The oath takes precedence over the chain of command.
Posted on 08/01/2009 4:15:36 AM PDT by nathanbedford
The Irony of His Birth
It is ironic that the "state-controlled" media have brought this matter nearly to a boil only after the main props of the Birther argument have been dashed or dramatically weakened so that there can be little doubt left that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii which his underlying long form certificate will confirm. [For a more complete analysis leading to the conclusion that the documents will show the birth of Obama in Hawaii, please see my reply: Suborned in the U.S.A. - The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304411/posts?page=49#49]
Two revelations undercut both the evidence that he was born in Kenya and the argument that his underlying and suppressed Birth Certificate could under the laws of Hawaii be at variance with his published Certification of Live Birth. The first was dashed by a You Tube audio which conclusively demonstrated that the original audio in which Obama's grandmother said she witnessed his birth in Kenya was, in effect, cropped. In the extended version she disavowed any such reference and maintained that he was born in Hawaii. The second was severely weakened by the statement of Doctor Fukino which, when read in pari materia with her previous statement of October 31, makes it clear that she and a colleague have examined the underlying birth certificate and it says that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Before the publication of the extended YouTube audio and the release of the second statement by the officials of Hawaii, there was plenty of room to believe that Obama could have been born abroad. So long as the direct evidence that he was born in Kenya existed, and while the inference could reasonably be drawn from the officials' first statement of October 31, 2008 that the underlying birth certificate did not necessarily recite that he was born in Hawaii, the birthers were behaving reasonably and indeed, patriotically, in demanding to see the original birth certificate and raising the issue of Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen.
While the birthers were behaving reasonably, or at least many of them here on Free Republic were behaving reasonably, the media were not. They certainly were not behaving professionally. They persistently and willfully, conflated the published "Certificate of Live Birth" with a regular longform "Birth Certificate." The Birthers kept shouting back that there was a real and significant difference between the two documents and Obama was hiding the latter but the media resolutely continued to ignore that difference. The media recited that the October 31 statement of Doctor Fukino, standing alone, was dispositive of the issue when that logically that was not true. I can recall the instance of Chris Matthews holding up a document for a close up to the camera, but not close enough to reveal the header, which said " Certification of Live Birth," while he proclaimed that it was the "Birth Certificate." Of course, virtually no one in the mainstream media bothered to explain to the people the real and significant potential difference between the two documents and the underlying statute which might have permitted Obama's mother to aver that she was a resident of Hawaii for one year and thus secure a Certification of Live Birth reciting a birth in Hawaii for her son, Barack, even though the original longform Birth Certificate might have recited a birth somewhere else, for example, the place where Barack's grandmother told us on You Tube that she had witnessed the birth, in Kenya.
It is ironic that these revelations have come out just as the mainstream media has begun to take up the issue and, if not to support the Birthers, at least no longer to ignore them to death but to give them the publicity which is the oxygen a media feeding frenzy needs. The media has still declined to get down into the weeds and make a clear presentation to the general public about the elements in dispute. It continues to report the matter alternatively that the Birthers are "crazed right wing nuts" or, "why doesn't Obama released a birth certificate already?" The media as usual is reporting the matter in terms of personalities rather than substance: who is crazy and who is furtive.
Why should this be happening now? Why is the media giving bandwidth to the Birther movement now?
First, I do not believe that the media is bringing this to a crescendo now because it sees an opportunity to discredit the right because of the new revelations that I have recited. I don't think most of them are fully aware of the significance of these developments. Bill O'Reilly made that obvious on his show when he said that he examined the Birth Certificate when he obviously had examined the Certification of Live Birth and betrayed that he does not know the difference between them and, since he does not know the difference, he does not understand the issue. I think O'Reilly is illustrative of most of the media who are very busy and see this as either a ratings gainer or a ratings loser. I think the media are coming to the conclusion that the issue can be a ratings gainer and they are much impressed by the notoriety gained by Lou Dobbs. Dobbs got the best of both worlds, he has the politically correct position in opposition to the birthers, but he has also asked for the exposure of a birth certificate showing that he is in favor of transparency, and, most important in this industry, he got a ton of publicity.
There is another factor which I think is even more important. The magic has gone out of the Magic Negro. One can see the brouhaha over the arrest of Professor Gates as a reaction to a mistake made by Barack Obama but I think the significance of that flapdoodle is that the media now want to take Obama on. Obama's mistake just came at the wrong time. One need not cite gaffe after gaffe committed by Obama during the campaign, through the inauguration, and until very recently, which was utterly ignored or explained away by the media to illustrate its disgraceful bias in favor of electing the first African-American president. The media, like the gods, first build up those whom they will destroy.
The reaction of many FReepers to the second statement of Doctor Fukino saying that the "vital records" show the birth of Barack Obama to be in Hawaii, is interesting. Many will simply not let go of their Confederate money. Others are beginning to see that the issue of where Barack Obama is born is a metaphor for his whole life. They recognize that it was Obama's lack of candor and transparency which ultimately has kept this issue alive and in fact was the oxygen for the fire. I am personally convinced that the underlying birth certificate will show a birth in Hawaii. What else it might reveal about Barack Obama and why he so desperately wants to keep it concealed is not knowable. But it makes for great stuff politically and every ounce of it should be exploited. We have been beaten up on this issue since before the election but now the public is in a different mood and the matter of the birth certificate of Barack Obama is beginning to cost him dear because the public and even the media are beginning to demand an accounting from Barack Obama. The demand for his birth certificates is but a figure for all their fears and anxieties about the man who seems to want, not to govern, but to rule over them.
It is time for the Birther movement to articulate a broader rationale for their demands that Obama produce his birth certificate. They should not be grounded alone in arguments that he is not a natural born citizen, but that he has concealed every significant document which records any part of his life since the time of his birth. The argument should be made that Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, is a mountebank no matter where he was born and the people of the United States are entitled to know the truth about his whole life. It is an odd quirk of human nature that we as a society will endure a series of insults from our politicians dumbly and then, almost unaccountably, rise up in indignation over some triviality. We saw this applied against the Democrats in the House banking scandal. Today, our people are being abused by their own politicians perhaps as never before. They are yearning for an issue which they can seize upon and vent against Obama. Their cares might be taxes, and healthcare, and fears for their children's future, but their complaint is that he will not release his damn birth certificate!
The issue should be used as a vehicle to continue to assault the mainstream media for their bias and to force them to confront other issues as they arise. One is either on defense or offense and it is better to be on offense against the media even though I have little hope that their tribal culture and taboos can be changed.
One quick historical note on the media: When Paula Jones' lawsuit against Bill Clinton was being derided as the legal convulsion of a "slut and a nut," Stuart Taylor Jr. wrote a piece in the American Lawyer which laid out in scholarly detail the facts which showed that Paula Jones did in fact have a case, that she was entitled to a hearing, and that she was not a "nut." That article actually turned the coverage of the lawsuit around which led to the whole Monica Lewinsky affair and made possible the events which led to the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. The parallel to the treatment of the Birthers today is obvious. It is only a matter of time before some enterprising journalist gets into the weeds and reports the nuts and bolts of the birther controversy. It behooves us to make the record clear before that happens that the demand for Obama's birth certificate and the rest of his Life's documents is justified for compelling reasons of good government quite independent from the argument that he is not a natural born citizen. This must be done before a new Stuart Taylor Jr. writes his piece.
Most importantly, the argument of Andrew McCarthy which was the subject of an article by him which was presented on these threads should be adopted. It was one that I had made before his article appeared. The secrets of Obama's birth are but a symbol of the dark secrets of his life. The dark secrets of his life are that he is a Manchurian Marxist bent on the radicalization of America or worse. The dark secrets of his life show that he is governing as he lived. The summons to produce a birth certificate in accordance with the constitutional mandate is but a metaphor for the call to govern in accordance with the Constitution.
The irony Of the Birther movement might be that it brings down Barack Obama after all.
Huh? 1961 > 1959 last time I checked. Not that a territorial birth would have mattered as to eligibility.
False. He enrolled as "Barack Obama" and was known as "Barry" except to close friends.
It was when he moved on to Columbia and resolved to establish his "identity" that he asked people to call him "Barack".
He had ceased to be "Barry Soetoro" at the time he was sent back to Hawaii to live with the grandparents and attend Punahou.
Sorry, but the facts are the facts.
The oath takes precedence over the chain of command.
Changing one’s name must be, by its very nature, an act requiring legal public notice. In other words, the documents cannot be sealed.
As far as any researcher has looked, Barry Soetoro never changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama II.
How do either of you know under what name he registered at Occidental College?
The admission records are sealed. Obama’s own words and the words of others mean nothing. It has been amply demonstrated during the past 17 months that many people, Obama included, are willing to lie concerning his past.
So the “facts are facts” statement is built on sand, particularly if the source is Obama himself and/or someone whose motives are questionable.
Hell, we don’t even know if his birthdate is correct!
http://www.calgold.com/calgold/Default.asp?Series=10000&Show=1024
Witnesses. Hmm. Just because he asked to called a certain name doesn’t mean that name is on official documents.
Here is something for you to consider. Barry Soetoro traveled between Hawaii, Indonesia, and Pakistan clear up into his late 20s.
In 1981 he traveled from Hawaii to Indonesia for a two week stay with family, accompanied by his Pakistani roommate. From there they traveled to Pakistan and then to India.
Later that decade he traveled again to Pakistan to visit his mother who was then employed by USAID in that country.
Senator Barack Obama misspoke last year and admitted he had never had a passport until he was elected to Congress.
So...he lied, but not really. He probably never had a U.S. passport until elected to Congress.
I believe the passport he used to travel between Hawaii-Indonesia-Pakistan-India during the decade of the 80s was Indonesian and in the name of Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen and Muslim.
Note: one of the difficulties in researching his mother’s activities is that she used about 8 variations of her name, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro. Among friends and family she was known as ‘Anna’. Some things are just a traditional family thing, you know!
When exactly did Barry say he never had a passport?
That was last summer I heard about it. But I don’t know exactly when he made the remark about never having a passport until being elected to Congress. He could have made that comment years ago when first elected.
I remember it was discussed on another net site because the fact of his traveling to Pakistan in 1981 had sort of slipped out last summer during an interview he had with someone. This resulted in his staff scrambling to cover for it.
Obama makes lots of gaffes. It is truly amazing how much has been scrubbed off the internet and that makes it difficult to nail down facts. Plus he lies.
1) They have the original birth certificate. Fine, I accept that. 2) There is no Kenyan birth certificate. Fine, I accept that. 3) The Certification of Live Birth was not based on an affidavit. Fine, I accept that. 4) Fukino has seen the original Birth Certificate. Fine, I accept that.
At this point, you seem to conclude that there is no other document in the “vital records”. This is where you and I part company. If the Certification of Live Birth can be based on the Birth Certificate, why cannot the Birth Certificate be based on the Affidavit? You have still given me absolutely NO REASON to believe that the Birth Certificate is the SOLE document contained in the vital records. By the way, please note that she said “vital records” (that a plural). She did not say “vital record” (a singular). The most “reasonable rendering” of her statement is that there is more than one document in the package. Since we both agree that this “other document” cannot be a Kenyan birth certificate, the only other “reasonable” conclusion is that the other document is an affidavit (which would also be considered a “vital record”).
The only thing that all of this says is that she has seen the “original vital records” verifying that Obama was born in America, and is thus a “natural born citizen”. As we discussed the other day, “verification” can consist of an affidavit signed by mommy or grandmommy.
Parenthetically, she is not qualified to decide his current legal status based solely on his American birth, but that’s neither here nor there. As far as her “climbing out on a limb”, that’s a very flowery statement, to which I can only reply: “please” (as in “spare me”). If her statement was based on seeing a long form signed by a doctor and a nurse, her statement would be true. If her statement was based on seeing an affidavit signed by mommy and/or grandmommy, which is legally sufficient “verification”, her statement would still be true. She has still NOT told us which is the case. She has still NOT told us what those “vital records” (plural) consist of. She has still NOT told us ANYTHING. I don’t doubt that everything she has said is true (to the best of her knowledge). I also don’t doubt that all of her statements were constrained by her legal obligations. I also don’t doubt that she, and the state lawyer who no doubt consulted with her, are trying to cover their own asses.
The point of this whole exercise is not whether Obama is legally a citizen based on the documentation on file. The point of the exercise is whether on not there is an affidavit on file as part of the “vital records” (plural) and whether or not that affidavit is fraudulent. If there is NO affidavit and he was born in Hawaii, then there would be independent hospital records (which there are not), and Obama would have released his original long-form (which he has not). If there IS an affidavit on file, and it is NOT fraudulent (which probably cannot be “proven” either way), then Obama lied about his being born in a hospital. If that’s the case, then there is going to be whole shit-storm coming down. Remember, the last two presidents that were impeached were booted out not because of the original crime, but because of the cover-up. If the affidavit IS on file and it IS fraudulent, then Obama will be on the hook for a cover-up, and on the hook (possibly) for as not being natural born.
“To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy.” Excuse me, but other than trying to work the word “conspiracy” into your prose, what the hell are you talking about? I agree that they have seen the documents (plural), and that the documents legally state that Obama was born in Hawaii. Again, this would be true whether there was an affidavit or not, whether the affidavit was true or not.
If it is discovered that Obama’s citizenship was based simply on the word of his mommy and/or grandmommy, particularly in light of the preponderance of conflicting circumstances and the fact that his sister-in-law also has a similar document, there will be a storm of outrage and investigation, regardless of whether or not it was legal under the laws at the time. That’s the ONLY thing that I read out of all of these statements. Other than that, the only thing they say is that there may or may not be an underlying affidavit. This has nothing to do with whether or not Fukino is telling the truth. As I said, I have no doubt that she is, just as I have no doubt that she is telling us nothing. I think the primary purpose of her statement is to try to calm the coming storm by throwing something to the media, so that they can claim that the matter has been “settled”. Or in simple terms, CYOA.
Interesting.
Here’s a thread that possibly throws a monkey wrench into the entire issue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts
I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had, or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averred that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.
More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.
Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.
While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.
I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.
Additionally, Stanley Ann pled in her divorce papers that there were TWO legal children of the marriage to Lolo Soetoro and that one was over the age of eighteen yet in need of educational assistance. If Barry’s name had been changed to Obama by the time of the divorce decree, Stanley could not have made pleading with the court for Lolo to support the teenager. Therefore one may logically conclude that at the time of Stanley Ann’s divorce in 1980, Barry was still legally Barry Soetoro and he entered Occidental in Augist of 1979! ... I’ve taken to ignoring cynwoody due to the smell of fish.
ping
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.