Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Whistling for a Wind

According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?

Her new and more substantive statement comes in the context of passage by the US Congress of a unanimous resolution commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Hawaii's admission as a state of the United States which declares "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961…." Sadly, this Congressional action only serves as further proof that all the members of Congress from both parties now irresponsibility vote to affirm what they have never read.

This flurry of activity is meant to distract public attention from the palpable contradictions that have emerged in the cover story the Obama faction has used on account of his unwillingness to produce a birth record that actually contains the information needed to lay the controversy to rest. Until recently no one in the manipulated media has been willing to address this failure factually. Despite this repression, more and more people have become aware of the fact that the "certification of live birth" published on the internet during the Presidential campaign last fall did not establish Obama's eligibility for two reasons: a) such certifications were issued at the time to people not born on US soil. Therefore, the published document did nothing to overcome the objection (raised because of the testimony of Obama's African relatives) that he was born in Kenya at a time when his mother, who was married to a foreign national, was not of age to transmit US citizenship; and b) the internet published certification contained no details as to the hospital at which the birth took place, or the doctor who delivered the child, details that could be used to establish what must otherwise be treated as uncorroborated testimony.

Given the lack of such details, the fact that at various times the media and elements of the Obama faction made conflicting statements about the hospital of his birth (was it Queens Medical Center, or Kapiolani?), further aggravated the need to substantiate the true facts.

Then Lou Dobbs acknowledged on his CNN program that there is a factual doubt about Obama's birth that has not been addressed. In response CNN president Jon Klein reportedly claimed in an e-mail that "CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, Klein said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists. A computer generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on the Internet is the official record."

But Hawaiian officials rebutted this story. "I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records….Any records we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital records that we have."

This Hawaii official flatly declared that the Obama's actual long-form birth certificate is in the possession of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii Health Director Fukino now belatedly declares that it contains the information needed to lay the eligibility question to rest once and for all. The AP story now disingenuously admits that the Constitution's eligibility provisions are "a key constitutional requirement for being president." So with respect to this key requirement, why are the American people being asked to accept less than the best evidence available? All along people like me have simply asked that the facts be fairly proven so as to preserve the integrity of the Constitution's authority. In this regard the issue is not whether Obama remains in office or is declared ineligible to serve, but whether the issue is resolved in accordance with the Constitution's provisions.

Sadly, pundits like Ann Coulter have unfairly characterized this simple concern for Constitutional integrity as some kind of "conspiracy theory." Actually, it's just a refusal to declare a fact not in evidence. There was a time when good journalists, like good lawyers, refused to be manipulated into doing so. A fair and proper hearing requires that evidence be produced and subjected to careful examination (by experts if need be.) It requires that witnesses be confronted and cross examined. Though the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency involves the integrity of the Supreme law of the land (not to mention the right to occupy the key governmental office it establishes), there has been no such fair and proper hearing to ascertain the facts and make clear the principles on which it can be decided. This failure is not so much a conspiracy as a massive dereliction of duty on the part of officials oath bound to preserve the Constitution of the United States. How can we be satisfied until such a hearing takes place, openly televised, with both sides to the controversy fairly represented and fairly treated? Only then will the American people have reason to be confident that the conclusion reached is based on carefully gathering and fairly examining all the available evidence.

Such a hearing would exemplify the solemn respect we ought to have for our Constitution. It would therefore serve the common good of our nation. But it would not serve the unbounded ambition of the Obama faction, or comfort the reprehensible cowardice of their supposed opponents. If we wait upon them to serve fairness, truth and constitutional integrity, we may as well whistle for a wind.

41 comments:

Dick said...

It never ceases to amaze how Fukino plays around with words. Case in point, she says;

I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…

Why did he refer to the BC as vital records? Why didn't he call it a Birth Certificate? We are told that they went to an electronic filing system for this information in 2001. Is this the vital record that he is refering to? If so we are back to wear we started.

WingletDriver said...

There is also the issue of him attending school in Indonesia, which was only open to Indonesian citizens (i.e., his mother had to renounce her citizenship and his for him to attend school).

Furthermore, if it is so cut and dry, why not show the darned document? This is not for the State of Hawaii to do, but BHO. If he's going to show the COLB to his minions, he obviously wanted to quell the issue. So why not show the real and conclusive documentary proof or allow the State of Hawaii to do so on his behalf? Why rely on the ambiguous COLB and a supposed birth announcement in a newspaper?

Derek P. said...

Is it fair to ask that some form of (official) evidence concerning "Stanley" Ann Dunham and her travels to Kenya be produced to further bolster the position of a foreign birth?

Also, it is my understanding that a parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Did I miss something? Somebody please explain.

chiu_chunling said...

The issue of Barack's Indonesian experience is not a matter of law, but of loyalty. Barack has repeatedly demonstrated that his feelings for Islam and the Muslim world run much deeper than his allegiance to America and its values. While this is certainly a valid concern, it should not be mistaken for a legal consideration.

There are no official records kept of the private travels of private citizens in this country. Any person with the slightest feeling for liberty would be horrified at the thought. But while there are no official records, the fact that Stan the not-man did live in Kenya for a time with Obama Sr. prior to giving birth and returning to America is not disputed. What is disputed is the order in which those last two events occurred. Did she return to Hawaii very pregnant, or did she return with a very young infant?

As far as the "presumption of innocence" goes, that presumption is always intended to favor the private citizen against the government and its officials. Barack Obama, by claiming to be President of the United States, makes all those who refuse to acknowledge his authority outlaws. The presumption of innocence must favor those who challenge his authority. The burden of proof always lies on the government.

So, it is not "fair", because no official travel records are kept, because the travel in question isn't even disputed by any party, and because it is not up to the private citizen to prove that the government is operating outside of its proper bounds.

Derek P. said...

"There are no official records kept of the private travels of private citizens in this country." (chiu_chunling)

"With respect to Ms. Dunham, who is widely known as a matter of public record
to be deceased, we will process your request for records in category (a) above." (United States Department of State - in response to a FOIA request)

I'd be willing to settle for a 1960 or 1961 passport application record. By all appearances, those are official records that are maintained.

http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/passport/

WingletDriver said...

Derek P,

BHO and his supporters are continually moving the bar. BHO sought out an elected office that requires that he must be a natural born American. The onus of proof is upon him since he sought out the office.

Please answer the real question: Why does he rely on the COLB, which is insufficient, when all he has to do is ask the State of Hawaii to release his BC to the courts where is he is fighting to have it suppressed? Why spend over a million dollars fighting it in court when you could spend $12 and get a certified duplicate? Also, why did he release a COLB in the fist place if not an attempt to quell the issue?

Terry Morris said...

I've seen all six of my own childrens' original birth certificates establishing their natural born citizen status. Additionally, numbers of friends and relatives were either at the various hospitals during their respective births, or were in close contact with me at the time of their births. Which facts (given that I can produce not only their respective birth certificates, but also many many living witnesses to their respective births), in and of themselves, make all of the claims of the Obamabots, well, idiotic at best. Why? Because almost every other American can produce the exact same kind of evidence, including Obamabots. But Hussein Obama can't.

pbunyon said...

It is my understanding that his mother had to renounce her US citizneship before he could attend the school in Indonesia which he did attend.

What ever happened to the doctor or business man that claims to have obtained birth records for Barry Sotoro from the Kenyans?

Terry, I think you are right about the witnesses too. With all the globe trotting that his mother's family has done surely there were others present or close by who can give accounts of that day.

chiu_chunling said...

So...Derek would find a passport application compelling evidence? Somehow I doubt that. I also think that a woman who held several different citizenships at the time and was apparently willing to conceal certain details about her short marriage from her own son (born from that union) might possibly have managed to leave and reenter the country without bothering with a U.S. passport. Or any passport at all.

I've entered and left America both ways, I can say with some certainty that the non-documented way is less trouble overall. It's also more fun, not an unimportant consideration to the young. I wasn't aware that it was illegal until I found that in the helpful link Derek provided...not that knowing that would have stopped me, I just really didn't know that.

I'm not certain that Barack was born in Kenya. There are several other countries where he might easily have been born. But I am reasonably certain that he doesn't have a valid U.S. birth certificate. I realize that this is a man used to thinking in trillions when it comes to other people's money, but all the evidence indicates that he's willing to go to quite a bit of trouble to save (or gain) a few hundred thousand of his own.

If he's willing to pay almost a million dollars to avoid going to the trouble of producing his birth certificate, then he must know that he simply can't produce one.

But of course, the larger issue is not whether or not anyone else can prove that Obama isn't a citizen, but whether he can prove that he is. He is, after all, the one claiming that his actions have the power of law. Naturally, I'm more interested in those actions themselves (which are blatantly unconstitutional) than whether or not he has a birth certificate. After all, even if it turns out he was born in Washington D.C. itself, that doesn't change the fact that all his major actions as President are outside what the Constitution allows a President to do.

Which is to say, I have only the most Platonic interest in Obama's birth citizenship. I am purely disinterested, and in fact I previously stated that, given the trillions of dollars at stake, somebody would create a very good forgery if it were needed. It turns out I was mistaken, I overestimated the basic competence of those with an entrenched anti-reality bias.

So it has legs. By now, the profile of the birth certificate issue has been raised to the point where a forgery is certain to undergo real scrutiny, and obviously Obama isn't willing to risk getting caught at that game yet again. But make no mistake. The real reason people care is because Americans are waking up to the imminent danger of total economic collapse and attendant social breakdown.

Of course, it's too late to actually prevent it at this point. But there is still time to prepare to survive it. Use what time and resources you have left wisely.

Derek P. said...

"So...Derek would find a passport application compelling evidence? Somehow I doubt that." (chiu_chunling)

No. I actually would find that to be compelling evidence. If "Stanley" Ann Dunham applied for a passport in either 1960 or 1961, that, to me, would demonstrate (at the very least) the intent to travel outside of the country at that time. That would be enough for me.

Larry Walker Jr said...

Did you see this? Images and links are on the site at :

http://naturalbornconservative.blogspot.com/2009/07/unveiled-hawaiis-1961-long-form-birth.html

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.



Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.



According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

gilbertabrett said...

I want to know why the silence about the man that was "murdered" who was involved in going into certain presidential candidates' passport files??????????? What is the deal? Do we have someone reading in DC that could clue the rest of us in? He was being questioned and investigated and then was found "murdered" and now, nothing...

chiu_chunling said...

Derek, you're free to look for a passport. But given that Stanly considered herself a "cosmopolitan" and (looking at Obama's "official history") certainly knew how to obtain superficially convincing but forged (or illegally issued) documentation on citizenships and visas, including Obama's second U.S. passport, I don't think it's terribly likely that she went through proper channels if there was any reason she didn't want to leave a paper trail (Obama himself has mentioned that there were things about that period in her life that she never told him) or even just considered it not worth the effort. I've been across U.S. borders several times, and while I now know that it's illegal to do this without a passport, I'm not going to put through an application for my next trip. I did that once, and it was a hassle. The trip didn't live up to my expectations either, so maybe there's an element of superstition there.

There is plenty of documentary evidence that Obama has falsified other things pertaining to his history. The online COLB, Obama's falsified selective service registration (entered in 2008 but illegally modified to appear consistent with a 1980 entry), his (supposedly not ghostwritten) books, his religion (under Islamic law, as the son of a Muslim he is Muslim pure and simple unless he recants, which he has never done). I'd say that the burden of proof would by now fall on him even if he were a private citizen and not a government official.

After all, given his history, is there any reason to doubt that he is lying about his birthplace? We already know he's lied at least once (on record) about the hospital in which he was born. Unless he managed to be born in more than one place...I guess if that were really the case then continuing to hide his birth certificate would make sense. Don't want Samuel L. Jackson hunting you with a cattle prod, after all. Even I would find that somewhat inconvenient.

Okay, so now "reasonable doubt" includes "maybe he was born with the ability to transcend time and space". Given how many people seem to seriously believe he's the Messiah, I guess one shouldn't mockingly dismiss that defense out of hand. But then we get into a discussion of whether or not it's reasonable to believe he's the Messiah, and that goes down a road I'd rather avoid for now (apologies to those already on that road, it's just that it doesn't go anywhere that interests me--why I don't really care whether Obama is the Antichrist is...confidential).

As for whether Obama is following the Clinton pattern of convenient murder...I think it's more likely that it's the Clintons again. After all, the murdered investigator was investigating the people snooping into the passport files, so it seems like Barack wouldn't have a motive. Hillary is pretty far down the line of succession right now, if she's got anything she's probably going to use it for leverage...and probably not with Obama directly. Yet another reason that I have only an intellectual interest in the birth/citizenship issue of Obama.

Aristotle The Hun said...

The media is just now beginning to look at this issue. They are woefully ignorant. There are many twists, turns, and traps in this story.

I have been researching this story for over a year. In the beginning I fell into several of the traps myself.

I honestly believe that I now know as much as anyone about what is true on this issue and what is not.

If you have not done so please look at the latest version of my collected research. It is 6000 words so grab a snack and a drink.

Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

How about a little personal history for what is behind me being a “birther”

I read the “Warren Report” and I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

I have never seen a flying saucer, even though I have been a pilot and an air traffic control man.

I don’t believe that “Big Foot” exists.

I think Islamic terrorists took down the World Trade Center.

I don’t believe FEMA is planning to round up citizens and put them in concentration camps, and I don’t think swine flu is an international conspiracy.

The Lock Ness Monster is a fantasy.

I am certain that the Apollo mission actually went to the moon.

There are no more missing aircraft and ships in the so called “Bermuda Triangle” than in any other part of the earth with equivalent traffic.

I have a PhD, and am in private practice as a psychotherapist, so more than likely I am not crazy.

I am a life time member of Mensa, so I am not stupid. Membership # 1061487

The guiding principles for my professional research for articles and books I write are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of logic and the rules of evidence.

However, I am firmly convinced that AKA Obama is not eligible to be POTUS.

If you read the articles at the link, and review the citations at the embedded links, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.

PS: Please note that Amb Keyes is a follower of my blog.

Derek P. said...

"Derek, you're free to look for a passport." (chiu_chunling)

Indeed. Not only will I continue searching for documentation relating to "Stanley", but I will also look for relevant information pertaining to Obama Senior. It would stand to reason that if she were travelling to Kenya while pregnant with his child, he would accompany her every step of the way. So, instead of focusing on the activities of one individual to support the contentions of a foreign birth, the focus can be expanded to include the activities of Barack Obama Sr. and his possible movements during that same period in time. Do you believe that Barack Obama Sr. also used illegal documentation (if any) to leave the country, enroute to Kenya, with his pregnant wife?

"But given that Stanly considered herself a "cosmopolitan" and (looking at Obama's "official history") certainly knew how to obtain superficially convincing but forged (or illegally issued) documentation on citizenships and visas..." (chiu_chunling)

Conceivable, but quite a stretch to say the least. I would have to ask under what circumstances did an eighteen year old "Stanley" obtain the knowledge required and the motivation to garner false documentation? Maybe Barack Obama Sr. provided the know how and convinced her that it was a necessary endeavor for their planned travels. Conceivable, yes? But does it hold up to reason? Hmmm. 1961. (One year before I was born.....)

"...I don't think it's terribly likely that she went through proper channels if there was any reason she didn't want to leave a paper trail..." (chiu_chunling)

Plausible again. But what could concern a pregnant eighteen year old, in Hawaii, and in 1961 that would motivate her to avoid the creation of a paper trail? Illicit activities maybe?!?

There has to be concrete, irrefutable credible evidence pertaining to "Stanley" that supports those possibilities. Evidence that even BHO would be unable to challenge, or suppress.

WingletDriver said...

I think the discussion of finding visa applications is a complete non sequitur. The onus of proof of natural born citizenship is on the applicant to the position, not the rest of the country.

You cannot get into a bar or nightclub, buy alcohol or cigarettes or drive a car unless you can show that you are eligible (I withhold voting from this list purposely). If you are challenged, you must establish that you are eligible.

Barack Obama is acting like Skip Gates when asked for his ID, screaming a wailing rather than putting the matter to bed in a civilized manner. Gates had the right to be in his own residence and had the obligation to produce ID because of the unusual way he entered his house. This was for Gates' ultimate safety and he made it a circus. BHO applied for the office which he holds and, when challenged to show his eligibility, has refused to show a $12 birth certificate and has enjoined the State of Hawaii from producing documentary proof. He and his supporters cast about epithets rather than going to his personal safe or filing cabinet and showing it.

I don't care about the travel habits of his parents. I don't know how long the State Dept keeps those records. All I know is that the one thing that will quiet down the critics and establish his legitimacy is hidden under lock and key through the legal efforts of BHO -- although his time in Indonesia will still be an issue. Why? Why do I have to establish my credentials when I buy a can of beer but the POTUS doesn't need to when he is given the keys to the kingdom?

chiu_chunling said...

Stanley's travel habits are pretty interesting. More interesting than mine, and I crossed U.S. borders without a passport several times before I was 18. I've never forged a passport (probably because...well, just because). As for what she was doing at the time that she never even told her own son (at least according to him)...I certainly don't know. Given her path in life...well, I can think of some possibilities, but I really don't much care.

Americans already have irrefutable evidence that Obama was not born where he claims to have been born (not least the fact that he has gone on record in writing claiming to be born in more than one location). It is therefore incumbent on Obama to provide proof that he was born a citizen of the United States. I'm sure the reasons his mother was establishing the pattern she followed throughout her life would be interesting, but they don't affect his eligibility one way or the other. Due to his acknowledged parentage, he needed to be born in U.S. territory to be a citizen at birth.

Due to his proven pattern of document alteration and forgery, any proof he submits has to have good provenance and be subjected to careful analysis by experts. Which is no doubt why he is reluctant to provide a birth certificate at this point, he's been caught too often to think it's going to be easy to pull off this time.

But the more important objective is to help as many Americans as possible understand the lawless state of their nation. Barack isn't going to cave on the birth certificate, and neither is the rest of the government (including the 'fourth estate'). But as long as people can see this for themselves and start thinking about the real issues involved, it's worth contesting the issue.

Derek P. said...

"I'm sure the reasons his mother was establishing the pattern she followed throughout her life would be interesting, but they don't affect his eligibility one way or the other." (chiu_chunling)

On the contrary. If BHO was born in Kenya, then, it should go without saying, "Stanley" had to be there beforehand. Wherever BHO was born, "Stanley" had to be there beforehand. So her movements August 4, 1961 and before have a direct correlation as to his eligibility. So, let's try and focus on "Stanley's" travel habits before August 4, 1961. Let's see - pre-August 4, 1961 - moved with mom and dad to Hawaii from Kansas. Is there anything else pre-August 4, 1961 that you are aware of? (I'll concede that her post August 4, 1961 travels are quite interesting.)

"It is therefore incumbent on Obama to provide proof that he was born a citizen of the United States." (chiu_chunling)

Why not render any potential proof that BHO might show as being without substance by providing the credible proof that he was foreign born (as charged) to begin with? If I'm trying to get him removed from office, then I am not trying to give him an opportunity to respond and defend himself.

"Mr. President, Department of State records indicate that your parents travelled outside of the country to Kenya prior to your date of birth, and returned to the country after your date of birth. Sorry Mr. President, but you must relinquish the office of POTUS."

What's so difficult about that?

Derek P. said...

"You cannot get into a bar or nightclub, buy alcohol or cigarettes or drive a car unless you can show that you are eligible (I withhold voting from this list purposely). If you are challenged, you must establish that you are eligible." (WingletDriver)

That is correct. But I must also add that the proof is presented to a person of authority. Although, I must admit, there have been times that I have wanted to card a person or two at a local night spot. But that act on my part would've resulted in my removal from the establishment. So, I have to rely upon the figures of authority at said night spot to ensure that everyone meets the required eligibility to patronize.

One thing is for certain - satisfying this matter is not on the top of BHO's list.

WingletDriver said...

Derek P,

You're half right when you say that proof is presented to a "person of authority." Proof is presented to a person of standing, too; meaning that if the person has some sort of interest in validating your eligibility, you are obliged to show it. The owner of a bar and the bouncers do not have the authority to arrest you for illegal activity. They have the standing to deny you entrance because they will lose their licenses if they sell to underage minors.

Likewise, the American people -- all of us -- have standing under this case. We, individually, do not have the right to remove a fraud from office, but since we are affected by his actions, we should be able to establish his eligibility. The notion of standing is what the courts have relied upon to throw out the previous lawsuits. The current one established more substantial standing because the suit is brought by members of the armed services.

Furthermore, your argument about establishing eligibility to an authority falls flat since he refuses to do that. Why institute a Constitutional crisis for no reason? Why not send in his $12 and get a certified copy of the original? Why fight it in court and throw out $1M+ when you have yet to establish your eligibility?

chiu_chunling said...

They would kick you out of a club for asking another patron to show ID? That seems...excessive and foolish. Well, depending on the manner in which you "asked", I suppose it's possible.

Like I said, feel free to look for Stanley's passport application. But don't feel too confident about finding one, I didn't use a passport the first few times I crossed U.S. borders simply because I didn't think it necessary, and my assessment of Stanley is that she had reasons for not wanting her travels of that period documented.

More generally, you seem to be missing the entire point about the relative burden of proof between private citizens and government officials. The burden of proof always must fall on those claiming the color of law for their actions. That's the essential component of limited government, that it is the official who must prove proper authority.

Derek P. said...

"...and my assessment of Stanley is that she had reasons for not wanting her travels of that period documented." (chiu_chunling)

Well, I am very interested and looking forward to having the opportunity to be able to read and consider your assessment of the pre-August 4, 1961 "Stanley". I must admit that any reasoning for "Stanley", pre-August 4, 1961 to want to travel undocumented escapes me at the moment. Your assessment of the eighteen year old, pre-August 4, 1961 "Stanley" should prove to be very enlightening for me. (Let me thank you in advance.)

"...I didn't use a passport the first few times I crossed U.S. borders simply because I didn't think it necessary,..." (chiu_chunling)

From what I can recall, the use of a passport wasn't required to cross either the Canadian or the Mexican borders. I, too, had had several opportunities to exercise that common privilege 'back in the day'. That was one of the benefits of mainland living.

"Like I said, feel free to look for Stanley's passport application. But don't feel too confident about finding one,..." (chiu_chunling)

I never was.

Derek P. said...

"Furthermore, your argument about establishing eligibility to an authority falls flat since he refuses to do that." (WingletDriver)

And, yet, he is where he is. Go figure!?

So, at no point has the establishment (the United States government) ever attempted to determine whether or not BHO is eligible?!? WOW!

Dick Cheney - "Let him through."
Karl Rove - "He's cool."
George Bush - "How do you get this thing open?"

It's not like BHO had been flying under the radar. He didn't sneak up on you, did he? He didn't sneak up on anybody. That especially goes for our government. You know the folks - the folks who look you up and down before you even realize that you've been looked up and down! Yeah, those folks. The folks that we have entrusted our safety to for... for...well... for quite a long time! Those folks. They just let BHO through without batting an eye. All of BHO's predecessors had to jump through those hoops, but not BHO.

OK, I believe you.

WingletDriver said...

Wow, Derek P.,

You lose the argument so you try to change the subject. Now according to you, the government is great. Your assumption that I was a fan of the last administration or Republicans in general shows how ignorant you are of a lot of folks who follow this site. Dr. Keyes left the Republican Party. A lot of us who are on this site are independents. There is no love lost between the Republicans you mentioned and me.

So rather than trying to obfuscate, please tell us all why the "most transparent" president in history is hiding his bona fides? Why spend $1M+ to hide the legitimate evidence when $12 will eliminate all doubt? Why circulate an inadequate document like the COLB if you have the BC?

Derek P. said...

"You lose the argument so you try to change the subject." (WingletDriver)

WOW! Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black!? Need you be reminded......

You said:

"There is also the issue of him attending school in Indonesia, which was only open to Indonesian citizens (i.e., his mother had to renounce her citizenship and his for him to attend school)." (WingletDriver)

...and I responded:

"Also, it is my understanding that a parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Did I miss something? Somebody please explain." (Derek P.)

To that, your response was to change the subject. You introduced the subject, and then attempted to change the subject. But don't take my word on it. Go see for yourself. Look at the first three comments of this thread. What do you see?

"Now according to you, the government is great." (WingletDriver)

I'll go one further my friend; even with its flaws, the United States government is the greatest government that this planet has ever known. Would you care to differ?

"Your assumption that I was a fan of the last administration or Republicans in general shows how ignorant you are of a lot of folks who follow this site." (WingletDriver)

Are you assuming that I am assuming!? Are you looking for an excuse to refer to me as being ignorant!? From what I've seen online, people will turn to name calling when they have been bested by another. And the funny thing is I wasn't attempting to make reference to who may have your political support. I was only trying to make reference to the United States government and those who were in the wheel house when BHO was starting to get attention.

So let me put it to you a different way: Do you believe that BHO's political advesaries in the United States government gave him a free pass when it came to establishing his eligibility?

"So rather than trying to obfuscate, please tell us all why the "most transparent" president in history is hiding his bona fides?" (WingletDriver)

Because he can.

WingletDriver said...

"Also, it is my understanding that a parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Did I miss something? Somebody please explain." (Derek P.)

Is that really your understanding, because I had an infant daughter that I naturalized. How can that be? Oh yeah, a minor child is under the authority of their parents. Maybe you should coordinate your "understanding" with the actual law. The term you may want to look up is "derived citizenship." That is, a minor child derives the citizenship of his parents even during natualization. BHOs stepfather was an Indonesian citizen and BHO attended a school that was only open to Indonesian citizens. Dual citizenship was not allowed. What does this say about his mother's citizenship? (btw, I didn't answer the question because I wanted to focus on the seminal question of "what is he hiding and why?" Of course, you're welcome to make a complete fool of yourself by quoting the law according to Derek instead of the law.)

I would agree that the US is the best place in the world to live and we have the best government. But part of this is recognizing and enforcing the rule of law. An aspect of the rule of law is the legal concept of quo warranto. In other words, citizens and concerned parties have the RIGHT to know by what authority someone acts and to challenge that authority in a court of law. This is the basis of the lawsuits against BHO. It might surpise you to find out that multiple lawsuits were filed against Bush-Cheney in 2000. Yes, they had to jump through hoops. Rather than snub their noses they fought and won their challenges. One of the lawsuits contended that Bush and Cheney could not be POTUS and VPOTUS because they were from the same state (this is prohibited in the Constitution). So your implication that this is the first time challenges have arisen is patently false. I'm sure you don't remember Florida, otherwise you'd never make such an asinine statement.

"So let me put it to you a different way: Do you believe that BHO's political advesaries in the United States government gave him a free pass when it came to establishing his eligibility? " How long have you been on this site? Did you know that Dr. Keyes left the Republican Party because he thought it was just another wing of the bird of prey? The short answer is, I don't trust either party. The longer answer is, DC politicians view themselves as part of an exclusive club set above the unwashed masses. They have their club rules and good-ole-boy-networks like old segregated clubs. They may fight each other in the political realm but go out and party together when not on camera. Why are Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy such close friends? Why does Mel Martinez give every Dem a free pass and insult his own constituents? Why does Barbara Boxer get upset when she is called "ma'am" instead of senator? Why are there no ethics investigations against Pelosi (CIA lying accusation), Dodd (Countrywide), Reid (refiling the last 7 years of required financial statements), Jefferson ($100k in his fridge), Murtha (AbScam on tape accepting a bribe)? Don't think I'm picking on only the Dems, but Republicans seem to get nailed more often (e.g., Stevens, Craig, Cunningham).

Your last answer says it all -- "Because he can." That belies a bitter cynicism on both his and your behalf. You don't know how disappointed I was to see you say something like that. It shows where your heart is -- and it's not for the good of this country. Damn the law, damn the citizenry, it's all just a game.

Derek P. said...

"(btw, I didn't answer the question because I wanted to focus on the seminal question of "what is he hiding and why?" Of course, you're welcome to make a complete fool of yourself by quoting the law according to Derek instead of the law.)" (WingletDriver)

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

"Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship." (U.S. Department of State)

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

That is our law. That is our policy. Now the question becomes 'Do you wish to enforce our laws and policies, or the laws and policies of an Islamic country?' (That will say a lot about you as well.)

"How long have you been on this site?" (WingletDriver)

Several months now.

"Did you know that Dr. Keyes left the Republican Party because he thought it was just another wing of the bird of prey?" (WingletDriver)

Yes. My approach to party politics is slightly different. I'll join (to vote) whatever party that has a candidate truly deserving and needing of support. I voted Ron Paul during the last (Nevada) primary. If someone better should arise the next go around, then I will make whatever changes are necessary to enable myself to cast a vote on their behalf.

"You don't know how disappointed I was to see you say something like that." (WingletDriver)

Likewise.

WingletDriver said...

So Derek, how did he attend an Indonesian madrasah that was only open to Indonesian citizens? Nice try with quoting the State Department website. Did you look around at some of the hyperlinks though or read the entire post? If you had you would realize that you can either formally renounce your citizenship through an oath OR be expatriated for numerous other reasons. It's all there if you want to follow the hyperlinks and read the actual laws instead. The expatriation of minors you cited only had to do with formal renunciation. Oops. His mother apparently naturalized in Indonesia, which would have placed his status in doubt (at least). His mother and he could have petitioned the Board of Immigration Appeals to certify that they had not given up their citizenship afterward, but there is no evidence they did that. He, admittedly, would most certainly receive a ruling in his favor (being a minor and returning to the US prior to his 21st birthday).

The laws in effect in the 1960s have changed. Referring to the State Dept today serves little purpose. The relevant points were argued in a Virginia court and they came to their determination using those laws (in BHOs favor that being adopted by a foreign national did not affect his US citizenship).

However, all of this distracts from the real question: "Why is he hiding the definitive proof?" This would all go away if he just showed his birth certificate. He circulated a COLB (which is not definitive); so he must have wanted some credibility. Just show the real thing and everybody will be happy. It will cost BHO less money, too. There is no good reason not to show it unless there is something really out of kilter on it or unless he is so cynical and depraved he would create a Constitutional crisis just because "he can."

Derek P. said...

"So Derek, how did he attend an Indonesian madrasah that was only open to Indonesian citizens?" (WingletDriver)

The answer to that is simple. They applied THEIR laws. Their laws that they recognized, and apparently you too. They didn't apply our laws, which they didn't recognize, and, apparently, you don't either.

"Nice try with quoting the State Department website." (WingletDriver)

Well, why don't you try quoting something official regarding the Indonesian angle so that I can have an honest opportunity to 'buy into' what you're trying to sell.

"If you had you would realize that you can either formally renounce your citizenship through an oath OR be expatriated for numerous other reasons." (WingletDriver)

Really!? OK. So what does it say about minors? What is required for a minor to renounce their citizenship? Give me the exact quote if you would.

"The expatriation of minors you cited only had to do with formal renunciation." (WingletDriver)

So, in other words, you are choosing to recognize some form of informal renunciation that a minor would have no control over, let alone any say so about. Or, in other words, you are in favor of a foreign nation having the ability to strip U.S. citizenship from our minors. That is what you are saying. Do I have that about right? If not, then please enlighten me.

"His mother and he could have petitioned the Board of Immigration Appeals to certify that they had not given up their citizenship afterward, but there is no evidence they did that." (WingletDriver)

There seems to be a lot of that going on. A pattern. No State Department evidence. No Board of Immigration evidence. "Stanley" certainly covered her tracks really well, wouldn't you say!?

"However, all of this distracts from the real question: "Why is he hiding the definitive proof?" This would all go away if he just showed his birth certificate." (WingletDriver)

Go away?!? Not hardly. Our friend 'chiu_chunling' recently stated that the pursuit of the birth certificate is a dead end street. The real question pertains to parentage. Must both parent be U.S. citizens in order to be eligible for the office of POTUS? What answer would Bobby Jindal give?

WingletDriver said...

"Well, why don't you try quoting something official regarding the Indonesian angle so that I can have an honest opportunity to 'buy into' what you're trying to sell." Actually, my original point about the "Indonesian angle" was that even if he showed a birth certificate, there will still be cases against him based upon that. It didn't have to do with the likelihood of winning that type of case. That is why I have tried to focus on the birth certificate.

What we do know about the case brought against him by Dr. Taitz (of which Dr. Keyes is a party) is that it is based on one thing: BHO providing his birth certificate, which would certify the place of his birth.

"The real question pertains to parentage. Must both parent be U.S. citizens in order to be eligible for the office of POTUS?" There was a question about this regarding BHO's Kenyan citizenship, but I don't know of any cases brought against him based on it (there may have been, I just never read about any). BHO automatically had Kenyan citizenship derived through his father, which he lost on his 21st birthday. Just because one country "claims" you, you don't lose your US citizenship. Jus Soli is the concept used in the US. If he was born on US soil and subject to our laws, there is little doubt that he is clearly a natural-born US citizen. Bobby Jindal's parent's heritage is of no concern either since he was born in Baton Rouge.

If he were born outside of the US, the laws at the time were such that he could not have derived his mother's citizenship. That is the heart of the matter. That is why it is so strange that BHO passes a COLB to his friends at Annenberg and pretends it is a certifying document. It isn't.

That is why it is so strange that he would spend $1M+ fighting off challenges when he could just have the State of Hawaii send him a certified copy of his birth certificate. I got mine for $12 because I didn't have $1M to fight the DMV when I got my driver's license.

Derek P. said...

"What we do know about the case brought against him by Dr. Taitz (of which Dr. Keyes is a party) is that it is based on one thing: BHO providing his birth certificate, which would certify the place of his birth." (WingletDriver)

Certification? Qualification? No. These efforts are about seeking discertification and disqualification. Nothing more. It's about figuring out a way to have BHO removed from the office of POTUS.

The question is asked "Why is he hiding the definitive proof?" Well, the first answer that I provided ("Because he can") was, admittedly, blunt and without compassion. But the answer was truthful nonetheless. He can, and he is. But to add a little more detail to that answer, I would not expect BHO to willingly participate in an effort where the goal is to work against him. 'Help you work against me'?!? No doubt he is saying to himself 'I think not!'

"Bobby Jindal's parent's heritage is of no concern either since he was born in Baton Rouge." (WingletDriver)

There are those here, who participate on this site, who would disagree with you. Though he will not come out and say it, I believe that Dr. Keyes is among those individuals. I had asked the question in another thread recently whether or not the parentage philosophy would effectively disqualify Bobby Jindal from seeking the office of POTUS. One person did respond in the affirmative. (H/T to 'Terry' I believe.) And just recently I chanced to view a video clip of Dr. Taitz (in the company of Dr. Keyes) espousing that very same philosophy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Ru7dnfSjI

That's what it all boils down to. That's what it should all boil down to. But all of the other senseless claims about Kenya and Indonesia have, in my opinion, seriously hampered the one legitimate claim that should have received exclusive consideration - parentage. Instead, everything is being mixed together (by both sides) making this entire affair look like a circus. What was first thought of as a three pronged attack has been, in actuality, counter-productive to the goal in mind. That's how I see it.

pbunyon said...

You guys are wearing me out. The fact is Obama is a suit. His illegitimacy goes all the way back to the moment he was concieved. That says a lot doesn't it? So, ultimately, that means his dad, in truth his mom, his BC, his name, his upbringing, his education(s), his politics, his LIFE in general would make him not eligable to be The PoTUS. He could not even qualify for a clearance! How can anyone be in the Oval Office when they can't even get a clearance???

The deal is that the DEAL is done. The suit illegitimately named Barack Hussein Obama is a virus in a sick nation. Yeah the BC is just one very important part of the entire picture, but it alone should bring his impeachment TODAY,no YESTERDAY. One way or another those fools in DC have to GO. They no longer represent us. We are no longer free. (been a while)

Derek P. said...

"Due to his proven pattern of document alteration and forgery, any proof he submits has to have good provenance and be subjected to careful analysis by experts." (chiu_chunling)

Which expert would you recommend to analyze any proof submitted by BHO? Would you recommend the person who exposed the COLB as being a fraudulent document? (BTW, would you happen to know what that person's name is?)

chiu_chunling said...

I'm sure I could look it up...or even the names of several such individuals. But I wouldn't favor using them in a court proceeding. It isn't like document experts are a rare commodity, document forgery is a commonplace problem and there are a good many document experts as a result. You always try to use multiple independent experts when you can justify the expense, and I think that validating Obama's documents is worth it...to Americans, at least.

But right now, the debate is no longer about whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii (or anywhere else in the U.S.). The debate is over whether or not Americans have a right to know where he was born.

There's a problem with that, of course. The side of the debate that asserts that people don't have a right to know has no prior commitment to truth as an objective good. Which you demonstrate nicely in your tactics and arguments. So thank you very much.

If you would care to address the question of why American's shouldn't be allowed to investigate Obama's history, feel free to do so. I'd be interested to read that argument.

Oh, and it seems that Yahoo doesn't like me to comment here. How weird is that?

Derek P. said...

"If you would care to address the question of why American's shouldn't be allowed to investigate Obama's history, feel free to do so. I'd be interested to read that argument." (chiu_chunling)

My position - treat the 44th POTUS like each of his predecessors. That's my argument. No, I am not trying to suggest (or imply) that he should be treated fairly. It goes without saying that no president has been treated fairly by their political opposition. President Bush was treated unfairly. President Clinton was treated unfairly. And so on. So, by all means, investigate. Fabricate. Pontificate. And while all of those things are being done, just make sure that you lubricate. The middle class tax increase is just around the corner. (OOOPS! I've strayed a bit off topic. Sorry....)

chiu_chunling said...

That...doesn't address the question.

I don't treat Obama differently than I treated Bush and Clinton. There are probably some who do. That is their privilege, as Americans and human beings. It is an essential aspect of trust, after all. Because I do not trust, I have no need to discriminate between the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. But I do not therefore disparage the demands of trust.

Trust is a very personal thing. It isn't reasonable to insist that, because someone might have trusted a previous occupant of some office, that all later occupants are to be likewise trusted. Then again, I do not regard trust as particularly reasonable. But I don't wish to disparage those who try to exercise it.

You earlier made much of the fact that WingletDriver was arguing from the basis of Indonesian law, accusing him of putting Indonesian law before U.S. law. But the real issue there is not Winglet's acceptance of Indonesian law, but Obama's acceptance of those laws. I don't find that argument particularly interesting, but at least I understand it. Given the context of Obama's appointments and supporters, I would think it easy enough to understand for anyone...who really was interested in understanding.

I also note you brought up the argument that Obama cannot be expected to "cooperate" with a proceeding which has as its aim his removal from the Presidency. You seem to be missing the crucial point that, by providing a valid birth certificate, he would be terminating that proceeding fairly decisively. I would expect most Americans to understand that your judicial system is adversarial, fighting a court battle with all the tools at your disposal in no way implies an endorsement of or cooperation with the opposing position. Indeed, if Obama is withholding his birth certificate voluntarily (rather than because he doesn't actually have one), it would seem that he's playing right into the hands of those who would question his eligibility.

One may refuse to accept a proceeding on the argument that the court itself lacks authority. But to claim that you can reject participation simply because you don't agree with the charges brought is...to be expected of Obama, I suppose.

Derek P. said...

"That...doesn't address the question." (chiu_chunling)

The question being:

"If you would care to address the question of why American's shouldn't be allowed to investigate Obama's history, feel free to do so. I'd be interested to read that argument." (chiu_chunling)

First, you are correct. I didn't address the question. Quite frankly, I doubt that I possess the capacity to furnish you with an answer that would meet to your satisfaction. However.....

For the sake of political gamesmanship, I have reservations about investigations that are the result of unsupported allegations*. You contend that the allegations are supported. I respectfully disagree.

* ("Well I feel like the Judge threw Berg a bone today. Because he said, ok, you made all of these allegations and I'm gonna wait and give you a chance to support the allegations you made with proof and evidence.")

If it were only the birth certificate that was being requested (to establish eligibility), I would more than likely be inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt to such a request. But considerably more is being requested, which, in my opinion, goes well beyond the premise of merely validating eligibility. It goes so far as to discredit what would have otherwise been a legitimate (limited) request to begin with.

"I don't treat Obama differently than I treated Bush and Clinton." (chiu_chunling)

Neither do I. Maybe I had the right to request of the previous presidents the same amount of information that is being requested from BHO. Had I made the request for information from President Bush that is being made of BHO, I would have undoubtedly been referred to as suffering from 'BDS', and rightfully (and accurately) so. But I don't live for partisan politics.

"It isn't reasonable to insist that, because someone might have trusted a previous occupant of some office, that all later occupants are to be likewise trusted." (chiu_chunling)

Not 'trust'. Treatment. Trust notwithstanding. Is that unreasonable?

"You seem to be missing the crucial point that, by providing a valid birth certificate, he would be terminating that proceeding fairly decisively." (chiu_chunling)

Why kill one bird with one stone when the possibility may present itself to kill three birds with the same one stone!? My take on it is the birth certificate may be provided when it can effectively take out all of the other various claims, legitimate or otherwise, once and for all. "Here it is! Now don't bother me with anything else." This will build up unto a point where the term 'enough is enough' will have some significance. Then again, maybe not. We'll see.

pbunyon said...

I wonder if there is a way to bring Kenya into the argument. Since Obama and crew don't place all their allegiance with the USA I think they and the Obamedia might get tripped up by their own pride. I have heard more than once that Kenyans think this is ridiculous and Americans have been fooled. I hear many of them take great pride in the fact that BHO is ruling the world. Didn't they celebrate? Where are these people and why don't they have a more prominent voice? Would they insult Kenya, thus further alienating the Obamanation from the world?

WingletDriver said...

Derek P,

I've been out of town for the last few days (I still am, but it's a byproduct of my job). I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or jump in as the post is dying, but:

"These efforts are about seeking discertification and disqualification." Whichever way you look at it, providing a valid BC would go a long way toward legitimizing his claim and delegitimizing his opposition. BHO claims to be transparent (just like he promised to post all bills on the internet for 5 days so citizens could see what we were in for prior to any votes). The truth is far from his claim.

But the bigger problem is you are trying to divine everybody's intentions. Besides being impossible, I also don't think it's very wise and is certainly not valid.

Your answer of "Because he can" is blunt, but it also is accurate and extremely cynical (since BHO claimed at his inauguration that he would do all he can to make everybody proud of his election). If he has a legitimate BC nobody can work against him. Will some question the authenticity of the BC? Of course -- just like some people believe that the Bigfoot tape is real. Once again, providing a BC doesn't in any way work against BHO or for his foes. The burden of proof then lies with those who claim it a fake (how many minutes did it take littlegreenfootballs to demonstrate that Dan Rather's 1970's letter of reprimand against Bush was a fake?). It works for him and against his foes. They look like Bigfoot chasers.

As for those who would claim Jindal isn't qualified due to his parents' birthplaces, I think they'll have a hard time overcoming 200+ yrs of Jus Soli. I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me. Furthermore, the point is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Derek P. said...

"I've been out of town for the last few days (I still am, but it's a byproduct of my job)." (WingletDriver)

800 Series? ETOPS maybe? Well, nevermind. We can discuss that later. ; )

"Whichever way you look at it, providing a valid BC would go a long way toward legitimizing his claim and delegitimizing his opposition." (WingletDriver)

Legitimizing his claim with whom? Unless I am mistaken, the vast majority of people are already satisifed with his claim. They may have a passing interest with these ongoing affairs, but, by and large, they have little to no concern about legitimacy. As far as the opposition is concerned, I don't see any potential for satisfaction on their part. They want BHO out. Period. How do you "delegitimize" that? It can't be done.

"But the bigger problem is you are trying to divine everybody's intentions." (WingletDriver)

I am only going by what I observe being stated. Criminal. Usurper. Illegitimate. Just to name a few. No my friend, I have not divined anything. And I do not believe that I have misinterpreted the meaning (and intent) behind the words. But I am quite open to additional input should you have any to offer.

"If he has a legitimate BC nobody can work against him." (WingletDriver)

Except for those who are working the parentage angle. And those who are working the Indonesia angle. Those factions will continue to pursue their claims regardless of whether or not a legitimate birth certificate is produced. And let's say that a legitimate birth certificate is produced; I believe (not devine) that those who were clamouring for a certified birth certificate would then align themselves with one of the other remaining factions. But that's just a guess.

"As for those who would claim Jindal isn't qualified due to his parents' birthplaces, I think they'll have a hard time overcoming 200+ yrs of Jus Soli." (WingletDriver)

Then you may want to discuss this matter with Dr. Keyes and his attorney, Dr. Taitz. There are also a few other here that might be willing to engage you about that topic as well.

Was it a nice flight? Nevermind......

chiu_chunling said...

What a pathetic non-argument this has become. "I don't need actual (or even perceived) reasons for my position, and neither does Barack."

It's like the argument between Achilles and the Tortoise which Lewis Carrol narrated. There is a lesson in Carrol's choice of actors, but I suppose some are too obtuse to realize what it is.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.