The Irony of His Birth

Vanity ^ | August 1, 2009 | Nathan Bedford

[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.

[Yaelle]

BRILLIANT.

If ONLY this would reach the loudest, most "intellectual" liberal pundits and wring a rational response from them, which would either be a tapdance in Cinderella-clear slippers or an angry barrage of evident lies.

Best sentence: 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.

[Yaelle]

I think we were fooled before the election into thinking that when a party reviews its main candidates for nomination, they are put to the test for proof of the few requirements the Constitution requires.

Perhaps we need legislation that puts legal requirements duly ON the party who sponsors a candidate for President.

[Yaelle]

Another comment I have about this is that due to this President's extensive reach to change the foundations of this country and greatly increase the controls of the government over the people, all the moreso should he put forth all of his past records.

If we are a government BY the people, we have a right to know exactly who is removing our freedoms.

[don-o]

Maybe. Some demonstration that voters have at least a rudimentary understanding of our system would be nice as well.

[Kolokotronis]

“Did you read the post? All of it?”

I never comment on a posted article or response without reading all of it.

“Because the point being made is that the breaking out of the story into the MSM may be a precursor to some actual digging into the rest of Obama’s murky past on the part of the amazingly uncourious ususal suspects.”

Mr. d-o, I know you don’t believe that digging into Obama’s certainly murky past is worth making common cause with the sort who have encouraged mutiny in the ranks and thus endangering your son and his fellow marines. This is what happens when nonsense and lunacy is tolerated. Eventually it begins to hit at the military. The left has been doing it since you and I were young guys and since Viet Nam without much success. But now its the right and some in the military, not many, but some, will listen to the right and if that leads to what a number of Freepers have called for, namely mutiny in the ranks (which is precisely what those chiefs were concerned about), in order to advance their political agenda, then more and more of our service personnel will die and we will LOSE the war. Do you think that’s worth encouraging the media to look into Obama’s past? I don’t.

[don-o]

First of all, I have deliberately stayed away from the BC threads. I will accept your post as reflecting your opinion, since I have no way to evaluate.

Since you brought my son into this, I will share what I have tried to teach him about swearing an oath.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

We homeschooled him, so I am sure he understands that the first part of this oath is unconditional. The second half is not.

It is my considered opinion that the survival of our Republic may come down to a clear understanding of the differences in the two parts of the oath. If, in your eyes, that puts me on the kook fringe, so be it.

[tillacum]

People born in territories of the United States are citizens of the United States....period.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Do they really believe that they can stonewall almost half the citizens of this country?! I know that Mr. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of the elites are arrogant, but this is beyond that! German Chancellor Hitler, this early on in his reign, wouldn’t have had the nerve to try this!!

[Red Steel]

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.

You have written a good piece. However, we still want to see all the documentation that underlies Obama's birth certificate since Hawaiian laws made it very easy to obtain a birth certificate without being born in a hospital or seen by a doctor. For to issue a birth certificate, Hawaii stipulated only a witness was required to state the baby was born somewhere on Hawaii.

I do not think anyone expected Dr. Fukino would say that Hawaii could have issued the birth certificate under questionable circumstance. For this very reason we should demand full transparency.

[nathanbedford]

I would like to thank all the posters on this thread for their gratifying comments. My guess is that it is typical of human nature to respond to those who differ rather than those who agree and so I am doing now. But to those who disagree with my take, I also express my thanks for the civility with which they expressed their disagreements.

Now on to the rebuttal:

Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)

The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.

Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."

The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.

We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:

1) the birth certificate is "original."

2) the vital records contained "original" documents

3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate

4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.

The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."

Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.

I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.

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. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy and our Confederate dollars. It is a proposition I do not find to be defensible enough to challenge.

[nathanbedford]

I would like to thank all the posters on this thread for their gratifying comments. My guess is that it is typical of human nature to respond to those who differ rather than those who agree and so I am doing now. But to those who disagree with my take, I also express my thanks for the civility with which they expressed their disagreements.

Now on to the rebuttal:

Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)

The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.

Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."

The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.

We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:

1) the birth certificate is "original."

2) the vital records contained "original" documents

3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate

4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.

The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."

Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.

I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.

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. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy and our Confederate dollars. It is a proposition I do not find to be defensible enough to challenge.

[BIGLOOK]

Note bene.

The media whores should read your article. Perhaps they'd reassess their notions of 'slavery'.

[SuziQ]

If Obama was born in Hawaii, two years AFTER Hawaii became a state, why would he NOT be a citizen? I don't understand your statement.

It's probable also that everyone born in Hawaii, and was living there at the time it became a state, automatically became US citizens. I suspect something like that would be part of the Statehood process.

[Red Steel]

I don’t know if anyone is doubting the words of Dr. Fukino that the “vital records” say Obama was born in Hawaii, but the possibility of dubious documentation that supports her statement.

A minuscule fee for $12.50 may answer the question.

[pissant]

No. To conclude otherwise is to assume that the statements were carefully and purposely worded exactly in the manor that Fukino and some lawyer needed to state them.

Oct: That they have Obama’s original BC on file - neither confirming or denying any similarity to the info on the COLB.

July: That the totality of the “vital records” (plural) - whatever that comprises - indicate he is Hawaiian born. (The natural born stuff is strictly her reasonable conjecture). Also this neither confirmed or denied the info on the COLB.

So we agree that the original BC is part of the vital records. What we don’t agree on is that there are other vital records - be it adoption, request to register a non Hawaiian birth as Hawaiian, parental info clarifications, name chages, etc. The totality of the records reached a conclusion that he is legally “born” in Hawaii. And he might very well have actually been born there.

But the statements do not eliminate the possibility of what I stated above. Unlikely, perhaps. But certainly not impossible.

The nature of the lawyerly worded statements, however, raises the chances of this being the case.

As you said the first statement was wholly insufficient to put anything to rest other than that Hawaii had O’s original BC on file.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. Fukino’s office, responding to multiple inquiries months ago, adamantly stated that they cannot, by law, state what is in the vital records, and therefore could not comment on the info in the COLB, his BC or even confirm Obama was Hawaiian born.

Yet miraculously in July 09, she comes out saying the records confirm him to be hawaiian born and a NBC. Obama MUST have given her the green light to ‘release’ such information (I’m guessing his lawyers drafted the statement).

Since she is now apparently, legally freed to tell the world what is in the vital records, why didn’t she have a presser telling us what was actually on the birth certificate, perhaps reading it and waving it in front of the cameras like Chrissy Matthews thought he was doing.

Yet to this day, not one word of verification about:

a) The COLB Obama has being a legit, legally issued State of HI document

b) The COLB information being accurate

c) The city and hospital of birth

d) The attending doctor who signed it.

e) The other records in addition to the BC that comprise his “vital records”

f) What changes, if any, were made to the vital records after receiving the orignal BC

g) Who his mother and father are.

In conclusion, Obama deserves absolutely zero benefit of the doubt. He obviously gave permission (if not the words themselves) for the 2nd ‘tip toe through the minefields’ statement by Fukino. Yet chose to remain as elusive as he always has by not releasing the actual docs.

[Marysecretary]

Thanks, don-o. Glad to get it.

[Kolokotronis]

“We homeschooled him, so I am sure he understands that the first part of this oath is unconditional. The second half is not.”

What part of the second half do you think is conditional?

“It is my considered opinion that the survival of our Republic may come down to a clear understanding of the differences in the two parts of the oath.”

I’m sure your son understands the penalty for mutiny in time of war. Mutineers deserve what they get, their co-conspirators and accessories the 20 years the USC provides for their crime. Arguing that the mutiny is justified by an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no defense either for the mutineers or their fellow travelers...and no court will believe that that argument is anything other than a pretense, a cover for political nihilism.

I don’t think your comment means you’re a kook. It does mean to me that you’ve lost whatever confidence you might have once had in the institutions of this country, that your confidence in this country depends on who the current occupant of the White House is. That’s a shame.

[SatinDoll]

The territory he represents is among the South Pacific islands (can’t remember the exact name), but it is the one where Nancy Pelosi and her husband have their fish cannery.

[MHGinTN]

That adoption by Lolo is crucial and credence is given to that fact by the divorce she obtained in 1980 from Lolo. When Barry graduated from High School he was Barry Soetoro. Less tha a year later his mothe robtained the divoce decree stating there were two legal children of/in the marriage, one over 18 needing educational funding. Barry entered Occidental college as Barry Soetoro. In so doing he—after reaching 18—abrogated American citizenship for identification as an Indonesian citizen. Now, when did he legally change his name to be able to perjure himself in IL claiming he used no other name but Barack Obama in his past?

[rlmorel]

Agreed. Or, have a positive vetting with concrete documentation by EVERY state before a candidate can participate in any primary.