Do you realize that you are giving credence to a nonexistent document every time you mention it as such?
People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth.
He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Factcheck was complicit in passing this forgery off as a genuine facsimile, and perpetuating this document fraud.
Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate.
On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth." HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known. What makes it a forgery?
Many people who also saw this image had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently. Here is an annotated list of them:
* The image contains digital signatures of Photoshop
* Only one side of alleged COLB shown (COLB is two-sided)
* Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
* Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
* Missing the State Registrar's signature
* Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data
* Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
* Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background layer
* Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
* Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for the border
* Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
* Border pattern is more blurred than the background
* Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
* Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
* Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
* Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text
* White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
* Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
* Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
* Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the image
The bottom line is that this image would NEVER have been created naturally from an actual document, and the irrefutable proof is that this image was constructed from other images, and not from a real paper document.
The consensus among all of us who first saw this a year ago, was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored. What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it. They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way.
Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama. The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE
In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery.". Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus, as in "also fabricated." We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud. So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website.
Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus.
For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides.
Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported my conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images.
A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
Does anyone see a pattern here?
From the first day he ran for President, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become President. But, he ran anyway. Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
Well, it's a lot more than that. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our Government, our Judiciary, our Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is Constitutionally qualified to become President.
Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
There is no question that Obama fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen. But, what about the question of document fraud? Has a crime been committed? Who's responsible?
What if a President was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
Conspiracies in Presidential elections do happen. Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat. It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?" Where, indeed.
Either, show us your real, "vault" birth certificate, or step down.
We will no longer accept forgeries from you.
Comments (34)
So you're saying the jigs up?
Where are the documents? Is this site answering legimate questions?>
Obama was born in Hawaii. That's a long long post just to get so much wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You are so wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/joseph-farahs-lie-about-w_b_152570.html
He could end this immediately but doesn't for some reason. Its not going away when even his former supporters are starting to wonder.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/joseph-farahs-lie-about-w_b_152570.html
End this immediately? Conspricy theory followers never give up. They just allege cover ups. Then, if somebody investigates to see if there was a cover up, and none is found, the conspiracy theory followers say that investigation was a cover up too.
There is nothing in the world Obama could do to "End this immediately." If he took all the birth certificate doubters in a time machine back to his birth in Hawaii the doubters still would not be persuaded. For some psychological reason the theory supporters need to believe what they do.
Huffington Post ??? Factcheck ???
Now 'there' are two unimpeachable neutral blogs. HA !!!
How about some bi-partisan blog comments.... there are none ...
"Ron Polarik" does not exist.
It would be so easy to disprove all of your points, if only the fascist usurper would produce a legitimate Hawaiian birth certificate. But he can't produce something that doesn't exist. Give his thugs a little more time to make one.
This site has been rigged so that the posts asking for Obama to support transparency by providing his own birth certificate, health records and college records are not properly counted, even when they do not get deleted. An apologist for Obama responds to most posts with the dishonest comment that you can find a real copy of a birth certificate on factcheck - where a long exposed counterfeit birth certificate does reside.
I have done a personal count of more than 1,000 requests for his birth certificate. My analysis suggests there have been at least 5,000 request for Obama to produce his real birth certificate, college records, health records and other financial records.
It is possible to review this site to find the most requested ideas by scanning "Top Rated" posts, but the requests for Obama's records do not show up as being top rated. Those runnig this site are cooking the results.
According to the liars running this website the most requested item has NOT been Obama's birth certificate.
(My email is ricardomigrant@aol.com - include your email address if you want me to reply to you)
The Audactiy of Truth about Barack Hussein Obama's Upbringing
http://www.jeffhead.com/obamaupbringing.htm
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905280018
Like mediamatters.org is not a "left wing" blog???
The man is a Charlatan, a hoax, a fraud, a "Manchurian Candidate............ and etc."
Couple of things are bothersome.
1) The substantial effort and legal costs expended by Obama to avoid disclosing his birth cert.;
2) The fact that if Obama had a birth certificate, he would not need or have a Certification of Live Birth.
3) Most importantly, if the Certification is a forgery as argued in the letter above, what evidence does anyone have that Obama is a natual born citizen? (Other than, “Hawaii said so” - which it did not, or “He said so”.)
Perhaps someone like creeksneakers2 above can tell us how they know Obama was born in Hawaii?
This is taking the fight to the beast’s cave. ;^)
Skydiver: Snopes.com also points out that the daily newspaper in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth published an announcement of his birth. How can you forge something into a newspaper 49 years old?
Snopes......??? It's a research blog but not entirely believable if there is any question a liberal being caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
If it can "point out" the daily newspaper, then certainly they have the resources to make a legible copy of the information for distribution. Can you "point out" where to find the article??
The upshot??? There is no information to support his authentic Hawaian birth certificate.... The man is a fake....
Creeksneaker2: Well, some have tried to argue the announcement was a forgery, but I don't think that is necessary. It likely was a contemporaneous newspaper placement. Any family member could have phoned the newspaper and provided the info. One can't know if it was a valid placement until the public looks at a valid certificate.
Some have speculated that G'ma, an officer in a local bank, was aware of the difficulties the large group of Hawaiian non-citizens were having with bank loans, etc. It is thought that she may have determined the ad was a way to avoid those troubles.
Is a newspaper announcement that does not list a Hospital, and could have been placed by anyone, the basis for your belief Obama was born in Hawaii?
How do you deal with the three points in my earlier post?
"Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text data"
The background is green. The pixels between the characters are white. This is prove positive the text was applied by software, not integral to the scan.
Anyone can produce his or her birth certificate, but Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., or Barry Soetero, or whoever this person is has spent tens of thousands of dollars and used intimidation and other abuse of power to avoid that.
A logical inference is that the person does not satisfy the clause in Article II Section 1 Paragraph 6 requiring the president be a natural born Citizen.
Skydiver:
See! Ask for proof and when it comes, zappo! It isn't accepted. Some drastically far fetched explanation is offered. Obama's family put a birth announcement in the paper because they had loan problems? How in the world would that help loan problems? Crazy.
Creeksneakers2:
Come on now, you didn't present conclusive proof of anything, you raised a fact for discussion. I gave you a plausible answer and you then add words to my answer and call it crazy.
Please understand the newspaper announcement is not relevant to the issues that bother me.
What bothers me, and millions of others, is not where Obama was born, but why he obstinately refuses to disclose his birth documents and any other records that in the normal course would be available.
At the least, such refusal seems to reflect an unhealthy perspective of one's place in the community. Particularly, when one has an obligation to qualify for the office of the president. We didn't let McCain get away with it, it only seems fair that Obama satisfy that obligation as well.
It is your turn to comment on the remaining 2 points raised in my initial post.
Here's a link to my 160-page research report covering my five-month study of Obama's alleged "Certification of Live Birth:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com
In it you will find all of the proof you need.
FROM WORLD NET DAILY:
'Transparent' White House blacklists 'birthers'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100035
They are scrubbing them as fast as they appear.
Hairlip:
You can see scans of the actual newspaper pages here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
The investigation by Snopes here:
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Skydiver, you write:
"What bothers me, and millions of others, is not where Obama was born, but why he obstinately refuses to disclose his birth documents...."
I think you are answering your own question of why Obama refuses to go further with this. You don't really care where he was born. So why are you asking?
I don't know your individual reasons for asking, but some common ones are a desire to get something on Obama, or to sense a teen vandalism rush from disturbing people and pressuring a powerful person to bow to your will, or feeling the excitement of being part of a crazed mob.
There is no reason for Obama to provide anything else. If we look at the verification by Hawaii, the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements and listen the the birthers, their entire theory of why this isn't proof includes:
The birth certificate is a forgery.
The government of Hawaii is in on a conspiracy to make fraudulent claims of American birth of the president.
(Let me guess, I haven't heard a response to the newspaper announcements yet) There is a conspiracy by Snopes and others to forge two Hawaiian newpaper pages from decades ago,
Do you see how improbable it would be for all these things to be true at once? Especially since the birth certificate forgery allegation has been debunked. Suppose Obama provides the "live birth record" or whatever it is. What's to stop you guys from claiming that's a forgery too? Obama and everybody else knows you'll never be satisfied by the truth because the truth isn't what you're after.
You write:
"At the least, such refusal seems to reflect an unhealthy perspective of one's place in the community. Particularly, when one has an obligation to qualify for the office of the president."
You seem to think that the president is obligated to submit to any questions, no matter how stupid, from any member of the public who asks. The president has no such duty. How could he get anything else done if he has to disprove every accusation his enemies can dream up?
I believe the president has an obligation to answer questions in response to a Congressional subpoena. However, GW Bush didn't comply with that, even when significant public business was involved and not just some fishing expedition for embarrassing information in college transcripts. Bush claimed the entire executive branch was under executive privilege and Congress wasn't entitled to information at all. Bush refused on many occasions to allow his staff to appear when subpoenaed. He also refused to provide subpoenaed documents. A subpoena was served on Condi Rice. She just plain didn't show up. Congress found the White House in criminal contempt. Bush's response was a terrifying abuse of power, he simply ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute. Under those rules, no president would ever have to answer anything to Congress. I call that Bush not knowing his place.
The birthers are just private citizens. Surely, If Bush doesn't even have to comply with legal duties Obama doesn't have to submit to a group of opponents who are out to get him. Private citizen is your place.
I've gone on too long in this post to get to your other two points. Sorry
Creeksneaker2
“You don't really care where he was born.”
Correct.
“So why are you asking?”
Focus on this, I am not asking that question.
One my questions has always been, “Why is Obama going to such great lengths to avoid responding to reasonable requests that he qualify for the office.”
You have not yet offered an opinion as to why he continues to do so.
“The birth certificate is a forgery…”
You do not help your argument by contending Obama’s has provided a birth certificate. The document provided is the form used when a birth certificate does not exist.
The document provided is not recognized as an acceptable substitute in those cases requiring a birth certificate.
If you agree, then you can see it does not matter whether the form is a forgery or not.
Nor does it help to put words in the mouth of people who challenge your beliefs.
“You seem to think that the president is obligated to submit to any questions, no matter how stupid, from any member of the public who asks. The president has no such duty.”
I have made no such argument, you undoubtedly have me confused with other posters and that impacts our ability to conduct any kind of conversation.
No duty? Do not be surprised if the USSC concludes the 20th A. provides for such a continuing duty in the words, “…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify…”
Perhaps you can tell us how Obama satisfied the duty to qualify? Other than, of course, asking us (and the various Secretaries of State) to take his word for it.
“I've gone on too long in this post to get to your other two points. Sorry.”
Frankly, I think we are wasting our time with this discussion; a productive debate can only be had with intellectual honesty.
Skydiver:
I'm sorry you don't find me intellectually honest.
In addition to challenges that could be offered when nomination petitions are filed, the electoral college and Congress also serve to certify elections. So do the state legislatures. Bush V. Gore held that the power of state legislatures to choose electors is complete and unhindered. So if the state legislatures didn't think a candidate qualified, they could short circuit the process there. Unless where forced by state law, electors can also refuse to vote for a candidate who won the election. And finally, certification belongs to Congress. Objections can be raised there and have been. In 2000, an objection was made by a house member but she didn't meet the requirements that both a senator and house member must sign off on the objection. In 2004 both a senator and congresswoman objected the the Ohio election results. The cerification is put to a final vote. Any questions about qualification are to be raised there.
I believe the reason the courts keep finding a lack of standing for the birthers' lawsuits is that the qualifications were to be decided finally by Congress, and not members of the public.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/08/obama-certified-president-united-states/
One of the reasons I question your intellectual honesty is that you have yet to answer my basic question.
Notwithstanding your lecture on state electors, you are correct in your belief that ultimately the qualifications are to be decided by Congress.
You mention a failed challenge in 2004 (?) and you could have also mentioned the challenge in Jan 2005 that met the requirements but failed only because the Congress after consideration voted against it.
Re: lack of standing, I believe one aspect of that issue is that the courts concluded judicial action prior to the Jan 8, 2009 Joint Session was premature based on 3 USC 15.
So lets take it from there. One of the arguments in Kerschner is that Cheney failed to call for objections during the Jan 8 Joint Session. We will see how that argument fares given such improper action by the Congress could very well have the effect of an improper amendment to the Constitution.
Is it conceivable if the Congress certified Micky Mouse as the president, that the nation would be bound by that act? We may learn the answer to that question.
Creeksneaker2:
In the event I was rude with you, let me offer the following as a parting gesture of friendship.
This evening, just before you drift off to sleep and you are alone with your thoughts, ask yourself:
“Given the importance of the question, is it reasonable of me to expect people to take - as an answer - a patently forged document together with an unsubstantiated 1961 newspaper announcement that provides no relevant details?”
Of course, if you believe the COLB was not tampered with and that what one reads in the newspaper one can take to the bank, ask yourself this:
“Why did Obama publish a COLB, given that document flows only from the form Certificate of Live Birth which is issued to infants who are not eligible to obtain a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth?”
Skydiver:
I'm sorry you must part. If you are still reading, I'll try to answer your big question. (Why doesn't Obama just submit?)
The assumed rules by those demanding proof here are that it is up to Obama to disprove what they accuse him of. This is the opposite of what the real rule should be. The burden falls on the accuser to make at least enough of a case of culpability to warrant further investigation. Here we just have a bare accusation with no evidence at all that Obama ISN'T a citizen. So if Obama were to respond with proof, he'd be accepting the rule that its up to him to DISPROVE. Of course, Obama was foolish enough to take that step, release his birth certificate, and the accusers just got worse. Feeling a sense of power, and demanding more explanations, they went on to ask for more proof. This cycle will continue until Obama refuses to provide more information and the accusers give up.
What harm can come from people just asking? I followed events closely during the Clinton administration. Clinton made the mistake of trying to prove himself innocent to the satisfaction of his accusers. Nothing satisfied them because they weren't after truth. They were after Bill Clinton, because they hated him. They were ruthless and sick.
There were accusations when Clinton first ran like he was a KGB agent and he and Hillary had a plan to have children sue their parents because Bill and Hill wanted to destroy families. These people who made these crazy accusations appointed themselves jurors of Bill Clinton's public image.
Along came the "Whitewater Scandal." For the first couple of years there wasn't even a specific accusation, just innuendo that "something seems like its not on the up and up. Prove you did nothing wrong!"
The closest thing to an accusation was innuendo that implied that Clinton made a deal with an S&L operator to keep the operator's failing S&L open in exchange for money from a land deal. That was a ridiculous claim. Clinton was not yet governor when he engaged in the land deal. His partner was not yet an S&L owner. Clinton had no way to keep an S&L open even when he became governor because the federal government shuts down S&Ls, not states. Clinton's accusers couldn't come up with a single case of a state closing an S&L.
What states could do is bring in the fed when an S&L is insolvent. This is exactly what the State of Arkansas did. They wern't trying to keep the S&L open, they were trying to close it.
And the money part of the innuendo wasn't right either. Clinton lost money on the investment.
Never the less, Clinton submitted to and cooperated with investigations, including one by the Resolution Trust Corporation that cleared him. Clinton also hired an independent auditor to go over the records and made public the findings. All that just made things for him worse.
The accusers, encouraged by their ability to manufacture a scandal, just kept accusing, mostly in the way they are here. They ask a question, and say that if that question isn't answered then the president must be guilty. They accused the president of hiding incriminating documents because a staff member carried documents out of Vince Foster's office after Foster committed suicide. Clinton was accused of murdering Foster. There was never a shred of evidence he did. Just the endless questions like why didn't ____ and why didn't _____. Four investigations found the death was a suicide, but the accusers didn't stop. The Clintons were forced to pay legal bills for all this out of their own pockets.
A exculpatory document from the Whitewater deal was misplaced. The first lady was hauled before a grand jury 6 times because of that. There was also at least one Congressional investigation.
Some nutty secretary at the RTC said her investigation of Clinton was obstructed. That charge was carried by the media for months. It turned out that the lady was doing the investigation on her own and was never asked or allowed to perform it. Her testimony before the investigating Congressional Committee was so riddled with obvious lies that the women couldn't explain herself. She pretended to be suddenly ill, and asked to be excused until another time when she felt better. Did that clear Clinton?
Of course not. (The lady never was called back before the committee. She was, however, given a $140,000 a year job in the Bush administration.)
During the hearing, Republicans repeatedly asked questions like, "What were your exact words on that day three years ago?" Of course the witnesses couldn't remember and said so to the questioners. The Republicans counted them all up and their release to the press at the end of the day was "Democratic witnesses said they couldn't remember 157 times. GOP sees cover up."
The media of course, ignored how the accusation fell apart and instead went with the story about forgetful witnesses.
What happened at that hearing was typical of many that came and went. Each accusation that didn't turn out was replaced by two new ones. There were constant investigations going on. NEARLY EVER SENIOR STAFFER AT THE WHITEHOUSE RAN UP LEGAL BILLS IN EXCESS OF $300,000.
One GOP committee staffer doctored a tape to make it look like the Clintons tried to buy the silence of Hillary's incarcerated former law partner.
An entire industry sprung up that brought profits to authors, media figures, cable TV and radio talk shows, all specializing in making unfounded accusations against the Clintons.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ran an investigation into Clinton's sex life in Arkansas, under the absurd excuse that it was possible that Clinton did something illegal in Whitewater and confessed it in pillow talk during a tryst. Starr brought indictments against over a dozen people. Few of the people had anything significant to do with Whitewater. They were brought up on rarely prosecuted unrelated charges and told that they could gain leniency if they were willing to provide the investigators with something useful against the Clintons. It was all extortion to get people to lie.
Eventually, Whitwater led to the Lewinsky investigation and they did find something on Clinton. But even on that one subject, most of the accusations turned out to be false.
In the end Clinton was cleared of everything else to the extent that prosecutors clear anybody. "Not enough evidence to prosecute" is what prosecutors say when they've trampled a wrongly accused person.
The Clintons were left with $4 million in legal bills. Not one false accusor was ever forced to answer for their lies.
This is the kind of trouble Obama would be asking for if he continues to oblige the witch hunters. His responses would make big news. More public attention would come. The witch hunters would feel empowered and celebrate the release of each new document like a touchdown. There is no way in the world anything Obama could provide would ever satisfy the witch hunters. If he provides the "long form birth certificate" they'll just say its forged and continue on.
By refusing to go along with the witch hunt, Obama has left its participants empty handed. They can't get enough public attention to put pressure on him. As long as Obama doesn't release he has nothing to fear. Or, he could try to cooperate, like Bill Clinton did.
Creeksneaker2:
Your response tells us more about your position than you intended.
For instance, other readers will notice you have once more falsely attributed words to me for the basis of your response. Nowhere did I ask why doesn’t Obama “just submit”.
As you know, I have consistently asked why Obama continues to go to great lengths to avoid performing a constitutional duty. (…when the President elect fails to qualify…, etc.)
When one is accused of failing to perform a duty, the accuser does not have the impossible burden to prove a defect in the unperformed duty. The initial issue is whether the accused has legally performed the duty. (Usually, any performance is generally a matter of record and the accusation is quickly dismissed, unlike the pending suits in this instance.)
If one believes the burden is on others, then a simple request shifts the burden (with criminal penalties for an improper response). In this case, the many state SOS appear to have relied on Obama’s word when he responded to their requests; and, despite the national outcry, the Congress failed to make a request.
If you believe Obama has performed his duty, please point out where he has even once credibly demonstrated he is by any traditional definition natural born.
However, if you believe the duty was somehow excused or waived, by what means was the Constitution amended in this regard?
Here, perhaps, is the next-to-last question a reasonable person would consider:
“What does it do to my self-image and principles if I have reason to suspect I bear allegiance to an illogical belief, but do nothing about it?”
Skydiver: As before, I'm drawing my impression that you are saying you want Obama to "submit" from the following passage:
"What bothers me, and millions of others, is not where Obama was born, but why he obstinately refuses to disclose his birth documents and any other records that in the normal course would be available. At the least, such refusal seems to reflect an unhealthy perspective of one's place in the community "
Obama supplied his birth certificate to his doubters. By doing such, he performed the duty which you but not I believe to exist.
Please cite the clause in the Constitution that gives the president a duty to satisfy the birthers. I don't believe there ever was one, so cannot say it was waived or excused.
I don't know what you mean by great lengths to avoid his "duty." Frivolous lawsuits have to be responded to.
In the last couple of days we ran into an article from the Hawaii paper in which the official in charge of birth certificate says they no longer keep the long form. Those were deleted in a 2001 transition to electronic record keeping. So its likely that Obama has lost his original birth certificate. If that's the case, he has no way to replace it and surrennder it to the birthers, even if he wanted to do that, which would be foolish.
Obama has no Constitutional duty to prove his qualifications to concerned citizens after he was certified to be the president by Congress.
The meaning of "natural born citizen" is best established by the controlling Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In the case, the majority ruled:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore EVERY CHILD BORN IN ENGLAND OF ALIEN PARENTS WAS A NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III."THE SAME RULE WAS IN FORCE IN ALL THE ENGLISH COLONIES upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, AND CONTINUED TO PREVAIL UNDER THE CONSTITUION AS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649
I've refuted all citations I've seen given by birthers.
Creeksneakers2
“Obama supplied his birth certificate to his doubters.”
Patently false, but it appears you choose to believe it. Hence, my next-to-last question above.
“Please cite the clause in the Constitution that gives the president a duty…”
I have previously cited the language of the 20th Amendment. (And referred to the primary election requirements of each state.)
“In the last couple of days we ran into an article from the Hawaii paper in which the official in charge of birth certificate says they no longer keep the long form.”
Those were deleted…”
Hawaii certainly did not destroy official records on hand. That newpaper article was othewise full of misstatements.
You cite US v. Wong Kim Ark as controlling.
I submit the finding in that case would prompt a current court to order:
“Show us the birth certificate”
We are getting nowhere, lets talk again after the USSC hands down its decision.
I enjoyed our chat.