Replies

The reporter provides no support for the statement that "the Dunhams weren't happy."

There are other sources out there. Google them.

Remember, Ann was their only child and Barry was their only grandchild. The idea that Ann and her parents broke off their relationship over the marriage is not supported by any evidence.

I agree, and I don't think it likely that they broke off their relationship, and I never asserted that.

Rather, I think it's plausible that the relationship grew strained and Ann didn't want to be so close to either her parents or husband. The most pluasible interpretation of the facts is that she just wanted to get away from everyone. What other possible reason would she have to go to Seattle?

To the contrary, I think it very likely that her parents were in fact paying her bills in Seattle, since she had no other apparent source of support.

I wouldn't rule it out, but there's nothing to rule out the possibility that she paid her bills with a part time job.

I have not contended that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya.

Most people obcessed with this birth certificate controversy fervently believe he was.

Reasonable speculation would suggest he was born in Hawaii, given the facts that his parents were UH students in 1960-1961, that her parents lived in Honolulu and I believe the newspaper birth announcements are genuine.

That's more than reasonable speculation. It's preponderance of evidence.

The birth announcements gave the address of a UH professor in the Hawaii Kai area, which I think is probably where Obama, Sr. was living during the summer before classes started back up. I have serious doubts as to whether Obama Sr. and Ann ever set up house together; perhaps they did for a brief period immediately after the marriage.

I agree with you.

However, the notion that Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii is only speculation, however reasonable, because he refuses to provide the evidence in any legal proceeding.

Please name a single US president to have provided such evidence.

There are less likely possibilities that we cannot exclude, such as being born in Washington or over the border in Canada or at sea.

Scenarios of a Canadian or at-sea birth are so implausible that any reasonble person can easily dismiss them.

Or even Kenya, as unlikely as that appears to me. We know the existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate does not preclude the possibility of birth elsewhere, at least without examining the information on the face of the long-form birth certificate,

Not true. A short-form birth clearly lists the place of birth.

given the peculiarities of Hawaii law and procedures of birth certificates at that time.

What peculiarities?

And we have the strange appearance of Ann and the newborn infant Barry showing up in Seattle apparently in late August 1961 or thereabouts.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be so strange, given that she had lots of friends in Seattle.

Nevertheless, even though the facts suggest it is likely he was born in Hawaii, I find it offensive that a candidate for the highest office in our republic feels that he does not have to provide any evidence of his constitutional eligibility beyond his own signature on a piece of paper.

Can you name a single candidate for office who has done anything more than that?

We deserve more from our highest public servant. When John McCain was challenged in a legal proceeding on a similar issue, he simply submitted his birth certificate as evidence into court.

Not true.

That is the type of openness we expect from someone who wants to be the most powerful person in our land.

Then work to pass a law requiring candidates to present birth certificates to some legal authority. I would support such a law. With regard to Obama, it's a moot point now, as there is no legal obligation for him to present anything to anyone.

As I said, an objective assessment of the facts suggests he was likely born in Hawaii. But the fact that he is defending so many lawsuits in so many different jurisdictions asserting various legal theories using procedural defenses is itself a fact that should be taken into account, and that tends to make the less likely theories of his birth more likely.

If he's got a suit filed against him, he has to respond. The simplest way to get a suit against you dismissed is to respond on grounds related to standing or jurisdiction.

And I can tell you, anyone who thinks defending all these suits against Obama and the DNC, even on procedural grounds, in these different jurisdictions is not expensive is not a lawyer and is not familiar with law firms or civil litigation.

Lawayers often work for free to help their politician friends. Also, lots of these routine briefs would be covered under retainer, so there's no incrimental cost to Obama.

I think it's plausible that the relationship grew strained and Ann didn't want to be so close to either her parents or husband.

The idea that Ann moved away to give her husband the cold shoulder should strike anyone who has read the various news reports and interviews touching on their relationship as nonsense. More likely, from everything we know about the relationship, is that he disrespected her and tossed her aside, perhaps months before she gave birth. She was probably humiliated and it may well have been her parents' idea to have her go back to Seattle.

Please name a single US president to have provided such evidence.

A disingenuous, intellectually dishonest point. Name a major party candidate in any US presidential election in the modern era other than McCain and Obama where being a natural born citizen was raised as a campaign issue and prompted the filing of lawsuits.

but there's nothing to rule out the possibility that she paid her bills with a part time job.

Except for the babysitting problem. The babysitter said she sat for him at night while Ann attended night classes. See the article I cited in my previous post.

That's more than reasonable speculation. It's preponderance of evidence.

Based on incomplete evidence. The key piece of evidence on which one could base a conclusion, the information set forth on the long-form birth certificate, has been withheld.

Scenarios of a Canadian or at-sea birth are so implausible that any reasonble person can easily dismiss them.

Perhaps we would be in a position to dismiss the other possibilities if we could see the information on the long-form birth certificate, such as in which hospital he was born and who was the doctor who delivered him.

Not true. A short-form birth clearly lists the place of birth.

Except that all we have are purported images of a COLB on a friendly website. And what was the basis for the place of birth? Did Barry's grandmother go in and claim that he was born at home? Who knows? These questions would be settled by the long-form birth certificate.

What peculiarities?

The possibility that at that time a Hawaii resident could register a child born outside Hawaii or purportedly born at home has already been discussed at length. Google it.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be so strange, given that she had lots of friends in Seattle.

The eyebrow-raising part is that someone would transport a newborn infant from Honolulu to Seattle. But that is obvious, so you are being disingenuous again.

Can you name a single candidate for office who has done anything more than that?

Again, an intellectually dishonest point. As to what other modern major party presidential candidate besides McCain has this been an issue?

Not true.

McCain's birth certificate was in fact submitted in evidence, and you can see it here at an anti-McCain website:

http://panamajohn.dominates.us/articles/McCain_Certificate_1_1936x2.jpg

Your argument is a false choice. It's not either-or. Yes, we need the law clarified at the state levels to require reasonable evidence of eligibility prior to having a candidate's name placed on a ballot. But that has nothing to do with whether the American people should reasonably expect our highest public servant to demonstrate candor and openness on such a point. And it has nothing to do whether under current law, properly interpreted, a plaintiff such as an ordinary American taxpayer, a rival presidential candidate, a presidential elector, or a commissioned officer has the standing to require a demonstration of constitutional eligibility.

Lawayers often work for free to help their politician friends. Also, lots of these routine briefs would be covered under retainer, so there's no incrimental cost to Obama.

Trying to pass off constitutional questions of presidential eligibility, and the related questions of standing to raise a particular constitutional issue, as some kind of "routine brief" is nonsense and again, intellectually dishonest.

This isn't even in the same league as a routine issue you might have local election law counsel retained in order to handle.

Anyone who thinks that Obama and the DNC have not engaged leading constitutional lawyers to provide advice on this, and is not centrally managing all of these local counsel through lead counsel, and that lead counsel does not vet every single document that goes out in every one of these proceedings in every jurisdiction against Obama and the DNC, is fooling themselves. It is inconceivable that Obama, the DNC and their lawyers are not fully prepared with their research and arguments on the merits, as well as all of the conceivable standing challenges.

Litigating constitutional issues with high quality counsel is expensive. The idea that this is all "pro bono" or covered by routine "retainers" is laughable.