Just before the 2016 presidential election, those in the UK got to watch program called “The Trump Dossier” as part of a series called Conspiracy Theories on BBC 2. One of the main focuses of the program is Trump’s birtherism. They interviewed a number of birthers for the program, some of whom appear in it, notably Orly Taitz. Paul Irey also makes an appearance, calling Obama’s birth certificate “the greatest fraud in the history of the world.” Doug Vogt makes an appearance also. Former Trump advisor, Roger Stone, holds the narrative of Trumps involvement in all of the conspiracies together. Larry Klayman gets a shot on the Clinton/Jennifer Flowers story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5dHqBwUfrI
Ivan Zatkovich, one of the early expert researchers of Obama’s certificate, is interviewed and gives an opinion that Obama’s certificate is the scan of a real document with contrast enhancement and OCR. (He is right in that there is a form of character recognition done by JBIG2 compression, but it is not properly called OCR.)
The particular claims in the program about Obama’s birth certificate (stuff fully covered in The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories):
-
- The word “African” would not appear on a legitimate birth certificate from 1961 – Taitz
- Halos around the text on Obama’s long form PDF prove it’s a computer fake – Irey
- Loretta Fuddy was bribed to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate and that she was murdered – Doug Vogt
The second area of the program deals with the conspiracy theory about the involvement of Ted Cruz’ father in the assassination of President Kennedy. This story seems to have come from early birther Wayne Madsen. It suggests that Trump used this conspiracy theory to gain the upper hand in his race against Cruz for the Republican nomination.
Trump turned from “Lyin’ Ted Cruz” to “Lyin’ Hillary Clinton.” The final segment deals with Trump’s claims about Hillary Clinton and the Vince Foster suicide. Trump alleged that Hillary Clinton threatened women into silence that Bill Clinton had affairs with.
The Clintons are more like a crime syndicate than they are a family
— Roger Stone
I was a consultant to the production.
The palm print on my forehead still hasn’t faded from hearing Paul Irey say he couldn’t possibly tell a lie – because he’s a Christian.
That documentary would’ve been much, much better if it had included a Kevin Davidson interview, IMHO.
Is it just me, or did the producers try to be a little too fair to the conspiracy theorists?
I think it was OK as far as the birther stuff except that they didn’t refute Orly Taitz, which would have been easy to do. I also think they did a good job on the Vince Foster suicide.
I thought the part about Clinton’s “classified” emails was left murky and some false statements were left unchallenged or unexplained. They also left hanging, I thought, whether or not Hillary Clinton tried to coerce or threaten women who were on a Bill Clinton affair list.
I don’t think Irey has lied. He just doesn’t understand his own incompetence.
On the other and, I would think that surely Doug Vogt has been confronted with the errors in his opinion about the Loretta Fuddy financial disclosures.
The problem with me in that program, as I told David Thompson, is that I am not an expert. I’m just another opinionated person on the Internet. They were at one point suggesting that I bring my Xerox 7655 machine (which I don’t have) with me on an airline flight to New York so they could repeat RC’s video.
Let’s face it. If obama wanted to clear up this case he would allow anyone access to the vault records. But obama is a fraud and Kevin Davidson is his little bitch who makes believe he is scientific to advance the progressive cause.
Danney Williams.
I heard Mike Zullo say they would release new evidence soon.
Kevin Davidson is as honest as obama is, and history will show he is as genuine as obama’s LFBC PDF is.
Kevin Davidson is a tool.
Kevin Davidson is a succor for obama.
It might not fit in the overhead bin. You might have to check it at the gate.
After reading that statement I do not plan to watch it. It sounds like a waste of my time.
Thank you for the compliment.
That’s an interesting point. I have a BS degree with a Physics minor, so I know a little science, but I know that I am very far from being a scientist of any kind. Insofar as the progressive cause IS scientific, that’s a strong plus for progressives. Concern over climate change is the obvious scientific application for progressives. Certainly Trump’s statements that he will withdraw from the Paris accords, cut all funding for clean energy, stop funding UN climate change activities, and remove environmental constraints for fossil fuels is a huge and scary step backwards.
Other progressive causes stem more from the desire for freedom and justice.
You ought to consult with your fellow birthers, like “trader jack” right here, because they believe the vault records are inaccurate for reasons they really can’t explain, but they believe they just are. So, the vault records would clear up nothing for those who are human fog machines.
You’ll have much better luck waiting for Godot.
I watched the video. It was entertaining but far from complete. There wasn’t a mention of the faux birth certificate investigation by Arpaio and Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Was that because Zullo and Arpaio couldn’t control the narrative and declined to be interviewed telling the BBC that the faux investigation was still ongoing? If so, here was another missed opportunity by Zullo to get the news out to the world on the BBC instead of Carl Gallup’s pitiful internet streaming program with a total audience of 86 people.
Also, not mentioned was the Hawaii Department of Health Verification of Birth for Obama issued and used back in 2012, in the Orly Taitz courtroom drama challenging Obama’s eligibility that played out in Mississippi.
I think that Kevin Davidson would have given the birther segment more balance.
Yes, any day now.
We’ve been hearing that for years.
Do we actually have three new birthers here today, or are they sock puppets?
The clue is Danney (sic) Williams. Mike Volin always plays the theme from Hawaii Five O. It might be Volin. And wasn’t Williams Jack Lord’s sidekick?
Hello, my comment went into moderation????
Sorry to get all pedantic on you, vladie, but while one can give succor to someone else, one cannot *be* a succor.
Or perhaps you meant to type “sucker”. It’s said there’s one of those born every minute. If you believe anything said by Mike Zullo or Carl Gallups (or Donald Trump, or Orly Taitz, or Doug Vogt, or…) you can see a fine example of a sucker by simply looking in the mirror.
You’re welcome!
Agreed. My point is that he thinks his Christian beliefs make him especially honest, though I suppose many religious folk think their own religion has a monopoly on the truth.
Newsflash, everyone!! Belief in invisible authoritarians in the sky, talking snakes, magic (turning water into wine), and flying donkeys does NOT make one more trustworthy than those who do not believe in such nonsense. At least, that’s been my personal experience.
It’s not up to him. It’s up to Hawaii’s DOH.
Same IP address. Probably the same drive-by we get from time to time.
I wondered if this would still be active … haven’t been on here since I was “cured” a few 5 years ago …
But I wondered if Trump election might keep you all going.
Trump’s re-energizing the birther movement in 2011 and making it “respectable” is largely why we are still here. Without Trump, there would have been no long form, and no Cold Case Posse to investigate it. Still, I’m not planning on any new content after Obama leaves office.
Yes. Danny Williams (James MacArthur) was the partner of Steve McGarrett (Jack Lord).
If it is Volin, maybe he could explain to Nancy that he’s not an investigator and that he’s never lived in Florida.
I have never said that the birth records are all fake, I have said that they may not be accurate, as the law allows them to be altered, changed, amended, and fake one issued upon request be a governmental agency, as adopted child birth certificates do not or may not, have the correct parental names on the certified copy.
And the mere fact that they allow a filed copy to be corrected, should be sufficient for you to understand that they are not always pure as the driven snow.
When that can be done legally to existing birth records then you can not assert that the certified copy of the birth records is always true and factual as to the birth record of the child.
and as no one is allowed to see the original records except specified persons no one can check to see if they have been amended as permitted by the law.
I know that is hard for you to understand.
And, it was.
Maybe you can explain why Volin is talking so comfy-cozy to me, the Obama Forger, in this video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399501881
Volin and I don’t sound like we’re strangers, now do we? So, why did Volin have it banned off of YouTube if they’re trying to expose it?
Interesting documentary. I always wondered what Doug Vogt and Paul Iyer looked like. I think this is the first interview where we actually get to see their faces.
I don’t know if this is new material. But, it has just been posted which suggests to me that it might be in response to the documentary mentioned in this article. And/or Trump is shaking things around just as he said he would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2i21F6DVeU
Actually, you do sound like strangers. You did almost all of the talking. Where in that interview does Volin suggest that he had ever spoken to you before, much less met you?
The law does not allow for that sort of manipulation.
Respectfully: Nonsense.
Dunning-Kruger. Complete incompetents like Irey and clowns like Vogt, who couldn’t accurately identify their own butts if their names were tattooed on, claim to be world-beating experts, and a guy who knows and understands more about Obama’s birth certificate, technically and otherwise, than possibly anyone in the world, thinks he isn’t an expert on the subject.
Not hard to understand at all… simply irrelevant.
1) The circumstances under which a birth certificate may be altered or revised are carefully prescribed by HRS §338-17.7. None of them provide an opportunity for alterations that might effect the certificate’s status as prima facie proof of the factual details of the birth (i.e. legal name, date and place). And as we all know, for births on US soil, those are the only facts established by a birth certificate relevant to the issue of citizenship at birth.
2) HRS §338-16 goes on to establish that all “late” or “altered” birth certificates must be “be marked distinctly ‘late’ or ‘altered'” and that a “summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.”
You will note that there are no such markings or endorsements on the certified copy of the President’s long form birth certificate. So unless you actually are asserting that it is a fake, any examination of the “vault original” would be pointless.
Based on these two statutes, the only actual basis for a challenge of the certified copies is evidence of equal or greater probative value that they are factually wrong.
And here we are more than 8 years in, with no such evidence ever having been provided.
So once again we’re back to asking you what should be used instead of birth certificates since you don’t seem to think any of them can be accurate. You’ve been asked this hundreds of times over.
A year ago I asked Nancy about Zullo and Volin and she had no clue who they were. Now she’s incorporating them into her fantasies. It won’t be long before Dr. C becomes part of her stories.
You forgot Trump – Birtherism triumphant Coup d’état Media mogul actually being Elected.
I was bored last night so I watched it. As an overall production it moved well and kept your attention.
My thought through out the production was by moving from the Reality of Trump’s Election, that everyone who watches it hence understands, to Obama’s LFBC, winding through to the other conspiracies ending with Clinton’s Private Server set up to avoid FOIA, they legitimized Obama’s long form being fabricated much more than they would have reversing the order.
Of course in watching it they keep you clued in to the title CONSPIRACIES and the reality that the fascinating part of that word is the intrigue that truth is mixed with facts, unknowns, and plausible unanswerables.
I was frankly surprised at the length of time they put in on Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy and Gov. Abercrombie highlighting Obama’s connection with them.
In mentioning Gov. Abercrombie’s life-long friendship, they did fail to mention Loretta Fuddy s Sisterhood Association with Obama’s mother Ann through SEBUD. ,that is very intriguing given the longevity of the association and impact down the road.
Loretta Fuddy’s appointment was a little miraculous to as Gov. Abercrombie totally discarded his first choice who was actually much more qualified and experienced for the job at the last minute. Of course that makes sense and adds intrigue for conspiracy.
The Producers I think worried a little to much of painting a picture to clear , but if it’s Conspiracy, all the facts in the world shouldn’t get in the road from the FALSE END right?
What Counsel or what questions were you asked about regarding the productions? Give us some more insight to your advice Doc ?
I seem to recall that there was some allegation of Medicaid fraud with that nominee.
Birth certificates were invented because of the limitations of the alternatives, limitations of memory, the difficulty in tracking down old records, death of witnesses.
First of all, it’s SUBUD, not SEBUD.
Secondly, there is no evidence of an association between Fuddy and Obama’s mother and no evidence that Obama’s mother was ever involved in Subud.
Subud is mentioned only twice in Stanley Ann’s biography “A Singular Woman.” In 1970 Stanley Ann was recruiting teachers for the Ford Foundation. “A half-dozen of them [teachers] accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud” (“A Singular Woman” pp. 116-117). One of Stanley Ann’s many friends in Indonesia was Mohammad Mansur Medeiros, “a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts” (“A Singular Woman” p. 121). Those are the only mentions of Subud in the book, and there is not even a suggestion that Stanley Ann ever joined the organization. The fact that she met a few members of Subud is hardly a dramatic or significant revelation. There is no evidence that Stanley Ann and Loretta Fuddy ever met, much less that they had, as you put it, an “association.”
As for you denigrating Fuddy’s qualifications, she had previously been the Deputy Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, and at the time of her appointment she was the Chief of Family Health Services for the state health department. She was well qualified.
One thing I advised against was using partisan anti-birthers in the piece (myself included), because they aren’t experts. It makes no sense to combat one non-expert with another. I repeatedly emphasized the need for real experts, and the birthers’ lack of expertise. I know they read extensively from this web site, and that may well be where they found Ivan Zatkovich’s name. They told me that they learned of some Obama conspiracies for the first time on this site.
We talked about rerunning RC’s Xerox YouTube video experiment, but it didn’t make it into the film.
I was asked for debunking information on some topics that didn’t make into the film. I mostly replied with links to articles here.
I don’t recall the specifics of what we talked about on the phone.
No, Cody, you’re the one who forgot Trump. Didn’t you read that Trump renounced birtherism late in the campaign. It was in all the newspapers. So logically Trump’s victory could not have been a vindication for birthers, as he was no longer one of them.
Unless — onigosh, o, perish the thought! — he lied and still harbors birther briefs.
I can’t even believe I’m entertaining such dark thoughts as that our president-elect would actually tell a lie.
Cody, it was truly a minor thrill of my life to be your running mate for the 2016 presidential election. I know you never actually invited me to join the ticket, but just as no one here will ever convince you to think rationally, no one will ever be able to convince me that I wasn’t your VP! Imagine what we could’ve accomplished in four years, if only someone, somewhere knew we existed.
As for forgetting Trump, I wish I could. Believe me!!
Oh, that reminds me! This Tuesday I’m having dinner in San Francisco (or Walnut Creek, haven’t decided yet), with Tim Kaine’s brother-in-law (small world, no?). I’ll see if I can find out how poor Tim is doing, and maybe get some tips on how to be the best VP candidate I can be. Then maybe you’ll be begging me to join you in 2020. It’s just around the corner. Imagine the possibilities!!
Previous post should have said “… harbors birther beliefs, not briefs. Autocorrect got me again.
“President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.” – Donald Trump, September 16, 2016
Would it not be true that if BHO was an adopted child that the certified copy of an adopted child would show that the parents shown on the copy would be not the natural parents of the child?
You do know that the natural parents birth certificate is moved to a sealed status, and a new bc issued shown the adopting parents as the true parents and there is no indication that the bc has been so changed
Well, this kind of knocks out one of the theories that SADO could not have flown back from Kenya being pregnant,, as it does seem to happen.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/aviation/people-born-on-airplanes/
And, jokingly, I will suggest that is why we have not seen his passport, LOL
Birtherism is nothing but birthers like ex-con Judy speaking ill of the dead.
That could not apply in the case of Obama because his long-form certificate is a hospital-generated document (signature of attending physician). In the case of an adoption, the original record is sealed and a new certificate created. New certificates, however, are not fakes with fake hospitals and attendants.
The Obama short form certificate is the kind of certificate that could be created for an adopted child, but not the long form.
What difference would it make if he had been adopted? The birth certificate would STILL have to show the ACTUAL place of birth and ACTUAL date of birth and those are the only data points that are relevant to eligibility.
Depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of birth, other information besides just the name of the biological parents and the child could be changed. In some states, the place of birth is routinely replaced with the residence of the adoptive parents. In rare cases, the date of birth may be changed.
With Obama, however, we have not just a birth certificate, but a certified copy of the hospital record (something that would have been sealed had Obama been adopted). Amended certificates are always abstract certificates (data abstracted from the original) and not faked photocopies of the originals.
I have seen Hawaiian birth certificates, prior to laser printers, where information abstracted from the original record is typed onto banknote security paper to make a certificate. This is the form of document an adoptee gets.
You may not have seen Barack Obama’s passport but a YouTube video of the president’s passport was made in 2009.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvqgyV_2pHg
Hawaii Health Bureau statistics data published in the Honolulu newspapers on August 13 and August 14, 1961 names the birth parents. The newspaper data is corroborated by the Hawaii Index of Live Births, 1960-1964 which lists Barack Hussein Obama, II as having been born on August 4, 1961.
“Highlighted in yellow on page 1,218 of the thick binder is the computer-generated listing for a boy named Barack Hussein Obama II born in Hawaii, surrounded by the alphabetized last names of all other children born in-state between 1960 and 1964. This is the only government birth information, called “index data,” available to the public.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-23-obama-birth-certificate.htm
What’s that got to do with President Obama?
So how much faith should we have in state records and now much credit should we give them?
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” — U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1.
In August of 2008 Obama let reporters from FactCheck.org examine and photograph his perfectly good, perfectly legal, and perfectly ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate. Birthers act as if their issue is the Constitution, yet they reject the one kind of record the Constitution commands us to accept.
What really exposes birthers is to look at the records that the previous 43 presidents (counting Cleveland twice) showed to prove they met the Article II requirements. Did they show certified copies of birth certificates, or original medical records? No and No.
To hear birthers — including Donald Trump — tell it, you’d think Barack Obama was the only U.S. president who did not show his birth certificate in the course of attaining the office. The truth is that so far — if I’m wrong on this please cite — Obama is the only who did. (Trump will be the second but that was just demagoguery.)
And it says that he was born in Hawaii.
Now Trader Jack will explain why the information on a passport can’t be trusted.
The only president’s passport that I’ve ever seen is Barack Obama’s. The only president whose time of birth I know (7:24 pm) is Barack Obama’s. The only president whose attending physician for his birth that I know (Dr. David A Sinclair) is Barack Obama’s. The only birth hospital of a president that I know is Barack Obama’s (Kapi’olani).
At one time I knew the physician and hospital in Connecticut for George W. Bush.
He was born at Grace New Haven that ended up being acquired by Yale New Haven. I’ve been to Yale New Haven, there are no indications of George W. Bush being born there. No plaques or anything like the birthers require.
Obama can’t allow anyone access to “the vault records”. Only the Hawaii Department of Health can do that, and they won’t because of security issues, and manpower issues.
I was just at Yale New Haven to visit a relative a couple of weeks ago. They have completely redone the first floor but it never occurred to me to look for anything about Bush.
If I get back there again I’ll take a look around.
It was reported that the gift shop, not run by the hospital, had a pamphlet about Bush being born there.
Bustante xlll had a birth certificate a US passport, and SSN and the courts declared them all fraudulent obtained.
So you claim that all of them are as pure as gold and must be believed.
An illegal immigrant was found with a birth certificate, passport and driver’s license when detained.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/13-2612/13-2612-2014-03-21.html
you have not seen Obama’s passports. You have seen one that was issued when he was a senator, you do not know that David Sinclair was the attending physician as you are assuming that the bc certificate is not one that was issued for an adopted child and you do not know that he was born at Kapiolani as that is simply what the birth record that is shown as a certified copy of the birth record shows.
A hospital will issue a birth certificate if a new born is delivered to the hospital after being born outside of the US territory or in a moving vehicle such as an ambulance.
And yet you expect us to take you at your word, that you served in the military. If you did, I’d wager you were dishonorably discharged. Obama’s records have been vetted harder than any president of my lifetime. Hawaii’s word is good enough for me.
Not a certified copy that also showed the name and signature of the attending physician. No.
Not that it matters, since parents have nothing to do with the citizenship status of someone born on US soil.
Fail.
Bustamente’s birth certificate was a delayed certificate, and thus failed the criteria for establishing citizenship.
The President’s BC is not a delayed certificate.
You contradict yourself. All passports are issued at one time or another. The criteria for receiving one does not change based on when it was issued or the job a person has at the time of issuance. So yes. We have seen President Obama’s passport… when it was issued is irrelevant.
Of course we do. The birth certificate for an adopted child would not lie about the attending physician or include his signature. That would be beyond pointless.
Such a certificate will not reflect the hospital as place of birth. My father’s for example.
We can resume this discussion as soon as you produce real documentation that Obama was not born in the United States. Absent that, Obama has nothing in common with Bustamante’s case.
But such a birth certificate will not contain the name and signature of a hospital doctor who was not present at the birth.
And if Obama had not been born in a hospital, Box 6C of his birth certificate would contain the street address where he was born.
As usual, your specious arguments fall apart under scrutiny.
I seem to remember Doc once posted a portion of an March/April, 1961 Hawaiian BC where the child was not born in a hospital.
“There is no hospital name on the certificate; it is a street address, which today is a commercial business. Since a hospital or institution is listed by name, we can conclude that this was not a hospital. The birth location is a little over 30 miles from the usual address of the mother.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/1961-hawaii-race-codes-disclosed/
And Hawaiian State Law.
That’s where it all seems to fall down. They can never get past that annoying little problem.
Jack isn’t a credible person. Previously on Amazon he mentioned committing social security fraud using someone else’s SSN while serving.
I live about an hour away and went to school in New Haven. Several times I had a friend who was in the hospital and stayed there so I visited a few times during the Bush years.
I’ve been to the giftshop and have never seen anything there. This was a response that Sharon gave to Volin after Volin was asked about there not being a plaque for George W. Bush at Yale New Haven. But the better question is has any birther gone to the gift shop at Kapiolani hospital? Would they accept the same proof from Obama? Is the gift shop run by the hospital or a private entity?
Kind of explains the moto around here- Let no Birther have the final word Use a Bull Horn 😂 and pack-of-five.
That never persuaded Clinton’s Campaign, don’t know why it would you. lol unless you are saying HRC continued to prosecute in every Debate and Trump’s win as a repudiation on HRC false front. Either way doesn’t look good. Of course President Elect Donald Trump could say anything as the circumstance hasn’t really been vetted by SCOTUS.
Nothing he said was under oath and he remains emphatically the Leader of the Birther Movement for bringing it up mainstream., and also now leader of the free world. Kind of hard to separate that.😎 You can logically try.. hahaha.
Very nice Doc. Thanks for the updated info. That’s pretty Cool.
Trader Jack contradicts himself. First he said that no one has ever seen Barack Obama’s passport. Now, after being proven wrong, he acknowledges that Barack Obama’s current, valid passport has been seen on the Internet.
Expired passports do get updated. That is no different for Trader Jack or Barack Obama. The data doesn’t change when a new passport is issued.
For Trader Jack’s edification:
Attending Physician Dr. David A Sinclair, M.D. signed Barack Obama’s birth certificate to document the birth at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu. No attending physician is going to sign a legal document attesting to a birth that didn’t take place under the conditions as stated on the Certificate of Live Birth.
Attending physician
“In the United States and Canada, an attending physician (also known as an attending, rendering doctor, or staff physician) is a physician (M.D. or D.O.) who has completed residency and practices medicine in a clinic or hospital, in the specialty learned during residency. An attending physician typically supervises fellows, residents, medical students, and other practitioners. Attending physicians may also maintain professorships at an affiliated medical school. This is common if the supervision of trainees is a significant part of the physician’s work. Attending physicians have final responsibility, legally and otherwise, for patient care, even when many of the minute-to-minute decisions are being made by house officers (residents), medical students, or mid-level practitioners (i.e. physician assistants and nurse practitioners). Attending physicians are sometimes the ‘rendering physician’ listed on the patient’s official medical record, but if they are overseeing a resident or another staff member, they are ‘supervising.’
Attending physicians may also still be in training, such as a fellow in a subspecialty. For example, a cardiology fellow may function as an internal medicine attending, as he or she has already finished residency in internal medicine. The term is used more commonly in teaching hospitals. In non-teaching hospitals, essentially all physicians function as attendings in some respects after completing residency.
The term “attending physician” or “attending” also refers to the formal relationship of a hospitalized patient and their primary medic during the hospitalization, as opposed to ancillary physicians assisting the primary care physician. However, even on a consultation service, at an academic center, the physician who has finished his training is called the attending or consultant, as opposed to a resident physician.”–Wikipedia
—-
Yeah. And his military records could be fake. And witnesses could lie. And photos could be fake. And news reports about him falsified. Maybe he was never born anywhere. It’s all so stupid.
I have an elderly relative who lives in Hamden and she was in Yale-New Haven recently. I didn’t visit the gift shop.
<blockquote
Nothing he said was under oath and he remains emphatically the Leader of the Birther Movement for bringing it up mainstream.
—
Well, Cody, so you’re showing your true colors, and what you perceive as Trump’s true colors — that is, you see no absolute obligation to tell the truth.
In direct conflict with Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. The religious people of that day had refined the ancient Mosaic law to the point that your words were not binding on you unless you swore to them under oath.
But Jesus was calling his followers to a higher standard: “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ” … (Matthew 5:37) He thereby established the principle that an obedient disciple’s unsworn word is his bond. Should apply to any ethical person, whether Christian or not.
—-
I believe this is a false interpretation. Are you aware of any Jewish authority for this, or is it only a Christian interpretation of Judaism?
Swearing an oath in G-d’s name is taking G-d’s name in vain; it is a sin against G-d. E.g., how can I swear to G-d what I will do in the future, when the future is in G-d’s hands, not mine? How can I swear an oath in G-d’s name about the past, when my perception of the past is fallible?
Not swearing in the name of G-d does not avoid being bound by one’s word among other people. Seems to me, Jesus and Matthew are simply reiterating this.
I live by what Jesus said: When you make a promise, say only “Yes” or “No.” Anything else comes from the devil.
And of course Moses, speaking for God, prohibits false witness against one’s neighbor.
I’ll take an oath when required by statute, but I don’t offer it. I don’t need an artificial amplification of heartfelt intent.
I get called a liar just about every day by come commenter on a news site or YouTube. It doesn’t bother me much. True insults hurt when there is an underlying truth to them. I work hard at telling the truth.
____
I agree about not needing an amplification of heartfelt intent. What I say or do 24 hours a day is said/done before G-d anyways; there is no getting around that. If required to “swear or affirm”, I simply affirm. These slight distinctions may sound kooky, but they help me keep in mind that taking G-d’s name in vain is a serious matter; one of the top ten. And as you say, bearing false witness against a neighbor is another of the top ten.
I am glad that the false accusations against you don’t bother you much, though they bother me, especially when your accusers bear false witness against you and invoke G-d and religion into the mix.
The man in my life is a Christian. He says “hypocrisy” is what Jesus was always preaching against.
If that were possible, my next passport would show me 20 years younger and even better looking.
Happy Thanksgiving to all…
Point taken, JD Sue. I’ve heard this quite a few time from Christian sources, most recently one in a series of sermons about Jesus calling his followers to a higher standard of conduct than the minimum required by the law.
I also found this in a famous commentary by Christian scholar Matthew Henry:
“All men are liars, therefore men use these protestations (oaths) because they are distrustful of one another and think they cannot be believed without them.”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/5.html
Perhaps I would have better used a real world modern times example, such as this:
A key figure in SMU’s being assessed the “death penalty” for corruption in its football program was a Texas oilman-politico named Bill Clements. He was running to reclaim the governor’s mansion in 1986 just when the SMU football scandal was reaching the boiling point. Fortunately for Clements (a member of SMU’s governing board), it blew after he won the election.
But at a press conference, the governor-elect was confronted with the fact that what he said about illegal payments to football players was at variance with what NCAA investigators found.
Clements famously replied to his questioner,”Well, Dave, there wasn’t a bible in the room,” obviously meaning that his false statement wasn’t under oath.
My point to Cody is that he seems to be OK with lying, if it isn’t done under oath. And that he grants absolution to Trump in the same regard.
—-
They might as well have said lying is ok because they crossed their fingers behind their backs. Silly, childish. And certainly not grounded in religious faith.
—
I think it helps to remember that the law in the Torah includes historical record, spiritual law, the law of contracts, torts, property law, criminal law, family law, public health law, municipal law, judicial procedure, religious law, etc. And, at the time of Jesus, Israel was a nation state of millions of people (not to mention it was under occupation of Roman Caesars). I think it is important to keep in mind the difference between what happened in the courts of Israel and what happened out of the courts and what should have happened if G-d’s law was always perfectly executed by everyone. If you stop to think about it, the whole enterprise is mind-boggling, and there is plenty of room (unfortunately) for err, confusion, misinterpretation, corruption in the nation state. If you don’t stop to think about it, well, you may misinterpret what really was going on and the lessons that can be learned. Unfortunately, some people look at it and incorrectly conclude that this is what Judaism is all about. Which makes no more sense than saying one can look at a Christian nation state and draw conclusions about Christianity.
So, using modern life in America as an example, our country has courts which depend upon truth-telling. How do we enforce this? Well,we make witnesses take some sort of oath or affirmation on pain of criminal perjury charges. That seems fair and hopefully works–but it does not mean that lying while not under oath is ok, it just means that I can’t charge them with perjury. I expect the ancient courts of Israel had to struggle to define what procedures and penalties they would apply when hearing cases and rendering decisions, and what latitude they may have given to statements made out of court. I have no idea what they came up with, or whether it was good or bad. Except I know that swearing to G-d would have been a no no.
I apologize for painting with too broad a brush about Jewish law was observed in Jesus’ day; I did not mean to malign an entire community. And obviously I’m no expert on the subject. I was seeking an illustration for the concept that one’s obligation for honesty does not depend on whether one is under oath.
—-
And I apologize that I came off like that because you certainly did not malign anyone!!! I love to study and talk about this stuff with Christians, because I want us to all to see how much we have in common, and sometimes misunderstandings about the past get in the way. I think the Christian scriptures did an excellent job teaching and reminding people about what the law is really about, and I also think a lot of that gets lost in translation and latter commentary. That is my issue or hang up–trying to set the record straight, and fear of being misunderstood. It is not something you have done wrong.
As for the present, we have a president-elect who has consistently lied like a rug, to trick the masses. Regardless of religion, if he took an oath it would make no difference, because his oath wouldn’t be worth a hill of beans. Either one’s word means something, or it doesn’t. Trump’s word is worthless. The man can’t even abide by a simple contract. And as we know, one doesn’t have to take an oath to enter and be bound by contract. Nor does one have to be under oath to be accountable for slander. Cody’s distinction between what is said under oath, or not under oath, is as dishonest as the lies themselves.
Again, I apologize.
Another point against Cody’s belief that Trump’s getting elected president somehow is a vindication of birtherism:
For the first 20 years of his congressional career, LBJ was a diehard fo[e] of civil rights legislation.
But starting in 1957, the then-Senate majority leader started pushing civil rights bills,weak ones while he ran the Senate, and then the most far reaching rights laws in nearly a century as president.
The point of this digression is that by 1964 LBJ had clearly renounced racial discrimination. That was the year that people well grounded in U.S. History will recall that under Johnson’s aggressive guidance the most sweeping civil rights law since the 1860s became law.
But by Cody’s logic it would have been fair to say that in 1964 LBJ remained a champion of segregation.
That’s because birtherism is ******* stupid. As well as being just a bunch of lies.
There are people here who don’t like leaving lies unchallenged.
Besides, it beats the standing policy at almost all of the birther web sites, which was ban anybody who disagreed with their drivel.
Cody’s never seen an obligation to tell the truth. Witness his previous statements that Sheriff Arpaio should engage in all sorts of dodgery in order to avoid simply telling the truth.
To be fair, that was mostly johnboy
Sorry, my mistake. I stand TOTALLY corrected on that.
Cody’s definitely been more truthful than john.
Trump is done with bitherism, but even he doesn’t believe in your mythical “two-citizen parent” requirement to be a natural born citizen.
“President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.” – Donald Trump, September 16, 2016