January 24, 2011

The story that won't go away

Sam Smith

Just because a story shouldn't matter doesn't mean that it won't. A case in point is the controversy about Barack Obama's birthplace. The standard liberal response to this issue has been to dismiss those questioning the president's place of birth as wing nuts. The problem is that, as Hawaii's new governor - and a friend of the Obama family - noted recently, the issue is certain to come up in the 2012 election and thus needs to be dealt with.

And Governor Neil Abercrombie takes it somewhat personally as "I knew his mum and dad. I was here when he was born."

Both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin published announcements of the birth of a son to Mr and Mrs Barack Obama on August 4, 1961.

So if you want to insist that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii then you not only have to believe that Governor Abercrombie is a liar but that the notices in the newspapers of the time were false. And why? Could it be that Obama's parents were launching his presidential campaign that early?

Unfortunately, however, one hard fact makes this story more complicated, namely that the state of Hawaii, citing its laws, will not release the president's full birth record and Obama has failed to asked it to do so.

While the first problem can be written off to legalistic obstinacy, the second is, to put it gently, curious. Why does a Harvard lawyer let such a claim continue to fester in public without taking the simple steps necessary to quash it?

The state has produced what might be called a certificate of the certificate, giving the basics of what the original document purportedly says. CNN has suggested that the original certificate no longer exists since all such records were discarded in 2001 but the state denies it. Hawaii is, in effect, denying the absence of something it can't or won't produce.

No one has come up with a good answer for all this, but several explanations spring to mind: perhaps the original birth certificate has disappeared. Perhaps there is some other information on the form that might embarrass Obama. Or that perhaps that natural born problem, Rahm Emmanuel, told Obama to screw it and let the complainers go to hell.

Certainly the way Obama handled the matter during the campaign was strange. FactCheck.org alone was invited to view a hard copy of the original document and later reported:

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."

But why not just tell Hawaii to let a pool of reporters and lawyers view the actual document?

The problem remains odd and is getting odder.

Further, Governor Abercrombie's effort to resolve it has come to naught. According to Abercrombie, he was told by the state attorney general that he can't see the original certificate without the consent of the individual involved.

But this is not new information. This has been the state's legal position all along and Abercrombie presumably knew it from the start. Yet a day earlier, the British Daily Mail had reported:

"Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

"But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

"And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. . .

"He acknowledged the birth certificate issue would have 'political implications' for the next presidential election 'that we simply cannot have.'"

Neither Abercrombie through his public inquiry nor Obama through his silence seems to have helped matters. Why they are playing this game remains a question.

The irony is that, in the end, it really doesn't matter.

First of all, several judges have already rejected cases involving the matter - undoubtedly in part on the unspoken grounds that determining that Obama was not entitled to be president would tear the country apart as never before, especially when the argument is based on something as shaky as his whereabouts during a stage of life when he couldn’t even pee in a toilet, let along speak the mother tongue.

Second, there is quite an interesting history of public figures being challenged and an equally interesting history of nothing much happening as a result. A few cases citied in Wikipedia:
|||| - Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada. This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. . .

- The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance.

* George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship. George Romney therefore had no allegiance to a foreign country.

* Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.

* Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.

* RĂ³ger Calero (born 1969) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.

* John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs: "A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter Dobbs a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital." . . . |||||

There are other reasons not to get too worked up about all this, a key one being that even if Obama's birth was contrary to the Constitution, it would rank of one of the mildest violations of said document over the past few decades under both Republican and Democratic presidents (including Obama). Far better to tend to things like the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments that are in serious trouble.

Driving this cause appears to be much of the same myopic miasma that allows the right to fixate on the sanctity of life still in the womb and then to become ideologically indifferent to it forever thereafter. Given their obsession, we should be grateful that they are not demanding videographic proof that Obama was conceived in Hawaii.

Finally, perhaps the best reason not to worry about this issue is that the definition of a "natural born citizen" has been a topic of a heated debate throughout our history. It wasn't well defined at the time of the Constitution was drafted and it hasn't been since.

The lawyers in the house can enjoy it all by reading this brief history


Or they might want to study Charles Gordon's paper in the Fall 1968 Maryland Law Review entitled "Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma."

Little did he know how prescient he was.

A few passages give the feel:

|||| From today's vantage point in history, 180 years after the Constitution was adopted, several aspects of this formulation are puzzling. In the first place, the Framers here and at other points in the Constitution referred to citizens of the United States, but nowhere specified who were to be regarded as citizens.'

In any event, as originally adopted, the Constitution's only oblique and inconclusive reference to the acquisition of citizenship was its grant of authority to Congress "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." This omission to define citizenship persevered until 1868, when the fourteenth amendment was adopted. . .

A second puzzling aspect of the constitutional prescription is its naked, again undefined, reference to the "natural-born." The presidential qualification clause is the sole instance of this term's appearance in the Constitution.' The only explanation for the use of this term is the apparent belief of the Framers that its connotation was clear. With the passage of the years this has proved a mistaken assumption. . .

A third puzzling element of the constitutional declaration is its specification that the presidential aspirant must have "been fourteen years a resident of the United States." If the Framers were speaking only of the native-born, this limitation would hardly have been necessary. It can doubtless be urged that this residence qualification was intended to relate only to the portion of the qualification clause dealing with citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. But while the language of the qualification clause obviously includes this group, it is not in context limited to them. Indeed, it seems consistent with a supposition that the "natural-born" qualification was intended to include those who had acquired United States citizenship at birth abroad. . . |||

My favorite legal analysis cited is this: "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite observed that. . . 'The Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people."

The search for precedents began early and ran deep. A Mr. Burke stood up in the First Congress and observed that "The case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."

And Gordon writes that "In 1343, the situation of the foreign-born children of British subjects was discussed in Parliament. There was general agreement that the status of such children should be clarified in order to eliminate any doubts as to their rights of inheritance as Englishmen. The enactment of legislation was delayed by the ravages of the plague in England. However, in 1350, Parliament did enact a law for the express purpose of resolving existing doubts, which declared that the children born beyond the sea to British subjects 'shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages' as their parents in regard to the right of inheritance. The first reference to such children as natural-born subjects apparently was in a 1677 law, which dealt with the children of persons who had fled to foreign countries during the Cromwell era, and declared such persons to be natural-born subjects."

Gordon also cited Justice Goldberg's wise admonition that an "isolated phrase in the United States Constitution [cannot be] rigidly interpreted without regard to other relevant provisions and to time and circumstance."

So basically it's a huge natural born mess and one that would take more than Obama's potential six remaining years to resolve if it ever made it to court. I personally suggest a rule of thumb that children are natural citizens as long as at least one of their parents is one and provided that the kids arrive on American soil at least by the time they can, of their own volition, poop in the pot - the first outward and visible sign that they are willing to submit to the system.

The matter, however could be far more easily resolved if someone would just come up with that damn birth certificate. Hawaii, for example, could change its law to permit it, or Obama could simply request that it be released. As it is, he has hurt himself and provided a feast for fools.

The back story

Washington Post, 2008 - During his time in Hawaii, the elder Obama seemed adept at walling off various aspects of his life. He eventually told Ann about a former marriage in Kenya but said he was divorced, which she would discover years later was a lie. . . Hal Abercrombie said he never saw them together. Pake Zane, who left the island for a spell in 1961, could not recall Ann from those days but had precise memories of Obama.

Neil Abercrombie did remember her appearing at some of the weekend gatherings. Obama was such a strong personality, he said, that he could see how the young woman was awed and overwhelmed by him. "She was a girl, and what I mean by that is she was only 17 and 18, just out of high school. And he brought her at different times. She mostly observed because she was a kid. Everybody there was pretty high-powered grad-student types."

Before the end of her first semester, Ann learned she was pregnant. The jolt that most parents might feel at such news from a teenage daughter was intensified for the Dunhams by the fact that the father was Obama. . .

Seattle Times - [Maxine] Box, 65, was Dunham's best friend at Mercer Island High School, where they were members of the Class of 1960. . .

When her father took a job selling furniture in Hawaii, Dunham moved with them and enrolled in the University of Hawaii. Not long after, Dunham wrote Box that she had met a Kenyan grad student named Barack Obama. They married and had a son. . .

Dunham eventually remarried an Indonesian man and moved to Jakarta. At one point, she sent her son, Barack, back to Hawaii to live with her parents for a year.

Box last saw her friend in 1961, [Obama was born in August 1961] when she visited Seattle on her way from Honolulu to Massachusetts, where her then-husband was attending Harvard. "She seemed very happy and very proud," she said. "She had this beautiful, healthy baby. I can see them right now.". . .

The marriage was brief. By 1962, Dunham had returned to Seattle as a single mother, enrolling in the UW for spring quarter and living in an apartment on Capitol Hill. But friends said she got overwhelmed and returned to her family in Hawaii, and formally divorced Obama Sr. in 1964.


Anonymous said...

The best reason I can think of for Obama not ordering the release of the original is that allows the right wing to continue demonstrating what a bunch of brainless fools they are to the independents.

kismetique said...

Regarding your newspaper announcement that you seem to so proudly post as some sort of evidence:

Who is Mrs. Obama?
Who is son?

While common sense leads us to believe that Mrs. Obama was in fact Ann Dunham and son refers to Obama Jr. the newspaper announcement simply would not stand up in a court of law as evidence of anything except a baby boy was born to 2 people with the last name of Obama.

Furthermore, anyone can place an announcement in a newspaper. My parents placed an announcement in the newspaper of the town they both were born in for friends and family to be informed of my birth. My announcement also appeared in the city newspaper where I was born. No, I don't think my parents or Obama's parents conspired to create a history for either of us. Incidentally, I was born in 1961 as well.

Your article then jumps into more more murky waters and seems to ramble on and on about things that borderline the truth and out and out lies.

Personally, I think it matters, but I also am starting to be of the opinion that Obama is a NBC because I don't think I believe that Obama Sr. is the father of record anymore.

I believe Hawaii most definitely has a copy of the original long-form. Being born in the same year as Obama, I know for a fact that my Health Dpt has a copy of mine and I also know for a fact that my COLB that looks just like Obama's was not acceptable to get my passport; therefore, I had to VERBALLY request my long-form BC to get my passport.

I also think that Obama's BC has been amended. This was discovered through the FOIA's in their responses or lack thereof. Fukino said she had seen his birth record(S). I don't know about you, but I only have 1 birth certificate - yes, Fukino saw more than 1 record for Obama. How many BC's does he have for pete's sake!

There is too many oddities surrounding this BC mess not to know that something is amiss. Personally, I think it is probably something as silly as an embarrassing entry on his original.

I find it odd that he doesn't possess enough ethics about him to end this charade. History will mark his presidency with this and seemingly he could care less.

Anonymous said...

Obama CANNOT order Hawaii to release the original birth certificate. Hawaii law states that birth certificates cannot be shown or put on display. They can only be sent to the applicant and a select list of others. Hence Hawaii cannot release the original (unless it changes its law).

So,you could say: "Well then Obama could ask Hawaii to send him a copy and then release it himself." But that is exactly what he has already done. He asked Hawaii for his birth certificate in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the short-form birth certificate, which is what it sends to everyone and has been the official birth certificate since 2001.

But then you might say: "But he could ask Hawaii to send him a copy of the original and then release that." Well, that gets in the question: "What is wrong with the official birth certificate?" and "should a president imply that there is something wrong with the official birth certificate by asking for the original one?" and "if everyone else in Hawaii gets along with the short-form birth certificate, why should a president ask for anything special?"

And besides, asking for the original is unnecessary. The officials of the former Republican governor's administration (three officials including the former governor herself) have repeatedly confirmed that the official birth certificate is accurate in the facts that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Obama's birth certificate is NOT amended. If there is any amendment or change in a birth certificate the birth certificate must state that it was amended on the certificate, and that goes both for the original and the new official birth certificate.

Obama certainly has a lobng-form original birth certificate in his filer. That was the stated in the first of the two confirmations of the Republican officials. The second said that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, as I said, although the original is in the file, Hawaii cannot display it (unless it changes the law) and it does not send out the original anymore.

Re Obama's father. Obama's father on the original long-form birth certificate is EXACTLY the same as on his official birth certificate--Barack Senior. The erason that we can be certain of this is that the facts on the official birth certificate came from the original birth certificate. They were entered by a clerk in 2007, that is how the system works.

The fact that Obama's father was not a citizen has absolutely no effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status. ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are natural born. Only naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Furthermore, anyone can place an announcement in a newspaper."

This actually is not true. In 1961 Hawaii birth announcements WERE NOT ADVERTISEMENTS. They were notices, ONLY notices; the newspapers did not accept short birth advertisements, and they were only sent to the newspapers by the department of vital records.

Some birthers have claimed (with no evidence to support them) that a family member could just walk into the Hawaii birth registry and claim that the child was born at home, and the officials had to accept this claim without any proof and issue a birth certificate.

This turns out to be very wrong. There is good evidence that if there was a claim that the a child were born at home, then Hawaii demanded a written notarized statement from a witness, such as the doctor or midwife. However, we know that Obama was not born at home. He was born in Kapiolani Hospital, as both the former governor of Hawaii, the current governor of Hawaii and a witness have all said.

horseu said...

As kismetique mentioned, it is not at all unusual for parents to place a birth announcement in their hometown newspaper, no matter where the child was born. This does not require a conspiracy.

Likewise, Abercrombie does not have to be a liar to say "I knew his mum and dad. I was here when he was born." I didn't know his mum and dad, but I was here when he was born - wherever he was born. Abercrombie's statement can be true and still tell us absolutely nothing about where Obama was born.

erikSF99 said...

The question is: why should anyone, particularly leftists and liberals, give Obama a pass on this? For god sake, look at his last 2 financial-criminal-insider appointments. Obama's administration is of,by,for the bankers and the military-insecurity complex. He's extended and expanded the PATRIOT act; he's extended illegal detentions; he's approved assassination of U.S. Citizens; he's expanded the war into Pakistan and daily kills people with drones. He's sent millions of Americans into poverty. He's reversed on Card Check. He lied about Guantanamo. He's still got secret torture prisons. His commission on the deficit was loaded with anti-Social Security zealots. The man is a criminal under the Nuremburg War Crimes standards. He's broken every promise--he lied from day one--or before: He pressured the Black Caucus (including my representative Barbara Lee) to vote for the phony banker bailout. He's pushing for renewed nuclear energy. He appointed another corporate philosoph to the Supreme Court. This is the short list.

The man is a monster--and you want to sit back and NOT get him out of office on a "technicality"? You think getting such a monster out of office would cause a constitutional crisis? We ALREADY have one! What is up with you all? Do you still believe the "Yes We Can" rhetoric? What is going on here?

A doctor who has pursued the Obama birth certificate controversy pointed out that Obama's grandparents took the birth announcement out simply because ANYONE would have wanted to have their child have the benefits of U.S. citizenship--not because they knew the baby would be president.

Of course, it's simple. There is no long-form birth certificate. I'm sure they could come up with a beautiful fake--but they should have done that from the git-go. They are probably afraid now that if they tried to sneak in a fake that someone would blow the whistle. AND with all the attention focused on Hawaii, suddenly having staffers associated with the files er...you know...suddenly dying and so on would be too noticed. So now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

AGAIN, my question is: if you call yourself liberal, progressive, leftist why are you NOT also demanding to see the original long-form? Why on EARTH do you NOT want to see Obama out of office or not running? Just as they got the gangsters on avoiding taxes and not on their actual criminal activities, why not get Obama on THIS lie even though the real big lies are the real reason for going after him.

Seriously, can anyone explain why Obama should be given a pass on this? Why do you call the "right-wing" brainless fools? I cannot think of anything more brainless than, as of 1-25-11, defending Obama.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii allowed people to register home births by affidavit signed by a single witness. If he were born abroad, he wouldn't have qualified for citizenship based on the rules in place at the time. Therefore, it makes sense that his mother or grandmother would've filed an affidavit of home birth with the state in order to qualify him for citizenship. The newspaper announcements would've been generated from that registration, as would the "Certification" that was posted in 2008.

It's not a grand conspiracy; it's just a young mother making sure that her son would have that basic advantage in life, and the lax administrative standards of a distant, tropical state only two years into the union.

As for your contention that it doesn't really matter anyways, I find that pretty offensive. You can't pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution you think should apply or not. In any event, I don't think it's coincidental that the strength of the opposition to Obama has continued to intensify as more and more people continue to learn the truth about his failure to practice that "transparency" that he preached about on the campaign trail

But most importantly, all it will take will be for one state to pass a properly worded ballot requirement for 2012, and this issue will be front and center everywhere you want to look. If it then turns out to be true that he's not eligible, the devastation that will be wreaked upon the Democratic Party for decades to come will be incalculable. You may come to seriously rue the day you dismissed this issue as not particularly important.

Anonymous said...

Obama, the lie, and his operatives will not come clean ... perhaps cannot come clean because his original birth certificate has been destroyed ... according to Obama his father was Kenyan therefore a British subject ... assuming that his father was Kenyan therefore his father was a British subject it appears that according to U.S. Constitution he [Obama] cannot legally serve as President of the United States.
So, Obama is Hawaiian or is he Lyin?

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the food for fools closing. I was born a bastard child. My parents hid from family in Alaska for six months and falsified documents to change my birth date. I discovered this 26 years later – by getting the long form from the hospital. 1960. These were not bad people. Your article brings up interesting conundrums of the whole affair. I trust it was not written for fools to read and absorb. My take is he was born at his grandparent’s home and that his granddad signed as the father. However, less than a fool can consider that he was not born in the US given the travel history of his mother and father. All documentation points to that being very logically possible. Too your other point—who cares? I do. I expect the white house to face hard topics – as you say, at this point he would not be impeached. It is simply not a foolish position, as you have also taken it, to allow HI to release what documents they have. Face the torment of crazy talk and lead with integrity. Currently they are not leading on this. Reminds me of “that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” Or, [Tapes? What tapes?]

Anonymous said...

OK! The 'Birthers' are 100% correct. Barak Obama is not a Naturalized Citizen of the United States of America.

In fact, no one born in the Kingdom of Hawaii is a Naturalized US citizen.

The USA occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii was is a blatant act of racist imperialism which was completed in 1960 after International Laws forbide such actions.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation with diplomatic relations with several powers.

The Birthers should be willing to go all the way in challenging Obama's citizenship and declare that nobody born in this stolen Kingdom is a US Citizen unless they went through the immigration process.

And in the vote for statehood no native Hawaiian voted. It was a sham orchestrated by Missionaries who formed the Republican Party of Hawaii and encouraged immigration of US Whites to the island while at the same time promoting genocidal policies of ethnic cleansing on the Hawaiians.

A similar case can be made of Texas as this was the territory of a sovereign nation of Mexico but invasion and conquest were the norm in the 19th Century and this was not a sovereign nation but a portion. The Kingdom of Hawaii is a different matter and its statehood is fraudulent coming when it did.

So yes! Birthers. Obama is neither a US Citizen nor anyone else born in the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Mark said...

I never supported Obama and Biden. I voted for Cynthia McKinney. And I hope Obama is one term.

That said, the "birth" story is bogus. It's a misdirection from the real story that McCain was born in Panama, not the United States of America. Hawai'i was a state when Obama was born. The Panama Canal Zone was a zone of occupation, it was not a state of the United States. The Republicans are very good at this sort of thing. It's similar to the attack on Kerry's service record used to cover up Bush going AWOL from the National Guard.

The birther fake controversy allows the Obama administration to keep liberals from bolting, since if the alternative to Obama is thinly veiled racism, few liberals will dare criticize Obama's continuation of the most important Bush policies.

up yours, Mark said...

Fuck you, Mark, opposition to endless resource war, societal and planetary destruction by a fascist tool is " thinly veiled racism"? Why does your dumb ass think the corporatists, bankers and psychopaths chose a Black tool? Maybe because honest criticism could then be called racism?

erikSF99 said...

Dear "Up Yours", I think Mark was actually saying what you said. Mark is saying that the Obama administration casts the "birthers" as racists and, by implication, the Obama administration casts ANY criticism of Obama as racist. This is something you read all the time in "liberal" press. According to them "The bottom line is if you are criticizing Obama you are doing it because you are a racist." What a crock!

On the other hand, I find it "racist" that just because Obama is black liberals believe he is more trustful, honest, real, caring. I find it "racist" that just because Obama is black liberals believe he is automatically on the side of working people and poor people. These liberals are racist because they cannot see beyond skin color to see that Obama is exactly what "up yours" says he is: a tool of corporatists, banksters and psychopaths.

In fact, I am racist and can't see beyond skin color because I'm willing to call Obama a "tool". You've all read dozens of times articles by writers who are "confused" why someone so "obviously intelligent" as Obama has done this or not done that. You've read how someone as "clearly intelligent" as Obama must know what's going on, "so why hasn't he done xxx". ALL of these articles imply that "underneath" Obama is the honest black man liberals believe he is but his hands are tied. I'm telling you, if Obama is as truly intelligent as everyone says he is then that means he knows exactly what he is doing and it means he is a Willing Member of the Destructive Class--he's a full-time 100% conscious destroyer of the lives of people in the U.S. and everywhere.

Anonymous said...

After reading these comments, it it clear to me that these "birthers" are completely insane. Feeding them can be harmful to one's sanity.

Anonymous said...

Excellent short summary erikSF99,
and you did not even mention Good soldier Manning, law abiding patriot under the Nuremberg principles, now being deliberately tortured by Obama.

Anonymous said...


What reason do you have to believe that the issue could be "resolved if someone would just come up with that damn birth certificate"?

If one believes the current Certificate of Live Birth to be inauthentic, why would one believe the alleged original to be authentic?

Look, a certificate is not a birth; it is a piece of paper that purports to certify that the birth took place as reported on said certificate. So if HI releases the original certificate, it will get the Birthers no closer to seeing the damn birth with their own eyes.

One of the defining characteristics of conspiracy theories is that they cannot be disproved. I'm guessing that Obama gets that and that is the reason he's ignoring the issue.

Mark Robinowitz said...

I have had "leftists" who were happy when I publicly opposed Cheney & Bush's genocide in Iraq call me a "racist" for opposing Obama's continuation of wars.

But this is the first time I've ever had someone suggest that I supposedly support Obama and am sheltering him from criticism.

I think all of the anger in our society as things collapse is turning off the ability of people to think clearly. This problem seems about as big on the liberal left side of the spectrum as the conservative side.

Sorry for the term, because it's not nice, but I'm surprised that "Uncle Tom" hasn't been used more in discussing the Obama phenomenon.

Obama reminds me much more of General Colin Powell than Martin Luther King. Powell covered up the crime of empire at My Lai and went on to bomb Panama and Iraq. He will be remembered mostly for his shameful performance at the UN about Iraq just before Bush the Lesser's attack. MLK, of course, denounced imperialism, something you won't ever hear from Obama.