09
Oct
09

Transparency…Only in Theory

(Original here)

“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” Obama once said. Transparency is defined as “free from pretense or deceit.” I suppose what Obama meant by that was that everyone around him was commanded to be as such, leaving it more of a do what I say, not as I do situation.

Perhaps the left defines this differently than the rest the English speaking citizens of the country, but the sheer lack of transparency in regards to Obama’s background, should certainly cause even the Democrats to raise their brows.

The following is just a snapshot of the records that have remained under lock and key for Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro:

* Birth certificate – Obama has spent over $1 million dollars defending lawsuits regarding the birth certificate. Over one million dollars. A certified copy of a birth certificate is $25. Personally, I would go for the $25, unless there is something to hide. I do not label myself as a “birther,” however the certification of live birth that Obama attempted to present is not the same thing as a birth certificate. Not to mention there were several inconsistencies with that document compared to birth certificates from the same time. And neither hospital claims to have any record of Barack Obama, nor as his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as patients there.
* School records – No other president has left his college records sealed. Is Obama embarrassed of his grades? Not likely. Especially when it is common knowledge that our last president wasn’t exactly at the top of his class. So why are all records completely sealed? One theory is that those records could show Obama presenting himself as a foreign student, which would assist not only in aid, but opportunity. The list of colleges with sealed records:

o Occidental College
o Columbia University
o Harvard Law School
* Passport records – Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia and was granted the legal name in the adoption as Barry Soetoro. A few points:

o According to Indonesian law, the adoption made Obama/Soetoro an Indonesian citizen, therefore causing him to lose U.S. citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship and this must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930.
o Obama traveled to Pakistan at age 20, in 1981. American citizens were prohibited from going to Pakistan in 1981, therefore Obama must have traveled on an alternate country’s passport.
o After returning to the United States, there is no record of Obama filing the required paperwork through the U.S. State Department to become a naturalized citizen. If he had, again, this isn’t being made public. But why wouldn’t it be?

Transparency – Does Obama think that if he uses the words then it must be? If he talks enough about transparency then nobody will ever ask any questions, because after all, he wouldn’t hide anything because he calls for transparency, right?

Was Obama born in Hawaii? Maybe, but nobody really knows. Is Obama a citizen of the United States? Maybe, but nobody really knows. But what you can’t deny is that an awful lot of money is being spent to hide this information. To keep us on our toes? A fun guessing game? What is frightening is that there are people who say it just doesn’t matter. It matters. It matters that our president may not even be eligible to hold office.

Conspiracy theory is not the same as fact. Theory is something you might not be sure of.

Fact. Barack Obama refuses to open these records. Does it matter to you?

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Transparency…Only in Theory”


  1. 1 smrstrauss
    9 October 2009 at 13:56

    Re: “Birth certificate – Obama has spent over $1 million dollars defending lawsuits regarding the birth certificate. Over one million dollars. A certified copy of a birth certificate is $25. Personally, I would go for the $25, unless there is something to hide. I do not label myself as a “birther,” however the certification of live birth that Obama attempted to present is not the same thing as a birth certificate.”

    The Certification of Live Birth IS a birth certificate. In fact, it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the only one that is currently being sent out. The cost of a birth certificate in Hawaii is only $10, and Obama paid that and they sent him the Certification of Live Birth, which is the only thing that they send to anyone. They no longer send out copies of the original birth certificate. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

    So, unless Obama has a copy of the original sent out to his parents at the time of his birth and did not lose the original or his family lose the original, all that he can show is the document that Hawaii sent him. Although that is called a Certification, it is a birth certificate, meaning an official birth record sent out by a government. In the case of Hawaii, the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by all the departments of Hawaii (Yes including DHHL: I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department.

    The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.

    The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”

  2. 2 smrstrauss
    9 October 2009 at 13:59

    Re: “Obama has spent over $1 million dollars defending lawsuits regarding the birth certificate. Over one million dollars.”

    Since there has not been a single case that simply asked for the birth certificate, that is not true. If there were such a case, Obama would show the official birth certificate, which is legally sufficient.

    So, what were all the cases? Not for the birth certificate. Before the election all the cases were to stop the election. After the election most of the cases were to stop the certification of the election or to stop the Inauguration. The few remaining cases ask for a long list of things including kindergarten records.

  3. 9 October 2009 at 18:55

    @smrstrauss: Thank for visiting. So forget the birth certificate. How about the other items?

  4. 4 smrstrauss
    11 October 2009 at 12:43

    Re: “Obama traveled to Pakistan at age 20, in 1981. American citizens were prohibited from going to Pakistan in 1981, therefore Obama must have traveled on an alternate country’s passport.”

    Let’s start with that one. IT IS SIMPLY A LIE. In 1981 American citizens were not prohibited from going to Pakistan. Just the reverse, Pakistan was eager for us to visit, and the US did not prohibit US citizens from going as tourists to the country of an ally, which was relatively peaceful at the time. US newspapers ran travel articles about visiting “scenic Lahore” (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=9&sq=lahore&st=cse). That is a June 1981 travel article. And the US Consul General in Lahore said that he was delighted for US citizens to visit (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?scp=1&sq=lahore+consul&st=nyt). The travel article points out that US citizens were granted 30-day visas on arrival in Pakistan.

    So any US citizen with a passport could go to Pakistan, and that is what Obama traveled on because he never had an Indonesian passport. You can find out this fact for yourself, if you are eager, by simply calling the Indonesian embassy in Washington. They will say that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia (Yes, Obama’s parents said in an application to a school that he was an Indonesian citizen, but that did not make him an Indonesian citizen.) The telephone number of the Indonesian embassy is ((202) 775-5200). I suggest you ask for the press officer.

    In addition, the US State Department has said in a legal filing that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia and was never adopted while in Indonesia (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6, and look for the answer at 40 and 44). So both Indonesia and the US Sate Department have denied that Obama was ever an Indonesian citizen.

  5. 5 smrstrauss
    11 October 2009 at 12:52

    Re: “According to Indonesian law, the adoption made Obama/Soetoro an Indonesian citizen, therefore causing him to lose U.S. citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship and this must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930.”

    I have pointed out that Obama was not adopted. But, even if he were adopted that would not have made him an Indonesian citizen. Here is Indonesian law on that (http://www.expat.or.id/info/revisiontocitizenshiplaw.html). As you can see, a child who is adopted is eligible for Indonesian citizenship. This does not mean that he automatically would become an Indonesian, and ONLY if this does not create a dual citizen.

    So for Obama to have become an Indonesian he had to (1) be adopted (which he wasn’t) and (2) have given up US citizenship so that he could not be a dual citizen. BUT US law holds that a child cannot give up his US citizenship. We simply do not allow it. Nor can parents give up the citizenship of their child. So even if Obama had been adopted, Indonesia would not have allowed him to become a citizen because he would have been a dual citizen, and as you point out, Indonesia did not allow dual citizens.

    So, this substantiates the simple fact that Indonesia says that he was never an Indonesian citizen and the US State Department says that he was never an Indonesian citizen.

    It is worth asking now who does say that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, and why should they be believed? Are they the same ones who were saying that US citizens could not go to Pakistan in 1981?

  6. 12 October 2009 at 04:25

    @smrstrauss: http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6

    I could be wrong but this doesn’t look like a court decision to me. In the first paragraph it says “DOS and the DHS hereby answer Plantiff’s Amended Complaint in the following paragraphs…” (emphasis mine).

    Can you please find the decision of this case? Until then, all this happens to be is the defendant’s defensive claims.

    “So any US citizen with a passport could go to Pakistan, and that is what Obama traveled on because he never had an Indonesian passport. You can find out this fact for yourself, if you are eager, by simply calling the Indonesian embassy in Washington.”

    So really? I can just call up and obtain passport information on people simply by calling the embassy? I am no expert, but I don’t see them divulging personal information about someone’s travels. How do we know he traveled on an American Passport versus another? Where is your proof that he entered the country on an American Passport? I don’t know the exact dates the ban was, but what if he traveled in July and Pakistan came up on the list in August 1981? This makes him OK for the “no travel list.” However, what if he traveled in August and Pakistan was first put on the list in July. This makes him not OK. What if he traveled on a non-American passport to, say Germany where they allow dual-citizenship, and then hopped over to Pakistan? Just saying, I don’t think your conclusion is as cut and dry as you make it to be.

    “So, this substantiates the simple fact that Indonesia says that he was never an Indonesian citizen and the US State Department says that he was never an Indonesian citizen.”

    You keep saying this but have provided no proof. And no, the court case was just allegations and denied allegations. It was not the final trial and/or the final decision.

  7. 7 smrstrauss
    12 October 2009 at 07:38

    Re: “this doesn’t look like a court decision to me. In the first paragraph it says “DOS and the DHS hereby answer Plantiff’s Amended Complaint in the following paragraphs…” (emphasis mine).”

    The case is continuing. However, it is not a case about Obama. It is a Freedom of Information case against the Sate Department and the Department of Homeland Security. The issue is whether these departments provided the information that Strunk requested. As part of the government’s filing in the case, the Sate Department said that it had provided the information, and that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesian and never adopted. If you chose not to believe the State Department and the Indonesian government, you still have to show proof that Obama did become a citizen of Indonesia and that this affected his US citizenship.

    This is impossible since a US child cannot lose her or his citizenship, not even if he was adopted. Frankly, if Indonesia says that he was never a citizen of Indonesia it is impossible to prove that he ever was a citizen of Indonesia.

  8. 8 smrstrauss
    12 October 2009 at 07:42

    Re: “So really? I can just call up and obtain passport information on people simply by calling the embassy?”

    Why not try. Don’t ask about Jones or Smith. Ask about Obama. Ask whether Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia and whether he had a passport of Indonesia. I know the answer because I asked, but what about you?

  9. 9 smrstrauss
    12 October 2009 at 07:44

    Re: “I don’t know the exact dates the ban was, but what if he traveled in July and Pakistan came up on the list in August 1981? This makes him OK for the “no travel list.”

    PAKISTAN WAS NOT ON ANY NO TRAVEL LIST IN 1981.

    You could travel to Pakistan anytime during 1981. I could. Any US citizen could.

  10. 10 smrstrauss
    12 October 2009 at 07:49

    Re: “What if he traveled on a non-American passport to, say Germany where they allow dual-citizenship, and then hopped over to Pakistan? Just saying, I don’t think your conclusion is as cut and dry as you make it to be.”

    What if he traveled on a FORGED passport like Jason Borne? The fact is that there is no proof that he did. Why should he? It was perfectly legal to go to Pakistan on a US passport, and we know that he had a US passport (that is what he returned from Indonesia to the USA on).

  11. 11 Alan Scott
    14 October 2009 at 18:45

    “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” Obama once said.

    Is that why no one had time to read the stimulus bill before it was voted on? Is that why no one knows what is being slipped in to the health care bill? Is that why every Obama speech is loaded with vague phrases that can have multiple meanings?

  12. 15 October 2009 at 08:23

    @smrstrauss: I still stand by my original. I would like to see the long-form birth certificate.

    I do not think I can obtain information such as passport information or citizenry papers just because I want it. I believe this is a violation of privacy.

    You say

    Re: “So really? I can just call up and obtain passport information on people simply by calling the embassy?”

    Why not try. Don’t ask about Jones or Smith. Ask about Obama. Ask whether Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia and whether he had a passport of Indonesia. I know the answer because I asked, but what about you?

    Why not ask about Jones or Smith? If they will give me information about Obama but not Jones or Smith I question the validity of why they have no problem divulging information about the President and not a common citizen. This seems odd to me – don’t you agree?

    I am going to see if I can get the no travel list.

  13. 14 smrstrauss
    15 October 2009 at 10:52

    Re: “I still stand by my original. I would like to see the long-form birth certificate.”

    And I would like to see my neighbor’s original copy of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. You say that my neighbor does not have a copy of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony? Why, that is just like Obama. He doesn’t have a copy of the original either. Hawaii only sends out the short-form certificate of live birth. So, when Obama asked for his birth certificate in 2007, Hawaii sent him the COLB, which is all that it sends out. It, however, is the OFFICIAL birth certificate, accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the US military branches.

    NO president has shown a birth certificate before. Obama has shown the official birth certificate of his state, which is all that he can show because his state no longer sends out copies of the original.

    As for calling the indonesian embassy and asking whether Obama was a citizen of Indonesia and whether Obama had an Indonesian passport. You don’t have to call if you don’t want to. Are you afraid that they will tell you (as they told me) that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

    As for the “no travel list” there wasn’t one. American tourists went to Pakistan in 1981, as this travel article shows: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore&st=nyt

    This letter to the editor was from the US Consul General in Lahore (Pakistan) saying that he welcomes US tourists to visit. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?scp=3&sq=lahore&st=nyt

  14. 15 October 2009 at 18:12

    @smrstrauss: So in your scenario, if your neighbor says he has something, but refuses to produce it, then you will believe him anyways? Hm, OK.

    According to the DC Department of Health a long form is:

    What is a long form birth certificate?

    The long form is a certified copy of the original birth certificate in its entirety. This is preferred by the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Passport Services/Customer Service and by the courts.

    … and a short form is…

    What is a short form birth certificate?

    The short form computerized birth certificate consists of a wallet size birth card and a 5×8 birth document containing abbreviated information.
    The information are as follows:

    * Child’s Name
    * Child’s Sex
    * Parent’s Name(s)
    * Date of Birth
    * Certificate Number
    * File Number

    There seems to be a difference.

    Furthermore, according to this site here,

    Long forms, also known as certified photocopies, book copies, and photostat copies, are exact photocopies of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child’s birth.

    … and of short forms…

    Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a “Certification of Birth” or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.

    As we can see, a COLB is made from a long form. Again, we are asking for the long form. We have doctors who say they remember Obama’s birth in Hawaii. We have hospitals – a couple actually, so we DO have a long form somewhere. It may not be a piece of paper, but it is somewhere out there.

    You are right, no other President has had to show their birth certificate. So? What is your point? Because someone else didn’t have to, the rules for qualification are suddenly out the window? McCain was questioned about his birth and he immediately produced relevant documents. Why can’t Obama? I’d be perfectly fine with having every single person who runs for public office to have to produce their long form birth certificate to the public. I’m not singling Obama out here.

    Are you kidding me? I am afraid? No. Trust me. I’m not afraid. I simply don’t think that calling is a legitimate way of fact checking. The person on the phone can say whatever they want. They aren’t talking under oath nor are they in a courtroom. What is it about the person that answers the phone that guarantees that they will tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Am I supposed to believe that just because they work in an embassy that they are 100% righteous people that always tell the truth? C’mon.

    No, the normal way is through writing which is a provable source. Let’s just say that I call and I get the new guy on the phone… and he looks it up and goes, yep, Obama, he was a citizen. Then what? Am I supposed to go run the authorities saying that someone told me on the phone that Obama was an Indonesian citizen!? They are going to laugh at me because a phone call to an unknown person who is not under oath is not admittable evidence. At best, it is hearsay. so you think I am scared? No, I just know how to get legitimate information or not and a phone call is certainly not one of them.

    Look man, quit with the NY Times article. You already posted that and it doesn’t really matter. Just because someone in Pakistan said “welcome to Pakistan” doesn’t mean that US said “you may go to Pakistan as an American” does it? Legally does it? Furthermore, just because Ny Times said Lahore is a nice place to visit, that means that there was not an official American travel ban. Newspapers make mistakes too, ya know. Do you have any official documentation on Pakistan and when she was and was not on a ban list? Are you going off official documentation or are you just going off of a newspaper article?

  15. 16 smrstrauss
    16 October 2009 at 11:55

    Re: “Again, we are asking for the long form.”

    There is a long form, but Obama does not have it. The place where it is is the files of the Hawaii government. The Hawaii government says that it no longer sends out the long form. It did not send the long form to Obama. He does not have it. If a lawsuit against Obama were just for the long-form birth certificate (and not for other stuff like his kindergarten records), he could answer very clear: “I can’t give it. I do not have it.” And then you could ask the court to order Hawaii to give the original.

    However, until and unless that happens, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii is legally sufficient, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials, and they were further confirmed by the notices in the newspapers. Sure, the names of the doctor or the hospital are not on the Certification, but that is like a lot of other states. The critical fact is that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “So? What is your point? Because someone else didn’t have to, the rules for qualification are suddenly out the window? McCain was questioned about his birth and he immediately produced relevant documents.’

    The birth certificate that is allegedly from McCain is apparently a forgery. McCain said that he was born at the family hospital of the Naval Base. The document that is on line and claims to be from McCain says that he was born at Colon Hospital (which actually is outside of the Panama Canal Zone).

    Re: “and he immediately produced relevant documents.’ As did Obama. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate and the only birth document that Hawaii sends out.

    Re: “So in your scenario, if your neighbor says he has something, but refuses to produce it, then you will believe him anyways? Hm, OK.”

    I will not sue him for something that he does not have.

    Re: “No, I just know how to get legitimate information or not and a phone call is certainly not one of them.”

    Okay. Then this should be sufficient for you. It is a legal document filed by the US State Department with all the penalties that could occur if it is proved to be false, and it says that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia and never adopted while in Indonesia (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6).

    The telephone call would merely confirm or not confirm what the State Department declares. In any case, I called the Indonesian Embassy, and they said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

    Re: “Just because someone in Pakistan said “welcome to Pakistan” doesn’t mean that US said “you may go to Pakistan as an American” does it?’

    Newspapers do make mistakes. But I remember that Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue and was distributing tourist literature. And, you have not found any “no travel list” (because there isn’t any). At the time Pakistan was an ALLY of the USA, and we were eager to help them out. And there is the letter from the US Consul General in Lahore which includes his encouragement of US tourists visiting Lahore. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?scp=3&sq=lahore&st=nyt

  16. 17 Alan Scott
    17 October 2009 at 10:31

    I realize that I’m not sticking with the Birth Certificate discussion, but this still has to do with transparency. The Obama Administration has just reversed itself on the Humana free speech issue.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/obama-administration-drops-gag-order-private-health-insurer/

    Why doesn’t the Administration pay a price for stepping all over the first amendment? This was clearly an abuse of power. If it was not, then why did they reverse it?

    When Bush was in power dissent was Patriotic. Now dissent is a crime. Now the entire power of the Federal Government is brought to bear against Obama’s enemies.

    Some day I believe that having been on Obama’s enemies list will be a badge of honor.

  17. 18 smrstrauss
    17 October 2009 at 18:41

    I don’t know much about the Humana case, and our original discussion was whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or traveled on a US passport, or was adopted, etc, etc.

    Still, I went to the site that you linked to, and it shows that the Obama administration is allowing Humana to send out information. That it to say, it is NOW allowing it, but it did not before. Also, it says that it wants the people who receive the information to have the right to opt out of receiving it.

    This could be argued to be a spam issue. In other words, freedom of speech is very important, but that should not mean that I have to receive spam from everyone.

    By the way, I think very highly of Humana and for a time held some Humana stock.

  18. 17 October 2009 at 23:23

    There is a long form, but Obama does not have it. The place where it is is the files of the Hawaii government. The Hawaii government says that it no longer sends out the long form. It did not send the long form to Obama. He does not have it. If a lawsuit against Obama were just for the long-form birth certificate (and not for other stuff like his kindergarten records), he could answer very clear: “I can’t give it. I do not have it.” And then you could ask the court to order Hawaii to give the original.

    If Hawaii has long forms but does not send out certified copies (which I doubt that the case is that they absolutely cannot) then this is what you do… take your skeptics and take them down to the hospital that maintains your record and have them check it out.

    However, until and unless that happens, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii is legally sufficient, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials, and they were further confirmed by the notices in the newspapers. Sure, the names of the doctor or the hospital are not on the Certification, but that is like a lot of other states. The critical fact is that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Did you read the link I had above? Maybe I did not include it or maybe it is on another thread. If not, here it is… http://rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/

    In that link it goes over 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate laws – how to get one (a long form). The author outlines 4 lawful ways of obtaining one – three of the ways do not require anything more than a general form to be filled out and processed. Could Obama become a citizen in one of these 3 ways and thus not really been born here?

    The birth certificate that is allegedly from McCain is apparently a forgery. McCain said that he was born at the family hospital of the Naval Base. The document that is on line and claims to be from McCain says that he was born at Colon Hospital (which actually is outside of the Panama Canal Zone).

    Does it really matter if McCain was born in Phoenix, a military base in Panama, or a mud hut in Panana? I don’t think it does. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly states, “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” (Link). John McCain’s father, John McCain Sr., was a US Citizen. so was his mother, it seems. John McCain was also born after 1790, so it seems logical that john McCain is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born.

    Okay. Then this should be sufficient for you. It is a legal document filed by the US State Department with all the penalties that could occur if it is proved to be false, and it says that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia and never adopted while in Indonesia (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6).

    I’ve alredy gone over this with you once. This is not a trial. Just because they said something does not mean that it is true. So DOS and DHS alledge it is false that he was an Indonesian. OK, so with what proof do you rebutt with? We cannot see.

    Again, the phone call is not going to happen because a phone call is not going to tell me anything. They are not at liberty to say such things.

    Newspapers do make mistakes. But I remember that Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue and was distributing tourist literature. And, you have not found any “no travel list” (because there isn’t any). At the time Pakistan was an ALLY of the USA, and we were eager to help them out. And there is the letter from the US Consul General in Lahore which includes his encouragement of US tourists visiting Lahore. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?scp=3&sq=lahore&st=nyt
    Why do you keep putting the same links over and over? I’ve seen them and I’ve asked my questions. There is no need to continually post them.

    Maybe we were allies. I don’t know. You are right I haven’t found any “no travel” lists. If you know a database, please link me. Otherwise, I have to work through FOIAs after first finding out who to even FOIA.

  19. 20 smrstrauss
    19 October 2009 at 17:06

    Re: “If Hawaii has long forms but does not send out certified copies (which I doubt that the case is that they absolutely cannot) then this is what you do… take your skeptics and take them down to the hospital that maintains your record and have them check it out.”

    Do you think that hospitals maintain records back 48 years? IF there are such records, there is a federal law that forbids them giving them out.

    Re the four different kinds of birth certificates.

    Who is the investigator. If there is no name, that is suspicious. He or she writes this: “BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.”

    This is entirely different from the research done by Lori Starfelt, a PUMA, who was trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii. She wrote (and gave her name): “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. ”

    IN other words, Hawaii did insist upon proof that the child was born in Hawaii. The other forms of birth certificate are excluded by their requirements that there be a delay of a month or more. As the notices in the newspapers on the weekend after Obama’s birth show, there could not have been significant delay between the birth and the registration.

    More significantly, the testimony of the witness seems to confirm that Obama was born in a Hospital, and in fact Kapolani as he said (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Furthermore, the statements by the two officials indicated flatly that Obama was born in Hawaii, not that there were forms that could have been filled in by grandparents or a delayed birth certificate. The statement of the department clearly says that the document means that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). There is no benefit to these two officials in misleading or lying on this subject. They are officials in a Republican administration. If what they said was not true or even if there were a chance that the documents they referred to might have been filed by a grandparent, they ran a risk of saying that the document meant that he was born in Hawaii. Yet that is what they said.

    However, let’s take a flyer on a science fiction story. Say that President Ford was born in the most corrupt, least organized part of Michigan in which the birth certificate records were totally disorganized and a large percentage of documents were misfiled and some people even got birth certificates even if the child was born in Canada. And President Ford had one of those birth certificates. Would that mean that Ford was born in Canada?

    No, it would just mean that the legal proof of birth in Michigan was not rock solid. But to prove that Ford was born outside of Michigan would require having BOTH proof of birth outside of M and proof that the birth records of Michigan were not reliable.

    You have concentrated on the “not reliable” aspects of Hawaii. I consider that they are much more reliable than you believe. Indeed, since Obama is the first US president to have shown any birth records, they are much more reliable evidence than any president has provided before. But, say that they were not absolutely reliable, the side that is trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii would still have to prove that he was born outside of Hawaii. And for this there is NO proof.

    The Kenyan allegation is laughable. This is what the National Review said of it: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA

    In particular, it is crazy to think that Obama was born in Kenya and that he got to Hawaii without any US travel document. We do not just allow babies from Kenya to enter America, and this was particularly true in 1961 (when there were a great many Southerners working in the State Department). So there would have to be a travel document, such as a US visa on a foreign passport or a US passport issued in Kenya or the change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya. All of which would have been entered in the records, and any of which (if they existed) would have been found by now.

    Re: The US State Department could be lying. Sure, and so could the Indonesian government. But what you have is the conjunction of the US government and Indonesian government saying that he was never an Indonesian citizen and mere speculation by opponents of Obama that he was an Indonesian citizen. And those opponents are not experts in Indonesian law nor do they have sources in Indonesia.

    The Wall Street Journal put it this way: ” • Obama might be a citizen of Indonesia, not the U.S. After the president’s parents divorced, his mother married an Indonesian man and moved the family to Jakarta, where Barack lived from ages 6 through 10 (1967-71), at which point he returned to the U.S. The hypothesis–based on thin evidence and fat speculation–is that Obama was adopted by his stepfather and therefore became an Indonesian citizen.

    Even if that were true, however, it would not deprive him of his status as a natural-born citizen of America. As the State Department Web site notes:

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered . . ., a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

    It is outlandish to suggest that a boy under 10 could persuade a diplomat of all that. It is only a tiny bit less outlandish to think that Obama came back to the U.S., spent eight or more years here, and then decided to renounce his citizenship.

    Besides, the oath of renunciation is administered in writing. What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?”

    I cannot help you find a “no travel list” for Pakistan in 1981 since there wasn’t one. FOIAs take time, and you will find that there was NO “no-travel list.” A New York Times 1981 article saying that it was nice to visit Pakistan and the letter to the editor of the US Consul General in Lahore welcoming US tourists to visit Lahore should count for something.

  20. 20 October 2009 at 08:27

    Do you think that hospitals maintain records back 48 years? IF there are such records, there is a federal law that forbids them giving them out.

    Um… yes. There are quite a few people that are over 48 that they would need to maintain their birth records. They may not have the originals, but I am pretty sure they keep computerized records or scans.

    This is entirely different from the research done by Lori Starfelt, a PUMA, who was trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii. She wrote (and gave her name): “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. ”

    IN other words, Hawaii did insist upon proof that the child was born in Hawaii. The other forms of birth certificate are excluded by their requirements that there be a delay of a month or more. As the notices in the newspapers on the weekend after Obama’s birth show, there could not have been significant delay between the birth and the registration.

    Prenatal care records = birth? Really? A record of the first checkup = birth in that state? Really? That is a pretty bold jump there. What if they had no mid-wife? What if they claimed they were just some poor homeless people that popped a kid out in the alley?

    IN other words, Hawaii did insist upon proof that the child was born in Hawaii. The other forms of birth certificate are excluded by their requirements that there be a delay of a month or more. As the notices in the newspapers on the weekend after Obama’s birth show, there could not have been significant delay between the birth and the registration

    So again, the newspapers are flawless? And, just because it is in the paper, does it make it true?

    More significantly, the testimony of the witness seems to confirm that Obama was born in a Hospital, and in fact Kapolani as he said (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Interesting. I’ve heard the story already and don’t believe it. First, I don’t think that she just remembers a single birth. Maybe she did, but I doubt it. She may remember the boy, but I think if it was that memorable that she would remember some specifics. Also, she says that M.D Rodney West delivered him. Problem is that West retired from practice in 1956 and Obama was born in 1961. Did West come back into practice just to deliver Obama? (link)

    Furthermore, the statements by the two officials indicated flatly that Obama was born in Hawaii, not that there were forms that could have been filled in by grandparents or a delayed birth certificate. The statement of the department clearly says that the document means that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). There is no benefit to these two officials in misleading or lying on this subject. They are officials in a Republican administration. If what they said was not true or even if there were a chance that the documents they referred to might have been filed by a grandparent, they ran a risk of saying that the document meant that he was born in Hawaii. Yet that is what they said.

    That article states, “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record,” reads an Oct. 31 statement from Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who heads the Hawaii office that oversees health records — including birth certificates.”

    OK, so the only people that have a tangible interest in the vital record can see it. So, what was their lawful tangible interest? They just wanted to be awesome for us and to let us know it is all cool. No. you have to have a provable tangible interest. So, what was it? Being awesome and settling a debate is not a lawful reason, is it?

    They are officials in a Republican administration. So what does that mean? Their testimony is even more true than if it were a Democratic or Pygmy administration?

    You have concentrated on the “not reliable” aspects of Hawaii. I consider that they are much more reliable than you believe. Indeed, since Obama is the first US president to have shown any birth records, they are much more reliable evidence than any president has provided before. But, say that they were not absolutely reliable, the side that is trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii would still have to prove that he was born outside of Hawaii. And for this there is NO proof.

    You just don’t listen do you? In #25 I said, “Because someone else didn’t have to, the rules for qualification are suddenly out the window? … I’d be perfectly fine with having every single person who runs for public office to have to produce their long form birth certificate to the public. I’m not singling Obama out here.”

    Don’t try to play this two-wrongs-make-a-right logical fallacy on me.

    As for the rest of your comment. Wow! So if he says “I was born in Hawaii. I was born in Hawaii. Looky Looky!” And then it is proven that he was not born in Hawaii, you would still call him a natural born citizen? Nice logic.

    The Kenyan allegation is laughable. This is what the National Review said of it: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA

    In particular, it is crazy to think that Obama was born in Kenya and that he got to Hawaii without any US travel document. We do not just allow babies from Kenya to enter America, and this was particularly true in 1961 (when there were a great many Southerners working in the State Department). So there would have to be a travel document, such as a US visa on a foreign passport or a US passport issued in Kenya or the change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya. All of which would have been entered in the records, and any of which (if they existed) would have been found by now.

    So do you deny that people enter the US every year by means other than official documents? Last time I checked, we had an illegal alien problem. Don’t try to tell me that he can only be legit and that it would have been found out by now if he slipped in.

    Re: The US State Department could be lying. Sure, and so could the Indonesian government. But what you have is the conjunction of the US government and Indonesian government saying that he was never an Indonesian citizen and mere speculation by opponents of Obama that he was an Indonesian citizen. And those opponents are not experts in Indonesian law nor do they have sources in Indonesia.

    Where did I say they were lying? Are you referring to me or someone else? All I said about the state Department is that it is just hearsay, not irrefutable fact.

    I cannot help you find a “no travel list” for Pakistan in 1981 since there wasn’t one. FOIAs take time, and you will find that there was NO “no-travel list.” A New York Times 1981 article saying that it was nice to visit Pakistan and the letter to the editor of the US Consul General in Lahore welcoming US tourists to visit Lahore should count for something.

    JESUS bro! I told you to quit talking about the stupid NY Times article. Yes, it was written and I’ve already told you that it does not mean that there was a no-fly list or ban on a country. A newspaper article is nothing more than that, a newspaper article. It does not hold up in court and it does not lawfully have to check on facts to write it, especially for a tourist article. I’ve told you, if we want FACTS then we need to get an official ban/no-fly list, don’t we? We do, so quit quoting and talking about the NY Times newspaper article, please. PLEASE! It’s already been quoted or mentioned by you in this very blog like 5 times…. I THINK I GOT THE PICTURE HERE THAT YOU PLACE GREAT VALUE IN THA ARTICLE AND IMPLY A LOT OF FACTS FROM IT.

  21. 22 smrstrauss
    21 October 2009 at 12:32

    Re: “That article states, “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record,” reads an Oct. 31 statement from Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who heads the Hawaii office that oversees health records — including birth certificates.”

    Yes, but this article states that the original birth certificate that was looked at says that Obama was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html) If you say that they should not have said that he was born in Hawaii, you may be right. But the fact of the matter is that they did say that he was born in Hawaii (and they haven’t lost their jobs or anything).

    In addition, that is confirmed by the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Getting back to the officials. If there were a delayed birth certificate in the file, or a birth outside of a hospital that had not been witnessed by someone and they said what was in this article ((http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html) they would be intentionally misleading us, misleading us to believe that Obama’s birth in Hawaii was certain, when it wasn’t. Why should they do that? The risk is too high to do that. They must have seen a document that shows without question that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Okay, you may ask, why don’t they show it. Well, in fact there is a legislative effort underway to change the law (or the regulations, it is not clear which is needed) so as to make the birth records of a president in Hawaii available to anyone to see. I am in favor of this because, I am convinced that it will show what the officials said, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    But, when I mentioned this effort on another blog, the birthers had the immediate reaction that the only reason that the legislative effort is underway is that Obama has now created a “perfect forgery,” which he has somehow substituted for the original in the file.

    In any case, until the files are opened, we have to rely on the evidence that we have: The legal birth certificate, the confirmation of the officials, the notices in the newspapers, and the witness.

    As for Pakistan, I’m not clear on what your position is. Do you still believe that there is a chance that Pakistan was closed to American visitors, even though there is no evidence that it was and some evidence that it wasn’t?

  22. 21 October 2009 at 14:39

    @smrstrauss: I’m beginning to question you and what you are. Why are you on a time delay? I’ve already answered all this but you keep saying the same thing that I’ve already questioned or rebutted.

    I’ve already talked about the “officials” that “checked” the record.
    I’ve already talked about the “witness” that “witnessed” the birth.
    I’ve already told you how he could get a BC without actually being born there.

    So what if we can see it? As I’ve already stated, there are ways of getting a birth certificate just by convincing someone. You say there has to be proof. I rebutted this. You ignored my rebuttal.

    In any case, until the files are opened, we have to rely on the evidence that we have: The legal birth certificate, the confirmation of the officials, the notices in the newspapers, and the witness.

    The legal birth certificate: Which is not the long form.
    the confirmation of the officials: Which I’ve questioned their authority.
    the notices in the newspapers: Of which is irrelevant to law.
    witness: Of which I’ve rebutted.

    As for Pakistan, I’m not clear on what your position is. Do you still believe that there is a chance that Pakistan was closed to American visitors, even though there is no evidence that it was and some evidence that it wasn’t?

    Again, canned response. I do not know. I am not making my decision on some flippiant newspapera article. I want to see an official no-fly list of anywhere in question. WITHOUT THIS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

    And does your last sentence even make any sense? You say the same thing twice.

  23. 24 smrstrauss
    22 October 2009 at 08:48

    There would have to be the combination of convincing evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA plus very convincing evidence that the official document is wrong.

    The Wall Street Journal commented: “What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html

  24. 22 October 2009 at 09:30

    @smrstrauss:
    Goodness… I am not saying that the “official document” is wrong. OK, hang with me here. The COLB is official. OK? Official. However, as I have described, the COLB is a derivative of the long form and all the COLB says is that there was a “birth” registered there.

    However, in this case, I’ve shown that there are other ways of obtaining a long form that are apart from getting one upon birth in the hospital. However, since Obama states that he was born in the hospital and people are “remembering” his birth by doctors that were not in practice, then there should be a long form. If there is not a paper long form, then there is a computerized version of the long form. Period. If you were born in that hospital, then there is a long form. End of story.

    So get it. Get that long form from that hospital and show it to everyone, especially your critics. I could give a crap about the COLB because it is not the ORIGINAL form that the COLB was formed from.

    Then you come along and tell me that we have to have “convincing evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA.” OK, fine. But as it is right now the official story is that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, right? So if the long-form is not the in-hospital variety that is claimed… what does this mean. I’ll tell you what it means… it means that Obama has lied. but that doesn’t matter to you for some reason.

    To you, you are OK with the idea that he show an official derived certificate is OK to show. And that the original is OK to never show. The original that shows how many checks were done on his birth, the place, the location, the doctor, etc are all on this long form. As the “witness” says, and you keep quoting, she says that a Dr. Rodney West delivered Obama. OK, so the LONG FORM will show AND CONFIRM this fact. If the long form does not have West as the doctor, then that means the entire Barbara Nelson story from Buffalo news is bunk, does it not?

    Honestly, when you first came in to debate me I was surprised that you had so much information that I had never heard. But, the story with you seemingly is the same as with others – nobody wants to show the dang original long form which will confirm or deny all the stories and facts that have been laid out by Mr Obama or laid out on the behalf of Obama.

    Show me the effing thing.

  25. 26 smrstrauss
    17 December 2009 at 14:41

    Re: “Show me the effing thing.”

    It is HAWAII, not Obama that does not release it. Complain to Hawaii.

  26. 18 December 2009 at 04:13

    @smrstrauss: So let me get this straight… Obama has asked and Hawaii will not give?

  27. 28 smrstrauss
    11 January 2010 at 15:28

    Yes. Obama asked for his birth certificate. Hawaii send the COLB. We do not know whether Obama then said: “That’s not good enough. Send me the original.” It is unlikely that he did because it IS good enough, since it is the official birth certificate, and the one that everyone gets, and the only one that Hawaii sends out.

    In any case, there IS an original, as you and I agree. Who is responsible for not sending it out? Hawaii!

    Even if Obama were to ask for it, the decision would still rest with Hawaii. They could decide to send it or not send it, and, since they are under a Republican governor, why should they do something special for Obama that they do not do for everyone else?

    But they could change their mind. The way to encourage them to do that is to petition the governor. If they change their mind and show the the original, it will show as the officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly, that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is also one reason that they think it is unnecessary to show it.

    However, the fact that they do not show it does not change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: