Noted Romney ally still pushing Birther claims

posted at 7:51 pm on May 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

That’s the bad news. The good news: That “Dine with the Donald” event next week just got a lot more interesting.

Philip Klein tried to warn us back in February, but oh well. Alternate headline: “Who’s up for another news cycle devoted to talking about Obama’s birthplace instead of unemployment?”

“A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book,” Trump went on, “he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital.”

Actually, Obama’s literary agency at the time, two decades ago, published a recently discovered catalogue of clients and their projects that included erroneous information about Obama and a prospective book about race that he ended up not writing. An agency assistant back then, Miriam Goderich, said last week that she was mistaken when she wrote that Obama was born in Kenya.

But Trump isn’t buying it.

“That’s what he told the literary agent,” Trump insisted. “That’s the way life works… He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said… He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia… Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”

He’s talking about Joel Pollak’s piece at Breitbart.com last week, which revealed a booklet published in 1991 by O’s literary agent listing his birthplace as Kenya. Trump’s point is that the booklet proves that Obama didn’t start telling people he was born in Hawaii until later in life, when he started thinking about running for president and encountered the eligibility issue. In that case, though, how to explain this? The New York Times, February 6, 1990:

The new president of the [Harvard Law] Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

”The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress,” Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ”It’s encouraging.

I’m guessing with 99.9 percent confidence that they got the detail about being born in Hawaii from the man himself. This was a biographical puff piece about him becoming the first black editor of the Journal, after all; the easiest way to gather facts about his background for a story as easy and uncontroversial as that was to simply ask him. If he was telling reporters that his birthplace was Hawaii fully a year before the literary agent’s booklet came out, then Trump’s theory is demolished. Although I realize that won’t stop him: The new theory will be that Obama was already eyeing the presidency even as a young Harvard Law editor and started pushing the “Hawaii” story as sinister cover. That’s totally incoherent if you believe that he was also the source of the erroneous Kenya detail in his literary booklet bio, but there you go. We’re already in Phase Eight of Trump’s Birther evolution, so what’s one more?

Expect plenty of “Sistah Souljah moment” buzz next week from the media in anticipation of the Romney/Trump event. In fact, Mitt’s advisors already seem to be preparing for it, just in case. Says Kevin Madden, “He’ll stand up next to Donald Trump and he’ll talk about why he wants to be president. Any time the subject goes off of that, where it’s something where…Governor Romney would disagree, he’s going to make that very clear. Exit question via Byron York: Have Birthers read the law?


Related Posts:

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 2 3

…I like you….but today you are being an azz…and you know why.

KOOLAID2 on May 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Actually, I hadn’t looked at some of his comments on this page, directed at you. Evil Tesla appears to be back.

My bad.

RINO in Name Only on May 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Ok, Good Lt,

So in your world an accusation that a president slaughtered his own citizens is equal to some people questioning a prsident’s birth certification validity. I don’t don’t see comparison there. I think you are forcing it and it doesn’t work.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM

One of the things Rush and Hannity have been talking about is how people are telling them they didn’t know Obama did cocaine. That’s in his own books. So you can’t say everybody knows all this stuff. I don’t know how you don’t know that. I think most everybody has heaed the rumors that Bush did cocaine in the past b/c liberals didn’t shy away from that.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I knew Bush did Coke. Still voted for him twice.

I’m guessing what you’re referring to are the “American Idol” low information type voters suddenly caring about Obama’s recreational substance abuse. To me, it just make the GOP look like the whiny, “Drugs are bad mmkay” social issue party of morality. That’s not the kind of message to put forward when the country is suffering from economic malaise brought on by the most economically incompetent POTUS ever.

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Double standard?

imasoulman on May 25, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Allahpundit is giving the NYT article more weight because other evidence (e.g., his birth certificate) points to him having been born in Hawaii.

RINO in Name Only on May 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I don’t think it’s good we have a former crackhead as a president, and it kind of shows. It would be one thing if Obama was still a community organizer and his impact on other people was neglible, but he’s the president and so yeah, I think it’s kind of important that he use to abuse drugs. I never did cocaine, and I think that goes for a ma jority of voters. :)

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM

And it should be pointed out that liberlas never proved Bush did cocaine, just like they never proved he was AWOL.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:43 PM

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:40 PM

…(there’s plenty of people to talk to…WHY?)

KOOLAID2 on May 25, 2012 at 11:45 PM

And it should be pointed out that liberlas never proved Bush did cocaine, just like they never proved he was AWOL.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:43 PM

That’s the point though, despite huge media coverage about the issue, he still won right?

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

…(there’s plenty of people to talk to…WHY?)

KOOLAID2 on May 25, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Alright I’ll stop

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Cocaine was illegal last time I checked, and most companeis won’t hire you if you don’t past a drug test. So what’s wrong with holding Obama to that basic standard. He broke the law, and it’s not like cocaine is just having a few drinks or even smoking pot. That’s a hardcore drug there.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:47 PM

T

hat’s the point though, despite huge media coverage about the issue, he still won right?

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Dude can you read? I just finished saying there are a lot of people who don’t know he did cocaine even he admits to it in his books. There was no coverage of this is the liberal traditional media. They didn’t talk much about the stuff I’m saying we should contintue to talk about, b/c people are more receptive to hearing about Obama’s dirty laundry in 2012.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Ok, Good Lt,

So in your world an accusation that a president slaughtered his own citizens is equal to some people questioning a prsident’s birth certification validity. I don’t don’t see comparison there. I think you are forcing it and it doesn’t work.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I’m saying that the ‘evidence’ supporting both claims and conspiracies is equally thin.

Good Lt on May 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Ok, what can I do if you think an accuation of genocide by a president is the same as people thinking a president wasn’t born here. To me that’s not logical.

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:50 PM

“Доверяй, но проверяй”

- President Ronald Reagan, quoting an old Russian maxim

I took the NYT story URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

… and checked it at the Internet Archive, to see if it had been altered in 2007 just like his publicists web page bio for Obama was altered in 2007 from “born in Kenya” to “born in Hawaii”.

I was surprised that the first instance of the 1990 NYT article found at the Internet Archive was from 2009:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

Why would a 1990 article not show up in the Internet Archive until 2009? Why wouldn’t it first show up when the NYT articles first became available on the web?

Thinking “Trust, but verify”, I found a library that has the NY Times on Microfilm. I went there, found the 2/6/1990 NY Times, and found the article on page A20. The microfilm said “Hawaii”.

I felt it was due diligence to ensure that the web record hadn’t been changed and the old version scrubbed in Orwellian fashion. And I feel it is due diligence to share my observations with the larger audience.

ITguy on May 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Would I rather people accuse me of not being born here or accuse me of genocide? Probably accuse me of not being born here. I rest my case. :)

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM

. Evil Tesla appears to be back.

My bad.

RINO in Name Only on May 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

…happens every time…you guys go so fast with each other you don’t notice it. MO everytime….there’s other people to talk to here without wasting your time and encouraging it.

KOOLAID2 on May 25, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Good Lt on May 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM

…dude!

KOOLAID2 on May 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM

I’ve read thru every post. Conclusion: The vast majority of HotGas posters are mealy mouth twerps, afraid to say the obvious…..but I might get banned…whaaaa! And this is why Obama got elected.

Obama is a lying fraud. He and his enablers should suffer the same fate as the Rosenburgs for Treason.

RavingLunatic on May 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Koolaid wouldn’t talk if I wasn’t here, b/c all he does is tell people not to talk to me. The guy is nuts and the people whining about my points here and suggesting we have to brown nose Obama are taking Kool Aid seriously. I think that says something. :)

Dr. Tesla on May 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Distraction. Obama is praying that we take the focus off the economy, and his awful record and start talking about the stupid birther stuff again.

Pro tip: Nobody gives a Sh*t about about who Obama used to hang out with, how many drugs he did or whether he made up stuff about fake girlfriends and being born in Kenya to sound cooler. This is red meat and Independents don’t care. What they do care about is our trainwreck of an economy, and whether Romney will be a better President and can get the country back on track.

President Bush had a DUI, did drugs, partied hard, and his family had relations with some shady people. His Dad was part of multiple scandals. He was elected to two terms.

Drop this crap now or risk looking like idiots as Obama gets a free ride to a second term and turns us into Greece 2.0

1984 in real life on May 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Ok, so your position is that by dragging out the BC stuff, it helps 0bamessiah politically. Do I have that right? I assume so.

Ok, so, if dragging out the BC stuff helps 0bamamessiah politically, could you tell me why He bothered releasing His “LFBC”, which He’s so far refused to verify as a legal document, last year? What sense did that make for Him politically if the issue is so helpful to Him? Wouldn’t it have a been a bigger distraction to not release it, and keep people guessing about it?

Please explain this to me, because, if your point is correct, I cannot understanding His reasoning at all

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Bush never admit to doing cocaine, Obama did. I don’t think people are going to feel sorry for Obama if somebody points out he did cocaine. Just point out he did, and let voters if it matters. It’s not going to hurt, it can only help, so roll with it.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:02 AM

I’m saying that the ‘evidence’ supporting both claims and conspiracies is equally thin.

Good Lt on May 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM

The man just explained the difference in a way even a child could understand. No wonder you are still a lieutenant.

VorDaj on May 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Please explain this to me, because, if your point is correct, I cannot understanding His reasoning at all…

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:00 AM

You can not understand as you do not have the ability to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast.

Cheshire Cat on May 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM

…KOOLAID2… is just trying to save people… no matter what their outlook is on topics… from the stink of someone who is constantly farting on everyone and leaves diarrhea spots every minute… everywhere…

KOOLAID2 on May 26, 2012 at 12:11 AM

If asserting Obama used to snort coccaine off the floor is going to drive all these people to vote for Obama, you’d think liberterians would be a viable political party b/c drug abuse is their #1 cause. :)

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Koolaid, you have a way with words.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, explicitly avoided construing the 14th Amendment because Minor was a natural born citizen “born in the country to parents who are its citizens”.

If you are a natural born citizen, you don’t need the 14th Amendment to make you a citizen.

Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen, so he needed the 14th Amendment to make him a citizen. And he was deemed a citizen (not a natural born citizen) because:
1) He was born in the U.S.
2) He was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because both of his parents were permanently domiciled here.

Note well that Obama admits that he was born a British subject, because his father was a British subject who was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.

Obama was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the British crown. Even if his birth narrative is 100% true, he would have been born “subject to the jurisdiction” of both the United States and the British crown.

A natural born citizen of the United States is not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of any other nation.

Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, explicitly avoided construing the 14th Amendment because Minor was a natural born citizen.

If someone has to resort to the 14th Amendment, then they are not a natural born citizen.

And guess what? Obama’s campaign originally resorted to the 14th Amendment, but later scrubbed that…

ITguy on May 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Koolaid,

Please refute one thing that I have said on this post. Give it a shot, talk about what I say. You like taking shots at me but you never engage me on what I say.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:16 AM

The Obama campaign initially claimed:

The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

However, note that that page also says the following:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born a British subject… subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.
—————-

Then they updated that page again…

http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

ITguy on May 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM

One thing that’s constant about the Obama birth narrative is that it keeps changing.

ITguy on May 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Evil Tesla appears to be back.

My bad.

RINO in Name Only on May 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM

I hope you learned your lesson!

Look at his behavior, and try to say with a straight face that he does not have a personality disorder. That’s right, you cannot! :)

Dr. Tesla, I know you’ll see this, but I probably won’t respond to you if you reply to me. Analyze your behavior as if you were observing someone else, and see if you can convince yourself how ‘that’ person does not have some sort of psychological problem.

From an objective pov, you are a verbose social misfit, and you blame everyone else for not approving of you instead of examining yourself in the mirror like you should and asking, “Maybe, just maybe, people at HA have a good reason to intensely dislike dealing with me.”

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM

…see what I mean? Diarrheah farts…never any time to wipe!

KOOLAID2 on May 26, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Bizzaro,

You seem like a blowhard nutjob to me trying to do this bubblegum pyschologist thing on the internet.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:19 AM

I try to treat Koolaid like an adult and even include him in the conversation but he cannot have a conversation with me.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:20 AM

The man just explained the difference in a way even a child could understand. No wonder you are still a lieutenant.

VorDaj on May 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM

In terms of the quality and quantity of ‘evidence’ supporting the two conspiracy theories, there is no difference.

Keep up.

Good Lt on May 26, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Bizzaro,

You seem like a blowhard nutjob to me trying to do this bubblegum pyschologist thing on the internet.

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Saying that you should be humble and instrospective is “bubblegum” psychology? LOL

If you believe that, you aren’t only mentally ill, you are a lazy, cowardly crybaby who’s really, really stupid, too! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Well that is first class nonsense.

The USPS required four digit years, every other stamp ever seen from them has four digits, that lame excuse that the “19 fell out” is beyond ridiculous since those dates are all one piece. That’s not a metered mail stamp, those are standard PICA stamps which all use four digit years. I also see they failed to find any other SS form with a two digit year stamp, and we all know how hard they must have looked for one.

You are right, the 2 digit year thing is more unlikely than I was thinking. They are pretty upfront, on the site I linked, about the fact that it’s kind of strange. The stamp seems faded in other parts as well, so my guess is the ink was probably just very dry on parts of the stamp.
Wait, no, it makes much more sense that there was a conspiracy involving multiple felonies on the parts of many different individuals.

You’re grasping at straws, and reveling an agenda.

Rebar on May 25, 2012 at 11:18 PM

And just what “agenda” is that?
Maybe I was paid by Barack Obama to come onto hot-air and trick people into thinking he’s legit.
Or maybe, I’m being paid by Romney to crush this thing because he’s too terrified to stand up for the truth.

RINO in Name Only on May 26, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:18 AM

…sometimes people need to get help…and plenty have suggested it..to no avail…so there is this thing called tough love…
…why engage someone…when you would be more productive…just pharting…and feel better for it!

KOOLAID2 on May 26, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Biz!…give it up!…I’ll pull your finger for ya!

KOOLAID2 on May 26, 2012 at 12:42 AM

The stamp seems faded in other parts as well, so my guess is the ink was probably just very dry on parts of the stamp.

So, it was just dry on the “19″, while the “80″ immediately next to it, and the rest around it, got fully inked? Not buying it, especially as there are no examples of other places where this happened, ever. And that certainly doesn’t explain how the “80″ was completely misaligned to the rest of the stamp, which was duplicated in the video through crude forgery.

And just what “agenda” is that?

RINO in Name Only on May 26, 2012 at 12:34 AM

You tell me, you seem awfully invested on proving anyone with the slightest interest in 0bama’s documentation to be subhuman morons.

Rebar on May 26, 2012 at 12:43 AM

You seem like a blowhard nutjob

For someone who is “neutral” on the Alex Jones-supported birther conspiracy theory, that’s perhaps high praise.

Good Lt on May 26, 2012 at 12:52 AM

I don’t know who ALex Jones is, and it’s legal to be neutral/agnostic about the birthers. There’s plenty of people flogging the birthers, i have bigger fish to fry like Obama. You seem more concerned about people not questioning Obama’s citzenship than the issues that matter. I don’t what you are getting out of this defending Obama. Is he paying you?

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Let me ask the birthers must burn in hell crowd this: What if some evidence emerged that Obama was not in fact born in America? I don’t think you guys change your tune about the birthers b/c it’s about branding yourself a certain way. Just a theory, can’t prove it, don’t want to. :)

Dr. Tesla on May 26, 2012 at 1:49 AM

The tacit thread in all this birther business is the fact that much of it stems from 0bama’s own lack credibility or genuineness.

StubbleSpark on May 26, 2012 at 2:56 AM

ITguy on May 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Your research is commendable. More people should be so proactive, way to go.

Here’s my take.

Many (most?) newspapers have changed CMS platforms in recent years. NYT uses a hybridized WordPress blog-engine. It is nearly impossible to maintain canonical structure when this happens.

If you don’t believe me take a look at the Breitbart sites since their update. Do a search on any of the old big gov, big hollywood, bigeverything links. They’re gone, dead.

As the web changes and news corps try to remain relevant they have had to make sweeping changes. I’ve not found one corporate news site with all of it’s archival links intact.

Capitalist Hog on May 26, 2012 at 3:05 AM

AP: Obama wasn’t the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was the president, an elected position based on popularity. To be Editor, one must be at the top of his class and actually write something for The Review. Obama was, and did, neither, so far as it can be known.

winfield on May 26, 2012 at 4:37 AM

barack obama sr is NOT obama dad, it is “cover” story. . frank marshall davis? paul robeson? jerome corsi is investigating from hawaii and sheriff arpaio will have conference in two weeks. This is BLOCKBUSTER!!!! must watch…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ftI9QwDvE&feature=relmfu

Mr. Sun on May 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM

”The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress,” Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ”It’s encouraging.

Only to those for whom declension is considered “progress”.

Cleombrotus on May 26, 2012 at 8:10 AM

“When small men cast long shadows, you know the sun is setting”

Ancient Chinese proverb.

Cleombrotus on May 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

this is blowing open with next arpaio news conference in two weeks. The cover story of obama dad has been blown open and feds knew about it. jerome corsi and posse doing great work!

Mr. Sun on May 26, 2012 at 8:42 AM

It is foolish to dismiss “The Donald”. He is smart and fully capable of an “October Surprise”.

diogenes on May 26, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Aug 27, 2004 also refers to Obama as born in Kenya. And then there is the state senate debate he had where his opponent said he was born in Kneya and he said, “so what?” My theory had been he used foreign student status to get into Harvard or just make himself seem more exotic but if the NYT says born in Hawaii in 1990 then that puts a hole in my theory.

My other theory is we just pound the crap out of him on the economy and rid ourselves of him no matter where he was born in Nov. 2012.

magicbeans on May 26, 2012 at 9:08 AM

It used to be some statements of truth didn’t need detailed explanation. When written, no one could fathom how lawyers, politicians, advertising merchants would parse and finesse the English language stretching a meaning so far that it would become unrecognizable.

For instance, throughout civilization, marriage meant a holy union between a man and a woman. No explanation or “fine print” was required. Another example is the commerce clause in the Constituion. When written, regulate meant to keep regular. Not the micromangaging of contracts and each little detail of the business between two entities.

One of the simplest statements in the Constituion is: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The authors didn’t feel it necessary to give a detailed explanation because they figured anyone with any common sense would know what it meant.

Regardless of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, the fact that both parents were not citizens of this country would mean that Obama does not qualify.

What this issue regarding Obama’s status has shown is that (1) the useful idiots and spacewasters we call our elected officials haven’t the courage to address it head on but would rather hide from it. (2) Our judicial system wimps out immediately by claiming that pretty much every lawsuit brought on the subject, the claimants do not have standing. (3) Investigative journalism has died and is buried – You mean to tell me the fact that a body would spend over 2 million dollars hiding something doesn’t have something to hide? (4) Our Constitution is becoming more and more meaningless when a simple statement regarding the qualifications of who is to be President can’t even be addressed.

iamsaved on May 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

“A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book,” “he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital.”

-
The MSM should’a been headlining this story this way… They would have if Bu.. Oh, never mind…
-

RalphyBoy on May 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Trump starting his own super-pac?

lynncgb on May 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

ITguy on May 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I can’t figure out the reason for allowing this mess to continue or for the admittedly fraudulent birth certificate posted by his staff .

He is funny. Can’t stop bragging about the cloak and dagger stuff even to the point of too much information but can’t take the time to calm the birthers down when the WH could probably have written a best selling book on the subject by now.

IlikedAUH2O on May 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM

“Доверяй, но проверяй”

– President Ronald Reagan, quoting an old Russian maxim

I took the NYT story URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

… and checked it at the Internet Archive, to see if it had been altered in 2007 just like his publicists web page bio for Obama was altered in 2007 from “born in Kenya” to “born in Hawaii”.

I was surprised that the first instance of the 1990 NYT article found at the Internet Archive was from 2009:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

Why would a 1990 article not show up in the Internet Archive until 2009? Why wouldn’t it first show up when the NYT articles first became available on the web?

Thinking “Trust, but verify”, I found a library that has the NY Times on Microfilm. I went there, found the 2/6/1990 NY Times, and found the article on page A20. The microfilm said “Hawaii”.

I felt it was due diligence to ensure that the web record hadn’t been changed and the old version scrubbed in Orwellian fashion. And I feel it is due diligence to share my observations with the larger audience.

ITguy on May 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM

@ ITguy…

That’s interesting!

Here’s what I conclude (or assume) occurred there (how a 1990 article from the NYT first appears in the Archive in 2009):

ANY one, any site that is, can contact the Archive and request any entry or archived entry of their site be removed and the Archive will remove it upon that request.

A site can even request that ALL site contents previously archived be removed from the Archive, and can place code in their site’s structure that turns the Archive program away (thus, no further Archives will be preserved by the Internet Archive — because their robot or program that scrolls the internet will read that code and be “told” not to harvest or “archive” anything from that site).

Once scrubbed (or deleted) of archived contents upon request by a site (any site, in this case, certainly the NYT as to what the Internet Archive had collected from the NYT), contents can be modified/altered and republished by a site and then the Archive again contacted and site contents archiving resumed (and/or, that code removed from a site that turned away the Archive program from harvesting site contents).

In other words, a site can:

– request specific archived site contents be removed by contacting the Archive;

– place a specific code in the site’s robots file (Internet Archive site provides that code if you go there and look for it, instructions, etc.) that turns the IA robot/program away from archiving anything more;

– recreate site contents and republish them, while they are not being Archived per the above one or two procedures;

– remove the code from a site that turns the IA robot away and the site’s contents will again begin being harvested for archive by the IA program.

Thus, what was “old” can be removed from the Archive, edited, republished and then reharvested at a later time but with the original-publish date if that’s what is published on the second (or umpteenth) republish (you can modify publish date manually on any material that is published — content from “1999″ can be handled in this fashion and republished after Archive removal at any future date with the original pub-date preserved.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Thus, what was “old” can be removed from the Archive, edited, republished and then reharvested at a later time but with the original-publish date if that’s what is published on the second (or umpteenth) republish (you can modify publish date manually on any material that is published — content from “1999″ can be handled in this fashion and republished after Archive removal at any future date with the original pub-date preserved.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The IA will then show the ARCHIVE DATE as a later date or later Archive Entry but the material itself (say, your example of “1990″) will still appear in the Archive Entry.

Archive 1990 removed of 1990 material.

1990 material edited, republished.

1990 material re-archived in, say, 2009.

Archive entry will show “2009″ but the material or content itself will show a creation or publish date of “1990″.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I see nothing, nothing AT ALL, wrong or weird or out of order or defeatist or whatever else one is frightened of as possible environment, with Trump talking about whatevertheheck he wants to talk about and if it’s Obama’s weird self-reports that contradict themselves, so be it.

Most of us can walk and talk at the same time.

And most people who can, at this point, easily determine that Barack Obama or WhatEverHisNameIs has told a litany of life-story tales, lies and outright delusions about who he is and what he’s about, well, most people can easily determine that those behaviors — as intense and determined as they have been by the guy — reveal someone who is not qualified for the Presidency.

Not to mention that IN the Presidency, since he’s already managed to be elected to it in 2008, the man has performed as badly as can be anticipated by someone of his confusions and misrepresentations.

And THAT’s the complaint that I hear from Trump and others with similar issues.

It doesn’t “harm” Romney because Trump, of all people, is his own man. What *I* opine doesn’t harm Romney because I am my own woman. People who live in some sort of political fear about “what issues can be talked about and what issues are to be silenced” are really the problem for the GOP because they create this fear and hesitation and animosity among others that leads to anarchy.

We’re all focused on the economy. That includes Romney and I’m glad that he is. That ALSO includes Trump, ‘case anyone hasn’t noticed.

Unfortunately, none of us knows who “Barack Obama” actually is and his duplicity and confusion as to what he’s reported about himself and his life story lead me to conclude he’s unstable of an outrageous degree. He may be “likable,” but he’s entirely unstable and untrustworthy.

Eventually, we the public will know more about Obama’s identity and lies about his identity, but, for now, let’s vote him out of the Presidency and get a sound leader in there instead and that, to my way of thinking, is Mitt Romney, 2012.

But I don’t find anything irregular in discussing Obama’s lies. They’re abundant and should be discussed.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM

A sub-issue I’m now also concerned about is the national security threats that the state of Hawaii has made possible.

Not a small-time issue, that.

At the time of Obama’s birth, as he’s stated the year to be and during that time before and after for about a decade, the state of Hawaii was a well known document mill. People from all over (especially from Asia) used Hawaii to obtain “Hawaii birth certificates” (so-called) and then to enter into the stream of U.S. documentation, when they were not U.S. citizens or even in the nation legally.

People could apply and obtain a birth document in Hawaii for years by simply walking into a clerk’s office, filling out an application ‘with the desired information,’ paying a filing/document fee and the Clerk would type up a birth record stating whatever was on the application — for children up to a year old.

So it’s a big problem for our nation overall as to the integrity of birth and identity records from Hawaii.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Sun Yat-sen

Provisional President of the Republic of China

In office: 29 December 1911 – 10 March 1912

Personal details:
Born — 12 November 1866, Xiangshan, Guangdong, China
Died — 12 March 1925 (aged 58), Beijing

Sun Yat-sen (12 November 1866 – 12 March 1925)[1] was a Chinese revolutionary and first president and founding father of the Republic of China (“Nationalist China”). As the foremost pioneer of Republic of China, Sun is referred to as the “Father of the Nation” in the Republic of China (ROC), and the “forerunner of democratic revolution” in the People’s Republic of China. Sun played an instrumental role in the overthrow of the Qing dynasty during the Xinhai Revolution. Sun was the first provisional president when the Republic of China was founded in 1912 and later co-founded the Kuomintang (KMT), serving as its first leader.[2] Sun was a uniting figure in post-Imperial China, and remains unique among 20th-century Chinese politicians for being widely revered amongst the people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Although Sun is considered one of the greatest leaders of modern China, his political life was one of constant struggle and frequent exile. After the success of the revolution, he quickly fell out of power in the newly founded Republic of China, and led successive revolutionary governments as a challenge to the warlords who controlled much of the nation. Sun did not live to see his party consolidate its power over the country during the Northern Expedition. His party, which formed a fragile alliance with the Communists, split into two factions after his death. Sun’s chief legacy resides in his developing of the political philosophy known as the Three Principles of the People: nationalism, democracy, and the people’s livelihood.[3]…

…According to Lee Yun-ping, chairman of the Chinese historical society, Sun needed a certificate to enter the United States at a time when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 would have otherwise blocked him.[39] But on Sun’s first attempt to enter the US, he was still arrested.[39] He was later bailed out after 17 days.[39] In March 1904, Sun Yat-sen obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,[40] issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on 24 November 1870 in Kula, Maui.[41] Official files of the United States show that Sun had United States nationality, moved to China with his family at age 4, and returned to Hawaii 10 years later.[42]


Born — 12 November 1866, Xiangshan, Guangdong, China

In March 1904, Sun Yat-sen obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,[40] issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on 24 November 1870 in Kula, Maui.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM

…Obama is a lying fraud. He and his enablers should suffer the same fate as the Rosenburgs for Treason.

RavingLunatic on May 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM

What I think, too.

Here’s what I get from those who push the “Birther” name-calling and ridicule/suppression of discussion every time it’s mentioned: they’re afraid Obama’s using them or “making them” look like fools or something along those lines.

Who cares? Obama’s being made out to look like a Master Svengali who is able to “control” vast populations of people by his scheming and manipulations?

I realize the trail of this issue as it’s been told/revealed: Obama is the source, then Hillary Clinton is the source, or both of them are, of this controversy.

So?

Maybe Hillary dropped the issue because she realized Obama was a fraud and the public couldn’t handle the truth and…and…

See how that works? Maybe the voting public couldn’t turn back from an Obama-precipice in 2008 and the country just had to go through this disaster because few could handle the truth.

There are many speculations that can be made about Obama’s identity and his many tall tales and bad deeds, including those from his troubled youth (which troubles I believe he is still exhibiting in the present), but what were the options in 2008 that the country might have altered as to course of the election?

I don’t know any answers to those speculations. I do know that Obama’s a mysterious liar and that makes him a fraud in the Presidency BECAUSE his lying has extended to who he is as an individual and what his qualifications are.

So, I question them. So should everyone.

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Lourdes on May 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Don’t count on the Clintons to be able to handle a challenge such as was presented in 2008. They can nail and savage Rush, GOP officials, lady conservatives and anyone even remotely on the right. They could no more attack a liberal minority than a Hindu could take a chain saw to a cow.

I would ask all who are worried about the subject to carefully consider all the evidence which the other side has created or at least presented. It is extensive and likely to sell voters.

IlikedAUH2O on May 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Does Trump still like being able to fire people?

BKennedy on May 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Forget the birth certificate. Obama HIMSELF HAS PROVIDED all that is necessary to flush him out of the oval office.


1. OBAMA’S OWN LAWYER’S ADMISSION that it’s common knowledge that his father was never a US citizen
2. OBAMA’S OWN 2008 SENATE RESOLUTION declaring McCain natural born
3. OBAMA’S OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY stating his British citizenship at birth conveyed by his father

.

1. COURT VIDEO-Obama’s own lawyer agrees with judge that it is common knowledge that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen
 At approx the 1:03 mark:
Video N.J Judge “…since it is common knowledge that Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen…” At which point Obama’s side’s attorney Hill can be seen vigorously nodding her head in agreement. His lawyers then tried to have the legally recorded video deleted from the internet. 
.

2. Obama’s own 2008 Senate Resolution 511 (SR511) said  ”therefore be it resolved… John McCain is a natural born citizen since he was born on US military base to 2 US Citizen parents…”
One of Obama’s own requirements in his Resolution stipulates one must have two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen by Obama’s own resolution…
.
3. In Obama’s own words (see p. 26 of his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” quoted on his campaign site “Fight the Smears”) his father, BH Obama Sr was a ”British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That SAME ACT GOVERNED the STATUS of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

So, his child, Obama Jr was governed by & therefore owed allegiance to the British government. In other words, Jr was subject to the jurisdiction of the British government AT BIRTH- NOT that of the US govt. His status as a British “subject”/citizen was conveyed by his father courtesy of the laws in effect in 1961, when Jr. was born. 

Obama’s self-admitted dual citizenship at birth and the required (by Article 2 Sec 1 Claus 5) status of natural born citizenship at birth are mutually exclusive. Obama, the self-labeled “Constitutional professor” is ineligible, he knows it. So does every thinking American who has not chosen to look the other way while our country is ruined.

NightmareOnKStreet on May 26, 2012 at 2:54 PM

U.S. Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 

Chief Justice Marshall’s “form without substance” quote: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

This kills the argument that being “a 14th Amendment citizen” has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a “natural born citizen”. If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect.  Such a construction is inadmissible.

For that matter, Article 2 Sec 1 Clause 5′s use of the term “natural born Citizen” (in reference ONLY to the eligibility requirements for President/Vice President) HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE (PLAIN) “Citizen” ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT for Congress as stated in Article 1 Section 1 Clause 2:
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Therefore, if POTUS requires a natural born Citizen, it has to mean a higher standard than the simple Citizen required for the legislature because that would render the natural born clause WITHOUT EFFECT which goes against the landmark SCOTUS ruling quoted above.

The whole discussion may be too much for some to grasp. Since I started posting here about 6 years ago, I’ve found many of our brightest have fled to more conservative venues or started their own. Fortunately, some remain & most here at HA (minus trolls & Mobys) are an intelligent bunch (even though some are rather close-minded re Obama’s ineligibility.)

NightmareOnKStreet on May 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM

barack obama sr is NOT obama dad, it is “cover” story. . frank marshall davis? paul robeson? jerome corsi is investigating from hawaii and sheriff arpaio will have conference in two weeks. This is BLOCKBUSTER!!!! must watch…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ftI9QwDvE&feature=relmfu

Mr. Sun on May 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM

According to Michelle 0bama, 0bamessiah’s mother wasn’t even married when she had Him:
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/07/10/4431794-michelle-obama-talks-fatherhood?lite

How could someone misspeak like that? She knows what the truth is – it’s too bad so many people have chosen to put their fingers in their ears when it comes to hearing what He and His wife have to say…

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 26, 2012 at 8:06 PM

.
Why? Because obama looks so much more like Frank Michael Davis than Barack Obama Sr in the photos on the cover of his autobiography Dreams from My Father(s)? Maybe he meant they were his “composite father”?
.
Your choice of the words “cover story” is very telling. The operative word being “cover”.
.
I guess we’ll just have to wait for obama to rescind his first official act as prez: signing Executive Order #13489 sealing ALL of HIS records. Who does that?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM

In that case, though, how to explain this? The New York Times, February 6, 1990:

Do you have a photo/scan of the paper copy? Assuming you do, then I guess you can have multiple narratives and then decide which one to correct later on. I’m sure Obama was thinking Kenyan presidency before he was thinking US presidency. There likely wouldn’t be too many Kenyans raising a stink about a possible Hawaiian birth when he ran for the Kenyan presidency, and if it came up, you just claim the NYT messed up the birthplace.

Buddahpundit on May 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM

My previous comment @ 11:29 PM should have been directed to

Mr. Sun on May 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I mistakenly directed It to Bizzaro No. 1, who was responding to Mr. Sun

NightmareOnKStreet on May 27, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3