned and posted online, which is corroborated by the 2 birth announcements from the Hawaiian newspapers from 1961 which is corroborated by the Hawaiian Birth index, which is further corroborated by the State Department who said that when they looked into his mother’s passport records her son was born in Hawaii
I too wish to thank you for your well written post and perspective, John. As stated by others, this site is an advocacy for truth, research and verification of facts, not about political advocacy.
Birthers seem to lump everyone who doesn’t fall for their kooky fictions as “Obots” or “liberals”, when, like just about everything they say or think, that just doesn’t hold up to reality.
Thank you for providing a healthy reminder that rational people can simply and honestly disagree with a candidate, a party and/or a president’s actions, administration, policies and views without having to resort to coming up with fictional fantasies to demonize or explain away anything that isn’t to their liking…
Maybe you should read the statement Dr, Fukino gave in support of Hawaii SB2937 where she did verify that President Obama had posted a copy of the COLB on his website. Page 2, lines 8 to 10
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimony-Jgo-02-23-10-Late
Jason, your little string of quick dump and run posts here are so over the top full of nonsense that I don’t believe you are being serious. Either you are trying out a comedy act by posing as a birther for your own entertainment or are just putting on the crazy to troll for sheer entertainment. Either way, it fell flat and I’m sure that you can find something more productive to do with your free time.
I’ll probably get the old “Hawaiian officials lie but anonymous Kenyan officials don’t” line
Nope. I’ve only seen Lucas Smith’s document on the Internet. He has not made it available to me, so I must conclude it only exists in digital form.
I have posted this several times before: the Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible.
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html
Ed Rollins provided me with quite a laugh today
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/01/rollins.palin/index.html?hpt=Sbin
He eviscerates Caribou Barbie, eg:” I knew Reagan. You’re no Reagan.”
Perhaps I’m off topic with this but “Trust but verify” just let me enjoy another laugh at the Mama Grizzly’s expense. As I tell the few Birthers I reply to, I am 100% in favor of a Palin-Bachmann GOP ticket in 2012.
> no one has ever been able to show the BC of Obama in the “Real World”.FactCheck only show images so they don’t count
That’s the same old line which is tantamount to absurd reasoning.
Obviously FactCheck checked a “real world” COLB and not an “Internet copy” or “image”.
However I don’t understand what “real world showing” would satisfy you. If you see it on the web or on TV, it necessarily is indistinguishable (for you) from a copy or an “image”.
So in effect this amounts to “unless I’ve seen and touched and smelled it myself, I don’t believe it exists”.
Yet it’s funny you claim the “Kenyan BC” was shown in the “real world” because you’ve never seen it personally either, have you?
Let’s start with the definition of evidence. In the law, as in science or philosophy, evidence is ANY fact that makes a proposition more or less probable. Thus, there is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. That Obama claims to be born in Hawaii is evidence that he was born there. The COLB is evidence. The newspaper reports are evidence. The general knowledge in Hawaii is evidence. The statements by the Hawaiian government are evidence. By the same standard, there is evidence that Obama was born on Kenya.
As a lawyer, my next move would be to consider what evidence could be introduced in a court of law. On Obama’s side, I think I could get every bit of evidence I’ve listed into evidence. (Assuming the COLB is presented in a certified form – although you could probably get in the web-copy for a limited purpose – to show Obama’s understanding of where he was born, perhaps).
On the side of Obama being born abroad, I can think of few ways to get it admitted and many reasons it would all be inadmissible.
Philosophically, it is possible for something to be true, but unsupported by any admissible evidence, so we should then test the proofs against certain standards. Trust but verify is one. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence is another. Occam’s razor (don’t impose a complex explanation when a simple one will do) is another. All of this suggests that Obama was born in Hawaii, it was reported in newspapers and he published a copy of the COLB he got from Hawaii. The alternate explanation, that he was born abroad (to a student mother and father with no money to take an arduous international trip), that someone planted the birth announcements (or a family member lied to the DOH) and that Obama placed a forged public document into the public debate (when opponents were spending millions to find any reason to keep him out of the White House) and that the state of Hawaii falsely confirmed his in-state birth would require significant evidence indeed! That the proponents of this theory can produce only fraudulent document experts, equivocal (at best) statements from a relative (reported not in a sworn statement from that grandma, but in hearsay from third parties) and a handful of statements from newspapers that could as easily be typos suggests very, very strongly that there is no there there.
That is why the people who believe the birthers are those who haven’t investigated the matter and those who would believe any bad thing about Obama regardless of how implausible.
Do you remember when Dan Burton was murdering watermelons to prove how Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster? Birthers are in the same boat, but with even less credibility.
I do not recall the birthers or their attorneys’ trying to get Ms. Obama or the Kenyan Ambassador (or legislator), to come to a US court and testify under oath. If they are so sure of what she and the others said, why rely only on a muffled tape?
The issue is what level of verification is required. In the case of birthers, there is no trust, so no verification is possible, save verification that backs up the predetermined conclusion.
One thing I find interesting in the conspiracy theory and birther world is how much trust and confidence they place in “sworn affadavits” that fly in the face of otherwise more solid evidence.
The grandmother story is a good example – birthers point out that Bishop McRae and others who “were present in the background” have signed “sworn affidavits” that she said he was born in Kenya, despite the most solid piece of evidence – the recording of the interview itself – clearly demonstrating otherwise. I saw another freep
…sigh, stupid clicking of the submit button accidentally.
Saw another freep post stating that another “researcher” has compiled dozens of “sworn affidavits” from judges saying they are being intimidated by Obama and the administration (yet none of these said judges will come forward and speak, just sign stuff?).
I read a recent article regarding the Miller/Murkowski recount where a freeper posted that there was clearly fraud because one random woman has signed a “sworn affidavit” that when she arrived a her polling place in the morning of election day, there were already hundreds of neatly-stacked and filled out (for Murkowski) ballots inside the ballot box. No one questions the credibility (or ulterior motive) of this, despite it flying in the face of otherwise more solid evidence (most ballot boxes I’ve ever seen are opaque, why wouldn’t she immediately report it to the poll watchers, the campaigns, or even the media, instead of filing an affidavit days later, etc.).
The “sworn affidavit” in the conspiracy world is somehow the MOST reliable piece of evidence. Tim Adams being willing to sign a “sworn affidavit” that Obama has no birth certificate is seen as more trustworthy evidence (requiring no other verification) than the entire state government affirming his birth there.
I was wondering if you had heard anything on your FOIA request for Obama’s mother’s passport record or records? I suspect that she did not have a passport in 1961.
Greg, you touched on something that’s I’d like to expand upon. The COLB. The COLB is an official document from a US state. There is something backing it up. It can be and was verified. The COLB contains things that would be difficult to bring into court if it were fake like serial numbers. Let’s say I bring a fake ID into court to prove who I am. A cop could easily run the ID through to see if it’s legit. Same thing here. A US state backs up this document. In court, that’s got to be pretty watertight. Am I wrong?
When pressed, Tim Adams took back his story.
how exactly do you physically show anything to 330million people ? honest question jason, please answer.
i’d also like your input on the “pakistan ban” and “indonesian citizenship” from the other thread.
As I understand it, any news agency that wanted to see the COLB in person had the opportunity to do so. If Joseph Farah wanted to inspect it in person, he had the chance. Nobody who is claiming it’s a forgery or that it proves nothing has seen it in person.
How would I go about verifying that persons in Kenya said what what Kreep claims? One Kenyan, Mr. Omolo, listened to the tape and said emphatically that Sarah Obama said that she was in present in Mombasa when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Normally, if a respected, mainstream news organization reports that they have seen something, that is sufficient verification. FactCheck.org handled and photographed the actual Certification of Live Birth.
There is nothing pertinent to Obama’s eligibility on the COLB that has not been verified by the Hawaii Birth Index for 1961, newspaper announcements, the State Department of Health, and a FOIA-obtained memo from the US State Department. Any test you make on the veracity of the COLB comes up positive.
The Kenyan ambassador’s statement could not be verified. When his office was contacted for confirmation, the answer was that he was misunderstood and that he had no knowledge of where Barack Obama was born.
Re: “One Kenyan, Mr. Omolo, listened to the tape and said emphatically that Sarah Obama said that she was in present in Mombasa when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.”
That statement is either a lie or a stupidity since the word Mombasa was never mentioned. All that she did was answer “Yes,” but we do not really know what the question was in the Luo language. IN English she was asked was she present WHEN, not was she present WHERE, so the question as translated could simply mean was she present in Kenya when Obama was born in Hawaii. The interviewer, realizing that the question could have been ambiguous, asked an obviously clear question–where was he born, and the answer was repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time. And, in another interview, she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.
There is no question that Lucas Smith had real piece of paper. However, attempts to verify the Smith certificate turned up a number of major problems with it, the most GLARING of which was that all of the dates were in the US format (MM/DD/YYYY) instead of the format used by Kenya (and most of the rest of the world) (DD/MM/YYYY). The name of the hospital administrator was wrong also.
In fact, the only thing about the Smith certificate that could be verified was that the named doctor (whose name is readily available on the Internet) was a real person, but deceased.
The claim is made that the word “Mombasa” can be heard from Sarah Obama, but it was not spoken by the translator and is not included in the transcripts. Omolo is a native speaker of the Luo dialect. It’s just another claim that I can’t verify, but at least Omolo is a real person and a respected journalist in Kenya, unlike others who are unnamed.
> If they are so sure of what she and the others said, why rely only on a muffled tape?
> The “sworn affidavit” in the conspiracy world is somehow the MOST reliable piece of evidence.
We already know the conspiracy theory answer to that:
Because these people are “too afraid” to actually testify or corroborate what they wrote in their “affidavits”.
Conspiracy theorists believe that actual glimpses inside the conspiracy are few and far between but that they exist. Like someone “goofing” and saying something he didn’t want to say, so he would never repeat it. Or someone getting a “temporary call of conscience” and admitting something once “in passing” he would never repeat.
These “revelations” therefore become part of the “not falsifyable by design” pattern of the conspiracy theory. It’s like “my neighbour got drunk last night and told me that it was him who shot JFK and he can prove it”.
Of course if you ask my neighbour and he denies it, I can spin this as “he was too drunk to remember today” or “now that he’s sober, he’s afraid of the consequences” etc.
> A US state backs up this document. In court, that’s got to be pretty watertight. Am I wrong?
In the conspiracy world, yes, because *anything* that contradicts the preconceived opinion must be part of the conspiracy – including said US state (for “false” testimony) and said court (for accepting it instead of demanding to see the records for itself).
> how exactly do you physically show anything to 330million people
I think Squeeky was asked the same question around here.
The problem is birthers can never agree on (or commit to) a level of “checking” that would satisfy them. Heck, if Obama showed his original papers to Orly and she said “they’re genuine, OMG, I was wrong”, birthers would immediately assume that Orly betrayed them and this was even more proof there is a conspiracy.
Funny thing is, if actually all presidential candidates would have to mail certified copies of their BC’s to every voter, how many billions would that cost?
Besides, I don’t understand their demand for “birther bills” anyway. They’ve already proven they don’t trust the Hawaiian government on the BC issue. How would they trust any state? They would simply reject any state’s vetting of a candidate they do not like.
Imagine for a second that every state would pass a birther bill and every state would inspect Obama’s “original BC” and conclude that he is eligible. Wouldn’t birthers immediately cry “oh no, they’re part of the nation-wide treason network as well”?
When I tried to verify this (and I even contacted the Hawaii Elections Division where Adams worked), I found that Adams had no access to Hawaiian birth records. In fact, in no statement did Adams actually say what he relied upon for his conclusion. While Adams said that he would make a sworn statement, he never did. The Adams claims could not be verified.
Magic M –
That is, of course, why many birthers are not satisfied with the birther bills as they have been proposed. They want a bill that, is essence, is designed with requirements they believe Obama cannot possibly meet.
Reading birther sites, you will see numerous complaints about the Arizona bill that died and the new Texas one because they want the laws to specify within the text the Vattel “two parent” requirement, and to require an “original” long form certificate (I have never understood their fascination with long form certificates with respect to eligibility) and to specifically not accept (Full Faith and Credit be damned) “short forms” or “state-certified copies”. There is a worry in that crowd that Obama could just submit the COLB (which is exactly what he’d do) and then OH NO the state might say “Looks good.”
Dr. C –
Indeed I believe when questioned Adams simply said he was told by unnamed “superiors” that there was no certificate, but that he was still willing to make that “sworn statement”. He never did so, mind you. He just said he was willing to.
My point being, it stuns me how much weight the birthers put in people being willing to make “sworn statements” (as if it isn’t POSSIBLE to lie in them) that otherwise contradict much more “solid” evidence (like practically the entire Republican administration of the state verifying that he does have one on file there).
In birther-land, they want trials to go something like this:
Person A: “Here’s a contract saying I have paid for this house and my utility bills saying I’ve lived here for ten years, and the county registration of the deed in my name.”
Person B: “I’m willing to make a sworn statement that person C owns the house.”
Judge: “Clearly Person C owns the house. Case closed. Sorry, A, GTFO.”
Granite,
Your comments to Paul Hollrah at the site maintained by Bob McCarty were excellent.
They have bravely cut off all comments now, so that Paul can have the last word.
The discussion is recommended to all:
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/
And in fact Lucas Smith did make a signed statement, filed by Orly Taitz in one of her cases, that his obviously fake birth certificate was genuine.
But as to your point, even a sworn statement is worthless if the person making the statement has no way of knowing the truth of what they are saying, or if fully and completely contradicted by known facts.
The other problem is that Jason will simply move to the next thread, and spout the same crap claims, all over again, without bothering to modify them based on the trouncing he got in this thread, and the one before, and the one before.
The same crap keeps coming back because birthers won’t discard ideas once they’ve been discredited, they simply repeat them to someone else. That’s the same as the kindergarten kid walking around the schoolyard singing “I know something you don’t know”. The content of the “knowledge isn’t the issue. What’s important to them is the feeling of being “special”.
Birthers lack intellectual honesty.
indeed, having been forced once again to swallow their own overhyped bile after their latest entirely predictable court failures, the birfistani appear ready to switch ponies. it looks like they’re preparing to ramp up their efforts to badger a seemingly more sympathetic congress into, to paraphrase anderson cooper, “writing legislation based on internet rumors and lies”.
to help speed up the process and make things easy for their congresscritters, some birfers are writing up their own bills for them. from the department of “ianal* but …”:
* ianal = “i am not a lawyer”
Sorry Doc,
Lucas Smith has already addressed the flaws allegations of the Kenyan BC and has sucessfully refuted each one. The Kenyan BC appears to the real deal but their is really no way to authenticate it because no one is willing cooporate given the the current circumstances.
Then why does Factcheck.org have photos of the Birth Certificate that have the State Registrar of Hawaii’s signature and say “I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file [with] the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin T. Onaka, State registrar.”
You can see it here. I didn’t know that they put those on “representations” of what the Hawaii DOH would issue…
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
Jason, Please tell Lucas Smith that Jim Wilson Jr. is still waiting for the kidney promised him.
“Successfully”? You mean when he was asked for proof he actually went on the trip to Kenya and got the certificate himself he sent out pictures from a latin american country and not Kenya? You mean that? Jason let me ask you this why is it that you trust the word of a convicted Forger like Lucas Smith over that of the Hawaiian Official who is charged with keeping birth records?
He refuted them, but I would not call the refutation “successful”. I’m still wondering why the person would specifically spell his name wrong, and sign as a position that he didn’t hold for another 3 months. Also, Jason, you’ve never answered why you believe a document that hasn’t been verified by a state government, that a convicted forger admits that he got illegally (I believe he said that he bribed people to get it), and would not be admissible in a court of law over a document that would be admissible in any court of law in the land.
So, on one side, we have a document that was signed by the State Registrar, and admissible in any court in the land. On the other, you have a document that would not be admissible (especially when Obama side asked two very simple questions to Lucas Smith. “Were you ever convicted of a felony? What were those felonies?”) Which one do you think that the judge would believe?
Actually Lucas has provided excuses as to why we shouldn’t be looking at the glaring errors in the document. He has yet to successfully refute it.
So your conclusion as to why the “Kenyan BC” cannot be authenticated isn’t because it’s not authentic, noooooooo. It’s obviously ’cause everyone is in on the conspiracy (insert dramatic fanfare). Riiiiiiight.
Sorry Jason, but the Republican Party is perfectly capable of obtaining the authentication if it were, and they would jump on it if it were possible to do so. Your reasoning fails.
At what point does your conspiracy become too huge and unweildy to be plausible for you? If every state and federal elected and appointed official, all the members of both major parties, and 98.6% of the voting public are all “in” on it, would that make you pause and think that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong? That a conspiracy of that size just simply couldn’t hold up without collapse?
How could a government, unable to keep thousands of classified documents safe without having them leaked out, possibly maintain a conspiracy about Obama’s citizenship as wide spread as you claim, without a few hundred people deciding that the millions of dollars to be made by telling the truth is worth more than their civil servants pay?
At what point do you start allowing yourself to think?
Really Jason? So let me get this straight. An individual who is a convicted felon, convicted of forgery, submits a document that he is unwilling to have analyzed and we are supposed to take his word that it is genuine? Really?
So the flaws as you called them, the wrong doctor, the incorrect m/d/y format, and best of all Obama Sr. not knowing his own birthdate have been explained by Lucas? Amazing how gulibile you birthers all. If you believe that then simple question. Why can’t Lucas show us any proof that he even went to Kenya. How about a copy of a ticket? Hotel bill? Passport stamp with Kenya? He has never been able to produce any evidence that he even went to Kenya yet you believe him over the COLB that was stamped by the state of HI and statements from HI confirming that President Obama was born there.
Yeah, I can see how successful Lucas was in his refutation of the facts. Tell me, how many Congressmen that he sent his “evidence” to actually contacted him? Zero? That should tell you all you need to know. If you want to verbally fellate Lucas Smith, you need to go elsewhere. Here we deal with facts. And fact is Lucas is full of crap.
This is a prime example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. So, Jason you are willing to believe someone who claimed to have paid large sum of money for a document, but is unable to authenticate it. The are many problems with the paper Smith had tried to pass off as a birth certificate. It is interesting that you have listed what Smith excuses are about the various problems. Smith should be asking for change on the 5 cents value of the piece of paper.
Wow. Putting a two parent requirement in the bill would be a tall order. That means Bill Richardson and Bobby Jindel couldn’t run.
I’m beginning to wonder if “Jason” isn’t another sock puppet for the banned “James.” I’m sure that we all remember that James was a dedicated water-carrier for Lucas Smith.
A couple of immediate problems come to mind.
Not all states hold primaries, so in non-primary states there is no ballot to be named on prior to the general election. And while it is unlikely in this day and age that we will see another brokered convention, it could conceivably happen that a Presidential nominee would emerge who was not on any primary ballots. In that case, the vetting process would not begin until after the conventions, meaning that we could get into October without knowing if the candidates would satisfy all 50 Secretaries of State. And what if some Secretaries of State are satisifed but others are not?
And the Vattelists will be unhappy to have it pointed out that a Presidential candidate has no legal authority to release the citizenship records of his or her parents. If the parents are alive, only they can authorize the release of their records.
I am curious to see what would happen if a birther bill did pass. Even if it required a copy of Obama’s original BC, he’ll simply meet that requirement and go on with his day. There’s nothing new the original is going to reveal. It’s all just silliness.
I think it more accurate to say that he has made further claims that cannot be verified. He says that Kenya used both date formats, and presents a document from 1958 that says “FEB 1 1958” but this is not a form where the numbers only are written (and I don’t know how to verify that this form is authentic in the first place).
He claims that the hospital had TWO administrators, but provided no way to verify the claim.
Basically he has bolstered his unsubstantiated claims with further unsubstantiated claims, or put another way, supported his lies with more lies.
Much as a criminal when caught stealing will continue to lie about it. Take for instance Tim Pawlentry’s latest problem in pardoning a child molestor just because he married the 14 year old girl he knocked up. Years down the line the guy has been caught after molesting the daughter he had with the girl since she was 9 years old. He’s now saying oh he accidentally exposed her penis to her when his pants fell down. He was only teasing her when he touched her boobs etc. Lucas Smith is a convicted forger its no surprise he is lying to support his lies.
Let’s back up even further, and look at the big picture that birthers seem to miss.
Why do government issue birth certificates like the COLB? To please the vanity and whims of the person whose information is on the document? Or to state immutable facts for the record? Obviously it is the latter – because any birth certificate serves as the basis for many legal rights and obligations that are not deemed optional for any person.
If a person could simply obtain a COLB that states a date of birth other than that listed on existing records, what’s to stop him from obtaining a later birth date to get out of a military draft? Similarly, what is to stop him from obtaining an earlier birth date to enable him to get a driver’s license or receive Social Security, Medicare or income tax benefits earlier than he is otherwise entitled?
If a person could obtain a COLB that states he was born in the United States when in fact his long form shows he was born elsewhere, then why bother with becoming a naturalized citizen? You could be a natural born citizen of any place you choose!
These are clearly ridiculous scenarios – but they are inevitable under the world view held by birthers that a COLB can somehow state facts at odds with the documentation the state already has on the individual.
The fact is, since the COLB is an official document, there is simply no purpose in obtaining the so-called “long-form” birth certificate to resolve the location of Obama’s birth, unless one believes the COLB to be nothing but a vanity document.
And the word of a convicted forger and scam artist is valid in this case how or why??
Not one word of this is true. FAIL.
Not only but also.
IIRC, the ‘Kenyan Official’ was a member of Parliament and made his declaration in Parliament, did he not? He can say anything he bloody well likes in Parliament (as long as he does not knowingly mislead Parliament in response to a direct question), anything, and can not be touched legally (except from political fallout, and this does not include sworn testimony before a committee).
In Australia, Parliamentarians often get into some nasty personal accusations against each other and many times the ‘injured’ party will challenge his accuser to repeat his remarks on the steps of Parliament because ‘its about time I got that new boat I’ve been looking at’. 🙂 He can sue over remarks made outside Parliament, but not remarks made on the floor.,
Actually, I’m quite sure this man is a racist since he didn’t vote for Obama and states that he would not likely vote for him in 2012. Racist if I’ve ever seen one, although his reasons make perfect sense and have nothing to do with racism.
I’m curious why this man gets a pass on racism while others, including myself, are called racists for simply disagreeing with his policies – and the fact that I think it takes 2 US citizen parents on US soil to produce a NBC.
I guess – there is the rub. You can disagree with Obama and not be a racist, but if you hold a different opinion of his eligibility – then THAT is what makes you a racist. I see now.
So. Suppose all 50 states pass this bill right?
Who gets the ‘original’ birth certificate? Are there really 50 ‘one and only’ original certificates so each state can have its own?
Or is good enough for all 50 SsOS to fly to the birth states of each and every candidate and then sign a sworn statement to his findings? Sounds like it would be easy for some nefarious candidate to bribe or blackmail the SsOS to me.
you seem unable to follow your own logic.
when a person’s reasons make perfect sense, there’s little reason, if any, to pursue ulterior motives.
when his reasons make little sense … well, try to follow my logic.
“The Kenyan BC appears to the real”
more proof that hating Obama causes mental illness!
Your post makes as much sense as one of Orly Taitz’s laundry lists. FAIL.
Doc,
Did you ever post about this? I find it easy to miss a particular topic that has been addressed. This probably sounds ridiculous but I don’t see how to use your archives function. I use the arrow and it takes me to July 2009 and that’s it. I was looking for May 2010 when the Daily Nation article came out.
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Obamas%20grandmother%20throws%20party%20/-/1070/912088/-/132bh0/-/index.html
Mama Sarah appealed to the public to dedicate their time and effort to ensuring that they take care of orphans and the vulnerable people in the society.
“This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands,” added the grandmother.
Obama is not an orphan and the language barrier is great here. Debunked/explained somewhere?
Given that they met for the first time when the President was in his 20s….
So what do you think she meant?
Do you think it is possible that given her age, she could be confusing the births of Obama Sr. and Jr. when she speaks? Her statement above would make a lot of sense if you read below:
i. Sarah OBAMA
1. ii. Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr.
iii. Auma OBAMA
Onyango’s third wife was Sarah, the one often referred to by Barack as his “grandmother.” She was the primary caregiver for Barack OBAMA Sr. after his mother, Akuma, left the family when her children were still young.
I think Sara Obama has moments where she thinks she was present at the birth of Obama Jr. She probably had one of those in the recorded interview of Berg.
I link about Sarah Obama above
http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm
She spoke as if caring for Barack Obama Jr. almost as an orphan child. That would have been the case for Obama Sr because she was the primary caregiver. I think she would probably say that she cared for Barack Jr. if you asked her that now, unless someone is there to correct her.
That was a poor explanation of what I wanted to explain.
Yes.
I think Sarah Obama is a bad witness for either side. It is clear she was mixing up Obama Sr. and Jr. in the Daily Nation article. The birther side could say that she is doing that because she saw Obama Jr. when he was born and is extending the memory to raising him, when in fact, she cared for Sr. . So, no confirmation from the Sarah Obama angle.
I’m not sure what she meant, and I’m not sure that the article captures what she said in proper context.
That said, Obama’s father died in 1982, and Sarah did not meet Barack Jr. until 1988. She had never met Stanley Ann Dunham, so at that point she may very well have considered her step-grandson to be an “orphan.” In the U.S., “orphan” means someone who has lost both parents, but that definition is not unversal:
In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan.
I agree that she is a bad witness, since she has no personal knowledge of anything regarding Obama’s birth. Anything she would have to say is inadmissible hearsay.
One has to be careful with Internet sources that come from public contributions (such as ask.com, about.com, wikipedia.org and obamaconspiracies.org) because some folks alter facts, sometimes big ones, and sometimes small, to further their agendas.
One immediately notes that the article from about.com has the wrong hospital name for Obama.
I believe the full transcript of the phone conversation rules out that possibility.
Yes, I did write about this:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-1/
Actually Doc, your explanation from the archives took a different approach than what I did. From the context of the Daily Nation article, she was referring to caring for orphans. She cared for Obama Sr. as the primary caretaker because like an orphan, he was abandoned by his mother. She applied the experience to Obama Jr. I think that is a more logical explanation than researching the passing through hands.
I didn’t see this post, but nonetheless, the abandonment theory would give a reasonable explanation for her comment (if that is what she said or close to what she said).
Also, you’ll have to bear with me if this has already been discussed. The search engine for this site is not always helpful.
From the wiki link above:
“Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Kenyan father and an American mother. According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and is one of the Democratic candidates for President in 2008.”
This shows the link was written when Obama was a candidate. I wonder where Ms. Powell got her information about the hospital name?
I have read the transcript here.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
The full transcript shows as follows:
“VOICE (background): It was Hawaii.
VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN (background):
Hawaii.29
BROTHER TOM (background): Hawaii, yeah?
VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN (background): Yeah.
In the accompanying footnote:
“29 Not clear whether this is or is not the voice of Mrs. Obama. It seems to be higher
pitched than Mrs. Obama’s lower voice elsewhere, and seems to be the same highertoned, apparently woman’s, voice (but could be a higher-toned male voice) who speaks a phrase in English a little later (“It was in Hawaii”), whereas Mrs. Obama reportedly speaks no English.
It is clear that others in the room wanted to make a correction of what Bishop McRae had taken Sarah Obama to mean. My reading of the footnote shows that the woman’s voice making the correction does not appear to have been Sarah herself. What Berg maybe wants to believe is that Sarah Obama was indicating that she was present when Obama was born, meaning, in Kenya, and that (I guess) others were trying to cover it up. But it is the definition of “present” that is at issue. I don’t think Bishop McRae ever understood the explanation given.
So, I disagree that the transcript disproves Sarah Obama said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Those words are not attributed to her but the others who were trying to correct the understanding of Bishop McRae. That doesn’t mean that she didn’t approve of the correction. Who can tell?
If you are going to argue that it is not Sarah Obama’s voice that contradicts the misunderstanding that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, then you must also concede that it was equally possible that it was not Sarah Obama’s voice who said “yes” that she was present, since the translator never translated the question from McRae to her. See footnote 23.
I read the transcript to describe a consensus of every body “present” that McRae misunderstood.
I didn’t mean to suggest that this particular article has birther fingerprints on it, only that some do.
Powell most likely picked up the error from one of the newspapers that printed the mistake and quickly corrected it back in 2008. Or I suppose she could have gotten it from the Italian Wikipedia that had this mistake for a while. The original source of the error was supposedly a high school publication called The Rainbow Edition where a student interviewed Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng. Maya is not quoted as giving the name of the hospital, but the student mentioned it in the story.
I was talking about Sarah Obama confusing Sr. with Jr. as IMO shown by her comment in the Daily Nation. If she did so there, she could have at the time of that transcript.
That seemed what the footnote suggests.
Bill, your post is utter illogical nonsense. The only conclusion I can draw from your rant is that you are hung up on issues of race and making baseless accusations and conclusions as a result.
I also take particular offense to you accusing John Reilly of being a racist. That is just uncalled for and baseless.
Yes, all you birthers are utter wackaloons. No, not all of you birthers are racists or even bigots, but many of you have gone out of your way to demonstrate that you are. When that happens, such people are legitimately called out for their bigotry. Simple as that.
Stop trying to concern troll and play the victim card and learn to hold yourself accountable for your own words and deeds.