A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

.

New documentary on Obama’s natural born status

WND summary:

WHAT if the president of the United States is not constitutionally eligible to serve? Is it possible that a straightforward criterion was overlooked during a long, grueling, expensive campaign? Why are so many questions about something so simple still going unanswered? “A Question Of Eligibility” goes where no other documentary has dared to go in seeking the answers to those questions, including one that millions of Americans are asking: “Why won’t Barack Obama release publicly the long-form birth certificate he claims to have from the state of Hawaii?”

In this video, you will hear from four experts on the subject: Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of the New York Times No. 1 bestseller “The Obama Nation”; Orly Taitz, the Southern California lawyer who has led the legal fight to secure the evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility; Alan Keyes, a third-party presidential candidate in 2008 and the man who challenged Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat that served as a springboard to his presidential ambitions; and Janet Porter, radio talk-show host and political activist who has championed the constitutional issue.

COMPLETE LIBRARY OF WND REARCH HERE

FEDERAL JUDGE TO HEAR ELIGIBILITY CASE

I suggest this judge hire protection

Advertisements

22 Responses to A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    You’ve been in news long enough to know better than to cite a crank like Joseph Corsi, haven’t you?

    The law is, Obama’s eligible. There’s no evidence to make a case to the contrary.

  2. Allan Erickson says:

    Berg and Keyes and many others, not Republicans by the way, simply say: show us proof, the actual birth certificate, not the certification of live birth which anyone can get in Hawaii whether or not they were born there. Show us the real document and we can all go home. To date, Obama has refused to do that, instead spending $1M on legal fees to keep all his records sealed. If anyone is promoting the controversy at this point, it’s Obama. His behavior is raising more and more suspicion. The importance of this is Constitutional integrity, rule of law, playing by the rules, the stuff of orderly society. You don’t settle law by your opinion, and neither do I. Law is settled in the legislature and the courts. The Constitution states one must be natural born and of a certain age to become president. There are very serious questions about Obama’s natural born status. If he is natural born, he could settle the matter in a heart beat, but he refuses to do so, leading many to believe he will not, because he cannot. Now that a federal judge has agreed to hear the case, perhaps we can get to the truth once and for all.

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    “Show us proof?” Under U.S. law, that certificate from the State of Hawaii is self-proving in court. It is the highest form of authoritative evidence, presented under seal from the state (and, in this case, from the King of Hawaii; that only means something in common law, and these birthers don’t appear to give a tinker’s damn about any law, let alone the 900 years of legal tradition we’re talking about).

    There is no higher form of proof available. Under Hawaiian statute, that is the solemn, sworn word of the state. Under the U.S. Constitution, all states and all courts in the U.S. must give it full faith and credit. The U.S. State Department accepts it for passports. In Obama’s case, it’s been checked out by both the FBI and the CIA, separately, over the course of at least two years, to verify that Obama is who he says he is and that he may be privy to the greatest secrets of our nation.

    Keyes, a crackpot former ambassador, carpet-bag want-to-be candidate for Obama’s Senate seat, sues out of pique. When he professes party, he professes Republican. Berg’s cases have been cited by federal judges as frivolous, and those lawyers who put their names on the line trusting Berg have been warned that federal courts are not playground name-calling matches.

    I don’t accept that the wild ruminations of Berg and Keyes should trump the Constitution, common law, Hawaiian law, and common sense. Legally, that argument is specious. If anyone pays much attention, it’s a grand insult to Americans and the Constitution. I resent your denigration of the Constitution by even entertaining these foolish, specious claims.

    The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency be “natural born,” which is not a well-defined term. It’s not a legal term, technically. In the past, case law has determined the phrase is synonymous with a native-born citizen of the U.S. That would include, under U.S. statute, any child born on U.S. soil, even in territories. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Hawaii was formally accepted into the Union on August 21, 1959. Obama is, by that statute and the Constitution, a “natural-born citizen” of the U.S.

    There is a statute that deprives children of that right, if their parents are foreign nationals, AND they are in the U.S. as diplomats or active duty soldiers for a foreign nation. Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen her entire life, and certainly at the young age she bore Barack Obama, Jr., and his father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth, but neither a diplomat nor a soldier.

    By common law and by statute, Obama is a natural-born citizen.

    But you want proof beyond the highest level of proof offered under U.S. law?

    You are entitled to claim you don’t believe it, but under our Constitution, the law does not recognize unlegal, illegal or extralegal arguments like that. Under our Constitution, we each may believe any fool thing we wish. We may not require the courts to act foolishly, however, and we may not impose our fool ideas on others through the courts.

    There is no question about Obama’s natural born status supported by any credible information. There is no evidence he was born outside Honolulu. There is no evidence that there is any other issue that might interfere with the unbroken chain of his citizenship from his mother’s womb to the presidency.

    And my challenge to you is this: If you believe there is good, court-admissible evidence, lay it out.

    Obama’s actions raise suspicion? He’s being sued by nutcases across the nation. These suits are dismissed as frivolous — but you claim that Obama’s mere defense against these suits is “suspicious?” Since when is it a crime in America to defend one’s honor and the truth? Shame on you for even suggesting that. You support harassing, frivolous and sometimes illegal court action, and then you claim your opponent’s behaviro is “suspicious?”

    If you’re not on the side of America and American law, whose side are you on — and why isn’t that even more “suspicious?”

    When you discover there is no such evidence, apologize to the President, to the courts, and to your readers, and get on with serious stuff. There is a time to put away childish things and false notions. That time is past.

    If you refuse to accept the documentation offered, do not be surprised when I take away your house, since your deed and/or your mortgage are only signed, not under seal, not certified, and less solid than the evidence Obama has presented, and he has presented more evidence of his eligibility than any other presidential candidate in history.

    The Constitution is a compact between citizens. By holding to it, we pledge to each other much as the Mayflower Compact required, that we will do our best to elect good people to make good laws, and we will obey them. That’s the honorable way to go.

  4. Allan Erickson says:

    Agreed. The Constitution is a covenant between government and the people. If Obama violated the Constitution, running for President with the full knowledge he did not meet the Constitutional requirements of office, that would make him a law-breaker, someone entirely disqualified for office.

    How can you swear to protect and defend the Constitution, the very foundation of the republic, if you at the same time violate it, then work to cover that up, undermining the very principles you swore to protect and defend?

    Much worse than Watergate if you ask me.

    Honor requires Obama prove he is a natural born citizen, something he has so far refused to do. I challenge you to prove the FBI fully confirmed his status. I’ve not seen or heard that anywhere. And as I understand it, this has nothing to do with CIA jurisdiction.

    A federal judge has determined there is enough of a question to hear the matter.

    Seems to me this matter is not as cut and dried as you assert.

    I would note, in conventional leftist fashion, you immediately launch into personal smear campaigns, insults and hyperbole, typical of people who cannot imagine someone may have a legitimate point of view departing from their own.

    I can see why people believe Obama must have been thoroughly vetted, that they think Obama couldn’t possibly be a plant, a shill for the radical left, an illegitimate occupant, a usurper.

    I can understand people think the certification of live birth is proof, and I can give them room to embrace their belief without condemning them as unpatriotic morons, something you and many others on the left seem incapable of, while at the same time you sing the praises of diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism and inclusion.

    Hypocrites.

    If there was no question of Obama’s natural born status, there would be no controversy, and no federal judge looking into the matter. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents have raised the question and continue its pursuit. Obviously, this is not a partisan effort.

    Experts have said the Hawaiian certification of live birth is not legal proof. Other experts have said the document produced by the Obama campaign is a forgery. You will note it is no longer available. The Obama people took the posting off their website: Fight the Smears. Why would they do that if it was proof positive of his Hawaiian birth?

    Additionally, some assert the definition of “natural born” includes a requirement both parents be citizens. Since Obama’s father was Kenyan, he trips up in that regard as well, allegedly, assuming the court embraces this aspect of the definition of “natural born.”

    There is also the issue of his having been made an Indonesian citizen by his mother and stepfather, and that his mother neglected to repatriate.

    You conveniently ignore all these aspects of the discussion, because you are not interested in the truth.

    Rather you are concentrated on justifying your foregone conclusions, and that leaves you a partisan propagandist, a mere octopus spraying ink in the water.

    So please spare me the high-minded self congratulations, the arrogance, and the condescension.

    Alan Keyes is 10 times the intellect you will ever be.

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Honor requires Obama prove he is a natural born citizen, something he has so far refused to do.

    Honor requires that you honor the documents from the State of Hawaii. You refuse to do so. The honor problem here is not Obama’s. Here, this post discusses the Federal Evidence Rules, and self-proving documents. Both the certificate Obama offered, and the newspaper accounts dug up by several different people, establish that Obama was born in Honolulu to an American citizen. End of legal story.

    If you wish to say you don’t like the evidence rules, say so — but then you have no basis to challenge anything on.

    If you follow the rules, you would need some evidence of a problem with that document. There is none. No one who has seen the document itself claims it has any problems, and no honorable document analyst or due diligence expert in the law would claim it as a forgery without having seen it. There are wild hallucinations that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu — unsupported by even a hearsay affidavit, and contradicted by the self-proving newspaper accounts. There is no evidence of any problem with the factual statement that Obama was born in Honolulu.

    I suppose that’s why you don’t like the Federal Rules of Evidence? Truth wins in a fair fight, Ben Franklin said, which is why we have rules of evidence in federal courts.

    Surely you would like a fair fight.

    It’s available in nine different images here, by the way:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Obama’s campaign site is down, yes — that’s a function of federal campaign law. It takes a particular form of deviousness to spin compliance with the law as something sinister.

    I would note, in conventional leftist fashion, you immediately launch into personal smear campaigns, insults and hyperbole, typical of people who cannot imagine someone may have a legitimate point of view departing from their own.

    I’m not the one participating in an unfair, unevidenced smear of the President. I’m not the one arguing against Hawaii’s statutory laws and the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. Let’s be clear: What you call “personal smear” is mere statement of fact. Hyperbole? Are you serious? Since when are evidence rules and birth certificates, and the complete absence of any contrary evidence, hyperbole?

    I can see why people believe Obama must have been thoroughly vetted, that they think Obama couldn’t possibly be a plant, a shill for the radical left, an illegitimate occupant, a usurper.

    You should see Jon Stewart’s account.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/23/jon_stewart_rips_into_birthers.html?wprss=44

    It is ludicrous to claim that someone hatched a plot 48 years ago to get Obama into the presidency, and that they created phony birth records to do that — as if getting elected president of the U.S. with popular and electoral college majorities is no big deal. As if raising a child qualified to get elected to a state legislature is no big deal, let alone write two best-selling books, get elected president of the Harvard Law Review, establish a half-million-dollar a year poverty-fighting organization, deliver a stem-winder of a speech electrifying the Democratic convention and nation in 2004, get elected to the U.S. Senate and beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. And the tough part is getting a birth certificate?

    If some conspiracy wanted so badly to get this unborn kid into the presidency 48 years ago, why not just have the mother stick to a hospital in Fairfax, Virginia, near Washington’s home? The supposed plot fails even a Nancy Drew mystery test.

    Were it so easy, I’m sure we’d have seen it — but the length and size of such a conspiracy, and the impossibility of keeping it secret, makes the claim positively laughable.

    I can understand people think the certification of live birth is proof,

    Well, yeah, that’s what we learned in evidence class, and that’s what we use in due diligence on big land deals. It’s the law, you know, supported by statute in at least 40 jurisdictions (including Hawaii) and backed by 800 years of common law. You don’t have to go to law school to learn that, but the lawyers who check the documents do learn that in law school. So, yes, it’s understandable that people would believe that document is valid.

    It’s not clear why anyone would say it isn’t valid, though — especially without having looked at the document itself.

    . . .and I can give them room to embrace their belief without condemning them as unpatriotic morons, something you and many others on the left seem incapable of, while at the same time you sing the praises of diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism and inclusion.

    Hypocrites.

    I think the hypocrites are those who drapes themselves in a polyester U.S. flag — violation of the Flag Code, by the way — and claim to be standing for the Constitution, while making false and unsupportable claims against the president, misstating Constitutional law, lying about citizenship law, hallucinating about documents that do exist and creating fantastic stories about documents that do NOT exist. Nothing in that scenario is patriotic or moral, nor even polite — but that’s what Berg and Keyes are doing.

    I can’t figure out why anyone would defend them. Surely you’ve looked at the evidence . . .

    If there was no question of Obama’s natural born status, there would be no controversy, and no federal judge looking into the matter.

    Surely if you were not born in Damascus and conspired with communists your entire life, surely if you had a birth certificate that proved you are an American, you’d side with Obama on this. (I presume you do have a birth certificate, but it is no more valid than the one the State of Hawaii issued to Obama, which you ridicule; I’ll wager you can’t pass the tests you claim you think Obama should.)

    Get serious. Anyone can make a false allegation and file a suit. Sometimes they even get to the judge. But it takes real evidence to make a claim stick — and so far about a dozen of these cases have been sent to the trash can. One of Berg’s cases got to a judge, and he issued warnings to Berg and his associates that such frivolous suits won’t be tolerated. Berg has produced no new evidence since then. I smell Rule 11 sanctions.

    Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents have raised the question and continue its pursuit. Obviously, this is not a partisan effort.

    Experts have said the Hawaiian certification of live birth is not legal proof. Other experts have said the document produced by the Obama campaign is a forgery.

    No expert has said the document is a forgery. That’s false. No one who has seen the document claims it’s a forgery. No one who claims it is a forgery can provide any evidence to suggest that any statement on it is inaccurate, including especially place of birth.

    Again, I say don’t take my word for it. Call your attorney, ask what it would take to prove your own birth certificate is authentic. Then ask your attorney how you could possibly prove it’s authentic if I were to send a telegram to the judge saying I know you forged it. In due diligence, in the real legal world, we deal with this sort of scam with some regularity — and from all the evidence we have, I can tell you there is a lot that corroborates Obama’s story exactly, and nothing admissible in court, nothing of any substance, that contradicts it.

    You will note it is no longer available. The Obama people took the posting off their website: Fight the Smears. Why would they do that if it was proof positive of his Hawaiian birth?

    I gave you a link to where you can see the image. No other candidate in history posted a birth certificate on the web and left it there for more than a year for all to see. Why would any candidate do that were it not accurate? Anyone savvy with the internet — and remember, Obama laid it over everyone on internet savviness — knows that such a bold display of a document will invite the loonies, hypocrites and malevolents to crawl out of the shadows and claim it’s false. That’s exactly what we see.

    Why has Obama’s campaign website come down? Because the campaign is over, and it needs to be wound up, legally. The images are still avialable in many sites.

    More critically, why hasn’t anyone come forward with information to suggest there’s a factual problem with that birth certificate, if there is one? The State of Hawaii has a legal duty to protect its use of the State Seal — the governor, a Republican who opposes Obama, says it represents accurately the records the state has. The head of vital records does, too.

    The newspaper accounts are solid evidence, self-proving, and not contradicted by anyone. A woman in the hospital with Obama’s mother, who gave birth to twins, and whose daughters grew up with Obama and attended his schools, vouches for the facts.

    This is ordinary stuff. You cannot offer any better evidence that you exist, let alone that you’re an American citizen.

    If you refuse to recognize the actions and statements of state and federal government, why should you not be considered a bit crazy?

    Additionally, some assert the definition of “natural born” includes a requirement both parents be citizens.

    So, you’re saying that Chester Alan Arthur wasn’t president? Since the issue was hot then, we now have a precedent that clearly stands on Obama’s side.

    You can’t show a case that shows one foreign parent negates the citizenship of a U.S.-born child. There is none.

    There is a law that says a child born to a foreign national is not considered a U.S. citizen, if the parent is either a diplomat of that nation, or in the active military service of that nation — but that doesn’t apply to Obama, since his father was neither a diplomat nor military.

    That’s it, the case against Obama is done. He’s a citizen, born in the U.S.A., born of a citizen mother (which would serve to make him eligible had he been born outside the U.S.). We have had presidents and vice presidents in his situation earlier, and the precedent is well established that the child is eligible for the presidency under Article II.

    Since Obama’s father was Kenyan, he trips up in that regard as well, allegedly, assuming the court embraces this aspect of the definition of “natural born.”

    Because he’s African? Poppycock. He was a British Commonwealth citizen — same as Arthur’s father.

    There is also the issue of his having been made an Indonesian citizen by his mother and stepfather, and that his mother neglected to repatriate.

    Oh? Where is the evidence of that legal procedure? No one can find it in Indonesia. The divorce papers don’t mention it. The State Department found no issue when they issued a passport to Obama. Where is the evidence of that procedure?

    You’re falling victim to multiple hoaxes. Hoaxes are not evidence.

    You conveniently ignore all these aspects of the discussion, because you are not interested in the truth.

    I have investigated each of those aspects, and I have found each of them to be false. I am interested in the truth — you have not even bothered to check out your own claims.

    Rather you are concentrated on justifying your foregone conclusions, and that leaves you a partisan propagandist, a mere octopus spraying ink in the water.

    Don’t slander our cephalopod friends.

    What foregone conclusion? All I ask is that you give the same credence to the documents that the law and the Constitution require. Your wished-for conclusion, that Obama not be president, colors your vision, and makes you unwilling even to check out the stories behind the claims you tout. Don’t lecture me about propaganda as you paste up another propaganda poster.

    So please spare me the high-minded self congratulations, the arrogance, and the condescension.

    I’ll leave that up to you, okay?

    Alan Keyes is 10 times the intellect you will ever be.

    Which makes him 10 times the hypocrite I could ever be. Surely he knows better, if he knows at all.

    Of course, he outweighs me significantly, too, and he’s not taken the oath to uphold the Constitution as often as I have. We’ll let that pass.

    What evidence does Keyes have? Not wild claims — what evidence does he have?

    Why didn’t Keyes bring that evidence out when he was running against Obama for the Senate seat?

    If Keyes is so smart, how come it took him so long to figure out who and where to sue? And why has ne not revealed any of his evidence?

  6. Allan Erickson says:

    It is not about the rules of evidence, it is about examining the evidence. Plaintiffs want discovery, to that end.

    You rely on FactCheck! HA. The same Annenberg outfit that funded Ayers and Obama to radicalize schools in Chicago. FactCheck indeed.

    Who needs the court system. We have ED!

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    You rely on FactCheck! HA. The same Annenberg outfit that funded Ayers and Obama to radicalize schools in Chicago. FactCheck indeed.

    See? That’s what I mean. You need to stop being sloppy and act like a journalist would.

    FactCheck is run by the University of Pennsylvania, not the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation and Ambassador Annenberg providing funding to Penn to set up the Annenberg Public Policy Center, but in its charter, under the laws of Pennsylvania, and according to the donation requirements, it is controlled by the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.

    FactCheck.org is one of the most respected media- and campaign-watchdog organizations on the planet. It is non-partisan, non-profit, accepting funding from no labor unions, businesses, or other organizations of a partisan nature. It is renowned for its fairness.

    Do you attack all fountains of fairnes? So far you’ve gone after the Federal Rules of Evidence, the U.S. Constitution, and FactCheck.org. I just got an e-mail from Earl Weaver, who wants to know why you’re being unfair to the umpires.

    FactCheck is not affiliated in any way with any education program of the Annenberg Foundation, anywhere.

    The project you obliquely refer to in Chicago was a pilot project of the right-wing Annenberg Foundation to improve education in inner-city areas. Right wing? Remember, Ambassador Annenberg was a close friend of Richard Nixon’s, until he broke with Nixon because Nixon was “too liberal.” Is it likely that a public policy foundation of a right-wing giant like Annenberg would be “radicalizing” schools in Chicago?

    No. It doesn’t make sense. And you’re accepting at face value hoax information from others, without checking it out.

    You need a court system, and apparently you need a copy editor with a solid gold excrement detector to edit your stuff and keep you out of trouble. Are you alleging that the Annenberg project in Chicaco was to “radicalize” students? That’s so far past a lie, it’s not even wrong.

    Here, let the Foundation speak for itself (go here for the actual release and links to the sources):

    RADNOR, PA: The Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University are making available all materials related to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

    Recent news reports have raised questions about the CAC, and about the availability of materials related to it. Many of these materials are archived at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the Annenberg Foundation on August 22, 2008 sent a letter to President B. Joseph White stating that the Foundation has no objection to opening the records to the public and that the Foundation is not blocking their release.

    A subset of the documents are also located at the Foundation’s offices in Radnor, PA, and at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform in Providence, RI. Consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that guide the work of the Foundation, these materials are now available to the public by appointment.

    On December 17, 1993, the Annenberg Foundation launched the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform with a five-year $500 million grant to revive and inspire school reform efforts in this nation. The Challenge brought together civic, business and university leaders, as well as foundations and other groups, in support of 18 school improvement projects, and it built broad public-private coalitions consisting of mayors, superintendents, principals, union leaders, civic leaders and community groups. The CAC was supported with a $49.2 million grant.

    ■ All participating sites in the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform were locally controlled and locally governed.

    ■ The Annenberg Foundation was not directly involved in the daily operations of any of the 18 challenge sites. This includes, but is not limited to: programming, staffing, or board composition.

    ■ Work related to programs, fundraising and development, research, and evaluation at individual Challenge sites during the grant period was undertaken through the local Challenge entities.

    ■ Founding members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board were: Susan Crown, vice president, Henry Crown Company; Patricia Graham, president, The Spencer Foundation, and former dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Stanley Ikenberry, president-emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, executive director, Field Foundation; Barack Obama; Arnold Weber, former president, Northwestern University, and president, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, executive director, Community Workshop on Economic Development.

    ■ The Chicago Annenberg Challenge has no record of providing any salary for William Ayers.

    ■ Three summative studies of the Annenberg Challenge were undertaken by the Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. All three documents — The Annenberg Challenge: Lessons and Reflections on Public School Reform, Research Perspectives on School Reform: Lessons from the Annenberg Challenge, and The Arts and School Reform: Lessons and Possibilities from the Annenberg Challenge Arts Projects — may be downloaded at http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Challenge/pubs/index.html

    For information about accessing CAC-related materials, please contact Joanne Cemini (610-341-9066) at the Annenberg Foundation or Darlene Westerberg (401-863-7990) at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. A list of available materials is posted on the respective web-sites of the Annenberg Institute (http://www.annenberginstitute.org) and the Annenberg Foundation (http://www.annenbergfoundation.org).

    View Related Articles from Education Week, October 9, 2008
    ■ Obama, Ayers, and Chicago School Reform by Dakarai I. Aarons
    ■ Sites Across Nation Pursued Similar Goals by Ann Bradley

    View Related Article from Newsweek, October 10, 2008
    Assessing Ayers: Innuendo vs. Information by Andrew Romano

    View Related Article from PolitiFact, October 10, 2008
    A radical Ayers allegation by Alexander Lane
    This article also appears on CQ Politics under the title ““Fact-Checking the Ayers Allegations: So Wrong, It’s “Pants on Fire” Wrong.”

    View Related Article from FactCheck.org, October 10, 2008
    “He Lied” About Bill Ayers? by Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson

    View Related Article from CBS News, October 13, 2008
    McCain’s False Claims On Bill Ayers by Laura Strickler

    Anybody who will call “radicalizing students” a program funded by the highly-respected Annenberg Foundation, designed to improve schools, will probably say anything about anybody.

    I think some of the birth-certificate-obsessed think Obama would lie about anything because they would lie about anything, and they don’t realize that the rest of us in the world actually don’t work that way.

    Don’t listen to their hoax stories. Now you know better about the Chicago Challenge, you know the claims about Ayers and Annenberg are bovine excrement, and you know FactCheck.org is not ruled by the Annenberg Foundation at all.

    That’s a start.

  8. Allan Erickson says:

    There is a difference between Annenberg the man, and the foundation today that bears his name. FactCheck is not perfect, but if you want to put all your chips there, in the words of Little Big Man to Custer, “you go on down there General.”

    If you think Ayers had no interest in radicalizing Chicago’s schools, and you think the millions pumped into those schools did any good, well, “you go on down there General.”

    If you think the Obama eligibility question is settled law and there is no threat to our Constitutional republic, then, “go on down there General.”

    And if you believe real journalists should shy away from asking the hard questions, then by all means, “go on down there,” and keep drinking the kool aid.

  9. Allan Erickson says:

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Allan, are you alleging that someone applied for a birth certificate for Obama after he was born out of the country?

    Notice the requirements of the law: ” . . . proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

    That didn’t happen, as you know. Obama’s parents hadn’t known each other for a year, and they never left Hawaii from his conception to his birth, so far as anyone knows.

    Moreover, the document that Hawaii issues in those cases is to accurately reflect the place of birth. Obama’s birth certificate says “Honolulu.”

    What’s your point?

  11. Allan Erickson says:

    According to the rules in Hawaii, if a person is born outside the state, they can obtain a certification of live birth from the state of Hawaii. All the plaintiffs are saying is the presentation of such a certification does not prove natural born status, and until such time as an actual birth certificate is presented, the question remains open. You appear willing to simply accept the official line from the White House and from state officials in Hawaii, yet both parties are having a hard time keeping their stories straight. How about a little healthy skepticism instead of simply toeing the official line? PS: at least one digital document expert says the certification of live birth is a forgery anyway, another matter that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if Obama is pedaling forged documents to provide cover for a fraudulent candidacy, violations mount. It should be noted again: a federal judge in Southern California has found there are sufficient reasons to examine these matters in open court. We shall see.

  12. Allan Erickson says:

    OBAMA, AYERS, ACORN, ANNENBERG, WOODS, SDS CONNECTIONS

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Obama will graciously take your apology at any time. Your readers, too, probably.

    You did see the news, yes?

    U.S.A. Today: Hawaii: “Obama birth certificate real” here:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
    Associated Press: “State declares Obama birth certificate real, again” here:
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmY0QbztBYUfvaCiGkFPJ-enKz_wD99N5J4O0

    There will be more stories, I’m sure.

  14. Allan Erickson says:

    Your gracious leader apparently ordered an operative to place a call to Fukino. Notice Gibbs’ coordinated effort with the statement from Hawaii. Don’t you recognize a propaganda campaign when you see one? So this is news? Didn’t Fukino make a similar proclamation months ago? Why does Lou Dobbs say the original certificate was destroyed? I’d like to learn his source on that. Will the federal judge dismiss based on Fukino’s assurances? Doubtful. We are all supposed to take Fukino’s word for it? Should it turn out undeniable proof is presented and Obama is shown natural born, the birthers owe no apology. Apologize for wanting to see the Constitution upheld and working to insure the integrity of our system? There will be more stories, to be sure.

  15. Allan Erickson says:

    “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”

    http://usjf.net/archives/1270

  16. Allan Erickson says:

    WND report today, excerpt:

    Hawaii’s Okubu refused to say whether the DOH has Obama’s original long-form birth certificate, explaining state law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.

    Okubu’s refusal to comment on the status of Obama’s long-form birth certificate seemed to contradict an Oct. 31, 2008, letter by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of health for the state of Hawaii. Fukino claimed she personally saw and could verify that Hawaii had Obama’s original long-form birth certificate on file.

    But both Okubu and Fukino are now on the record contradicting CNN’s claim that Hawaii had destroyed Obama’s long-form birth certificate when the health department went electronic in 2001.

    The White House has refused to acknowledge repeated requests from WND that Obama authorize the Hawaii DOH to release all his birth records, including his original long-form birth certificate.

    WND also has reported Obama has not released his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    WND also has reported Obama has not released his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    Look, I recommend you see a physician. This is entirely pathological.

    Kindergarten records? You want to know whether he napped well? Shame on you for even thinking this would be relevant, or should be released.

    Why do you want to violate the Buckley Amendment and get stuff from his high school? Shame on you twice. Other candidates were never held to such a standard, and Sen. Jim Buckley proposed that amendment especially because you have absolutely no business looking at the stuff. You’re not a trained psychologist, and if you were the laws would require that you keep any information like that secret.

    Pathological. Prurient.

    We know he attended the high school and graduated. If you’re curious, you could read Obama’s books. There is more public record knowledge about Obama’s high schooling than any other president, ever. You have all you need to know.

    I posted links to six articles about his time at Occidental College. Beyond that, there is nothing you need to know, nothing that could possibly be relevant to his eligibility to be president. Don’t crabwalk on us about an “Indonesian” scholarship. That issue was raised in an April Fool’s prank — stop falling for hoaxes, will you? We know he attended Occidental on scholarship. Check the press releases and newspaper accounts if you want more — but there’s nothing in his record that you need to know or which could be relevant to his eligibility under Article II.

    Pathological. Prurient.

    Columbia University and Harvard Law records are private. You know that. There is nothing you need to know there, nothing that sheds light on his eligibility. And, why in the world do you want access to stuff that you shouldn’t have by law, when you haven’t bothered to get what is available?

    Harvard and Columbia: Two of the finest universities in the world. One must be in the top 1% or less of students to get into either — and incredibly good to get into both.

    What more do you need to know?

    Oh, yeah — he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most prestigious journals in the world. He did a great job. He was the first African American elected to that job. The conservatives on the Review said he was fair, and smart, and they liked his campaign for the job. They liked the job he did. He performed fantastically in law school, and because of his stellar performance and compelling story, he got a contract from a major publisher to write a memoir. That book became a best-seller, inspiring thousands who read it.

    All of that is public. All of that is way beyond what you could learn from the private records. You’re acting like an opposition research person, and having had to deal with those people before, let me say that’s no compliment.

    Columbia thesis? Go to Columbia’s library and read it. Harvard Review articles? Is there a law library in your state? (It’s available on line, too, but I gather you’re internet challenged.)

    Scholarly articles from Chicago U? He was adjunct faculty. Adjuncts are not paid to write, not expected to write. While he did that, he also established a great poverty-fighting organization and led it to a half-million dollar a year operation, pushing kids and families out of poverty. You want him to write, too?

    He did write another best-seller. You could read it, but it’s not “suppressed.” You probably won’t find what you want in it.

    You know, with two memoirs, with so much of his life being in public, one begins to get the idea that your quest is not an honest quest for information. The questions you ask have been answered, but you can’t be troubled to read the answers. Your reading laziness is not justification to violate the privacy of any citizen, even the president of the U.S.

    Medical records? You really are perverse. What we need to know, we know. No one releases all their records. Of what possible use would those records be to this issue?

    This will come as a shock to you, I know: The records of the Illinois State Senate are on-line, readily available for anyone to see.

    Bar Association records? You can check his bar card number, see that he was licensed (since put on dormant status), and you can see that there were no ethical complaints filed against him. If you have a law library in your state, you can check Martindale-Hubbell and see what other lawyers think of him.

    What adoption records? Why baptism records — do you really hate the First Amendment so much?

    I can get you a copy of the video of his last proctological exam — I assume you want that, too.

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    By the way, can I have the results of your last procto exam? I’m a plaintiff, and I want to know. I wonder if you’re affected by hemorrhoids the way Napoleon was.

    Why would you object? Give us the records.

  19. Allan Erickson says:

    In the interest of fairness, until now, I couldn’t decide if you were a professional provocateur, an ObamaTron, or a pathological jerk. Thanks for clearing things up for me. My bad for trying to have an adult discussion with a toddler.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: