Video: America’s most trusted newsman takes on birth certificate Truth

posted at 5:40 pm on July 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

You think I’m kidding about the “most trusted” thing but I’m not.

Some canny reporter needs to ask Sarahcuda what she thinks of all this. No matter what she says, it’s huge news: Either she laughs it off, as she almost certainly will, and breaks grassroots hearts or she hedges and it’s on the front page of the Times. Exit question: Can one be a “true conservative” and a Birther skeptic?


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Joke of the Day

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

Then court-martial Major Cook, Obama. Bring it.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Also the only certifying authority for the office of the presidency is the Electoral College.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Actually Squid, i would dispute that. I would argue the certifying authority for POTUS is the US Congress, not the electoral college.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The ones who love America. Oh – wait, they’re just being castrated. I guess that’s not so bad.

Better dead than communist red.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Ummmm, OK, sure.

You can shout at the rooftops to your little hearts content. Dont expect me to think that you are right, or that your disgrace of a Military Officer “hero” is anything but a hack using his position as an officer as a political football.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Then court-martial Major Cook, Obama. Bring it.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM

It is not worth the time and money it was to ingdulge what was a poorly planned set up from the beginning.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM

What’s the difference between something being “political” and something being a matter of law? When are legal charges NOT just “politics”?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Actually Squid, i would dispute that. I would argue the certifying authority for POTUS is the US Congress, not the electoral college.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 1:32 PM

That is correct.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM

How would President Biden be any better for the country exactly?

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I happen to think Obama is far worse and especially more dangerous than Biden. Biden would not have any semblance of a mandate that Obama has (although fading). I also think the media would be less of an advocacy for Biden as they currently are with Obama.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 1:37 PM

What’s Obama going to do when officers start refusing non-voluntary orders? Will he court-martial them and risk the actual findings of fact? Or will he let the defense of the country go to hell to cover his own er, insecurity?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM

What’s the difference between something being “political” and something being a matter of law? When are legal charges NOT just “politics”?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM

We are a nation of laws, if you dont like how that plays out, then I am sure that there is an Island you can be dictator of.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Anuts, I agree. Biden is stupid but I’d take that over a Cloward-Piven, media-empowered America hater any day.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Will he court-martial them and risk the actual findings of fact?

Since there is no evidence available that would hold up in a court of law, and the burden is on those officers, then I would not worry about them.

Of course most officers are not opportunist embarrasments like Mr. Cook.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:40 PM

What a heap of BS, Squid Shark. You totally blew off my question. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be the president of the US: is that a legal issue, or a political one? Obama’s potential perjury and obstruction of justice: legal issue, or political? The firing of Gerald Walpin: legal issue or political? Clinton’s perjury and obstruction charges: legal or political? William Jefferson’s freezer full of cash: legal or political?

I think when we let criminal/legal issues be political issues we have ceased to be America. Just because somebody is an elected official it doesn’t mean that charges against them are political. It could just be…..drumroll….. that they’re crooks.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Dont expect me to think that you are right, or that your disgrace of a Military Officer “hero” is anything but a hack using his position as an officer as a political football.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 1:33 PM

I disagree about Major Cook. I have no reason to believe that he truly doesn’t believe what he says. There is even less evidence suggesting this to be the case.

And even more interesting, I happen to support his decision even while disagreeing with his premise.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 1:43 PM

If a person has to defend himself, he has access to whatever documents he needs in order to do so.

Obama knows that. He’s hiding behind confidentiality laws right now, but if what’s sitting in that Hawaii vault can keep an innocent man out of the brig and a guilty man out of the White House, he’s not going to have any law to hide behind like a little girly.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be the president of the US: is that a legal issue, or a political one? Obama’s potential perjury and obstruction of justice: legal issue, or political? The firing of Gerald Walpin: legal issue or political? Clinton’s perjury and obstruction charges: legal or political?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM

1-legal issue.
2-legal issue.
3-both (legal issue in the fact that it was illegal. It broke the law of which Obama cosponsored)
4-legal issue.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The shame is that good officers’ careers will be ruined because Obama chose to play “chicken” with what this whole nation should have forced him to show us anyway.

America hasn’t found a brave soldier yet that we’re not willing to sacrifice in order to still feel “credible” and not be laughed at by the MSM.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Anuts, you are a cool dude. What I’ve seen here gives me a good deal of respect for you.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:52 PM

The birth certificate issue on his eligibility just seems to be weak on evidence, reason, and even logistics. That is only my opinion. His refusal to cooperate, although shady behavior (possibly for other reasons), doesn’t change that.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM

So it doesn’t matter that he’s not cooperating because it doesn’t matter anyway. He shouldn’t have to prove it because who cares.

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM

The shame is that good officers’ careers will be ruined because Obama chose to play “chicken” with what this whole nation should have forced him to show us anyway.

Cook intentionally requested orders with the specific intention of refusing them. They call that “bad faith” in the military and in the legal profession.

Squid Shark on July 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM

So it doesn’t matter that he’s not cooperating because it doesn’t matter anyway. He shouldn’t have to prove it because who cares.

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Not the case. He’s not cooperating with some of the public’s requests/demands (shocker, I know). He’s not legally bound to prove anything of the sort until court order. That has not happened yet.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:52 PM

That’s kind of you, and likewise.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Cook said in his suit that he wanted to go to Afghanistan. He just wanted to go there knowing that he had Geneva Convention protections.

Is that too much to ask?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Also, for my own benefit and understanding, was any of this elgibility issue brought up before his race for the US Senate?

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Anuts at 2:11PM

There are 2 cases now where it’s supposed to get to a court order soon. One is a suit against Congressional leaders for not doing their job. That suit is delayed right now so the defendants can get their legal representation lined up.

The other is being refiled after Judge David Carter told Orly Taitz to present her information to the US attorneys who showed up at a hearing on procedural issues. I haven’t seen the actual ruling, but according to Taitz, Carter said he would make sure the case was heard on its merits and wouldn’t get sidelined by procedural issues.

So hopefully there will be some daylight in this soon. At this point I just want the truth to be known and get it over with.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM

So hopefully there will be some daylight in this soon. At this point I just want the truth to be known and get it over with.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Not necessarily directed to you, but do you think it will satisfy those who believe he is not a citizen? Assuming actual documents meet eligibility requirements.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be the president of the US: is that a legal issue, or a political one? Obama’s potential perjury and obstruction of justice: legal issue, or political? The firing of Gerald Walpin: legal issue or political? Clinton’s perjury and obstruction charges: legal or political? William Jefferson’s freezer full of cash: legal or political?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Actually JIC, I think you raise questions that imply an interesting intellectual excercise.

Clearly, the freezer full of cash is a strictly legal question, as it, in and of itself, does not raise questions of inter-branch relations; that is, no constitutional powers/authorities are threatened by his actions.

On the flip-side, Obama’s eligibility is clearly a political question. There is no “governing legal authority” to distinguish “citizen” from “natural-born citizen”. That may be a gross oversight by Congress and SCOTUS, but nobody can point to the relevant US code or SCOTUS opinion governing it. In such an absence, clearly the certifying authority, i.e. the US HOR, has at its discretion the power to make that judgment. That judgment takes place within a political context; that is, if the Congress gets it wrong, in the eyes of the American people, they can be punished politically for it.

(As an aside, this is why I was infuriated with every party in the Bush v. Gore suit, including both of the candidates. IMHO, that was a clearly political matter to be resolved by a clearly political body, namely the uS Congress. But one party, Al Gore, decided he couldn’t win on a political basis, and turned it into a legal matter, and George Bush went along with him, rather than telling him to “F**k off, I’m going to congress, and we’ll see who trumps who”. I’m also pissed at SCOTUS, for not punting it back to Congress. But I digress.)

All the other things you mentioned sort of straddle the line. Perjury, obstruction, etc, are in fact criminal activities which are prohibited by law. In the contexts that you mentioned them, however, they affect inter-branch relations, which makes them, by their nature, political.

That being said, there is no evidence that Barack Obama committed perjury or obstructed justice, unlike Clinton, who clearly did.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM

I don’t think any of it was brought up before his Senate run. Senators don’t have to be natural-born. And of course, Obama has kept people busy with other things in the run-up to his various elections.

His buddy, David Axelrod, forced some divorce records opened up even though the wife wanted them sealed to protect the children. Obama won the race after the scandal found in those legal documents containing very, very private information…

And the gal who first supported Obama’s run for office tried to get back in the race after she lost the election she was in, but Obama put his ACORN people to work disqualifying the signatures she had gathered to get her name on the ballot. Technicalities like somebody getting married between the time she registered and the time she signed the petition and not having time to change her name on the registration… Stuff like that. Technicalities…

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM

He’s not cooperating with some of the public’s requests/demands (shocker, I know). He’s not legally bound to prove anything of the sort until court order. That has not happened yet.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Constitution? Feh.

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Also, for my own benefit and understanding, was any of this elgibility issue brought up before his race for the US Senate?

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:18 PM

If it wasn’t, does that mean it can’t be brought up now?

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

JohnGalt at 2:23

The recordings of Sarah Obama and the ambassador of Kenya that Obama was born in Kenya are evidence. There are sworn affidavits associated with that also.

The verbal statement by Obama that he was born at Queens, followed by a letter on White House stationery and seal saying he was born at Kapiolani is evidence.

The signs of forgery in what he says is a legal COLB that was shown to Factcheck is evidence.

What’s in the Constitution trumps any other law that does or doesn’t exist. It is the top legal code in the nation. The Constitution says that the president-elect has to qualify. It doesn’t say who decides whether he/she qualifies. But the president-elect has to qualify; if he/she doesn’t then the Constitution has been broken – the top law in the country.

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM

There is no “governing legal authority” to distinguish “citizen” from “natural-born citizen”.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM

I disagree. I still hold the position that the Constitution satisfies this.

Citizen=immigrant or ‘born here’
natural born=’born here’

In all seriousness, what else would natural born mean?

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:36 PM

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM

The recordings of Sarah Obama and the ambassador of Kenya that Obama was born in Kenya are evidence.

No, they’re not. Any more than your protestations are evidence.

There are sworn affidavits associated with that also.

Sworn by who, attesting to what?

The verbal statement by Obama that he was born at Queens, followed by a letter on White House stationery and seal saying he was born at Kapiolani is evidence.

No, it’s not, as I suspect any court in the land would want him to recount details of his own birth to assess the validity of his memory on that account.

The signs of forgery in what he says is a legal COLB that was shown to Factcheck is evidence.

You mean “claims of signs of forgery”. To be weighed against evidence given by those who have examined it, along with the testimony of a number of Hawaii state officials, including the Republican governor of Hawaii, who state catagorically that he was born in Hawaii.

What’s in the Constitution trumps any other law that does or doesn’t exist.

So… what? Internet conspiracy theorists get to determine what the US Constitution means, as opposed to the United States Congress?

You’ve got to be s**ting me, Private Pyle.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:39 PM

I disagree. I still hold the position that the Constitution satisfies this.

Citizen=immigrant or ‘born here’
natural born=’born here’

In all seriousness, what else would natural born mean?

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:36 PM

john McCain was not “born here”. Does that mean he was ineligible to run?

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

and

If it wasn’t, does that mean it can’t be brought up now?

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

The reason for my asking was what was it that determined his citizenship status back then. I am still trying to parse if the COLB vs Long Form has had any basis for eligibility in the past. Constitutionally speaking, it doesn’t seem to have merit.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM

john McCain was not “born here”. Does that mean he was ineligible to run?

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:40 PM

The Panama Canal Zone met the jurisdiction requirement of the US.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Military bases are US soil.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The Panama Canal Zone met the jurisdiction requirement of the US.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Fair enough.

What if he had been born on Diego Garcia? Would he then be ineligible?

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM

What if he had been born on Diego Garcia? Would he then be ineligible?

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Hmm…

UK owns it but we operate out of it. Good one. Don’t know.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM

See, I think a far mare fair reading of the NBC clause is not that one is “born here”, but that one is “born a citizen”, rather than attaining citizenship after immigration.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM

See, I think a far mare fair reading of the NBC clause is not that one is “born here”, but that one is “born a citizen”, rather than attaining citizenship after immigration.

JohnGalt23 on July 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM

But being born here places one automatically a citizen.

A citizen is not always born here.
A ‘born here’ is always a citizen…(unless he/she revokes his/her citizenship)

Is it possible to be born here and not a citizen? I say no.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM

JohnGalt23 at 2:39

What you’re doing is called “poisoning the well”, I believe. It’s a logical fallacy whereby you exclude from “acceptable” any evidence which would prove what you don’t want proven.

You don’t like the signs of forgery that have been mentioned? Tell me my “experts” don’t count because they’re conspiracy theorists. And, of course, anybody who sees signs of forgery is disqualified for the same reason. Then you can say, “No reliable experts have confirmed any signs of forgery.”

You don’t like Obama’s grandma and the ambassador from Kenya saying that Obama was born there? Just say that they wouldn’t know any more about the subject than anybody else.

You don’t like Obama’s conflicting reports on where he was born? Suggest that it’s normal for people to not know where they were born. I can tell you where every one of my siblings (all 11 of them) were born and all my kids could tell where they and all their siblings were born. And if Obama doesn’t know, then why the heck doesn’t he just say he doesn’t know?

How would you falsify your own view that everything is hunky-dory with Obama’s birth account? What would you convince you otherwise?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Anuts at 2:36PM

Would you agree that if you want to find out what the Founding Fathers meant when they said “natural born citizen”, you should go by what they actually said about it in their other writings or what the common law definition at the time was?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Would you agree that if you want to find out what the Founding Fathers meant when they said “natural born citizen”, you should go by what they actually said about it in their other writings or what the common law definition at the time was?

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Shaky. To find Constitutional meaning I would rather look no further than the US Constitution itself. If an instance where a Framer states a contradicting article (legally non binding) from the Constitution (especially if that Framer is Madison), then what? Constitution still.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 4:42 PM

BUT isn’t it possible that the messy birth certificate detail emerged after the viable cantidate was found?
Possible? Sure. It is also possible that I’ll be struck by lightning today when I walk outside for lunch.

That is not at all PROBABLE, however. In fact, it is such a remote possibility that it is a statistical certainty that it won’t happen.

I’m just sayin….
And the Birthers, like the 9-11 Troothers, are always “just asking questions.”

Good Lt on July 24, 2009 at 9:22 AM

I take it from your tone that you have access to irrefutable evidence of Obama’s citizenship. Great, produce it and this all come to an end.

Thank God we have sharp people like you on Hot Air putting an end to all the foolishness.

Thanks

Ernest on July 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM

In short, I will admit at taking liberty with one item of assumption. I am assuming that the reason the Framers (which is technically more accurate to say when dealing with the Constitution than Founders) never thought to expand further on the ‘legal definition’ of natural born is that I believe it’s far too obvious as to the meaning of such a phrase.

“Natural Born Citizen”

Honestly, I cannot fathom what any other possibility there is other than to take it literally. I don’t believe that they would envision difficulty in it either. Self explanatory.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I take it from your tone that you have access to irrefutable evidence of Obama’s citizenship.

Thanks

Ernest on July 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM

In fairness, the same can be said about anyone. With words like forgery, conspiracy, fake, etc. there is always wiggle room for some die hards to never quite satisfy ‘irrefutability’.

anuts on July 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM

justincase on July 24, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Disproving your evidence is not poisoning the well.

You don’t like the signs of forgery that have been mentioned? Tell me my “experts” don’t count because they’re conspiracy theorists. And, of course, anybody who sees signs of forgery is disqualified for the same reason. Then you can say, “No reliable experts have confirmed any signs of forgery.”

Your experts are Techdude and Ron Polarik(an anonymous pseudonym — not his real name). To give expert evidence the expert must first demonstrate that they are “qualifed as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Anonymous people on the internet who do not put their credentials out there to be examined are not experts. For a savage takedown of Techdude see here (by AJStrata) For rebuttal of “Ron Polarik” go here . (This posting is by an actual doctor and who could qualify as an expert in court).

You don’t like Obama’s grandma and the ambassador from Kenya saying that Obama was born there? Just say that they wouldn’t know any more about the subject than anybody else.

You need the full transcript of Obama’s paternal Step-granmother to make a decision on that. The Full transcript states multiple times that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. See here If you don’t believe the transcript, listen here to the full audio recording not just the 5:00 minute strategically edited piece.

You don’t like Obama’s conflicting reports on where he was born?

I’ve heard this allegation but have yet to see any source on when Barak Obama said he was born in Queen’s Hospital. I’ve seen the letter to Kapoiion(sp?) Hospital, but have never seen any sources that barak Obama himself said he was born in a different hospital. Furthermore, testimony about where you were born is hearsay. To testify about something, you have to have direct first hand memory of what you are testifying to. Unless Obama directly remembers his own birth, he testimony about such birth would be hearsay. (There is a hearsay exception for such personal facts though, so it is a bit of a wash.) However, I still want to see what your source is for Obama’s supposed incongruous statements regarding the Hospital of his birth.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 24, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Either Jon Stewart’s ratings have skyrocketed at an unprecedented rate or you have no idea how many people live in America.
Jim Treacher on July 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Read any Time Magazine polls lately, sport?

Constantine on July 24, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Either Jon Stewart’s ratings have skyrocketed at an unprecedented rate or you have no idea how many people live in America.
Jim Treacher on July 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Read any Time Magazine polls lately, sport?

Constantine on July 24, 2009 at 7:24 PM

No. Which one is relevant?

By the way, Jon Stewart has between 1 million and 1.5 million viewers per night. What percentage of the U.S. population is that?

Jim Treacher on July 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM

I just don’t get it.

If I ran for a job which required a very high public profile and that I was a U.S. Citizen (born here) and I won the job and then a bunch of people sued me to see the birth certificate which I could either fight in court over and over again spending a lot of money on lawyers, give my opponents fodder for their rumor mill _and_ add an air of illegitimacy to my administration _or_ I could simply show it and be done with everything once and for all, I would so the birth certificate. It’s a no-brainer. How it is even a question or an issue is beyond any rational, thinking human being. It’s that very basic, simple logic and the fact that he _won’t_ show it and is going the other way that makes rational people think that he is hiding something.

Theophile on July 25, 2009 at 3:31 AM

*”so” should be “show”

Theophile on July 25, 2009 at 3:32 AM

Now they can’t get their story straight as to which *hospital* he was born in.

Is it possible, please, for the attending physician or nurses to come forward, once and for all, and claim “we are the ones who delivered the infant Barack Obama”?

Note: I’ve posted the rest of my comment on the more current thread here, to avoid complete double-posting.

RD on July 25, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9