Replies

There is no viable explanation to spend $2M to avoid releasing a $50 document... is there

It’s only 10 dollars.

There is no viable explanation to spend $2M to avoid releasing a $50 document... is there

Especially when the job pays less than a million a year.

Knowing the lawyers and law firms who are involved, the $2mm estimate for his spending is very low. It looks to me as though we can see around $10mm of legal effort expended in defense of his position--maybe more.

A second important point is that we need to distinguish between a birth certificate argument and the issue of whether or not he was born anywhere in the US.

It has been apparent for some time; I believe the anonymous former employee who released copies of the documents in the Hawaii records file through the midwest lawyer two years ago is credible; there is no long form birth certificate to be had or found in Hawaii. He wasn't born there in August of 1961--and a birth file was established in the name of Barrack H. Obama II on August 8, 1961 without a birth certificate.

I will also say as I have elsewhere, that it appears to me as though the Smith Birth Certificate is a credible original record attesting to the birth of Obama II in Mombasa on August 4, 1961.

All of that said, this issue could become much trickier.

If you could get a legal proceeding in process in which the evidence includes the Smith Certificate, that certificate has a baby footprint on it. So at that point, likely the court orders Obama to produce a verifiable current print. If the current print matches, the game is over--the match proves both the Smith Certificate and the fact that Obama was born in Kenya and is not eligible to hold the office of President. The US Marshall gets the moving trucks--Joe is now Acting President.

But, if the print does not match, what are you left with?

It appears to me that there is a fair line of analysis that the current occupant of the White House was substituted into the identity of Obama II sometime in late 1970. I don't see him using the name until much much later--perhaps the mid 1980's (there is a single reference using the name Obama on one of the student notes however there is no credible evidence when that note appeared).

So if the print doesn't match, Obama then shrugs his shoulders and says all he knows is what his mother Stanley Ann told him; he is sure he was born in the US; here is his passport.

Now what do you say?

Even though you have state legislation mandating that the filing officer get affirmative proof of eligibility, a federal court might decide the Obama story is sufficient and order the state officer to accept the filing on the grounds of an equal protection argument.

So we need to be careful--this dance may not be over with resolution of the birth certificate argument.

It would merit the accumulation of some real funding to hire an investigator to look for real evidence of where he was in fact born before we get to the end of the process.