Posted on 03/24/2011 1:36:48 AM PDT by Scanian
If Donald Trump's goal is to differentiate himself from those jelly-kneed Republican candidates too timid to ask even the most basic questions about President Barack Obama's origins, he is doing a bang-up job of it.
[video]
Wednesday morning on The View, Trump refused to buckle under the hectoring protests of the View panelists and even Whoopi Goldberg's shameless race baiting. "I want [Obama] to show his birth certificate!" said Trump defiantly, adding with a knowing edge, "There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like."
Here, Trump made precisely the right point. It is not that Obama was born in Kenya, but rather that there may very well be something on that certificate that does not square with the official Obama origins story, the one on which Obama based his political ascendancy.
In researching my book Deconstructing Obama, I found much that did match the accepted nativity story, most dramatically the fact that the storied Obama family never lived together. Indeed, there never was an Obama family save in the pages of Obama's often apocryphal memoir, Dreams from My Father.
When asked whether he could defeat Obama in 2012, Trump answered, "I think if I run and win and get the nomination, I definitely think I could beat Obama." If he sticks to his guns, he just might.
If that was the case, then the Hawaii DOH has been lying to us about the records they have. And it wouldn’t explain Obama’s secrecy. Being adopted by Lolo is neither disgraceful nor impacts his presidential eligibility. It actually fits his official narrative far better than anything else he’s claimed. I don’t see what his motive would be to hide that.
If the HDOH was accurate when they confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006, it wouldn’t have been possible for him to change the paternity where either Lolo or Obama Sr were involved because both men were already dead. Same thing holds true for Frank Marshall Davis, Malcolm X, and Stanley Armour Dunham.
“Amending the BC to have Lolo as the father enabled a young Obama to attend public school in Indonesia - otherwise the young Obama would have to attend a private school there - you might also note that Obama entered Occidental as Barry Soetoro”
I understand the various motivations that might have led to filing an amended BC. As I indicated in my post above, however, I still don’t understand his motivation for HIDING the alleged fact that Lolo is shown on an amended BC even if, as you speculate, there is no indication that it is amended. Given his physical attributes, I can’t imagine anyone doubting Obama if he firmly denied that Lolo was his biological father and then explained the circumstances that led to Lolo nevertheless appearing as his father on his BC. I myself would be blown away if it turned out Lolo was his biological dad, wouldn’t you?
“Hair can be a plus. In his case, less is best.”
You nailed it. I’m astonished someone of his wealth hasn’t figured out an alternative approach to fixing his hair. Likewise, for someone supposedly so intelligent, I’m astonished he thinks that mop looks good. He literally looks ridiculous and it’s hard to take seriously a person who voluntarily elects to look like that.
I agree, the guy needs a makeover. He needs to fire his hairdresser and his mirror that tells him he looks good.
Why would the producers and directors of “The View’ invite Trump on to the show when Trump has already very publicly spoken out about the birth certificate earlier this week?
I conclude that the liberal/Marxists in the media want Obama out of the White House.
I'm not sure about whether the law license thing only refers to aliases used as an adult. I think Obama just pretended it wasn't an issue, and continues to do so.
As for using the the Soetoro name as an adult, someone earlier on this thread asserted that he used it at Occidental, and I replied with a requested for support for this assertion. We'll see if it is forthcoming.
ML/NJ
According to Hawaii law a new birth certificate is created in certain instances where embarrassment could be involved - including adoption. The original certificate is not altered; in fact, if an unadoption occurs the original BC is reinstated, which wouldn’t be possible if the original had been altered. So when there is an adoption a person has 2 birth certificates that are totally independent of each other, and the legal status of the adoption determines which one is the BC in effect; the other is sealed.
The applicable law can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm
The only instance where it talks about the original birth certificate being amended is in the instance of legitimation or paternity being established where it had previously been unknown. In the other cases, there is separate documentation kept as to why a new BC was created - things such as an adoption decree, legal name change order (which the lt gov says there isn’t one for Obama, Soetoro, or Sutoro), etc
That’s one of the points I made at Nebraska’s legislative committee hearing regarding out eligibility bill. One of the senators asked if I was aware that Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t be eligible to be POTUS under the proposed bill. I responded that I really don’t care where the chips fall for any particular individual. I don’t care whether McCain OR Obama were disqualified, because I want the Constitution followed without regard to who I personally like. I pointed out that we’ve got Rubio, Jindal, Rommey, Schwartznegger, etc coming up who have citizenship variations and the issue is not just going to go away. We need an answer to these questions BEFORE we’re in the thick of an election where the issue becomes about this or that person.
Of course, the Lincoln Journal-Star reporter didn’t give any context and just quoted me as saying, “This issue isn’t going away” - as if I was saying I will never be satisfied about Obama, when that wasn’t what I was saying at all. They totally ignored the substance of my arguments. Left out that we need a ruling on what NBC even means - even though in my testimony I corrected what the LJS editorial had said on that matter. They had said that the Supreme Court had upheld lower court rulings that Obama was eligible.
Frustrating because I had personally explained to that reporter via e-mail conversation with him just how inaccurate the LJS editorial and reporting had been. He knew full well that he was deceiving and he did it anyway.
But if there is no Barack Obama in Hawaii’s records, then the HDOH has been lying and altering records, and somebody somewhere along the line accepted forged documents in order for him to get any other records with the name “Barack Obama”. Just to be able to use “Barack Obama” rather than “Barry Soetoro” Obama would commit forgery, perjury, and some form of bribery or extortion on government agencies?
And what would he have amended in 2006?
Journalism truly has become a gutter profession.
That reporter was probably more worried about how his peers back at the paper would react if he gave your story full exposure.
Probably a gang of liberals and he ddn’t want to rub them the wrong way.
Thanks again for your diligent work on this issue. The law you cite contains the language I vaguely recalled:
“When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record.”
So at least in Hawaii, the original BC is kept under seal, along with the evidence used to alter it. What I don’t entirely understand is if there is no indication on the new BC that such a sealed record exists, how would the BC’s owner find out about it once they reached the age of majority and were in a position to inquire about such matters? Since there are very legitimate reasons someone might need to know their true paternity (e.g., need for organ donation, issues related to inheritance), it seems odd to have a system in which such a material fact is literally buried, as opposed to having a “pointer” on the new BC indicating that other pertinent information is under seal.
Absent such a written amendment to the newly issued BC, it would seem that anyone requesting their birth records would need to somehow specify they wanted a copy of their on-file record, but also any other previous versions etc. Again, that just seems bureaucratically cumbersome. Not to say it’s impossible that’s how things are set up: it just seems odd to me.
I’m not sure if it’s just that, or if there were threats made to newspaper companies as well as to TV and radio media companies.
The reason I say that is because the reporter for the World-Herald interviewed me after my testimony and listened very diligently to what I was saying. She asked for a copy of the booklet I gave the senators and later said that she had read it, and I believe her. She asked me what evidence I based my claims on and was interested to understand. She seemed genuinely grieved over what she was hearing and seemed to me to be a gentle person wanting to understand.
Her report still made the standard boilerplate claims and ignored a lot of what I said, although it did bring up that I had cited legal sources and court cases regarding the definition of “natural born citizen”, which was better than anybody else has done. So even though she had the information and seemed interested in getting it right, her report ended up being only a little bit better than the LJS guy who deliberately deceived. I don’t think she wanted to deceive anybody; I think she was told what she had to say and what she couldn’t say.
Whether that is because newspapers are in the libs’ pockets, or whether they were threatened, I don’t know. I do know that Wall Street Journal has been one of the jerkiest, most backwards newspapers anywhere for censoring me from posting information on their website. And Fox has been the worst at censoring me from posting on their pages. They’re owned by the same people so I’m thinking that the threats extended to radio and TV companies were probably extended also to the newspapers. I have no way of proving that, but it’s a gut feeling.
It is so refreshing to see a genius HAG like WOOPI look down her nose at white unacheiver like Trump.
Well, given that you have not been able to find this info; probably means, it is not favorable to Marco per NCB status.
Supported him as well, during his Candidacy. I was so hoping, as well; that he might be Prez one day. If he cannot qualify; he can sstill, of course; be an incredible presence and force for good; per for Conservative voices and 'for' America.
I’m not sure how they do it with open adoption; I think the birth and adoptive parents just let the child know all along that the adoption had occurred. But in standard adoptions the idea is to have it be as if an adoption had never occurred, as if that child was truly born to the adoptive couple. I think the way adopted children in such cases find out that they were adopted is by observing differences in appearance or by asking parents or relatives.
My daughter told me about a girl in her high school whose biology teacher dad had announced to her in class that their DNA didn’t match because she had been adopted.
One of the things we talked about regarding Nebraska’s eligibility bill was how a person who was adopted would be able to sign an affidavit saying that the BC they had access to was their “original birth certificate”. If they were adopted in a closed adoption neither they nor anybody but their parents or a judge/agency worker who remembered the case would have any way of knowing that an adoption had occurred. The candidate would definitely be able to say in good conscience that they had their original BC (even though their actual original BC would be sealed and inaccessible without a court order).
If they didn’t even know they were adopted it would be unlikely that they would have allegiance to the country of their birth parents.
If they knew they were adopted the situation would be different. In that case they would need to get a court order, which shouldn’t be difficult. Because the records are sealed nobody could get proof of the adoption to challenge eligibility without a judge’s order to unseal the records.
I asked to see the court order by which Fukino was able to access the “original birth certificate” and was told there was no court order. Whether she could have known about an “original birth certificate” based on index data is unclear. There could perhaps be a flag in the non-public part of the index data which would let them know about sealed records. I don’t know. The whole use of the words “original birth certificate” is puzzling - especially in view of Abercrombie’s statements indicating they don’t have a long-form BC for Obama in Hawaii at all. I think Fukino’s definition of “original birth certificate” must be broad enough to include a signed statement on a kleenex.
The only way we’re ever gonna know what really happened is when there is a criminal investigation complete with subpoena of all the computer and paper records from Hawaii, the Passport Office, Selective Service Administration, Kenya, Indonesia, and Canada, as well as the education and medical records, and depositions and lie detector tests for all the involved people. And that’s not because “birthers will never be convinced” but because there are so many instances of law-breaking and lying by government officials and Obama himself.
Why those people all lied and broke laws and what they were covering up are critical questions that America deserves answers for.
He certainly can...and if he can come up with the proof, all the better.
I don’t claim to be any exhaustive researcher. It’s possible that he produced it and it escaped my notice.
But I don’t think so.
I’m sure the threats were there.
But I never discount the possibility of ulterior motives with any political party.
And Murdoch doesn’t want to deal with it-—possibly due to pressure from the Saudi Royal Family which owns stock in Newscorp.
Ghadafi referred to foreign Muslims making “lawful” campaign contributions to Obama (I would add “lawful” only because the Obama campaign disabled the security protocols which would have revealed the contributions to be unlawful).
That was a LOT of money. And Obama’s campaign says he’s going to get a billion dollars to campaign with for 2012. In this economy and with his negative poll numbers, there’s no way he would get that kind of money from Americans. Who would have that kind of money? Well.... the price of oil is going up... And the people who benefited from TARP are largely foreign, sharia-compliant banks who donated to the DNC and to ACORN - allies with George Soros who has joined teams with the Islamists in order to defeat America, who Soros considers to be the world’s great evil.
Methinks the blogs and places like Free Republic may be the last truly “free speech” we have in this world, because the rest of it is all dictated by the communist-Islamist alliance of George Soros. And until we have more money than they have, that’s the way it is going to be. That’s why Obama has to keep destroying the US economy; that economic vulnerability is what keeps Soros in control.
Ping
Jindal can not be the President(not natural born)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.