Bachmann surprised by birth certificate questions (click to enlarge)
It appears that the press isn’t going to subject Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann to the same level of scrutiny that birthers demanded when questions were raised about Barack Obama’s birth. The Iowa Caucus web site of the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier reports in an incredible display of credulity: “No doubt about Bachmann’s birth certificate; it’s at courthouse.”
How did they come to this conclusion? Reporters just visited the Waterloo court house and viewed the certificate. No forensic document analysis, no carbon 14 dating, not even a photo was allowed! What about the certificate number, the typography? How can we read between the lines to find smiley faces and secret forger confessions? Where’s the birth certificate?! So far there have been zero, count ’em, zero confirmations from the Iowa Bureau of Health Statistics. What was the name of the hospital? Where are the newspaper birth announcements? Has anybody even looked?
No doubts? The laxity of the press on this question is no less than a disgrace. We will be covering the whitewash and cover up closely over the months to come.
Michele Bachmann is expected to formally announce her candidacy for President next Monday, June 27, 2011.
Here’s a shout out to my old buddy Jill France (very nice lady), long-time chief of the Bureau of Health Statistics for the State of Iowa.
Goes a long way to explaining why Birthers went after Obama but don’t demand birth certificates from the current crop of Republican hopefuls.
“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic?”
~Sarah Palin
Aren’t the Birthers scared she was born in Canada and even picked up Socialist cooties?
Anybody else notice a striking resemblance…?
http://www.google.com/search?q=bat+boy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=sc4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=UfsBTqScBIfpgQf6trjuDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBQQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=687
why does everyone keep saying the biggest constitutional crisis since biblical times is all about obama? it’s not:
it’s not about obama. really! it’s not about obama! it’s not! it’s not! it’s not! it’s not! it’s not! it’s not …
This alleged birth certificate for Michele Bachman has some problems right off the bat. Some obvious ones are:
1- It doesn’t even have Michele Bachman’s name on it. It is for someone named:
Michele Marie Amble
2- It cannot be the same person, because it does not say “Amended” anywhere on it.
3- There is no letter of attestation from the State of Iowa for this “document”, nor State of Iowa web page devoted to Bachman’s vital records.
4- Iowa refuses to release a PDF version, so no one can see if it was created using Adobe products or a computer.
5- Bachman first spoke of running for President over two years ago- why is it just being released now?
6- Why does a “6-inch-thick hard-cover tome” with at least 104 pages only have 4 total birth certificates in it? What else is contained in this book?
7- Iowa won’t confirm whether the “document” is a “birth certificate”, a “certificate of birth”, a “certificate of live birth”, etc.
8- Bachman’s father’s occupation is listed as “student”. Was he paid to attend classes? Was it on a Fulbright Scholarship/Foreign aid?
The first paragraph of the story says:
“Considering the controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, it only made sense to get the issue out of the way early for presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann.”
This falsely implies that Bachman had anything to do with the “birth certificate” being made available for public viewing. It is Iowa law that makes it so, just as it is Hawaiian law that keeps Obama’s under lock and key.
This is total BS! The birth certificate is clearly a forgery. I demand the right to see the original copy with my team of forged document experts so that we can make an impartial scientific analysis to prove the authenticity of….
…wait, Michelle Bachman is white?
Never mind then.
“Michele Marie Amble was born in 1956 into a family of Norwegian Lutheran Democrats.”
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2009/10/20/bachmann-talks-about-2012/
From the article link:
“The “Certificate of Live Birth” states that Michele Marie Amble — her maiden name — was born April 6, 1956, at Allen Memorial Hospital.”
But you’re probably right that it has not been confirmed by the state or the hospital or the attending physician or that no one has come forward to say they remember Michele as an infant at that hospital or even as a small child in Waterloo.
What is she hiding other than the fact the she’s not really a farmer but accepts government subsidies anyway.
You’ll also notice a couple of serial birther loons in the discussion section of the article.
Were they “Norwegian bachelor farmers”?
Remarkable! I’m going to pick one of those photos and make it the hyperlink under the one in the article.
Jindal two parents with student visas born in la
Rubio two parents fleeing Cuba born in fl
Recent Lc analysis offers only Rubio eligibility by way of Cuba being a us protectorate
Yes let’s look at all with well defined terms and transparency
I clicked to enlarge. I LOL’d.
…and Doc, somebody has to say it: This just gives new validity to the term “Batshit Crazy”.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. The last time I checked Miami, Florida was and still is in the United States of America.
Therefore, Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States.
Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The last time I checked Baton Rouge, Louisiana was and still is in the United States of America.
Therefore, Bobby Jindal is a natural born citizen of the United States.
Neither are children of diplomats or invading armies.
The concept of natural born citizen is straightforward, transparent and simple. You’re welcome.
It was a rather nice effect if I do say so.
So anyone can walk into the courthouse and view Bachman’s BC in situ, but Obama won’t let even the press (the entire press) view his COLB or BC ( the actual paper document)? He only releases PDF’s or copies of copies. Bachman for the win.
Birther fail!
Iowa law allows that, Hawaii law does not. I hate to break this to you, but Hawaii and Iowa are diifferent states.. Each makes its own laws. If you live in Hawaii you are free to ask your state legislature to change the laws. If you don’t, well, tough luck.
You’re confused like many birthers.
Hawaii is a different state than Iowa. Go check a globe if you don’t believe me.
Maybe you didn’t know that.
“Obama won’t let even the press . . .” That’s really idiotic. In what year did the President establish Hawaiian state laws?
Are you confused about the difference between the President and the state of Hawaii as well? U. S. citizens don’t issue certified copies. The provenance of his birth documentation is crystal clear unless you are accusing the state of Hawaii of malfeasance and possess credible evidence. Are you and do you?
The “entire press”? Wow. Does that include your favorite fright wing trash blogs pretending to be news outlets? Do you keep a special list under your pillow?
Do you understand the meaning of state certified copy? I really don’t think you do.
Most importantly, the state of Hawaii has confirmed the President’s birth there multiple times. Does this fact confuse you still as well?
You for the fail.
“Hawaii” is actually the Sandwich Islands, owned by Dole. It’s not really a “state.”
Didn’t Factcheck get their pictures of the COLB by walking in to Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago? Wasn’t the LFBC also presented to the media at a press conference?
Oh yeah Doc, I like the new wallpaper for the site. It took me a while to recognize it as the pattern from a Hawaiian COLB.
But have you found the hidden messages? 😉
I didn’t say anything at all about the different laws of the two states. I simply pointed out while Bachman’s BC is available to anyone, Obama took 2 1/2 years to release his LFBC and even then he DID NOT ALLOW it to be inspected by the press corp. He handed out copies of a copy of his BC. Majority Will, he had TWO certified LFBC’s in his possession. Why didn’t he pass one around in the WH briefing room (the press)? There’s no law against that. You can show your BC to anyone you want. Only one person was allegedly allowed to see the actual paper document issued by Hawaii and she is a known Obama supporter who can’t take a decent picture to save her life.
@ Mr bill
Straightforward and simple, especially at
Leo’s site. Have you made your own analysis of his most recent post?
Lame cherry’s analysis for Rubio is a bit more complex, but I think you can get the gist for least a fair rebuttal on her own terms.
Happy reading. I ‘ll look forward to your writing. (You’re welcome.:))
Only that’s not true. Somebody just made that up.
NBC News White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie wrote that she saw the document, touched the raised seal and snapped a picture of it. It’s these pesky details that derail birther rumors.
Shhhh, the birthers don’t know.
Think of it as a modified Bayer Array.
Most importantly, the state of Hawaii has confirmed the President’s birth in the state of Hawaii. Does this fact confuse you?
The provenance of his birth documentation is crystal clear unless you are accusing the state of Hawaii of malfeasance and possess credible evidence. Are you and do you?
These are sImple questions. Can you handle simple questions?
Gee, now you think Lame Cherry is an expert. We saw Donofrio’s effort and it is sad. A stated earlier, he clearly doesn’t understand what dicta or precedent are. He somehow thinks the dicta in Minor addressed the status of children of aliens, when it expressly declined to. He somehow thinks the court calling someone a “citizen” means he can’t be a “natural born citizen” when the court itself says that a “natural born citizen” is a form of citizen. And calling children of aliens a “class” doesn’t mean they are not one class of “natural born citizens.” He leaves out all the provisions of Wong Kim Ark that define “natural born citizen” and does no analysis to show such provisions are not dicta. He tries to dismiss the quote of Justice Curtis by both misstating that the majority of Dred Scott quoted Vattel’s passage. It didn’t, one Justice in concurrence did. He then fails to look at the context of the quote and see it has nothing to do with defining natural born citizenship and cannot be cited as endorsing such definition. Finally, he rambles on about he 1790 Naturalization Act which had nothing to do with people born in the United States and quite frankly, i have no idea what point he is trying to make. So, it is just the same re-hashed frivolous Apuzzo nonsense we have been reading for several years. I would suggest he not put this kind of garbage in a legal brief.
Not yet. Let me take a look.
*examines President Obama’s long form birth certificate*
B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E
*GASP*
The sinister bastard!
P O L T E R G E I S T
Oh, and with respect to Lame Cherry, I suggest he read the Insular Cases.
Yet, the avaiilability of Ms Bachmann’s certificate is 100% due to the laws of Iowa and 0% due to any actions on her part. She did nothing to make it avaiilable,, Iowa law made it available.
“Ovaltine? A crummy commercial? Son of a . . . !
some more stuff on Bachmann’s sillyness
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/surprise_bachmann_supports_cre.php
Shut up and stop lying.
The birther admitted the LFBCs were certified copies: ” he had TWO certified LFBC’s in his possession”.
The rest is obviously pointless and ridiculous trolling.
Birthers continue to skip over the fact that the state of Hawaii already vouched for the President’s U. S. birth three years ago.
Birthers have never been interested in the truth. That much is clear.
Dr.
If you knew how to read you can see that I mentioned that Guthrie ALLEGEDLY saw the actual document. As far as I know one person does not make up the entirety of the press corp. I even state she took a crappy picture. If you say you can see a seal in that pic you are a damn liar. There were over 30 people in that room but no cameras were allowed and only Guthrie allegedly saw the document. Saying that the LFBC was presented is a lie itself. They waved some document around and gave out COPIES OF A COPY allegedly of that document. The document WAS NEVER EXAMINED by the press corp during that briefing. STOP LYING! As for the state of Hawaii all they have said is that Obama has a Hawaiian BC. Hell, Sun Yat-sen has a Hawaiian BC so that’s not worth anything.
Not true, Savannah Guthrie of NBC reported that she held the BC, felt the raised seal and took pictures of it with her cell phone.
Which is more then any other President as either a candidiate or while in office has ever done.
Not true, Savannah Guthrie of NBC reported that she held the BC, felt the raised seal and took pictures of it with her cell phone.
Which is more then any other President as either a candidiate or while in office has ever done.
It’s telling that Syzygy couldn’t figure that out for him/herself?
Of course the form is very much dependent on state laws. I’m not sure if California law will allow for a person named on a BC to inspect the original document, but apparently Hawaii law does. Actually – in California the original paper document can end up in two or three different vital records offices, where they’re going to be scanned each step of the way to provide for certified copies. I think the California Dept of Health ends up storing the original.
However – in this very state of California, anyone can legally obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate, although I’m guessing that inspecting the original is not an option for anyone off the street. There are restrictions on who can get a full copy of a birth certificate that could be used to obtain ID or as proof of citizenship for employment purposes. Speaking of possible Republican Presidential candidates, a Salt Lake Tribune reporter even got a copy of Jon Huntsman Jr’s birth certificate. It’s plastered with “INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY”. I’ve seen similar BCs obtained for Tom Cruise’s daughter and the illegitimate daughter of Prince Albert of Monaco.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/51742597-64/birth-huntsman-certificate-born.html.csp
Hi ballantine. I don’t know who the we are you reference in your pick up of leo s most recent, but I,ll pass it along none the less to our Paraclete. He likes a challenge even if our doc thinks him full of himself. As for lame cherry, she operates by inspiration, and I don’t know how to get in touch, but I’ve already ID,d the insular cases and will read. Thanks,
I’m glad that vosotros had that right ready in the front pocket.
Hey! Watch those attribution tags!
Sorry
She also operates by racism. Pat at BadFiction has been documenting her blatant, insanity-flecked racist blatherings. I won’t sully Doc’s place by reposting any here. But if you are somehow holding her up as someone to read, for any reason other than a case study in a black heart and a twisted mind, I wonder about you….
Surprise! Bachmann Supports Creationism in Schools
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/surprise_bachmann_supports_cre.php
Given the number of comments of mine which were never allowed to appear on his blog, I would challenge your statement that Mr. Donofrio “likes a challenge.”
I left the following comment on Donofrio’s blog:
If he likes a challenge, wouldn’t you expect him to approve this comment and respond to it? If he is intellectually honest, wouldn’t you expect him to change his article and acknowledge his mistake?
We will just have to wait a bit for our answer.
The upside is that if she runs for President in the 2012 General she probably will not be running for USREP re-election.
The bigger problem with Donofrio, as well as Apuzzo, is they don’t understand that a quote in a case is only relevant in the context of the citation. When a court quotes someone on a particular point, say whether a citizen has established a foreign domicile, the quote is only relevent to the extent it addresses such issue and any part of the quote that addresses any other issue is merely extraneous material that can’t be said to be part of the case.
Justice Daniel made this point in his argument:
“But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on Government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.”
Hence, he was arguing that citizenship required equality of civil and political privleges. To support such point he cited Vattel which includes statements related to this point, including the sentence before the NBC sentence.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages.”
After the citation to Vattel, Justice Daniel concludes:
“From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.”
So, Justice Daniel says a citizen must have equal rights and privileges. He then cites passages from Vattel that support that assertion. He finally concludes that since slaves have no rights or privileges, he cannot be a citizen. The citation has nothing to do with the definition of who is a “natural born citizen” and cannot be cited as such.
On top of that, citing Dred Scott to back up one’s claims is never good given they amended the Constituion to nullify that ruling. Citing it as precedent is not something many reasonable people are going to be ok with.
Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is pretty clear. Whatever the state of Hawaii says is a genuine document of the state and contains the state Seal and the signature of an authorized official of that state is “self-authenticating.”
That means no court in the nation will require any additional authentification other than what has already been provided by the mere fact of the President’s short or long form certificate.
Rule 902. Self-authentication
“Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.”
When I read something, I don’t expect it to contradict itself. So when you said: “Why didn’t he pass one around in the WH briefing room (the press)?” I didn’t expect to see you later citing evidence that he perhaps did pass it around. Your question asserts a knowledge that the document was not made generally available at the press conference, and as far as I know you just made that up.
Your rhetorical fallacy suggesting that we should ignore Guthrie’s report because she is an Obama supporter (one of 69,000,000) is called “poisoning the well.” You don’t get any respect for rhetorical fallacies.
Now if you actually had some evidence that the birth certificate original wasn’t available generally at the press conference, you might cite it and perhaps get taken seriously enough so that people will read the end of your comment.
If you can’t see the seal, you’re blind. Just zoom in 2X. I did that, and darkened the photo a little to make is stand out even more:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/GuthrieSeal.png
You like to throw that liar word around a lot, but when you keep saying things yourself that are either wrong, or unsupported, such claims simply carry no weight, indeed are about as welcome as a fart on an elevator.
*waves paw dismissively*
Bah!
(S)he’s probably using the new Firefox anti-reality plugin. It makes birthers’ lives so much easier.
Gosh and golly gee. That was convincing. (rolls eyes)
It’s no wonder why people continue to mock birthers.
Sun Yat-sen!!! He got his BC in 1904 (late Victorian period). What’s the matter couldn’t find someone from post World War II era?
Hey! How did you get off your chain over at ATS?
Getting back to Michele Bachmann…
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622
Will the State of Hawaii, in 2011, issue a letter verifying the authenticity of Sun Yat-sen’s birth certificate?
That part is not so easy to get, is it?
Of course they are going to go easy on Bachmann. She’s a republican.
And white.
White and has the innocent name “Michelle”. Personally, I love that name. It’s a pretty name.
Except she spells it “Michele”, which is a man’s name in Italy. Verrry suspicious.
Ah, yes! Michelle! Brings back memories.
Bachmann tells the IRS she is a legislator, and tells Minnesota she is a farmer.
Wait, she’s white. Never mind.
When you’re white, you can get away with murder:
On August 16, 2003, Janklow was involved in a fatal traffic collision when he struck and killed motorcyclist Randolph E. Scott, while driving his white Cadillac Seville. The accident occurred at a rural intersection near Trent, South Dakota. Scott, a 55-year-old Minnesotan, was thrown from his motorcycle and killed instantly. Janklow suffered a broken hand and bleeding on the brain. In the ensuing investigation of the accident, it was determined Janklow was driving at least 70 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone and that he ran a stop sign at the intersection where the crash occurred. His vehicle stopped after hitting a sign in a field 300 feet from where the accident occurred.
On January 22, he was sentenced to spend 100 days in jail.
Janklow currently works as an attorney. On January 5, 2006, the South Dakota Supreme Court granted his petition for early reinstatement of his license to practice law, effective February, 2006, though Scott’s family opposed the reinstatement. In Spring 2006, the Mayo Clinic retained him to lobby against the DM&E Railroad expansion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Janklow#Election_to_Congress.2C_car_crash.2C_and_aftermath
Thanks for the link to the article. An important read on her background, beliefs and tenacity. The moral of the story is not to underestimate someone, just because they are zealously crazy. Determined crazy is definitely dangerous. I thought the Kim Jong-Il analogy was good.
Hi doc, thanks for the info regarding Leo’s posting policy. I am schooled here as well as speaking for another. I’ve spent the days reading what I can find. Leo,s followup is now up. As for the link you list above, some guidance from you to the specifics would help me understand it as rebuttal to his understanding that minor sets precedent.
As to obsolete, please know I have a long and varied bookmark list
Leo has some work to do as he gets much wrong. Simply claiming something is the holding does not make it so. The question presented in Minor was:
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
The court held that citizenship does not confer the right of sufferage. Since the courl determined that citizenship was irrelvant to the right of suggerage, it obviously didn’t need to determine her citizenship status. It simply could have said it doesn’t matter since even if she was, she didn’t have the right to vote. The court actually doesn’t mention the status of her parents and doesn’t call her a natural born citizen, though those are the implications. If it wasn’t dicta, it would be more specific.
Furthermore, even if oen aruges that it had to determine her citizenship status, any discussion of children of aliens is obviously irrelevant as such presumably wasn’t her status. Hence, when the court stated that it was unnecessary to address the status of children of aliens, it was telling us any such discussion would be dicta. Thus, not only did the court not address the status of children of aliens, it told us any such discussion can be dicta. Hence, such case can only be precedent only persons with Minor’s status, not children of aliens. There is really no argument about this.
Pretty much everything he says about Womg Kim Ark is wrong, as usual. The question in Wong was:
“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”
The court held that such a child would be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. However, Leo has the analysis backwards. It wasn’t that the court didn’t need to reach the NBC question once it addressed the 14th Amendment. Rather, the court tells us that if couldn’t define the 14th Amendment until it defined who was a natural born citizen. This is because the court determined the Amendment merely re-stated pe-existing law under the original constitution. Hence the court tells us the English rule regarding natural born subjects was incorporated into the Constitution, that the 14th Amendment simply made the same rule color-blind and, since Wong would be a natural born subject, he would be a citizen under the 14 Amendment. Under this rationale, obviously Wong couldn’t be a 14th Amendment citizen unless he was natural born And, of course, one didn’t need to call Wong natural born to clearly state persons of his class would be natural born. Justice Waite didn’t call Minor natural born either. Hence, Wong is binding precedent on the issue of NBC status of children of aliens as the rationale of the decision is precedent.
I notice Leo didn’t correct his error about Dred Scott being the citiztion of a single Justice and still doesn’t understand that a citation on a subject unrelated to natural born citizenship cannot be cited as defining natural born citizen. Making such arguments will not go over well with a court.
So we have two cases saying “natural born citizen” is defined by the common law. One’s discussion is pure dicta, declines to address the status of children of aliens at all, cites no authority at all and is rarely, if ever, cited by later courts on citizenship. The other’s discussion was not dicta, spent 20 plus pages examining the status of children of aliens, cited every significant early legal authority and has been the most cited citizenship in history. Courts will not be assumed by mis-stating controlling authority.