In the first part of this article, which I posted to the main blog, I listed the main arguments made by those who I term “The Believers”, when dismissing the claim that US President Barrack Obama has so far failed to prove that he is eligible to be president in terms of the requirement set out in the US Constitution, namely that he is “a natural born American”.
From what I have read, these arguments are:
- Obama has produced an official and legally binding document confirming that he was born in Hawaii
- Hawaiian officials have verified Obama was born in Hawaii
- This document has been verified by various independent non-political websites, such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com
- In 1961, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of baby Obama's birth
- A conspiracy of the type suggested would require too many people to be in on it for it to work
- If there was evidence that Obama was not eligible the Clinton team would have found it and exposed it.
- And (as of last month) the Whitehouse have issued a copy of Obama’s passport, showing he was born in Hawaii.
1) Obama's people have indeed produced a document which states he was born in Hawaii. However, the document is not what those who produced it claim that it is. The web-sites which proudly display (or have at some point proudly displayed) the document, such as Fight the Smears and FactCheck.org refer to the document as “Obama's birth certificate” by doing so they are deliberately misleading the public. The document in question is not a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth it is a “Certification of live birth” which carries different weight legally and, even if authenticated, is not, on its own sufficient to provide definitive proof of citizenship.
For example, until they swiftly changed their rules last year, even the Hawaiian Department of Homelands clearly stated on their website that a Certification of Live Birth did not constitute adequate proof of citizenship under their program (yet its good enough to become president?!!)
Citizenship could be immediately verified by the production of the long form, vault copy, of the certificate, a document Obama could authorise the release of today, but which he has consistently refused to release, and which he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting. Why would he do that? I know he is rich, but why throw money away if he has nothing to hide?
Furthermore, significant number of sources has also claimed that it was entirely possible for a Hawaiian certification of live birth to be issued to someone who in fact was not born in that state. I have no idea whether this is true but these claims have never been satisfactorily refuted or tested in court. The believing media have not even challenged this assertion, but have, for their own reasons, chosen to ignore it.
2) Those who claim that the secret documents proving Obama's Hawaiian birth have been “verified by state officials” should take a look at the odd wording chosen by the state official Chiyome Fukino when verifying the secret documentation, stating that the then Senator Obama's birth certificate was on file, but not actually confirming what it said. She went to the trouble of checking the vault, she issued a press statement intended to settle the question of where the president was born but she didn't say "and it states he was born in Hawaii"!! How odd.
Furthermore, whatever she said, is that really good enough?
Is it really enough for the media to accept the word of a state official who says in effect “Its okay guys I've seen it, its cool, you don't need to worry you pretty little heads about it” if that satisfies today's “investigative journalists” we are certainly not talking about the likes of Woodward and Bernstein here are we.
Or do investigative journalists only ever investigate white, right wing, presidents?
Again we come back to the same question, why do we need this pantomime, why do we need state officials telling us that the document exists? why doesn't Obama just release the damn thing?
3) A number of websites claim to have verified the Certification of Live Birth as being authentic, the one which is usually quoted is FactCheck.org which touts itself as being “independent”. However, FactChek.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (1), connected to the left of centre Annenberg foundation. As Wikipedia confirms (2), before becoming a senator, Obama in fact worked as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, meanwhile his mentor Bill Ayres, the man some credit with being the real author of at least one of Obama's autobiographies, and from whose home Obama announced his presidential challenge, worked for the operational arm of the same Annenberg Challenge.
Sorry guys, but that's not my definition of “independent”
It is also a little bit odd the way that FactCheck have displayed the Certificate they claim to have verified in such a peculiar manner.
They show a picture of the document, which doesn't appear to be stamped or signed. Then they show a close up picture of a signature stamp and a further close up picture of a raised embossed seal. They claim these are all parts of the same document, but there is nothing to actually prove that, certainly I can not see a signature stamp on either of the full sized copies of the certificate they have displayed . no doubt they are all the same document, but it seems rather odd to go to such trouble to prove something and then present the proof in such a sloppy and unconvincing manner.
That said, it is true that Snopes.com also claim to have verified the document.
Snopes.com is an website which claims to debunk urban legends and e-mail hoaxes run by Barbara and David Mikkleson who also founded the San Fernando Valley Foke law society, so I guess if Dave and Babs say its okay ........!!!
To be fair Dave and Babs are well respected and have been verified as free from political bias (by ….. er … FactCheck.org)
However, as I have indicated previously, even if the Certification of Live Birth is genuine, which I do not necessarily dispute, that does not, in itself prove anything.
(3) One of the most compelling arguments in favour of Obama's claim to have been born in Hawaii is that two newspapers in Hawaii, the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, ran birth announcements shortly after Obama was born. However, sceptical someone may be in relation to the other evidence these announcements are not so easy to dismiss.
The believers have a point when they say that nobody would have guessed, in 1961, that little Barry Obama-Dunham would try to run for president 47 years later, so there would be no reason to falsify records. Of course this argument ignores the fact that in 1961 there might have been other reasons why someone might want to ensure their foreign born child or grandchild could be raised as a US citizen rather than in a Kenyan village near the Tanzanian border. There are certainly other possible motives for falsifying birth records than future presidential ambitions.
One problem with the birth announcements is that there is no record confirming that Obama's parent (Barrak and Stanley) ever lived at the address, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, (which appears to be up for sale at the moment ) quoted in the notices.
Furthermore, these notices are again nothing more than circumstantial evidence, they are not proof of anything other than that someone placed a notice in a newspaper. Nobody can apply for a passport, obtain a loan or even open a bank account on the strength of a 49 year old birth announcement, so, interesting as they may be, are they really enough to grant someone access to the nuclear trigger?
4) Those who argue that it would take a huge number of people to support a conspiracy such as what is being suggested might wish to consider how many people there are in their own lives, no matter how closely they work or play with them, whose circumstances of birth they could genuinely claim to know the full details of. In general we believe what people tell us, that is assuming we ever even ask the question. When it comes to the President of the United States there would have to be more, but actually given the circumstances of the Obama presidency, it is quite possible that there would not have to be a huge number of people.
Close Obama family members would need to be complicit. However, how many of those are there? Both Obama's mother and father died well before he launched his bid for the presidency, so they are out of the picture. Both his grandfathers were also dead, leaving only his two grandmothers and his siblings.
Of the grandmothers, Obama's paternal grandmother, the regrettably named Sarah Obama is alleged to have stated that she was present when he was born in Kenya, I have to admit that I would not bet the farm on the authenticity of the tape recording of what she said, however, it is interesting that no mainstream journalist has ever re-interviewed her to check what it was she actually said.
Madeline Dunham, the president's maternal grandmother, made a brief appearance in one of Obama's campaign commercials, but bluntly refused to give press interviews or discuss any aspect of the young Barrack's childhood (or so Obama’s people told the adoring press, who naturally believed what they were told). In any event, Mrs. Dunham, suffered from poor health and as we all know died days before her grandson's election triumph. Hence she was never asked the question.
His younger half sister Maya Soetoro is nine years his junior and born in Jakarta, would she necessarily know the full details of his birth? I know where I am told my own elder brother was born but I wasn’t there and have never seen his birth certificate. (although I am sure he would show it to me if I asked)
As to the Kenyan half siblings, the media tend to avoid interviewing them, as they can frequently be rather embarrassing, after all, at least one brother said he was a Muslim. So we really do not know what they know, what they believe or what they have been told to say.
Then, of course, there is Michelle, and as we have all seen, she says his home country is Kenya.
Beyond the family, the CIA presumably know where Obama was born, but that assumes they have seen the proof, after all the CIA believed in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, so maybe they believe in an imaginary Hawaiian birth certificate as well.
When Obama made his bid to become president it was necessary for the Democratic Party to verify that both he and Joe Biden were nominated and were eligible to serve under the terms of the US constitution. An official certification of nomination was signed by Nancy Peloci and Alice Travis Germond as Chair and Secretary respectively of the Democratic National Convention and sworn before Shalifa A Williamson Notary Public of the State of Colorado on the August 28 2008.
It was this single document, signed and sworn by two honourable and upstanding ladies which verified Obama’s eligibility and which was used for the purposes of electing him as president.
Once that document had been signed and sworn by Nancy and Alice there would be no reason for anyone to question it or to ask for sight of any other documentation. There is no requirement for the candidate to identify himself, he has already been identified and his eligibility verified by Nancy and Alice. Also, everyone knows who he is, or thinks they do.
Once he is elected there is no requirement to identify himself before his inauguration, and once the guy has been made president who is going to ask to see his ID?.
Even before he ran for president, it would have been entirely possible for Obama to get to where he was without ever having to prove who he was. In the real world where you and I live we need ID, but Obama operated in a rarefied, radical, left wing, anti-racist world where to ask a black person for proof of citizenship would be tantamount to heresy.
Far be it from me to accuse Nancy and Alice of being anything other than entirely scrupulous with the truth, but apart from them, and the lady called Fukino from Hawaii, it really was not necessary for many people to know the facts or be involved in hiding them.
Also given the congenital political correctness within the US political establishment it is not inconceivable for a bold sociopath with dark skin, a small group of enablers and a media which frantically wanted to believe, to go all the way to the top without ever having to prove who he is. People such as Bill Ayres, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel would know that and may well have exploited it.
We can also be reasonably confident that almost everyone in the current administration views the "Natural born citizen" requirement to be a racist anachronism which should no longer be in the constitution (although they dare not say so) hence they probably don't view it as an issue and don't want to know.
Therefore the argument that there would have to be vast numbers of people involved in the cover up is not necessarily true.
5) The suggestion that the Clinton camp would have exposed him ignores the reality of Democrat politics. If Hilary Clinton had exposed a young black Senator and potential Presidential candidate as lying about his citizenship, the Democratic Party Convention would nave risen up as one and torn her to shreds. In addition she would have lost the black vote upon which any democratic politician depends.
Mrs.Clinton could use Obama’s lack of experience against him, she could use his character and even his smoking but never under any circumstances could she use his race. To do so would end her career.
6) And the passport, ah yes, the passport, suddenly when things are looking really grim, the Whitehouse decides to release a bit of film showing a slightly blurry image of part of the president’s passport (see the top of this posting). How very convenient. (Caution: those of a nervous disposition please note the film includes images of Elena Kagan)
Those believers who, earlier this month were crowing about this image and claiming it was the “nail in the birthers coffin” exposed only how easily they are convinced, and how desperate they are to believe. Unfortunately for the believers if this image does anything it adds to the doubts surrounding Obama his integrity and his origins.
Nobody doubted he had a passport, he would need one in order to visit all those Muslim countries he goes to in order to make speeches saying how wonderful Islam is and how much America has to apologise for. Diplomatic passports are issued automatically to US senators and it is not entirely clear what identity documents they have to produce in order to receive them. Did, for instance, Obama merely have to produce his famous “Certification of live birth”, or did they just take his word for where he was born?
On the film his secretary says that she assisted him in completing an application for a “new” passport after he became President, therefore, he was already head of state when that passport shown on the film was issued. Does America really require its head of state to provide proof of identity before issuing him with a passport? Just how likely is that?
Also, why does the film only show us part of the passport and why is the part showing the Issue date and expiry date redacted (blurred out) ..WHY? What exactly is the state secret about the issue date of the Presidents passport, or its expiry date?
That is the only information which is blurred out, there is no other information in that section of the passport, so what's the secret? It does not make sense.
Also, was it just me or did the section of the West Wing Week Film focusing on the birth certificate seem “staged”? Look at the hand movements of the young man who shows us the passport aren't they rather like someone playing a card trick? We see one bit, then another bit, then another bit, all very quickly and not very clearly, and then it was gone. Hmmmmmmmmmmm I think someone is taking the public for fools!!
The passport most certainly does not answer questions, in fact it presents us with even more.
During an interview on Monday, Obama rather lost his cool and, when asked again about the number of Americans who suspect he is a Muslim, snapped “I can't wander around with my birth certificate on my forehead!”. No, he doesn’t need to wear it, but he could at least release it, and let us be clear, it is he who is preventing its release.
The state of Hawaii may be correct when they say they can only release the birth certificate to someone with what they call “a tangible interest in the vital record”. However, Barrack Obama is that person, they could legally release it to him, and he could release its publication, but instead he has paid out at least a million dollars preventing its publication.
What is it he does not want the American public to see? Could it be that the original long form document does actually confirm that a Barrak Obama was born in Hawaii but is there some detail which might suggest the Barrak Obama in the White House is not the same person? We do not know because the document remains in the vault.
There are other mysteries. We do not know in which Honolulu hospital the alleged birth took place, two different hospitals have at different times claimed to be the Presidents birth place, and then quietly withdrawn that claim. The birth was only 49 years ago, and although the doctor who delivered his is most likely dead or very old, attending nurses, midwives, orderlies and administrators would probably now only be in their 70's or 80's but none have come forward to say they were there. The birth would have been memorable, in 1961 a white woman giving birth to a black child was by no means as common as it is today.
The birth certificate is not the only document which Obama refuses to release, amongst other things, he has not released his school records or his Columbia or Harvard records, although he is under no obligation to do so, previous Presidents have released this information, so the fact that Obama has not adds to the sense of secrecy and mystery surrounding the man who promised transparency during the election campaign.
It is also odd that, whilst a number of classmates from his school days in Jakarta have come forward with anecdotes about him, whereas as I understand it almost nobody seems to recall him from Columbia or Harvard. That is, of course, not evidence of anything, it is somewhat unexpected however.
In this article I have not sought to prove that President Obama was not born in America, I have no way of knowing whether he was or was not. To be honest I find the birth announcements in the 1961 Hawaiian newspapers hard to dismiss, whereas, on the other hand I can not believe that anyone would spend so much money in order to keep his original birth certificate private if there wasn't something to hide. I also find that the recent “peek-a-bo” release of images of the president's passport to be very suspicious and rather suggestive of desperation.
So I am in two minds on the matter. I believe Obama may well be hiding something, but it may not be that he was born outside America.
What I am seeking to demonstrate is that those who mock anyone who questions Obama's eligibility and claim the matter has been resolved are very wrong. The matter has most certainly not been resolved, very far from it.
Click here to return to Sarah:Maid of Albion