Main Menu

Lil’ Birther

I’ve made a couple of comments referring to an individual I call “Deep Birther“. This person sends me stuff, like the Washington Post poll that became the subject of a recent article, the Obama/Arizona cartoon and the WND PR sign in Times Square. He seems to be a big fan of WorldNetDaily and stays pretty much up on the “dark side” of the issue.

I have another friend, whom I will call Lil’ Birther (LB), that I spoke with today. LB is not a nut case, or a racist. He had just gotten the impression that Barack Obama was born in Africa. Now LB knows a heck of a lot about birth certificates, even more than I, and he knew all about out of state registrations. Anyhow I wanted to understand where he was coming from.

What I found is that his belief that Barack Obama was born in Africa came from two basic points. One: that Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Africa. Of course, this would be pretty important if it were true, but it isn’t. This was covered fully a year ago on this blog.

The second reason, and this one surprised me, was “perhaps Obama’s birth was an out of state birth registered in Hawaii”. So I said: “you know what out of state certificates look like. They say ‘certificate of out of state birth’ not ‘certificate of live birth'” and he replied “I know that, but I don’t know what Hawaii does.” (An email from Janice Okubo with the Hawaii Department of Health does confirm that it is not a COLB.) I then mentioned that the out of state birth registration law wasn’t passed until 1982, 21 years after Obama was registered. He asked what the law was before, and I explained that I had the 1955 statute in force in 1961 and there was nothing in it allowing out of state registrations. The law was new in 1982. Lil’ Birther knows a lot about vital records process and I mostly just had to remind him of things he already knew.

I said: “there are long lists of plausible sounding arguments all over the Internet that make it look like Barack Obama was born in Africa; they only sound good, but they are really not true.”

Did my little bit of personal evangelism do what was thought impossible, change a birther mind? Maybe and maybe not. Perhaps I did get a Lil’ Birther thinking.

171 Responses to Lil’ Birther

  1. avatar
    John May 11, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    That’s been covered. The prevailing theory is that Obama was born in Kenya but his birth was registered as being born in Hawaii. It was based on fraudlent information submited possibly by the grandmother. This can either proven or disproven but might explain a damn fine reason why Obama refuses to release the underlying vault copy.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    John: The prevailing theory is that Obama was born in Kenya but his birth was registered as being born in Hawaii.It was based on fraudlent information submited possibly by the grandmother.This can either proven or disproven but might explain a damn fine reason why Obama refuses to release the underlying vault copy.

    The law in effect required the father or the mother to file the birth certificate for an unattended birth. The only situation where anyone else should file it was if the father and mother were unable, and how could the grandmother explain that? No, if the birth were unattended, you can be fairly confident one of the Obama parents filed it.

    If the Obama parents filed it, then end of story. How could you possibly prove fraud based on Obama being born at home? Sure you can keep the conspiracy fires burning, but there’s no proof.

  3. avatar
    misha May 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    My aunt was a social worker. In cases like this, a social worker was sent to the house, usually with a detective.

    Sorry.

  4. avatar
    Scott Brown May 11, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    John, I would have to disagree with you on this one. While there is a slim to none chance that Obama was born out of country, it just doesn’t stand to reason that he was. I believe common sense would prevail and point to the more sensible conclusion that he was born in the states – in Hawaii – who knows.

    That said – none of us were present at his birth, and really none of us can say for 100% FACT that where he was born – we only have common sense to guide us. To that end, Obama doesn’t owe us anything. The American people decided he was eligible when a majority of electoral votes were cast in his favor. Personally, if I were Obama, I would ignore calls for releasing any further information – he simply doesn’t have to.

    Now – that said. He may have been voted in by the people as eligible, but that certainly doesn’t make him legally eligible – as in, according to the law and the Constitution. Some believe it takes 2 US Citizens and born on US soil to produce a NBC, others don’t. While we can argue back and forth and cite from case history going back to the Founding Fathers – the case has never been heard on it’s merits; therefore, the American people still do not know if Obama is legally eligible as opposed to being voted in by the people as eligible.

    They are two different issues.

  5. avatar
    Scott Brown May 11, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    And we all know how reliable and efficient government (local, state, fed) officials/workers are.

    NOT

  6. avatar
    BatGuano May 11, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Scott Brown: And we all know how reliable and efficient government (local, state, fed) officials/workers are.NOT

    hi scott, i’d still like to know what state you were born in and where they taught that it takes two citizen parents to make a NBC.

    thanks.

  7. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    That was actually a pretty rational post.

    Although I disagree with your 2 parent theory, you stated your position in a calm and reasonable way.

    I don’t begrudge you at all your desire to see a more definitive definition of NBC written or ruled on.

    As long as you are being reasonable, let me ask you a reasonable theoretical followup question – how would you envision that such a “ruling” would unfold?

    Here is what I mean: You cannot say that such a common 2-person standard exists today. You simply can’t, because there is neither the case law to back up such a claim, nor are there examples of people being held to that standard. If anything, Obama actively serving as POTUS is the ultimate proof that such as standard is not being APPLIED at this time and would just gives further future argument as to make it harder to impose such as restriction in the future.

    To apply a “2 person” standard at this point, is really to create a new definition, more restrictive than the law is currently being applied.

    Surely you realize that even under a fictional scenario where such a law or judicial ruling was put in place today that it would not be applied retroactively and they would not remove a sitting president from office by simply creating a more restrictive definition for eligibility than had been applied up to this point.

    So let me ask you honestly – are you just expressing your desire to see a more limited and restrictive eligibility requirement for future presidents or are you desperately looking for a “loophole” to remove a sitting president, beyond the power of the ballot box?

  8. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Scott Brown,

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. You of all people don’t have any room to talk about reliability.

    Being dishonest is definitely not a sign of a reliable person. I cannot attest to your efficiency, as that does not come across in posts; but you’ve already proven that your word is not something that can be relied upon.

    Now back to your broader statement, which is just a meaningless “strawman” slogan type argument, which breaks down, once you look at it further:

    Govt officials are just people. Private companies are full of unreliability and inefficiency too. This isn’t some “magical” flaw that is limited to “government”.

    So, your pointing fingers for the simple sake of pointing fingers, with absolutely no substance behind your statement.

    Except, perhaps a bit of unintended irony.

  9. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 12, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    Reading a Scott Brown post is like reading an article on WND. You can’t tell up from down, but you can tell vaguely that’s it up to no good.

  10. avatar
    BatGuano May 12, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    G: Govt officials are just people. Private companies are full of unreliability and inefficiency too. This isn’t some “magical” flaw that is limited to “government”.

    bingo!

  11. avatar
    richCares May 12, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Scott Brown: And we all know how reliable and efficient government (local, state, fed) officials/workers are.NOT

    weasel words to allow evidence to be denied.
    what was that about “death & taxes”

    Obama has been president for some time, the birther or 2 parent issue going no where, they can’t remove Obama, so what is it that birthers expect. If you don’t like Obama, find and support a candidate for 21012, anything else is a childish waste of tome.

  12. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    We don’t know who filed it, or under what circumstances it was filed. We don’t know what would have been required for one of Obama’s grandparents to have filed it. That’s the problem.

    We don’t know who Obama’s parents knew. We don’t know what connections they had. To say that having a grandparent file the birth report would have been difficult is unsubstantiated. The important thing to remember is that it could have been done.

    If the parents filed it, we do have a problem. That means Obama lied. Obama had his birth certificate from, at the latest, high school. Did he not say he was born at Kapiolani? If that isn’t true; Why the deception?

  13. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 1:18 am #

    G,

    Doesn’t the Constitution deserve to be interpreted in the way it would have been interpreted by those who ratified it?

    To me, if jus sanguinis is involved, it must depend on the father (unless not married). It is without a doubt the way anything related to jus sanguinis would have been interpreted in 1787-1788.

    I’m not saying that is the way it should remain. I know many women who run the family. Thankfully we have the ability to amend our Constitution, and I don’t think it would be very hard to get that ratified.

  14. avatar
    BatGuano May 12, 2010 at 1:28 am #

    WTF?: Doesn’t the Constitution deserve to be interpreted in the way it would have been interpreted by those who ratified it?

    in your opinion what, exactly, would be done differently than is currently done.

  15. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    WTF?: We don’t know who filed it, or under what circumstances it was filed.

    We don’t need to know because the COLB is the OFFICIAL STATE RECORD and state officials have confirmed, TWICE, that their records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    If you had 10 witnesses show up ready to testify that they were present at Obama’s birth in Outer Birfistan… it wouldn’t matter because the OFFICIAL STATE RECORD documents the Hawaii birth.

    That is WHY births are REGISTERED and why every state has a law on the books designating the agency responsible for maintaining the records. Even if you had legal standing or there was a court on the planet with the authority to oust a sitting US President, you could not mount a collateral attack on the accuracy of the records maintained by the Hawaii Dept. of Health.

  16. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    G said “Obama actively serving as POTUS is the ultimate proof that such as standard is not being APPLIED at this time”

    “It is never too late to challenge the usurpation of power; one gains no title by prescription against the government, still less against the sovereign people. Power reserved to the people by the Tenth Amendment cannot be taken over by “squatter sovereignty.” -The Legitimacy of Judicial Review – Raoul Berger

    What you are suggesting is that the Constitution should be modified, while avoiding the Amendment process.

    I have no problem with you having your own interpretation of the Constitution, but to suggest that Obama should be considered to meet the qualifications simply because somebody let him in, is ludicrous.

    When dad said no pets, he didn’t just mean no pets that aren’t house broken. The mandate has either been violated or it has not. The fact that Obama is a de facto office holding that office cannot effect the opinion of the Court.

  17. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 2:56 am #

    Sorry BG, Could you be more specific?

    If you remove the ambiguity, I would be happy to answer the question.

  18. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    Expelliarmus,

    You should take the time to look into quo warranto. It is one of the few times where the burden is on the defendant to prove their title. Presumptive evidence “prima facie” is not enough.

    QW would permit the court to examine the documents, and to pass on the definition of natural-born citizen.

    We might even get to see that at a General Court Martial.

  19. avatar
    Gordon May 12, 2010 at 3:06 am #

    But of course you realize that this is not an issue that will be addressed in a court room while Obama is President. That we have had at least one President who’s father was not a citizen before, and that if this was going to be a Constitutional question it would have been addressed sometime after facts regarding Chester Arthur came to light, and before Obama was ever elected.

  20. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 3:48 am #

    Well in terms of “interpretation”, realize that the Constitution itself is really just a framework for our nations laws and system of government. That framework defines the scope and boundaries of what is and isn’t Constitutional. Laws & rulings are made within scope of those boundaries and as such they are really all “interpretations”. Where there is a challenge on if the boundary was violated, the Supreme Court reviews and rules on the matter. As you pointed out, if the boundaries themselves need to be altered or changed, the Constitution has the Amendment process built into it to address it. This process requires a high bar of agreement in order to ratify and accept such changes by design and is what enables our Constitutional framework to be able to adapt to when the nature of our society or world change beyond the scope of how it was initially defined.

    As the document was written as a compilation of ideas and compromises coming from a diverse array of opinions it was never viewed nor intended as “perfect” by design and probably is intentionally vague in some areas for just that reason.

    As the document was written over 220 years ago, every one involved is long since dead and therefore all anyone does when they look at it today and try to apply it to the world that exists today is “interpret” it.

    Beyond that, you asked me about jus sanguinis.

    I think NBC, based on everything I’ve read and seen is and pretty much always has been applied in the US as EITHER jus sanguinis OR jus soli being generally acceptable.

    However, in all honesty, I don’t care about the arguments of applying jus sanguinis here, as I seem them of value in discussing McCain’s situation but completely irrelevant in terms of Obama’s, which is clear jus soli.

    Simply put, born in HI = jus soli = NBC.

    Can’t really get around that. Until there is solid evidence that could refute that, everything else is mere moot speculation and not actually relevant to the situation at hand.

    You can speculate all you want about scenarios of this and that and that can always be a valid pursuit of pure academia or hobby, but doesn’t rise to a level of bringing any serious doubt or challenge to the HI info as listed COLB that Obama presented.

  21. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 4:12 am #

    Well, everyone has their opinions. Raoul Berger was particularly known for having problems with the 14th amendment, to which he used to argue FOR segregation… So, his opinions and viewpoints are not something I’m going to highly value in the first place.

    WTF?: G said “Obama actively serving as POTUS is the ultimate proof that such as standard is not being APPLIED at this time”

    What you are suggesting is that the Constitution should be modified, while
    avoiding the Amendment process.

    NO. I am definitely not suggesting any such thing. You are making assumptions of your own, completely opposite of my words and their contextual intent.

    In the context of what you quoted from my earlier post (in bold) as a reply to Scott Brown, she was arguing for wanting the “2 Citizen parent” requirement before someone could be an NBC.

    I fully disagree and clearly stated that there is NO evidence or law of such a requirement currently being in place.

    Therefore, what I am saying is that Obama already fits the existing legal usage of the understanding of NBC in place today – i.e. his being a NBC by virtue of being born in HI alone is sufficient and fully Constitutional already. His active serving as POTUS is evidence of that already being applied.

    My point to Scott Brown is that in order to change that to suit her desire to require “2 Citizen parents” would be a MORE RESTRICTIVE definition and application than is currently in place and that it was highly unlikley, that should such an official narrowing occur, that it could be applied retroactively.

    I’m saying that Obama *has* fully met the requirements in the Constitution as they already exist. It is not a matter of “someone letting him in” as you put it. He is fully eligible in my view by the full extent of the law as it exists already today.

    However, if people like her try to pass a law making an explicit written definition for NBC (as none exists to date), that would likely require going through the Amendment process, because you are now creating specific definition for a term listed directly in the Constitution but not more specifically defined therein.

    In response to your “The mandate has either been violated or it has not”, I say, no such mandate has been violated. Simple as that.

  22. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 6:48 am #

    Do you think that quo warranto has a higher burden of proof than other civil cases?

    What burden of proof do you think applies in quo warranto?

    More likely than not?

    Beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Regardless, WTF, the Federal rules of Evidence would still apply. The Obama COLB would be valid evidence. It would be admissible.

    You would then have to give some evidence why it shouldn’t be accepted. So far, you don’t have any evidence. You have questions. Questions are not evidence!

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Greg: Regardless, WTF, the Federal rules of Evidence would still apply. The Obama COLB would be valid evidence. It would be admissible.

    Comments by Michelle Obama, Bill Richardson, and Mr Ogome of Kenya, the Kenyan ambassador, the false-named affidavit from Shuhubia, TechDude and Ron Polland PhD, and the edited grandmother tape would not would not.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    WTF?: You should take the time to look into quo warranto. It is one of the few times where the burden is on the defendant to prove their title. Presumptive evidence “prima facie” is not enough.

    In quo warranto, the accuser must meet a burden of proof BEFORE the action is tried. You will just have to explain why “prima facie is not enough.”

    Please directly answer this question: Is it your assertion that in a quo warranto action the defense is required to show that “prima facie” evidence is true apart from any evidentiary challenge to it? I think you have gone out on a limb from which there is no escape except retreat.

  25. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Burden in quo warranto proceedings:

    -Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent.(42) If the defendant is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. (43) It is no defense to the incumbent that a relator who seeks to assert his right may fail to establish such claim; judgment of a motion may nevertheless be rendered; (44) but where the proceeding is on the relation of a person claiming title, he has the burden of proof to establish his claim.(45) In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office.(46) Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office,(47) it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.(48)

    43- People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 67; People v. Utica Ins. Co., 16 Johns. 363, 8 Am. Dec. 243; State v. Harris, 3 Ark. 670. 36 Am. Dec. 460, and cases cited above.

    44- State ex reI. Swenson v. Norton, 46 Wis. 332; Relender v. State ex rel. Utz. 149 Ind. 283, 49 N. E. 30; Clark v. People, 16 Ill. 217. Nor does a failure of defendant prove the title of relator to the office, People v. Thacher. 66 N. Y. 626. 14 Am. Rep. 312.

    45- Peoplev. Thacher, 66 N. Y. 626, 14 Am. Rep. 312; People v. Lacoste. 37 N. Y. 192; Miller v. English. 21 N. J. L. 317; State ex rel. Blessing v. Davis, 64 Neb. 499. 90 N. W. 232; Ellis v. May, 99 Mich. 538,68 N. W 483; People v. Nostrand. 46 N. Y. 375.

    46- State v. Beecher. 16 Ohio. 723; People v. Mayworm. 6 Mich. 148; State ex rel. Blessing v. Davis 64 Neb 499. 90 N. W. 232; Tillman v. Otter. 93 Ky. 600, 20 S. W. 1036. 29 L. R. A. 110.

    47- State ex rel Swenson v. Norton. 46 Wis. 332: People v. Thatcher, 55 N. Y. 626, 1t Am. Rep. 811; State ex rel Leonard T. Rosenthal, 131WlB. 442, lOa N. W. 49

    48- People T. Thatcher, 55 N. Y. 636, 1t Am. Rep. 313; People v. Lacoste. 87 N. Y. 193; State ex rel. Swenson v. Norton, 46 Wis. 332.

    THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES by BURR W. JONES

  26. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    Doc said; “In quo warranto, the accuser must meet a burden of proof BEFORE the action is tried.”

    Wrong, Doc. In an information on quo warranto action, there is no burden of proof on the accuser. There is only standing. The accuser says why the person does not have valid title to the office, and the accused has the burden of proving that he does.

    What will be accepted as meeting that burden will be up to the court.

  27. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Still the FRE applies. The COLB, for example, is a fully self-authenticating document under FRE 902.1 or 902.2 and it is an exception to hearsay under FRE 803.9.

    You then have to prove its a forgery. You won’t be able to introduce hearsay, or invalid affidavits, or speculation, or innuendo.

  28. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    The Court, in Minor was pretty clear about what we are sure is a natural-born citizen. When it came to those in Obama’s situation, the Court acknowledged that there are doubts.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    To say that those doubts are resolved because of an Amendment whose clear intent was to ensure those of African descent are to be citizens is a convenient stretch.

    The majority of support for determining that Obama meets the criteria on natural-born citizen is not the Court’s opinion at all, but the opinions of others that the court found to be relevant to the case. That court never found Ark to be a natural-born citizen. The court was quoting Horace Binney in that section, but those words were never adopted as the opinion of the Court.

  29. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    And, WTF, how many QW cases will you birthers have to lose before you begin to doubt that you might not have the right interpretation here?

  30. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    When it came to those in Obama’s situation, the Court acknowledged that there are doubts.

    The doubts were whether they became citizens at all.

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    Those doubts were set aside in Wong Kim Ark.

    In that case, Wong became a citizen because the phrase natural born citizen had the same meaning as the phrase natural born subject.

  31. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    The majority of support for determining that Obama meets the criteria on natural-born citizen is not the Court’s opinion at all, but the opinions of others that the court found to be relevant to the case.

    Be honest. You still haven’t read all 53 pages of the decision, have you?

    Here’s an opinion of the court, found on page 655:

    The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

    Do you disagree with that conclusion – that England operated under a rule that those born within the nation, regardless of parental citizenship were, themselves, citizens?

    Here’s the next conclusion the court draws, on page 658:

    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 Constitution as originally established.

    The same rule, born here regardless of parent’s citizenship = natural born subject was “in force” here. When did this rule operate? Before the Declaration of Independence and afterwards and “under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Do you think the court did not say this? That it was irrelevant to the reasoning of the case?

    If you have, indeed, read the whole case, let me direct you to section IV of the case, pages 666-675. That section appears to reject, completely the notion that citizenship follows the father, except as allowed for by statute. How does your NBC = dad’s citizenship survive that section?

  32. avatar
    Dave May 12, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    Scott, I gave you a thumbs up rating because you made some sense. Problem is with your last sentence is that the judges have looked at the merits and dimissed the cases because they were unlikely to succeed on the merits. Fact is, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Obama having been born in the US vs Kenya. Judge Carter stated in his opinion that he believed the records kept by the US in each state are accurate and he was less likely to believe in records brought forth from another country.

  33. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    How many Quo Warranto cases have been successful against any President? None that I am aware of. I am not aware of any judgement that even says that Quo Warranto can be filed against a President.

    Again I am no lawyer, but isn’t one of the tenants for any legal action whether a court has any way to redress the posited wrong? No court has the authority to remove a sitting President, only Congress does, so what redress could a court order?

  34. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    The Court, in Minor was pretty clear about what we are sure is a natural-born citizen. When it came to those in Obama’s situation, the Court acknowledged that there are doubts.

    Doubts that the Court did not have to resolve until later in Wong Kim Ark.

    Simple really. In WKA they noted how under Common Law practices, natural born meant born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    QED

  35. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Todays humor courtesy of Andy Martin and the Post and Fail….Andy must be off his meds because he has gone really of the rails on this one….But what is funnier is in the comments how they don’t like how Andy claims that Obama was born in Hawaii…I guess that ruins their Kenyan fantasy….

    “Once again, and if you’ve seen the KITV coverage, the governor comes out two days and is on this rabbi’s show, and out of the blue, she gets into the issue of the birth certificate. Well, any time the birth certificate is mentioned, it benefits those who question it, because it shows that those who support Obama have to answer, and the more they tell lies, the more people demand the truth. So I was just stunned when I heard she’d gone on this radio show in New York City, and she’s now taking the credit for what benefited Obama.”

    “So the first hint that there was something going on was when Obama treated me very seriously and he showed up in Honolulu all of a sudden.

    MRS. RONDEAU: Did he show up while you were still there?

    MR. MARTIN: Yes. And as I said in one of my press releases, as I’ve kept digging, and every time I go to Honolulu, new things happen. So now this time, she says, “Well, the guy keeps coming, like McGarrett, he’s always coming after us. She’s Wofat, and she knows that we know that something’s wrong. And all of a sudden, she pops out this latest thing and takes Fukino out of the line of fire. All of a sudden, Fukino now is a liar and is no longer, in a sense, the politically responsible person, because Lingle said, “I made her do it. I directed her to go and do this and then…” I don’t remember the exact words she used on the radio show, but she said something like, “I had her do it, and I told her to go get this and find out.” But why?

    And of course, I raised the question, “What did Obama have on Lingle?”

    However Martin does say something that actually makes some sense…

    “MR. MARTIN: The other thing that scares them about me is that I have always focused laser-like on Hawaii. There are people who call him “Soetoro” and say he was adopted. There’s no evidence of that. You can get up and say Barry Obama’s real name is such-and-such, but there’s no evidence of it. Just because you marry a man doesn’t mean he adopts your children. And now they say, “Well, he registered there at the Catholic school in Jakarta.” There’s no way that Lolo Soetoro could change Barack Obama’s citizenship; there’s no evidence that he was ever adopted, nor do they claim that. Again, if there had been some court proceeding in Jakarta, don’t you think the Indonesians would have that decree: Here is the decree in which the anti-colonial court of Jakarta allowed Obama to be adopted?

    MRS. RONDEAU: Then the Indonesians could claim him as a citizen.

    MR. MARTIN: You can’t do that; you cannot denaturalize someone as a matter of American constitutional law.

    MRS. RONDEAU: There has been a lot of controversy about that.

    MR. MARTIN: You can’t change your son’s or daughter’s citizenship merely because you marry somebody and move to another country. It’s an act that has to be committed after majority. So again, I don’t ignore his life in Jakarta, which I think is very, very significant to the development of his psyche, but it has nothing to do with whether or not he’s eligible to be president.

    MRS. RONDEAU: What about the school registration paper from Indonesia?

    MR. MARTIN: People lie all the time, and you cannot filter everything through the normal prism of a mom and dad and two kids in Canton, OH. This was a very exotic thing that this woman did. It was the 1960s.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/10/hawaii-governor-accused-of-suborning-election-fraud/

  36. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    “And we all know how reliable and efficient government (local, state, fed) officials/workers are.”

    In effect you are rejecting the accuracy of all government records. Do you really understand the implication of what you are saying? We are a country of laws, and that works only so long as people assume the laws work.

    Can we accept a drivers license at face value as identification? If we can’t- then what can we accept? Can we accept a passport at face value?

    I have a professional license issued by the U.S. Government- can others accept that that license means something?

    Going beyond that- government employees authorize and synchronize traffic lights. Do you assume that when a traffic light is green that you can safely cross an intersection or do you stop at every green light and make sure there are no cars that could cross the intersection?

    If your position is that we cannot accept any government records then you are really suggesting anarchy. We should all require some undefined- and arbitrary- other evidence for every government record ever produced.

  37. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    “I have no problem with you having your own interpretation of the Constitution, but to suggest that Obama should be considered to meet the qualifications simply because somebody let him in, is ludicrous.”

    We all have our interpretation of the Constitution.

    Obama was not simply let in- he was elected by the voters of the United States. Now I agree that the mere act of being elected does not guarantee he is eligible, but it shows that the majority of voters do not believe(and likely have never even heard of) this two citizen parent theory.

    The common understanding in the United States of the term Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States. This has been the commonly accepted term for at least the last 40 years, since I was taught this in middle school.

    What you are advocating is that the common understanding of the term be rejected and that the Supreme Court should review the term and establish a new more restrictive definition. In my opinion this would be what Conservatives like to call “judicial activism”

  38. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    WTF?: It is one of the few times where the burden is on the defendant to prove their title.

    No, you don’t understand writ procedure.

    Quo warranto is a “writ” that is issued by a court upon a proper application of a petitioner. The writ can only be issued after a proper showing.

    So in quo warranto, a proper petitioner (generally the DA or attorney general) must present the court with a prima facie case as to why the writ would issue. Upon review of the petitioner’s case, the court would issue a writ of quo warranto to the respondent, which at that point shifts the burden to the respondent to rebut whatever inference was created by the facts presented in the petition.

    But the initial burden would always be with the petitioner.

    And if a writ was issued on grounds that a birth had not been proven, the production of a certified birth record (the paper COLB) would be enough, in and of itself, to sustain that burden. Absent an affirmative showing of fraud, the COLB would be dispositive.

    Affirmative showing does not mean a “could be” speculation — it would require clear and convincing, admissible evidence that there was fraud in the creation of the records of birth.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Andy Martin’s particular fantasy is that Obama was born in Hawaii to TWO US CITIZENS, Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was accused of being a communist.

    Martin has a law degree, so he reasonably understands why the Indonesian adoption denaturalization is impossible.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    nbc: Doubts that the Court did not have to resolve until later in Wong Kim Ark.

    Let me emphasize that the court in Minor did not have doubts specifically about who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen at all. The court made no distinction between a “natural born citizen” and a “one born a citizen in the United States.”

  41. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    I agree, G. The only reason the “de facto president” discussion is even coming up is for the sake of debate. If everything birthers allege about Obama were true, he would be a de facto president. WTF? is admitting that. I believe that he was born in Hawaii and hence is a natural born citizen, so he’s not a de facto president.

    WTF? admits that the only way you can remove a de jure president is by impeachment which is a judicial function of the legislative branch. He believes that the judicial branch can remove a de facto president. I disagree. Granting for the sake of argument that he’s correct, wouldn’t one have to prove that Obama is merely a de facto president before going outside the impeachment process to remove him?

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    WTF?: To say that those doubts are resolved because of an Amendment whose clear intent was to ensure those of African descent are to be citizens is a convenient stretch.

    I do not understand your comment since the 14th Amendment (1868) had already been ratified when Minor v Happersett (1875) was decided. I also don’t recall the word “African” in the 14th amendment and it has been applied by the courts numerous times since its adoption in cases which didn’t involve Africans.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Greg: You won’t be able to introduce hearsay, or invalid affidavits, or speculation, or innuendo.

    Greg, you’re an attorney. Do you know of anything in all of the birther claims that refers to any testimony or evidence admissible in federal court?

  44. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Take a look at the list of “evidence” that Apuzzo recently published on his website.

    1. Bishop McRae affidavit and transcript – inadmissible as hearsay and double hearsay.
    2. Kenyan Ambassador on morning radio – hearsay
    3. Kenyan Parliament statement – hearsay
    4. African Newspaper accounts – hearsay
    5. Michelle’s statement about home country – birthers could argue that this is a statement against interest, so an exception to the hearsay rule. Probably a losing argument, since it hinges on their stupid definition of home country.
    6. Michelle’s statement calling Barack a “Kenyan.” An even weaker argument
    7. NPR story saying Kenyan-born – hearsay
    8. Lack of confirmation from Hawaiian hospitals – inadmissible – negative evidence is only admissible when one can prove the opposite is regular practice
    9. Obama and sister giving different hospitals. Obama’s statement about the hospital is admissible – a party’s statement is an exception to hearsay. His sister’s statement if she makes it in court is admissible as reputation of birth is admissible. As reported in a newspaper it is inadmissible hearsay. Obama says he was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center.
    10. Obama’s refusal to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center to release his medical records – likely inadmissible
    11. Lack of witness to the birth – this fact could, possibly be admissible, but it would face a strong argument against its relevance. The proponents of this evidence would have to show that it is likely that the lack of witnesses is due to something other than the nearly 50 years that have passed since the birth!
    12. Bill Richardson’s statement during the campaign – hearsay.
    13. Obama refusal to share information. Likely inadmissible.
    14. Disappearance of kindergarten records – inadmissible, but I’d like to see the birthers try to get this fact admitted!
    15. Obama’s application to Indonesian school – Admissible – As an ancient document, it is likely self-authenticating and also an exception to the hearsay rule
    16. The COLB – admissible. They can put whatever argument about it they want on record, but that is not evidence.
    17. Experts on document imaging – I haven’t seen a single expert that I do not think I could crucify in a Daubert hearing (where you test the expertise of the expert and the applicability and reliability of their science).
    18. Refusal to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate – See 16 above. A judge would likely give a limiting instruction to be read to the jury that the failure to produce a birth certificate from 1961 should only be read to mean that I had not produced a document from 1961, and that they could put whatever gloss on that they felt appropriate. If they felt that it was odd that someone would lose a document that was nearly 50 years old, they could hold that against Obama.
    19. Statements of Hawaii – Admissible as an exception to hearsay (FRE 803.8) and the birthers could put whatever gloss they want on them.
    20. State of the laws in 1961 – The laws could be introduced, they could be read to the jury. Birthers could opine about them all they wanted.
    21. Newspaper birth announcements – admissible as ancient documents
    22. The meaning of the COLB received/filed – This is argument, not evidence and I doubt that a court would allow it without expert testimony, especially in the face of a signed and sealed state birth certificate.
    23. Lack of a public drive to commemorate Obama’s birth place – how do they intend to get this into evidence?
    24. Lack of confirmation by anyone that Obama was born in Honolulu – ditto, how is this coming in? Who testifies that no one confirmed the birth?
    25. Pelosi’s 50 affidavits – probably admissible.
    26. Phil Berg’s affidavit that an investigator told him that hospital administrators had told him that Obama was born in Kenya. Double hearsay – inadmissible
    27. Nordyke certificates – admissible
    28. Kenyan parliamentarian statement – hearsay
    29. Kenyan minister statement – hearsay
    30. Obama’s statement in book about “return” to Kenya – it’s a party statement, but it’s quoting a non-party. Limited admissibility – admissible to prove that he wrote it, not admissible to prove that his mother said it.

    These are my cursory first thoughts about admissibility. They could get some things in, not that it would help them any.

  45. avatar
    Rickey May 12, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Scott Brown says:

    And we all know how reliable and efficient government (local, state, fed) officials/workers are.

    Let’s take a look at that.

    Every member of the U.S. Military is either a Federal official or worker. Overall, I would say that our armed forces are fairly reliable and efficient.

    Air travel in the United States is guided by air traffic controllers who are Federal workers. Given the fact that the rare instances of airline crashes in this country have almost never been attributed to air traffic controller error, I would have to say that in the main they reliable and efficient.

    Local police and firefighters are, for the most part, government workers. The fact that most people can move about their neighborhoods without undue fear, and that they can depend upon their fire departments to promptly respond in emergencies, is testimony to the fact that most police and firefighters are reliable and efficient.

    During snowstorms we rely upon government workers to plow our streets, and when those streets develop potholes we rely upon government workers to fill them. Government officials and workers make sure that our municipal water supplies are safe. Federal government workers recently discovered that China has been manufacturing toys which contain unsafe levels of cadmium.

    Federal workers at the Social Security Administration issue more than 50 millions checks to recipients each month, and almost all of them are correctly addressed and in the correct amount. That seems to me to be pretty reliable and efficient.

    It’s easy to take cheap shots at government workers, but there is no evidence that government workers on the whole are less reliable and efficient than their private sector counterparts.

    In fact, I’m sure that we could point out many examples of reliable and efficient government workers in the state where you were born, if only you would identify that state for us.

  46. avatar
    G May 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    nemocapn: Granting for the sake of argument that he’s correct, wouldn’t one have to prove that Obama is merely a de facto president before going outside the impeachment process to remove him?

    Well, that’s such a stretch for the sake of serious argument to claim that Obama was exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established, that I don’t even find it worthy of speculation.

    Everything in the entire election process went according to law. He was elected by a commanding majority by all measures. The electoral college and congress did their part, without any hitches or objections. He officially was sworn in and took office. He and his administration has been serving for almost a year and a half now as POTUS.

    The process itself is part of “legally or officially established”. I don’t see how you could ever seriously apply “de facto” in a situation like this where the entire regular process was followed without a hitch.

    This isn’t some bizarre situation where somebody outside of the process had to step in and run things for awhile. So, I’ll say again, I don’t think its even a valid, applicable question here.

    The best the “birthers” could ever hope for is that someday, either the legislative body or the courts would take up making an official, concrete definition for NBC that explicitly states all scenarios acceptable under it and all scenarios excluded.

    As I’ve said, I don’t think that such a definition could seriously be applied retroactively, and thus even under such a situation, Obama’s presidency would not be impacted at all.

    So creating such a definition would never turn Obama into a “de facto” president, as there was no such clear cut definition in place at the time of his election and you can’t narrow a definition to apply its usage retroactively.

  47. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    Expelliarmus,

    I’m still waiting for Obama to submit his COLB to any federal agency. To the best of my knowledge, he has yet to do so.

    I still haven’t seen another Hawaiian COLB in which the folds and embossed seal don’t show up. (I’m aware of Dr. Con’s COLB. I’ve been scanning documents for almost 20 years. I find it extremely strange that the embossed seal shows up so clearly in the photo, but not in the scan. Maybe Dr. Con can take a picture of his to demonstrate the same.)

  48. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    WTF?: I’m still waiting for Obama to submit his COLB to any federal agency. To the best of my knowledge, he has yet to do so.

    The President has travelled abroad several times as President (not to mention as a Senator). When he does so, he carries a diplomatic passport.

    http://www.slate.com/id/1007828

    In order to get a US diplomatic passport you have to show proof of citizenship. If you want me to believe that the President of the United States (of a Senator) goes all around the world on a Kenyan or Indonesian passport and no one notices, well I have a very nice bridge across the East River you can have cheap.

    By the way, one day you will have to answer why not appeal Ankeny?

  49. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    And exactly what agency should the President submit his BC to?

    And what would they do with it? I am trying to imagine what would happen if Obama dropped his BC off with the FBI- what are they supposed to do with it?

    Anyway- there is no reason to assume that Birthers would respond any differently to a federal agency announcing the BC is legitimate than they would to Hawaii announcing it.

  50. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    G: Well, that’s such a stretch for the sake of serious argument to claim that Obama was exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established, that I don’t even find it worthy of speculation.Everything in the entire election process went according to law. He was elected by a commanding majority by all measures. The electoral college and congress did their part, without any hitches or objections. He officially was sworn in and took office. He and his administration has been serving for almost a year and a half now as POTUS.</P

    I’m one of those people who likes to consider “what ifs.” That’s one of the reasons I find this topic interesting. What if Lincoln didn’t get shot? What if Hitler wasn’t rejected from art school? What if the birthers are right? That doesn’t change the fact that Lincoln did get shot, Hitler was rejected from art school, and the birthers are wrong.

    I also believe that the best way to win an argument with your opponent is to prove him wrong under every scenario: foreign birth, alien parent, alleged adoption, illegitimacy, Frank Marshall Davis as the father, de facto president, usurper, etc. Out of all the scenarios the birthers have presented, I’ve found only two that are worthy of serious consideration. Those two scenarios, though, are predicated on the belief that Obama was born outside the USA. And yet, Obama apparently has prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. So, even those two scenarios are not worthy of serious consideration except as “what if” speculation.

    Rhetorical question–if birthers can’t meet the burden of proof to prove Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, how are they going to meet the burden of proof to prove Obama isn’t de jure President of the United States? It seems to me that would have to be proven in order to make an end run around the constitutional right of Congress to impeach and remove the president.

  51. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    WTF?: I’m still waiting for Obama to submit his COLB to any federal agency. To the best of my knowledge, he has yet to do so

    Obama holds a US passport. In order to obtain a US passport, a valid birth certificate must be presented to the issuing agency. US Passports are issued via the Dept. of State which is federal agency.

    I figure that Obama presented his birth certificate to a federal agency some time in 1965.

  52. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    I know that Obama holds an official U.S. passport, but from what I have read (and that was some time ago) they are issued to all members of Congress without requiring them to present any supporting documentation.
    (Kind of like the President gets a TS clearance without any background check.)

    When I obtained my official passport, I never applied for it (it was done for me, without my knowledge), nor did I provide any paperwork. (That was a long time ago)

    I don’t know if Obama ever had a U.S., British, Kenya, or Indonesian passport. I would imagine that he had at least one of them, but that’s about as far as it goes.

  53. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    “When I obtained my official passport, I never applied for it (it was done for me, without my knowledge), nor did I provide any paperwork. (That was a long time ago”

    without any attempt at being snarky- how did that manage to happen? Other than applying for a childs passport by a parent, I can’t think of a situation where that could be done legally.

  54. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    Diplomatic passports have the same requirement as normal passports (birth certificate, photos, 2 forms of ID). This includes members of Congress. The fee is waived.

    Obama’s diplomatic passport he had as a Senator would still be valid, so he wouldn’t need a new one as President.

    So, yes he has a US passport. As we have discussed it is debatable whether he was ever eligible for a British (actually UK and Colonies) of Kenyan passport. he would never have been eligible for an Indonesian passport. Not that any f those would matter.

  55. avatar
    Don Draper May 12, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Barnett v. Dunn, Bowen, CA SoS, et. al.

    Eligibility lawsuit filed by Orly on behalf of Capt. Barnett concerning the eligibility of Dunn, Brown and Obama.

    Click here if you think Obama is an usurper!

  56. avatar
    misha May 12, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    “When I obtained my official passport, I never applied for it (it was done for me, without my knowledge), nor did I provide any paperwork.”

    Sorry, I call BS. (Sorry if I violated decorum.)

  57. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Now I want to know who you are that you can get a passport without any paperwork and without applying in person. It’s been part of the rules for a long time. There are alternatives to providing a birth certificate, but they would include such things as a naturalization certificate.

    From the NARA

    Publication Number:
    M2074
    Publication Title:
    Index to Naturalizations of the US District Court for the District of Hawaii, 1900-1976.

    Have you checked to see if Barack Obama is in the index?

  58. avatar
    misha May 12, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    “What if Hitler wasn’t rejected from art school?”

    What if everything Goebbels wrote was not rejected by every publisher? What if Goebbels had a blog like this?

  59. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Not only do I call BS on WTF, he still hasn’t answered a simple question. He claims he wants the SCOTUS to rule, but is afraid to appeal Ankeny? Why?

  60. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    Actually, I think Goebbels has a blog, and it’s about how a black man can’t be the leader of our dear homeland because he was born of an alien father.

  61. avatar
    misha May 12, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    “I think Goebbels has a blog, and it’s about how a black man can’t be the leader of our dear homeland because he was born of an alien father.”

    In that case, he has several.

  62. avatar
    Clarence May 12, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    scientist,

    Members of Congress do not get a Diplomatic Passport. They get an Official Passport.

  63. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    I have answered this before, and even if I am right, the appeal certainly seems worth a shot anyways. IMO, the first ground for the plaintiffs’ appeal in Ankeny was shaky and the Supreme Court, if it even decided to take the case, could simply affirm the decision based in that ground alone. I doubt the Court would waste time on that issue. Nonetheless, this is a decision where the NBC as regards the presidency issue was also addressed as plain as day. Maybe the Supremes would be interested in using this case as the perfect opportunity to unequivocally affirm what the Ankeny panel of judges held? I would be curious if the Court would go as far as this (found in footnote 15 of the decision):

    15 We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

    Don’t the plaintiffs have 90 days to appeal the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court? Maybe plaintiffs are mulling over an appeal to the SC? Just a thought.

  64. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Clarence- You may be correct about members of Congress. The President gets a diplomatic passport

    http://www.slate.com/id/1007828

    “The president of the United States, his immediate family, certain top officials, and diplomatic personnel are issued diplomatic passports, which have a black cover and for which the bearer doesn’t have to pay a passport fee.”

    All of those require proof of citizenship and ID.

  65. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Okay, here is another unverified transcript that discusses security clearance. I don’t vouch for the site and have never visited it. This is just the result of a google search. The interview is much more in depth than what I posted on the other thread (and I still have to work on that e-mail to the radio station). I admit that I just scanned this information, but wanted to note this particular part:

    FSM: Considering this situation we find ourselves in today, do you think presidential candidates should be vetted more before they are allowed even to run for their party’s nomination?

    BR: Well that’s very difficult to say how you would do that – no elected official – senator or congressman or the vice president or president – goes through a security clearance process. The very election process itself is considered vetting. Now there have been many members of congress that we would not provide information to. Even though they are entitled to a security clearance doesn’t mean that agencies that have discretion would trust them, and we knew that there were some that we could not trust. With the president and the vice president you really have no choice but to provide the information unless and until you determine that it’s being abused and then you have to take the action of going to the attorney general, and if the attorney general won’t act, you go to the oversight committees of the Congress to explain that there have been inappropriate actions taken on highly sensitive and classified information. Now that’s a drastic step but, on the other hand, it’s one that is called for under the law and it’s exactly what should be done if either the president or the vice president is engaging in unlawful activity.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810282370/editorial/former-fbi-director-would-not-have-hired-obama.html

    Maybe what should be done isn’t always done? I know that G posted some information about clearances. I haven’t read it closely but just noted it was there. Because this source (October 2008) is not a word for word copy of the previous transcript from the radio station (November 2009), I am quite curious as to whether these are legitimate interviews or is it some kind of orchestrated effort to put false information out there.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    WTF?: Doc said; “In quo warranto, the accuser must meet a burden of proof BEFORE the action is tried.”

    Wrong, Doc. In an information on quo warranto action, there is no burden of proof on the accuser. There is only standing. The accuser says why the person does not have valid title to the office, and the accused has the burden of proving that he does.

    I would point you to NEWMAN V. UNITED STATES EX REL. FRIZZELL, 238 U. S. 537 (1915).

    The DC Statute only permits a third party to bring a quo warranto action with the permission of the government and of the supreme court of the district. The accuser must meet a minimum burden of proof before they could receive such permission. The Supreme Court discusses this burden when it says:

    Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.

    Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.

    Thanks to Expelliarmus for teaching me about this many months ago.

  67. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.

    When this comment first received some attention, I wondered if the Judge would accept evidence that has been blogged, texted and twittered in his court room? The phrasing seems to indicate that if an issue (no matter the topic) has been blogged, texted and twittered, well, it’s common knowledge in no need of substantiation.

  68. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    Would FRE 807 apply for instance, in the Kenyan Parliament statement? Let’s say that you could get him on the phone (if it is possible to have some kind of video conferencing) and of course, assuming that he would appear willingly?

    This is highly theoretical but is it possible?

  69. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    “Let’s say that you could get him on the phone (if it is possible to have some kind of video conferencing) and of course, assuming that he would appear willingly?”

    How about making it simpler- if he was willing to come here and be deposed- explaining in the process how he had actual knowledge of this- for instance if he was a duly authorized government official with access to official records or perhaps if he had witnessed the actual birth?

  70. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    charo-I think we agree. Look, at 99.9% confidence the SCOTUS will deny the appeal without comment or hearing arguments. That may not satisfy the birthers but it will certainly indicate that the Justices don’t believe the Indiana court made any errors in their ruling. Since the Indiana court didn’t rule on the issue of those born to US citizens overseas, that will have to remain unresolved until one of them runs and wins.

    What annoys me is people who say, “SCOTUS must decide”. SCOTUS must nothing. They do what they do. They aren’t a Constitutional Commission to which you can refer questions that you want an answer to. They can only deal with the cases they get, including all their quirks and flaws.

    The bottom line is that elected Presidents certified by Congress are legitimate until the Court finds otherwise, not the other way around.

  71. avatar
    nbc May 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    What’s the relevance of the Kenyan parliament testifying to something that was said but of which the person may not have any relevant information.
    It’s hearsay unless the person was there at the birth. If the person has seen admissible evidence to support his statement then this should be submitted.

  72. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    I find it really strange that the birthers depose these second hand sources, when the supposed eyewitness, Sarah Obama, is alive and well.

    It’s sort of like if I witnessed an accident and instead of calling me to testify, the parties called my wife to the stand on the chance that I might have told her about it.

  73. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    The problem is, you never really know why a case is rejected. We only know that not enough Justices wanted to take the case, and they may all have different reasons.

  74. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    You assume that no one would want to depose her.

  75. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    (19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

    In any case, I doubt the Kenyan birth and have already said what I think about the COLB. This is for the sake of argument.

  76. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Ask her I say. But no one wants my opinion.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    charo: you never really know why a case is rejected [by the Supreme Court].

    There are rare exceptions.

  78. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 12, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    WTF?: I know that Obama holds an official U.S. passport, but from what I have read (and that was some time ago) they are issued to all members of Congress without requiring them to present any supporting documentation.

    1. Obama has held a US passport since the 1960’s. However, he was not serving in Congress in the 60’s and was not even eligible to serve at that point. (Pesky age requirement).

    2. You are mistaken about Congressional passports — they get their passports from the State Dept. with the same sort of required info as anyone else. (For any Congressmember who did not previously hold a US passport, that would mean production of a birth certificate). You could verify that in about 10 seconds on the Dept. of State web site.

  79. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    charo: You assume that no one would want to depose her.

    It is a fact that no one has deposed her.

    charo: The problem is, you never really know why a case is rejected. We only know that not enough Justices wanted to take the case, and they may all have different reasons.

    The argument from the birthers is that the Court is dying to rule Obama ineligible, but can’t because of standing. This would knock the legs out from under that. Would that be the end of birtherism? No, but I’ll still take it.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    charo: You assume that no one would want to depose her.

    Berg is enough of a true believer to want to depose Sarah Obama. I’m sure Apozzu wouldn’t touch her with a 10-ft pole because he has no doubt read the entire transcript of her taped interview and knows it would be a disaster for the birther cause. The grandmother tape is the oldest and most venerated myth in the entire birther universe. Of course it would spun that she lied for her grandson, she was afraid for her life, that family members coerced her to do it–the usual denial.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    charo: I wondered if the Judge would accept evidence that has been blogged, texted and twittered in his court room?

    In context, Judge Robertson was saying that the topic had been beaten to death, and he didn’t want to prolong the agony by delaying a ruling. Birthers love to make fun of the Judge by suggesting that he was using the Internet as a source of evidence for his ruling, but nothing is further from the truth. One has but to read his opinion to see that.

  82. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    That argument is not from me. We don’t know why the cases were rejected. No one but the Justices and the walls do.

  83. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    If there is a dissenting opinion for rejecting the case. True.

  84. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    In context, Judge Robertson was saying that the topic had been beaten to death, and he didn’t want to prolong the agony by delaying a ruling.

    – It was beaten to death by a small group, sure, but not by the electorate at large. I think we covered that topic already.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    The court in Ankeny was recognizing that there is a real controversy in whether foreign born US citizens may be president, and that there is none for US born citizens.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    WTF?:I don’t know if Obama ever had a U.S., British, Kenya, or Indonesian passport.

    But we know from official sources what kind of birth certificate he had. Given that fact, I think U.S. Passport is the obvious choice.

  87. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Doc,

    You’re talking about a third person, I’m thinking interested person. An interested person does not need the permission of the AG or the US Attorney for the District.

    The interested person would still need leave of the Court, but that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone who the court would consider to be an “interested person”.

  88. avatar
    charo May 12, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    I took the note to mean that this court would find foreign born US citizens are eligible. I would like to know if the SC would agree.

  89. avatar
    G May 13, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    Charo –

    Can you find any sources of any FBI person being interviewed that doesn’t come from an obvious right-wing website, with a clear right-wing agenda?

    These all seem to read like propaganda hit pieces.

    When I tried looking up your last reference on the radio interview, ALL of the links were from propaganda sites.

    If the story was legit, surely there is some standard news outlet or sites that discuss security and not politics that would have asked or reported such issues? I’m still suspicious, because they all seem to be stories that appear on only RW sites.

  90. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    The interested person would still need leave of the Court, but that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone who the court would consider to be an “interested person”.

    The harder part is finding an interested person because the bar is quite high

  91. avatar
    charo May 13, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    I am not specifically looking at RW sites. I think I asked the question as to whether there may be a concerted effort to spread misinformation.

    Yet it seems strange that there is such a detailed conversation. That of course doesn’t mean that it is NOT manufactured. One possible explanation of finding the stuff on RW sites is that if true, I don’t think non-RW sites would want to draw attention to these interviews, just as RW sites would promote them.

    I’ll check in with you some other time.

    Bedtime-

  92. avatar
    charo May 13, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    I don’t think there are many objective news sites.

  93. avatar
    G May 13, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    LOL! Well, I understand what you are trying to say, but there is still a difference between established legitimate news sources and propaganda websites.

    On legitimate established news sites, the reports are fairly cut and dry and editorial commentary is left to the “editorial page”, so yes, there is a big difference there.

    Also, on the interview you found, it may have been a real interview. But if is just a bunch of spin-based right-wing operators interview other spin-based right-wing operatives with an opinion, its still just a propaganda piece.

    Here’s an example – you could conduct a real interview with Karl Rove or Sean Hannity and they can say whatever they want, but we all know that most of what they say is them providing their biased spin.

    If you want to get away from news sources, because you worry about the bias, then look for non-political based sites (the web is full of them), that are topic or issue based. On a topic like this, as I suggested, you would look for security based sites or sites interested in how the FBI works or something like that.

  94. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 13, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    WTF?: The interested person would still need leave of the Court, but that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone who the court would consider to be an “interested person”.

    Under the statute, an “interested person” would need to be someone claiming that he was entitled to the office. That would be Joe Biden… and I don’t think he’s all that “interested.”

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Objective news sites?

    Try NPR.org.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    I heard “maybe”, but would also like to know what the SC would say.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    WTF?: The interested person would still need leave of the Court, but that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone who the court would consider to be an “interested person”.

    You’re not an “interested person” nor is anyone else except perhaps Joe Biden. You seem to be saying that the court only is a certification that the third party has an interest, but this is not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the Court is a barrier to harassment. That means: no frivolous suits, and that means: some burden of proof. (Which is what I said at the outset of this exchange.)

    The opinion in Taitz v. Obama should prove instructive. That decision cites a court of appeals ruling that no general member of the public (such as Taitz) can bring a quo warranto case against a public official because the removal of a public official is always a matter of general interest, and the general interest of the US is only expressed through the Attorney General or the US Attorney.

    So the quo warranto approach is a dead end, as it has proved for everyone who has tried it.

  98. avatar
    Sef May 13, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    Re Scientist’s “The bottom line is that elected Presidents certified by Congress are legitimate until the Court finds otherwise, not the other way around.” Since the Constitution provides an explicit mechanism for Presidential removal which does not involve a court (other than the CJ) the Court doesn’t get to decide. The Court could decide on a candidate, but not a sitting President. There has been much discussion that QW, even with an interested party, would not fly for a sitting President.

  99. avatar
    charo May 13, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    G and Doc C,

    I can’t make npr (or any other news organization) cover a topic. This person is not Karl Rove (whose job it is to spin, the same as Gibbs, Steele, …), but the former second in command of the FBI. He either said what he did or he didn’t.

    We have a person in charge allegedly claiming how things operate. That person either said it and it’s true, he didn’t say it, or he said it and it’s not true. If he said it and it’s not true, he is either misinformed or lying.

    I think you may be leaning toward the interview being spin, but the statements do not reflect what spin is.

    I did a quick search of Buck Revell, and it seems he was the subject of a conspiracy that resulted in a lawsuit.

    http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/10/01-6169.htm

    (He lost because the court found no actual malice.)

    In any case, the detail of the interview SEEMS to make it genuine. Buck Revell is a real person. Because he brought suit for defamation, I think he would be quite angry if someone fabricated an interview. I am leaning towards this being a legitimate interview.

  100. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You’re not an “interested person” nor is anyone else except perhaps Joe Biden.

    Could WTF? actually be Joe Biden? After all, he seems to be familiar with grammar and spelling, which is unusual in birthers. Biden did say that health care reform was “A big F’n deal”. And WTF? goes on at length sometimes, as does Biden. I for one am not fooled, Joe.

  101. avatar
    HolyRoller May 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    Hey guy’s…I want to apologize for insinuating the President was not a “natural born” citizen. I have been proven wrong…

    It now appears Lil’ Barry is a 120 yr. old born in the great State of Connecticut.

    “WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.”

    I hope y’all accept my apoligy…ROFLMAO!!!

  102. avatar
    Bob Weber May 13, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Actually, the lawsuit is a pro se filed by Barnett, obviously intended to benefit Taitz, but the only evidence for Taitz herself being involved is that it’s a bunch of legal gobbledygook.

  103. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    Nothing new here… Soon 0-68…

  104. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    Actually Obama is not mentioned as far as I can tell.

    Par for the course… Poor research. Poor reading comprehension

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    charo: In any case, the detail of the interview SEEMS to make it genuine.

    Except for one glaring item: no one can verify that it ever happened. Such is always a huge red flag for me.

  106. avatar
    Bob Weber May 13, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    nbc: Actually Obama is not mentioned as far as I can tell.Par for the course… Poor research. Poor reading comprehension

    Correct. Barnett wants Orly’s GOP opponent Damon Dunn declared ineligible, based on a misreading of California election law (typical!), and the incumbent Bowen removed for “incompetence”! Who said conservatives were opposed to judicial activism?

  107. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    That set off a red flag for me too. Or the fact that only RW websites report such stories and you can’t find any FBI interviews that say anything like this anywhere else but those propaganda places.

  108. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    I think by my capitalizing SEEMS, I expressed doubt. I could be wrong, G, but there seems to be an implication that I regularly visit RW websites and that I rely on them for accurate reports. I don’t know how many times I can state that I simply googled a query and this is what came up.

    You never took on the point that the interview was ALLEGEDLY with a named person who is a well-known figure in the FBI, not some anonymous source. Again, I EMPHASIZE that I don’t know if it is valid or not.

  109. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    Greg: Still the FRE applies. The COLB, for example, is a fully self-authenticating document under FRE 902.1 or 902.2 and it is an exception to hearsay under FRE 803.9.
    You then have to prove its a forgery. You won’t be able to introduce hearsay, or invalid affidavits, or speculation, or innuendo.

    This is where Sandra Lines comes in. The opposing party gets to see the evidence during discovery (if there were ever a case to get that far.) If Sandra Lines (who appears willing to examine the COLB) finds it legitimate, then the forgery issue is gone.

  110. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    charo: I think by my capitalizing SEEMS, I expressed doubt.I could be wrong, G, but there seems to be an implication that I regularly visit RW websites and that I rely on them for accurate reports.I don’t know how many times I can state that I simply googled a query and this is what came up.You never took on the point that the interview was ALLEGEDLY with a named person who is a well-known figure in the FBI, not some anonymous source.Again, I EMPHASIZE that I don’t know if it is valid or not.

    I am placing this down here because it is out place where it ended up getting posted.

  111. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    That didn’t work!

  112. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    Concerning these alleged FBI interviews, I am going to speak to the program director of the Mike Trivisonno Show this afternoon (assuming that I am not help up with anything). I also e-mailed the website administrator from the Family Security Matters site. I know I’ll get an answer concerning the Mike T. show, but we’ll see if anyone responds back from FSM. I plan to try to contact Buck Revell if I can find some public contact information; I think he may be interested in this, particularly if it is fabricated.

  113. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    The odds of it being a forgery are 1000-1. Here’s why:

    1. Alvin Onaka’s signature is on the COLB. He is a real person. He is the Registrar of the state of Hawaii. He has not disclaimed his signature on the COLB. If you’re a state employee, whose credibility rests on the validity of your signature, wouldn’t you object if someone forged your name to a document you knew was a fake?

    2. The Obama campaign spent more than $700 million. The McCain campaign spent $333 million. Hillary raised and spent north of $200 million. Within that billion plus was a huge amount spent on muck-raking and opposition research. You really think the Clinton campaign, which released a picture of a turbaned Obama would not have had an investigator glance at the COLB?

    3. The particulars of the COLB have been verified. The Hawaiian DOH said Obama was born in Honolulu. That accords with the fact that two newspapers printed birth announcements – which they would have done based on information they received from the DOH. It listed the parents as Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama. So, we know that an official COLB would say that Obama was born in Honolulu, to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann. In other words, we know from sources independent of the COLB itself that if Obama went to the DOH and asked for a COLB, it would say exactly what the COLB that was released said. So, why the need for a forgery?

    When presenting a case to a jury, lawyers often use an analogy to explain how we use circumstantial evidence and what the term “reasonable doubt” means. Imagine you go to bed one night and there is no snow on the ground. When you wake up, there is a foot of snow on the ground and there are fresh footprints leading up to the door of your house. Despite the fact that you didn’t see it snow and didn’t see anyone walking to the front door, you can reasonably conclude that it snowed overnight and that someone walked to the front door sometime after it started snowing. From those facts, you cannot conclude why the person came to the door. And, while it is possible that someone ran a snowblower all night and faked the footprints, it is not reasonable.

    It is possible that Obama had his COLB forged, but it is not likely and it is not reasonable to think that he did so!

  114. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    charo, thanks.

    I don’t doubt your sincerity at wanting to get the bottom of this.

    My points are about being wary and dubious of things that only show up on very RW sources.

    Yes, Oliver “Buck” Revell used to be with the FBI with an impressive body of work there. Here is some of his resume through his FBI years for your info:

    He served for five years as an Officer and Aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps, leaving active duty in 1964 as a Captain. He then served 30 years as a Special Agent and Senior Executive of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1964-1994). From 1980 until 1991 he served in FBI Headquarters first as Assistant Director in charge of Criminal Investigations (including terrorism); then as Associate Deputy Director he was in charge of the Investigative, Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and International programs of the Bureau (1985-91). He served as a member of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (1980-91), on the National Foreign Intelligence Board (1987-91), and the Senior Review Group, Vice President’s Task Force on Terrorism (1985-1986). Mr. Revell served as Vice Chairman of the Interagency Group for Counter-Intelligence (1985-91), and on the Terrorist Crisis Management Committee of the National Security Council. In September 1987, Mr. Revell was placed in charge of a joint FBI/CIA/U.S. military operation (Operation Goldenrod) which led to the first apprehension overseas of an international terrorist. President Reagan commended him for his leadership of this endeavor. On May 1, 1992 the Attorney General ordered Mr. Revell to Los Angeles placing him in command of joint Federal law enforcement efforts to suppress the riots and civil disorder; he also coordinated the law enforcement activities of the assigned Military Forces. He received the Attorney General’s Special Commendation Award for this endeavor. He was in charge of the Dallas Division of the FBI at the time of his retirement in September 1994. He retired with the rank of Associate Deputy Director.

    He retired from the FBI 16 years ago. Since then, he’s been involved in helping run known neo-con think tanks. Neo-con think tanks are the master “spin” outfits and behind-the-scenes “movers” for the “war-hawk” militant portion of the far Right Wing.

    Here’s just one that he’s currently over: FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23757&Itemid=326

    Here is a list of criticisms of the FDD:

    The International Relations Center features a report on the FDD on its “Right Web” website, which seeks to “check the militaristic drift of the country.” The report states that “although the FDD is an ardent critic of terrorism, it has not criticized actions taken by Israel against Palestinians that arguably fall into this category.” It terms the FDD a “prominent member of the web of neoconservative-aligned think tanks,” including the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute and Freedom House. Left-wing writer Jim Lobe, writing in the Asia Times, referred to the FDD as a group “whose views largely mirror those of Israel’s ruling Likud Party,” and said that the FDD’s board of advisors includes “prominent neo-cons and Iraq war boosters.” The American Conservative published an article accusing it of being funded mainly by a small number of pro-Israel hawks, as well as being engaged in “spin”. It is listed as a “pro-war” organization by globalsecurity.org with regard to its stance on Iran’s nuclear program, and has been described as one of the “top neocon think tanks” by the Christian Science Monitor.

    Therefore, I’d be just as skeptical of anything that he says as I would be of Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

  115. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Keep us posted! Thanks!

  116. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    So, I shouldn’t waste my time tracking down whether this was a legitimate interview because what he says is crap anyways?

  117. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    See above.

  118. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Spin is different than outright lying.

  119. avatar
    WTF? May 14, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Expelliarmus: Under the statute, an “interested person” would need to be someone claiming that he was entitled to the office. That would be Joe Biden… and I don’t think he’s all that “interested.”

    You need to read the Court’s holding in Newman again. Your assertion that an “interested person” is limited to only someone claiming title to the office, is a conclusion that would only be valid if the Court did not provide an alternative. The Court did provide an alternative. They did so by use of the word “OR”.

  120. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Well the court has obviously concluded that people like Apuzzo, Taitz, Berg are not considered “interested persons”

  121. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    So, I shouldn’t waste my time tracking down whether this was a legitimate interview because what he says is cr*p anyways?

    (hopefully, the * keeps the comment out of moderation)

  122. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    For some reason, a comment was in moderation so I will try to rephrase.

    Spin in not outright fabricating. Are you suggesting that if the interview is true, the part about vetting is a falsehood?

  123. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Newman

    An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

    Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

    What now?

  124. avatar
    WTF? May 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Greg:1. Alvin Onaka’s signature is on the COLB. He is a real person. He is the Registrar of the state of Hawaii. He has not disclaimed his signature on the COLB. If you’re a state employee, whose credibility rests on the validity of your signature, wouldn’t you object if someone forged your name to a document you knew was a fake? 2. The Obama campaign spent more than $700 million. The McCain campaign spent $333 million. Hillary raised and spent north of $200 million. Within that billion plus was a huge amount spent on muck-raking and opposition research. You really think the Clinton campaign, which released a picture of a turbaned Obama would not have had an investigator glance at the COLB? 3. The particulars of the COLB have been verified. The Hawaiian DOH said Obama was born in Honolulu. That accords with the fact that two newspapers printed birth announcements – which they would have done based on information they received from the DOH. It listed the parents as Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama. So, we know that an official COLB would say that Obama was born in Honolulu, to Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann. In other words, we know from sources independent of the COLB itself that if Obama went to the DOH and asked for a COLB, it would say exactly what the COLB that was released said. So, why the need for a forgery?

    1. Alvin Onaka’s signature? You’re not serious; are you? It’s a rubber stamp signature. Do you really want to assert that since he has not disclaimed the rubber stamp signature, he must be endorsing the document? That’s exactly what you seem to be doing.

    I have a certified copy of my original borth report. I also have a COLB. The embossed seal, and signature on my COLB existed before the information was ever printed on my COLB! How do I know? For one, the embossed seal and signature are part of the document, as part of the document production process. Secondly, I watched it get printed out and handed to me.

    That’s how secure COLB’s are.

    2. The somebody must have looked into it excuse is pretty weak. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support it. Not even a claim from either of the camps.

    3. The particulars do nothing but support that some adult filed a birth report in Hawaii on August 8th 1961.

    “The Hawaiian DOH said Obama was born in Honolulu.”

    Objection! Hearsay. The only thing the DOH can say, is that some adult filed a report with the DOH.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with the DOH saying that their records indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that is as far as they can go.

  125. avatar
    Black Lion May 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    WTF? says…

    “I wouldn’t have a problem with the DOH saying that their records indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that is as far as they can go.”

    But the Hawaii Doh has said that. Dr. Fukino, as head of the HI DoH, specifically stated she reviewed the vital records and they indicate that Barack Obama was “born in Hawaii”…So what is the problem?

    WTF says…

    “Objection! Hearsay. The only thing the DOH can say, is that some adult filed a report with the DOH.”

    Not true. The HI DoH can and is saying is that they have records on file that prove that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. What those records are happen to be protected by privacy laws, but they have them. And the COLB, issued by the state of HI, is prima facia evidence that these records to exist that they show him to have been Born in HI.

    You can allege fraud all you want. But in making such an allegiation, it is incumbant on you to supply some sort of proof to support your claim. Pointing to a HI statute and saying that “a relative could have registered him” is not proof. First of all the statute is clear that this would require additional documentation and secondly no proof was supplied that this did occur.

  126. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Objection! Hearsay.

    FRE 803.8

    Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies

    Hearsay exception, availability of the declarant immaterial.

    If you’re pretending to be a lawyer, you should familiarize yourself with some of the rules.

    The particulars do nothing but support that some adult filed a birth report in Hawaii on August 8th 1961.

    Yes, some adult filed a birth report in Hawaii on August 8th and so any COLB issued by Hawaii would say the exact same thing.

    Do you disagree that regardless of who filed the birth report, the COLB will say exactly what the one issued by Obama’s campaign?

    If any COLB from Hawaii would say the exact same thing as the one released by Obama, why would he have forged it?

  127. avatar
    Scientist May 14, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    Look, this is beyond foolish. Can I be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that the President was born in Hawaii? No, the only people in the entire universe that I have that level of certainty for are my children, because I was present at their birth. I don’t have that level of certainty on my own birth, though my birth certificate agrees with what my parents told me and the city named is the one my parents lived in and the one I remember from early life. Could my parents have pulled an elaborate hoax on me and the entire world? It’s possible. And they’re both dead, so I can’t ask them and if they had pulled such a hoax they would likely not tell me anyway.

    So, I’m stuck being 99% certain where I was born. Obama has a b.c. that has him born where his parents lived and where he lived as a small child. Could his parents and grandparents possibly have pulled a massive fraud? There is simply no way to rule it out with absolute certainty. The most you could say if the report were filed by his grandmother is that it was filed by his grandmother. You will never be able to prove some event from 50 years ago. Give up.

    Every pharmaceutical you take is tested for safety and efficacy at 95% confidence. A criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt (confidence % unspecified). A civil case (which this matter is) is more likely than not (confidence 51%). Can I say with 51% confidence that Barack Obama was born in the city where his parents lived at the time and where he spent his early childhood? Yes, absolutely. And until you die and go to heaven you will not get better than that.

  128. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    I wouldn’t have a problem with the DOH saying that their records indicate that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that is as far as they can go.

    That’s far enough to establish eligibility status.

  129. avatar
    richCares May 14, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    reads WND
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  130. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Well uh…

  131. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    No, the only people in the entire universe that I have that level of certainty for are my children, because I was present at their birth.

    1. Are you certain they exist and are not a creation of your thoughts? Cogito ergo sum.

    2. Are you certain that your memories of being present weren’t implanted by aliens, scientists, God?

    3. Are you certain that some fold in the space-time continuum, as yet unexplained, caused the birth to occur somewhere/somewhen else but appear to you to occur at the time and place of your observance?

    I would submit that absolute certainty is an unobtainable goal as long as we are mortal. The best we can hope for is virtual certainty.

    I think it is at least more likely than not that Obama was born in Hawaii. Indeed, I think that Obama’s birth can be proven to be Hawaiian on the current state of the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

  132. avatar
    Scientist May 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Greg: 1. Are you certain they exist and are not a creation of your thoughts? Cogito ergo sum.

    You’ll have to ask them.

    Greg: 2. Are you certain that your memories of being present weren’t implanted by aliens, scientists, God?

    I am a scientist. Are you suggesting I implanted my own brain?

    Greg: 3. Are you certain that some fold in the space-time continuum, as yet unexplained, caused the birth to occur somewhere/somewhen else but appear to you to occur at the time and place of your observance?

    It was an unseasonably warm day when my eldest was born.

    WTF?/Joe Biden (I have already proved they are one and the same person) is obviously a metaphysician to raise his doubts regarding the President’s birth. In fact the entire birther movement has clearly moved beyond the plane of reason and science and into the domain of metaphysics.

  133. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Alvin Onaka’s signature? You’re not serious; are you? It’s a rubber stamp signature. Do you really want to assert that since he has not disclaimed the rubber stamp signature, he must be endorsing the document? That’s exactly what you seem to be doing.

    Hawaii has one state registrar. All certified copies of birth certificates have Alvin’s signature on them. Every request for a certificate comes through his office.

    You, WTF, weren’t running for President when you got your birth certificate, were you?

    Even with a pre-printed signature block, if I’m the only state registrar and every request for a certified birth certificate comes through my office and the Friggin’ Democratic Nominee for the Friggin’ President of the Friggin’ United States posts a copy of his COLB that allegedly came from my office, I think I might check to see if the thing actually came from my office.

    Especially since it is a crime under HRS 338-30 to prepare a document that falsely purports to be a birth certificate!

    Conspiracy theories require nearly everyone involved to act entirely counter to human nature! They’re convenient that way.

  134. avatar
    nemocapn May 14, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Charo, I actually thought it was a good idea to track down whether it’s a legitimate interview. Then G brought up that he retired 16 years ago. That’s long before 9/11. Government agencies have changed security policies since then.

  135. avatar
    Rickey May 14, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    Here’s what I would like to see the birthers produce:

    Evidence of just one instance since statehood of a person who was not born in Hawaii who nevertheless was able to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate which says that he or she was born in Hawaii.

    Birthers such as Lakin’s lawyer claim that it is easy to do, but where is the evidence? Where are the examples of this happening?

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    WTF?: I have a certified copy of my original borth report. I also have a COLB. The embossed seal, and signature on my COLB existed before the information was ever printed on my COLB! How do I know? For one, the embossed seal and signature are part of the document, as part of the document production process. Secondly, I watched it get printed out and handed to me.

    I have some problems with this story. Some vital records security paper has pre-printed seals, but these are multi-colored seals; I have never heard of a pre-embossed seal. It might be possible if the embossing were fairly shallow, but if something like the form from Hawaii was pre-embossed, it would likely jam the printer.

    What I totally can’t buy is the lack of an after-production signature. There are cases when two signatures appear, one from the state registrar and one from a local registrar. One signature might be pre-printed, but not both. If the signature is applied BEFORE the copy, then the copy is not certified. That’s like getting a notary to notarize a document that you take home and sign later. This doesn’t happen. Either your COLB was signed after it was printed, or it’s not a real certified copy.

    What state did you say you were born in, and where did you get this COLB?

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    WTF?: The particulars do nothing but support that some adult filed a birth report in Hawaii on August 8th 1961.

    Basically then you are saying that all birth certificates are invalid, because a birth certificate is nothing more than a government certified copy of information that somebody signed way back when saying when somebody was born and which statement was accepted by a governmental authority. It might be a doctor, a registered nurse midwife, or daddy himself. In the case of a doctor, the state is going to accept the document on its face and without question. In the case of midwife a little more skepticism. An unattended home birth gets the most scrutiny because it is the most vulnerable to fraud. Of course, delayed certificates are where the real fraud game is.

    My birth certificate was signed by a doctor. My WW II Veteran father’s birth certificate was signed by his mother 20-something years after the fact.

    You can put any ideas of a grandmother registration out of your head. Hawaiian law in 1961 required one of the parents to register the birth if unattended. The only way grandma could get involved was if both parents were unable to do the registration (baby born at home, mom died in childbirth, father unknown).

  138. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    Charo, I see you are getting the hang of how moderation works.

    My view is that there is no moral difference between intentionally uttering a technically false statement, and intentionally deceiving someone through a cleverly worded technically true statement.

  139. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    So it boils down to this: whether the interview is true is irrelevant in your eyes?

  140. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    nemocapn: Charo, I actually thought it was a good idea to track down whether it’s a legitimate interview. Then G brought up that he retired 16 years ago.That’s long before 9/11.Government agencies have changed security policies since then.

    I understand your point of view, but do you have something to show that or was it just a reasonable assumption?

    Here is something I found:

    “For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3224481/Barack-Obamas-team-is-briefed-by-Bush-staff-on-after-warnings-about-a-terrorist-attack.html

    The above (which is unsubstantiated in the article) does not concern the vetting of presidential or senate candidates. Furthermore, if true, it indicates that there was no change in the vetting process for administration officials immediately after 9/11. They were vetted AFTER the fact, but my point is, if a change in vetting occurred in 2008, how do we know that significant changes in vetting were made for presidential/senatorial candidates immediately after 9/11? (assuming that the interview is genuine)

    I hope I am clear.

  141. avatar
    Don Draper May 14, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    “If any COLB from Hawaii would say the exact same thing as the one released by Obama, why would he have forged it?”

    Because the one from HI DoH says, “Amended” on it. Obama does not want to explain the amendment and wants stay with the fact he was a native-born American.

  142. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Doc,

    I agree with that general statement, but I don’t think this is what we are talking about.

    ***

    FSM: Considering this situation we find ourselves in today, do you think presidential candidates should be vetted more before they are allowed even to run for their party’s nomination?
    BR: Well that’s very difficult to say how you would do that – no elected official – senator or congressman or the vice president or president – goes through a security clearance process. The very election process itself is considered vetting.

    ***

    The above is either true or it is not. Maybe it was true during his tenure and it is not true now (I replied about this to nemocapn’s comment), but your generalization IMO is inapplicable.

  143. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    There is no evidence of an amendment.

  144. avatar
    Scientist May 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Let me add a coda to WTF?/Joe Biden’s tale of a fraud perpetrated on the State of Hawaii (and the President, perhaps) by Grandma Dunham. Why? In order to convince a jury of a crime, one needs a motive.

    WTF?/Joe Biden has said, “Stanley Ann Dunham knew she was too young to pass citizenship to her child born in Kenya”. Well, it seems a stretch that an 18-year old mother would be intimately familiar with citizenship laws. Remember, there was no Internet. Looking up a law required a trip to the law library.

    But suppose she informed herself. She had a much better legal solution than getting her mother to commit fraud. Get a Kenyan passport and a US visa for the baby. She was absolutely entitled to bring her minor child with her to the US, especially since the father was there as well. The child could live happily as a permanent resident in the US and become a citizen when he became as adult. No fraud was necessary. And Grandma Dunham was a trusted bank employee who would have been fired over any hint of fraud, so she has a lot to lose.

    I’m sorry WTF?/Joe Biden, your story fails the smell test. You will have to remain as VP.

  145. avatar
    SFJeff May 14, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    “So it boils down to this: whether the interview is true is irrelevant in your eyes?”

    Whether the facts are true or not is relevant. Whether the persons making the claim or not are credible or potentially biased is also relevant.

  146. avatar
    Scientist May 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    charo: I don’t know whether candidates are “vetted” by the FBI. I actually think they shouldn’t be. Are the people supreme or is the National Security apparatus supreme? To whom would the FBI make their report and what would that body do? What body determines who gets to run for President? This isn’t the Islamic Republic of Iran-there is no Guardian Council here.

    We have an adversarial legal and political system. If I’m in a dispute with you, it’s not the judge who investigates you; that’s my job. In a campaign, it’s the opponents job to dig up dirt, not the FBI’s (unless they have an ongoing investigation that a candidate figures into).

    My biggest beef with the birthers is they think the people are idiots. They think some group of judges or wise men will save the world from the people. But history shows that judges and wise men aren’t any wiser than the people. If the people really are idiots, then we are doomed and no one can save us.

    I agree with Lincoln, “You can fool all of people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

  147. avatar
    Black Lion May 14, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    Sven and his fantasies again…I think Sven is going with the young Barry renounced his US citizenship at 7, was magically adopted by Lolo, was granted Indonesian citizenship (although he was too old), was abandoned, shipped back to Hawaii as a refugee by some corporation that got him a SS#, then his father flies back from Kenya to renounce his parental rights, which somehow causes the state of HI to amend his BC. Did I miss anything. Or simply Obama was born in HI, got a passport at 6, lived in Indonesia for 4 years, moved back to the US, went to High School, college, moved to IL, then became Senator and then President. Which is more plausable.

  148. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm #

    Sometimes it is. Unfortunately, a lot of spin these days has been exactly that – outright lying.

  149. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    Exactly! SFJeff has covered what I was going to say.

    Yes, it is worth finding out if the interview actually occurred.

    That is only part of the equation but an important first step of validation.

    The second part is vetting or corroborating the credibility of the statements made.

  150. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    charo: “For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3224481/Barack-Obamas-team-is-briefed-by-Bush-staff-on-after-warnings-about-a-terrorist-attack.html

    charo,

    Thanks as always for the article and link.

    However, I fail to see how this quite says anything in regards to what you were originally asking.

    This article is about vetting candidates for the administration (i.e. cabinet position nominations, senior admin appointees, etc) of BOTH the presidential candidates, BEFORE either of them is actually elected.

    So, for the first time ever, the FBI started digging into the backgrounds of people that *might* get named to be considered for an administration that hasn’t even been chosen by the voters in advance of that election or their official nominations.

    That is all that is saying. It just says that they’ve moved up their intensive background check process to the point that they’ll dig into someone on the possibility that they might eventually be named to such a position and they’ll do it for such a list of people from both major parties running in a presidential election before that election even occurs.

    If anything, that shows that they are very, very, very serious about detailed extensive background checks on even hypothetical government officials in a post 9/11 world.

    So, based on that, I would find it extremely odd that they would be somehow lax on the presidential candidate themselves. It just wouldn’t make any logical sense.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    charo: The above is either true or it is not.

    My opinion is that the statement is true. I just have doubts whether the interview that contains the statement is authentic in its entirety, and those doubts are based on the difficult of confirming it. The interview could be partly true with things added. I have just seen so much fakery in this business to trust anything I can’t source.

  152. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    scientist,

    This all started because it was claimed by someone (and now I am not exactly sure who) that President Obama was vetted by the FBI. I questioned whether that was true or not based on the alleged interview of Revell. IYO (in your opinion- is that an original acronym or did someone already beat me to it), the vetting should not occur. If the interview is genuine, then maybe the philosophy of the FBI matches yours, particularly “it’s the opponents job to dig up dirt, not the FBI’s (unless they have an ongoing investigation that a candidate figures into)”?

    Thanks for the response.

  153. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    G:
    charo,Thanks as always for the article and link.
    However, I fail to see how this quite says anything in regards to what you were originally asking.

    If anything, that shows that they are very, very, very serious about detailed extensive background checks on even hypothetical government officials in a post 9/11 world.So, based on that, I would find it extremely odd that they would be somehow lax on the presidential candidate themselves.It just wouldn’t make any logical sense.

    First, it does not exactly have anything to do with what I asked. Nemocapn said that the government has changed security policies since 9/11. He made it appear that changes immediately occurred after 9/11 when the link I quoted (again, if true) shows that it was as late as 2008 when this important policy change occurred because of security concerns (“for the first time in American history,…”). So, if the FBI had not been vetting presidential candidates before 9/11, maybe it continued not to do so.

    SO, to go back to the initial assertion, maybe President was not vetted by the FBI as claimed and believed by many.

    I know that doesn’t change the opinion of anyone here, but why put forth something as fact when it may not be a fact?

    Have a nice weekend.

  154. avatar
    charo May 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My opinion is that the statement is true. I just have doubts whether the interview that contains the statement is authentic in its entirety.

    This statement is from the very beginning of the interview:

    “Well, of course, all I can do to render my opinion is to the time I served in government, and I retired after 35 years in 1994.”

    So, the context of the interview is that in his OPINION, that a person with President Obama’s associations would not have been hired by the FBI under his tenure. The statement that I pulled is in response whether presidential candidates should be vetted more. That response is not opinion, but a simple statement that they aren’t vetted; the election process is the vetting. (Really, Judge Robinson’s response).

    From the outset of the “alleged” article, Revell states that he is giving his opinion. But, a person can make a statement that is not an opinion, depending on the question asked.

    I am not adopting his OPINIONS as my own because I don’t know whether or not someone with President Obama’s associations would be hired by the FBI. I am inclined to adopt as fact, the statement that presidential candidates are not vetted, if the article is true. The statement wasn’t prefaced with
    “It is my opinion” or “I believe that.”

    Is it possible that someone added in statements that Revell did not say? It is possible. It would be taking quite a chance to completely fabricate a statement in the publication of an interview with a high ranking ex-FBI official. Possible though.

  155. avatar
    Walter White May 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Black Lion: Sven and his fantasies again…I think Sven is going with the young Barry renounced his US citizenship at 7, was magically adopted by Lolo, was granted Indonesian citizenship (although he was too old), was abandoned, shipped back to Hawaii as a refugee by some corporation that got him a SS#, then his father flies back from Kenya to renounce his parental rights, which somehow causes the state of HI to amend his BC.Did I miss anything.

    The milkman, the dogcatcher and the grocery store cannot renounce the citizenship of minor.

    And when SAD married Lolo and agreed to move to Indonesia, she knew it would be temporary and didn’t even consider renouncing her US citizenship to obtain the citizenship of the country she would live with her husband in.

    And if she’s not going to renounce, then Barry is not going to renounce, either.

    Silly Black Lion.

  156. avatar
    nemocapn May 14, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    charo: I understand your point of view, but do you have something to show that or was it just a reasonable assumption? Here is something I found:“For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3224481/Barack-Obamas-team-is-briefed-by-Bush-staff-on-after-warnings-about-a-terrorist-attack.htmlThe above (which is unsubstantiated in the article) does not concern the vetting of presidential or senate candidates. Furthermore, if true, it indicates that there was no change in the vetting process for administration officials immediately after 9/11. They were vetted AFTER the fact, but my point is, if a change in vetting occurred in 2008, how do we know that significant changes in vetting were made for presidential/senatorial candidates immediately after 9/11? (assuming that the interview is genuine)I hope I am clear.

    I based my assessment on my own observation of security changes in government buildings in NYC post 9/11. I imagine DC also made major changes in policies and/or laws since they established an entirely new Department of Homeland Security.

    Here’s an article that supports my claim that security has changed since 9/11:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447752,00.html

    Karl Rove said in an interview with Greta Van Susteran on Nov. 6, 2008, “We also had a change in the homeland security law several years ago, which allows the administration, the current administration, to ask and receive from the prospective — from the presidential candidates lists of names of people that they would like to have turned over to the FBI and other agencies to go through a background check, so their security clearances can be in place.”

    It would help to find the law to which Rove was referring, but I haven’t found it yet. While the Patriot Act refers to background checks, I didn’t see anything referring specifically to cabinet members.

  157. avatar
    nemocapn May 14, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    I can certainly say that Vice Presidential candidates had background checks back in 1988, but not FBI ones. I’d presume it was because of the fiasco with Geraldine Ferraro’s husband in 1984.

    Here’s the abstract of a pay per view article.
    NEW FAD: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VP PICKS
    Chicago Tribune, Aug 3, 1988
    “An incredible array of government agencies have investigators and keep background files: the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, the Defense Investigative Service, the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Aviation Administration and the General Services Administration, to mention only a few. Until this summer. Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis’ legal advisers openly hired an Annandale, Va., investigative firm to check into the backgrounds of five of the most powerful Democrats in the country as part of the process he used to screen candidates for vice president.Dukakis adviser Paul Brountas set up teams of lawyers and accountants to screen Senators Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, John Glenn of Ohio, Bob Graham of Florida and Albert Gore of Tennessee and Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana. The nod ultimately went to Bentsen.”

    Headine on Google News from The New London Connecticut Day, July 28, 1988, p. D6: “Bush starts background checks of prospective running mates.”

  158. avatar
    nemocapn May 14, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    I think I found the law to which Rove was referring:

    S. 2845 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
    Subtitle F—Presidential Transition
    SEC. 7601. PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION.
    (a) SERVICES PROVIDED PRESIDENT-ELECT.—Section 3 of the
    Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note) is amended—
    (1) by adding after subsection (a)(8)(A)(iv) the following:
    S. 2845—220
    ‘(v) Activities under this paragraph shall include
    the preparation of a detailed classified, compartmented
    summary by the relevant outgoing executive branch
    officials of specific operational threats to national security;
    major military or covert operations; and pending
    decisions on possible uses of military force. This summary
    shall be provided to the President-elect as soon
    as possible after the date of the general elections held
    to determine the electors of President and Vice President
    under section 1 or 2 of title 3, United States
    Code.’’;
    (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
    (3) by adding after subsection (e) the following:
    ‘(f)(1) The President-elect should submit to the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation or other appropriate agency and then, upon taking
    effect and designation, to the agency designated by the President
    under section 115(b) of the National Intelligence Reform Act of
    2004, the names of candidates for high level national security
    positions through the level of undersecretary of cabinet departments
    as soon as possible after the date of the general elections held
    to determine the electors of President and Vice President under
    section 1 or 2 of title 3, United States Code.

    ‘(2) The responsible agency or agencies shall undertake and
    complete as expeditiously as possible the background investigations
    necessary to provide appropriate security clearances to the individuals
    who are candidates described under paragraph (1) before the
    date of the inauguration of the President-elect as President and
    the inauguration of the Vice-President-elect as Vice President.’’.
    (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
    OF NATIONAL SECURITY NOMINEES.—It is the sense of the
    Senate that—
    (1) the President-elect should submit the nominations of
    candidates for high-level national security positions, through
    the level of undersecretary of cabinet departments, to the
    Senate by the date of the inauguration of the President-elect
    as President; and
    (2) for all such national security nominees received by
    the date of inauguration, the Senate committees to which these
    nominations are referred should, to the fullest extent possible,
    complete their consideration of these nominations, and, if such
    nominations are reported by the committees, the full Senate
    should vote to confirm or reject these nominations, within 30
    days of their submission.
    (c) SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR TRANSITION TEAM MEMBERS.—
    (1) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘major party’’
    shall have the meaning given under section 9002(6) of the
    Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (2) IN GENERAL.—Each major party candidate for President
    may submit, before the date of the general election, requests
    for security clearances for prospective transition team members
    who will have a need for access to classified information to
    carry out their responsibilities as members of the Presidentelect’s
    transition team.
    (3) COMPLETION DATE.—Necessary background investigations
    and eligibility determinations to permit appropriate
    prospective transition team members to have access to classified
    S. 2845—221
    information shall be completed, to the fullest extent practicable,
    by the day after the date of the general election.
    (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Notwithstanding section 351, this section
    and the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
    the date of enactment of this Act.

  159. avatar
    Lupin May 15, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    Goebbels is a busy man, what, with him teaching at Pepperdine and blogging at WND…

  160. avatar
    Scientist May 15, 2010 at 6:47 am #

    charo- There are serious issues with the FBI “vetting” candidates. The difference with vetting staff members is that with a prospective staff member, you go to their boss. But how would it work with candidates? Senator X or Governor Y announces that he’s running for President. The FBI starts digging. They find something (maybe he has an Argentine mistress). Who do they go to? There is no governing body that has the authority to forbid this person from running. So what does the FBI DO with this information? Leak it to the press? To opposing candidates? What do they do with the information?

    And the biggest question of all is how do you stop “vetting” of candidates from being misused for political gain? Nixon used the FBI and the IRS to dig into political opponents. Was that a good idea? Supposing there were some challenger in 2012 who looked like he might beat Obama. Should Obama have the FBI dig into their life? I say no; what say you?

  161. avatar
    Scientist May 15, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    nemo: There is a big difference between a Presidential nominee hiring investigators to look into those he plans to choose as running mates and using Government agencies like the FBI to “vet” candidates. As I said in response to charo, if Senator X or Governor Y decides to run in 2012 and the FBI looked into them and found something, what would it do with that information?

    Of course, candidates can and do use their own campaign funds to investigate potential running mates or opponents to their heart’s content (as long as they don’t commit illegal break-ins or the like). Once they are elected, then they very appropriately screen potential appointees. But, government agencies should not be investigating candidates. That can too easily be misused. Nixon used the FBI and IRS to investigate and harass potential opponents. That was wrong then and would be wrong now.

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    Scientist: As I said in response to charo, if Senator X or Governor Y decides to run in 2012 and the FBI looked into them and found something, what would it do with that information?

    I’ve been thinking about your [full] comment and thinking of the somewhat realistic scenario of a mayoral candidate with “ties to organized crime.” Then in a moment of clarity I realized the answer to your question. If the candidate is believed guilty of a crime, present the evidence to a grand jury and if there is no compelling evidence, there’s nothing to say. I’m not suggesting a special investigation of political candidates, which I agree easily leads to abuse, only the normal pursuit of tax cheats, terrorists and other criminals.

  163. avatar
    G May 15, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    I would argue that true “vetting” and the amount of background digging for potential dirt they do there is different than what is provided for a basic background check or validation.

    Those are all items of info that would already be available on any person’s records – prior criminal record, birth certificate, SSN, passport, credit report, driver’s license, titles or IDs in their name…stuff like that.

  164. avatar
    Scientist May 15, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    Doc-Candidates for whatever office should be treated by law enforcement just like anyone else. If there are credible allegations of criminal activity, they should be pursued. But allowing law enforcement (which is under the control of whoever holds executive power at a given moment) to conduct fishing expeditions against potential opponents is dangerous territory.

  165. avatar
    nemocapn May 15, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Scientist: nemo: There is a big difference between a Presidential nominee hiring investigators to look into those he plans to choose as running mates and using Government agencies like the FBI to “vet” candidates.

    Yes, I understand that a background check by a team of private investigators is different than an FBI background check, but it’s still a background check. I have no question Obama was background checked. The only question is, who performs the background checks for presidential candidates or the president-elect? It seems reasonable to conclude that since Vice Presidents are background checked by the campaign of the presidential candidate, the presidential nominees are background checked by the DNC or RNC. Is that the full extent of the background check, or are there more?

    Initially it was reported that Sarah Palin passed an FBI background check, but an FBI spokeman said they don’t do background checks on candidates. I suppose it’s to prevent precisely the abuse you mention. But does the FBI do background checks once the candidate has been elected since he or she will have access to the nuclear football? I don’t know. In any case, the FBI isn’t the only government agency that does background checks. OPM and DOD also perform background checks.

    I found this snippet in a Google books search:
    “When we have a presidential nominee there is an FBI background check. On two different occasions, I have received the FBI file in office.” Source: Nominations Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Second Session, 105th Congress
    Authors United States, United States, Senate, Congress, Committee on Armed Services, FEBRUARY 5 1998.

    Unfortunately, the phrase “presidential nominee” could mean two different things–a candidate nominated to run for President, or a nominee appointed by the President. Without the context, I can’t tell what is meant in the sentence above. The document also isn’t published on the GPO site. I’m leaning toward it referring to nominees appointed by the President as there is a category of appointees called PAS who receive full field FBI background checks. SCOTUS nominees go through that check.

    Another snippet for Newsweek in 1976 says, “law does not empower the FBI to undertake background checks on behalf of a political party, such investigations are of uncertain legality. Instead, Jordan and press secretary Jody Powell may do the digging themselves.” Hamilton Jordan was Jimmy Carter’s Chief of Staff. So, did someone in Dubya’s administration run a background check on Obama?

    I think it’s possible. The Bush I administration legally searched Clinton’s passport records in 1992 to find out if a rumor was true. Are we going to believe that Bush II wouldn’t search Obama’s passport file since it was perfectly legal for his administration to do so? From the New York Times, Dec. 2, 1995: “A court-appointed special prosecutor has concluded that Bush Administration officials like James Baker, the White House chief of staff, and Lawrence Eagleburger, the acting Secretary of State, did not commit a crime in 1992 when the Administration searched for dirt on Bill Clinton….. In an election fight, the White House tried to accelerate a State Department search of Mr. Clinton’s passport files. They hoped to confirm a rumor that Mr. Clinton was once so desperate to dodge the draft that he considered renouncing his citizenship.”

    I want to emphasize that, according to the New York Times, the State Department has the right to search passport files of public officials. The Bush Sr. administration ran into allegations of illegality because they tried to speed up the results so that they’d get them before, rather than after, the election. From the New York Times, Nov. 28, 1992, “However, in the case of public officials, the [state] department believes it is required to search the files, without prior consent of the official, to determine which parts can be released without ‘a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.’ In the end, nothing may be deemed releasable. Requests for passport records on President George Bush, for example, have been denied.”

    It would be interesting to know who or what law requires the State Department to search the passport files of public officials.

  166. avatar
    Scientist May 15, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    nemo: As far as Palin, it was up to the McCain campaign to check her. Many people feel that they did a poor job and it hurt their (already poor) chances of winning. That’s their business, though.

    The difference with someone nominated for a position (whether Veep, Cabinet, Court, etc.) is that they are not vetted by the voters (the Veep is a special case-they are elected, but they only get to run by virtue of being chosen by the Presidential nominee).

    I wonder what law gives the State Department the right to search passport records without probable cause. The IRS can certainly audit anyone, but it’s supposed to be based on algorithms or mismatches. I certainly wouldn’t like them to base it on party registration.

    Again, I don’t know what exactly IS done, I’m pontificating on what I think should be done, which is that it is not the business of government agencies in a democracy to interfere in elections.

  167. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    nemocapn: It would be interesting to know who or what law requires the State Department to search the passport files of public officials.

    Given the context of the quote you cited, they probably mean the Freedom of Information Act. That is, they think they are “required” to screen in preparation for anticipated requests, so that they know in advance what, if anything, would be subject to release.

    I do think that as a practical matter, it would be next to impossible to keep any truly embarrassing information in public records confidential. The recent indictments of various employees for digging around student loan records illustrates that, legal or not, there is a strong incentive for low-level employees with access to records to take a peek. If they find something significant, there is strong incentive for them to leak that info to journalists.

    The theories propounded by birthers about what might be in Obama’s passport file are pretty far fetched, and for the most part involve the sort of information that wouldn’t be recorded or retained by the State Dept. in any case. For example– I don’t know why the State Dept. would ever receive or retain information about foreign adoptions, since an adoption does not in any way negate citizenship. Name change records would only show up if and when the person applied for a passport in the new name.

    There are places where such records would be kept — for example, if Indonesian adoptions work like US adoptions, then I’d start looking for adoption records via the Indonesian courts — I’d want to know what sort of civil index the Indonesian courts maintained and do a search on the name “Soetero.” The birthers haven’t done that –though its quite likely that investigators working for opposing political candidates might do such a thing. (Not looking for adoption records, per se — but a background investigation on Obama that involved such a search could potentially turn up other interesting information about his mother’s husband. So its the type of thing that a good investigator would think of doing.)

  168. avatar
    Black Lion May 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Agreed…That was Sven’s theory, not mine…

  169. avatar
    nemocapn May 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Hmmm, in anticipation of FOIA requests. I hadn’t considered that, but you may be right.

    I think the temptation for “low-level employees with access to records to take a peek” would be lower if the public knew what steps the government takes to ensure our elected officials are citizens and don’t pose a security threat. Does the OPM fill out an I-9 form on a congressman or a president? I doubt it, but for all I know, they do. The process is so unclear. It’s this lack of clarity that leads people to think maybe Obama didn’t get a background check. It leads to behavior like these two cops who ran a background check on Obama.

  170. avatar
    nemocapn May 15, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    There’s one circumstance in which adoption would make a difference in the passport files. Name change. Here’s a document on what’s covered in passport files:
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102790.pdf

    Adoption is mentioned in two instances.
    1. “Name after adoption (if applicable)”

    2.”If requesting an amendment or
    correction to a Consular Report of Birth
    Abroad, please include certified copies
    of all documents appropriate for
    effecting the change (i.e., foreign birth
    certificate, marriage certificate, court
    ordered adoption or name change, birth
    certificates of adopting or legitimating
    parents, etc.)”

    Of course, the obvious thing to do as you stated is check for adoption records in Indonesia.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    Expelliarmus : That is, they think they are “required” to screen in preparation for anticipated requests, so that they know in advance what, if anything, would be subject to release.

    I’ve had a little first-hand experience with this, having filed a FOIA for passport information with the State Department.

    When you request any personal information via FOIA, you must submit with your application evidence that the subject person is dead, that you are the subject person, or that you have signed permission from the subject individual. If you don’t have that, they won’t even open a case for you, meaning that it doesn’t even go to the passport section.