Why Another Blog?

I've decided to set up another blog, (my other one is called Writer's Musings), because there are some topics just too weighty for that blog.

So here it is. In this space I'll explore more serious issues in more detail. I do not expect visitors to agree with me in all cases.
In this forum feel free to take off the gloves, grab a handful of mud and fight for what you believe in.

Simple rules, rather like cage-fighting in the blogosphere:
No direct name calling. No excessive profanity. No whining when smacked in the face with mud.
Sling inuendo. Feel free to ask leading questions even if in a snide tone.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Obama Issues the Mainstream Media Ignores or Deliberately Hides

Where was Obama really born? This could be laid to rest very simply, but Obama refuses (or can’t) produce a valid birth certificate proving that he was born in Hawaii. The Obama “Fight the Smears” web site has already admitted that Obama was a Kenyan citizen whose citizenship lapsed in 1982. So, was he born in Kenya or Hawaii? This question is important because the man who will be sworn in as President is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. How can one do that if one is in violation of said Constitution by falsifying birth records and lying about it? What is there to hide if one has a valid birth certificate?

There is an alleged 1999 incident where Obama received oral sex from Larry Sinclair and smoked crack and snorted cocaine. Larry Sinclair willingly accepted a polygraph to prove that he was telling the truth. However, the organization that ran the test used an “expert” with phony credentials. They never released the results of the second test which was analyzed by a real expert. Sinclair passed the automated polygraph. The organization (Whitehouse.com) is a partisan, pro-Obama organization run by a pornographer. We already know that Obama will not volunteer to submit to a polygraph and he refuses to provide proof of his whereabouts on the date in question. Given that Obama admitted in his books that he once used cocaine and crack, the Sinclair allegation is that much more believable.

It is alleged that Obama has more than casual connections with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, both former members of the Weatherman Underground. As recently as 2005 Ayers bragged about “getting off” and said they should have blown up more things. Even though Obama and Ayers keep crossing paths (Columbia, University of Chicago Law School, his neighborhood, Obama’s political “coming out party” hosted by Ayers and Dohrn in their house) we are supposed to believe that Obama has no relationship with Ayers. Why is this not worthy of investigation?

Obama’s association with ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) a group with a long record of voter fraud and sometimes violent activism is also suspect, but seldom reported on. This is critical because ACORN is also tied to the recent bailout plan pushed by the Democrats. Obama is benefiting from the mess he and ACORN helped promote.

See this article by the former Secretary of State for Ohio (who happens to be an African-American) for the incriminating connection between Obama and ACORN that the press will not discuss: Ken Blackwell.

Obama’s connections with Frank Davis, a known and avowed member of the Communist Party USA are suspect. In his own book, Obama calls the man his mentor. Should we not be concerned with that kind of relationship and how that would shape Obama’s character? Obama’s mentor is someone who advocated the overthrow of the United States government and we should not question how that affects Obama’s views?

One of the people on Obama’s campaign staff is Jodie Davis, co-founder of Code Pink, whose members attempted to disrupt the Republican National Convention during John McCain’s speech.

Obama is a friend and associate of former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who pleaded guilty of corruption charges and resigned from office in September 2008. If Obama were a Republican, the media would have swarmed this one looking for any tenuous link.

Then there are the sordid details of Obama and Tony Rezko. Here are eight facts about the Rezko-Obama connection from the Chicago Sun-Times on 24 January 2008.

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

To which we can add 9. Rezko has been convicted of the charges.

Then there is the Reverend Wright association. How can one claim friendship with and sit in a church for twenty years while that friend spews hatred of whites and hatred of America, and then claim to want to represent all Americans? Obama threw Wright under the bus only when it became politically necessary to do so.

What all these things show is Obama’s consistent track record of dubious judgment in associations at a minimum.

The citizenship issue is a more critical Constitutional issue that Obama should be, but is not, interested in resolving.

Obama’s association with ACORN should be raising red flags, but is widely ignored.

America is being ill-served by the mainstream media who have totally abandoned any pretense of being the impartial watchdog for the American people. The mainstream media have become part of the Obama campaign.

America, you are asking for a Chavez-type government if you elect Barack Obama.

18 comments:

sex scenes at starbucks said...

Yeah, I didn't really care who sucked off Bill Clinton, either. He didn't alienate our allies around the world and you know, I was actually UPPER class when he was in office. They were doing something right.

You know, McCain almost had my vote until he chose that nutjob Palin as a running mate.

At this point I could give a fuck about either candidate's history. I care only that they'll survive to do what I want them to do in office, which is put a little bit of money BACK in my pocketbook (this economy has cost me 7 figures and counting) and get us the hell out of places in the world we shouldn't be.

sex scenes at starbucks said...

Oh, and what about the purportedly 1.2 million Iraqi civillians (900K, conservate estimates) killed since our invasion? The media (and W's crew) has conveniently forgotten about that, too. It's not like they have blinders only when it comes to Obama, who, as you know, I do not love.

J. L. Krueger said...

Yeah, I didn't really care who sucked off Bill Clinton, either. He didn't alienate our allies around the world and you know, I was actually UPPER class when he was in office. They were doing something right.

Gee, I don’t recall talking about Bill Clinton’s sordid sex life anywhere in my post. Nor was I praising the current administration. I addressed Obama’s shortcomings that the mainstream media has widely ignored and you go and try to divert the argument, which are essentially the Obama and Democratic talking points.

But if you want to talk about the past, Presidents get blame or credit for economic factors over which they have little control. If you want to blame someone, look at Congress who trails G. W. by double-digits in terms of approval rating. Which branch of government appropriates money? Who has controlled both houses of Congress for 18 of the past 26 years? Who has controlled both houses of Congress for the last two years? Who has controlled the House for the last four years? The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for only the first two years of the Bush Administration.

If Obama was “warning” about imminent financial collapse two years ago and ALL the Dems saw it coming as they like to say (repeated as recently as last night’s VP debate by Joe Biden), where was the legislation to head it off two years ago? The Democrats controlled the legislative agenda. They allowed the crisis to develop because they saw it as a way to win in 2008. They were willing to crash the economy to gain power. And you want to give them control? They clearly didn’t give a damn about you.

The Republicans, introduced legislation in 2003, 2005, and 2007 to head off the crisis. All three efforts were defeated by the likes of Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Charles Schumer. But you never hear about that from the media. Look it up, it’s in the Congressional Record.

We don’t live in a Parliamentary style government. To lay all the blame at the feet of the President, or give him all the credit, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of our system of government. The totally biased media pushes this theme in lock-step with Obama and the Democrats.

Clinton benefited from laws and policies enacted during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Note that I do not specifically credit the two Republican presidents, I just cite the fact that it was on their watch that policies and laws were enacted that helped Clinton.

At the moment, apart from political cover, most of our allies are not worth shit. So who gives a damn what they think? They do none of the heavy lifting. Even in Afghanistan, the theater that everyone says is the most important theater, they have provided little more than lip-service even in areas like building schools and infrastructure. There are some exceptions, but those are the countries that aren’t in the “alienated column” anyway.

If a Taliban farts in the hills, the Germans go hide on their base camp for weeks before venturing out again. The Italians and Spaniards run back to the base camp at the first whiff of gunpowder and leave the Afghan soldiers they are allegedly “mentoring” on their own. A senior Afghan officer told me that he only wants American soldiers out with his men because the Europeans are cowards. For what most of our erstwhile allies provide, they might as well go home.

You know, McCain almost had my vote until he chose that nutjob Palin as a running mate.

Apart from name-calling, I fail to see where you have made any substantive case against Palin. My post was about Obama. The allegations about Obama are far more relevant than anything you have presented against Palin (which has been mostly name-calling). But then again, Obama is running against McCain, not Palin.

At this point I could give a fuck about either candidate's history. I care only that they'll survive to do what I want them to do in office, which is put a little bit of money BACK in my pocketbook (this economy has cost me 7 figures and counting) and get us the hell out of places in the world we shouldn't be.

Obama’s past associations are relevant because they show a serious lack of judgment some of which borders on the unethical. Then there is the very relevant current Constitutional issue. If Obama was not really born in the US (he has yet to produce a valid birth certificate), he has no business on the ticket. He is in violation of the Constitution that he would be swearing to support and defend.

If Obama were a Republican, you and the media would be all over these associations. If he were a white Democrat, he would not be on the ticket at all given his history.

Obama has yet to enunciate exactly what changes would put money in your pocket. His solution is to crush business. If you think that will put money in your pocket, you are dreaming. If he raises taxes on “the rich,” explain to me how that money is going to find its way to your pocket.

Hint: It won’t!

So where do you think we need not be? Oh you meant Iraq and Afghanistan! Sorry, I’d rather be over here fighting the bad guys and keeping them tied down in this part of the world than reacting to attacks in the US.

There really is a finite supply of suicide bombers and they are dying in droves over here, most before they ever get to their targets. That really is a good thing.

J. L. Krueger said...

Oh, and what about the purportedly 1.2 million Iraqi civillians (900K, conservate estimates) killed since our invasion? The media (and W's crew) has conveniently forgotten about that, too. It's not like they have blinders only when it comes to Obama, who, as you know, I do not love.

You numbers are an order of magnitude higher than what the UN and similar not-so-friendly-to-the-US organizations have estimated. The real number is actually between 87,000 and 97,000. Still not good, but when you hype over-inflated numbers your credibility in the argument goes out the window. That’s the deaths since 2003. There are two things that people like you conveniently overlook on your own part.

According to many of these same agencies, violent civilian deaths in Iraq prior to 2003, for which we have uncovered the mass graves, put the deaths at over a million. We’ve now uncovered almost one thousand mass graves throughout southern Iraq and the Kurdish areas dating from the period between Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion. The number of discovered graves has doubled since I discussed this topic in May and indications are that we aren’t finished finding them.

Simple math puts the violent civilian death rate at over 100,000 per year prior to 2003, compared to 19,400 since the invasion. I think a reduction by almost 80,000 per year is a pretty good deal.

Second, of the 19,400 (assuming the higher number in the spread I quoted above) about 80% have been caused by Sunni death squads, Shiite death squads, car bombs (we don’t use those), suicide bombers, IED’s and other “bad guy” activity.

As recently as Tuesday (30 Sep), the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that we are needed in Iraq and that it would be a mistake for us to leave prematurely. There is strong support in Iraq for that position.

I argued against the idiotic tactics and strategy employed after the fall of Baghdad. It took too long, but those poorly thought out, or not thought out at all, policies were changed and there has been a substantial change on the ground in Iraq. All casualties are down for the past eighteen months and Iraq is rapidly moving in the direction of taking over their own security.

Jim said...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

Perhaps if you spent more time reading about issues than about crazy internet rumors, you'd be slightly informed.

J. L. Krueger said...

Jim,

I read your comment and looked at the link. After I picked myself up off the floor laughing, I reflected on the total idiocy of your statement. You have not refuted a damn thing.

You accuse me of following "internet rumors" and then produce an already proven fake bith certificate posted on a liberal blog to prove your point.

Utterly amazing.

Your source is simply a reposting of the certificate that first appeared on Kos (a partisan pro-Obama site). Even Obama's site "Fight the Smears" copied that exact digital image first posted by Kos. FactCheck.org blew their cover of alleged objectivism when they followed suit. So don't even go there about "Internet Rumors."

If Obama had nothing to hide, he would produce his birth certificate before a judge and put the matter truly to rest. Posting an electronic image and merely declaring it is valid is not a substitute for a true finding.

Instead he's chosen to fight a lawsuit filed by Democrat Philip J. Berg in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvannia that is trying to get him to produce the birth certificate in front of a judge.

Fact: No objective source has seen a valid copy of Obama's birth certificate. The Washington Post and Kos aren't objective and don't count.

Here's an "issue" for you. How about Obama's flat on the face lie about giving 95% of American families a tax cut? Given that 40%of all families already pay NO income tax how does Obama accomplish this magic act?

In the real world a tax cut means the government takes less of my earned money. That isn't the plan that Obama has articulated. In fact, he really hasn't articulated anything other than:

a. Raising taxes on "evil rich people" (who already pay over 80% of all income taxes) thereby promoting class warfare.

b. Raising taxes on businesses, who provide jobs.

Obama is talking about taking other people's money and spreading around. But then people who think like that are precisely the ones who are voting for Obama. We used to call this sort of thing communism. Given that Obama's great "mentor" from high school days was an avowed communist, this should hardly be surprising.

I don't want more of someone else's money, I just want to keep more of my own.

Jim said...

Your source is simply a reposting of the certificate that first appeared on Kos (a partisan pro-Obama site). Even Obama's site "Fight the Smears" copied that exact digital image first posted by Kos. FactCheck.org blew their cover of alleged objectivism when they followed suit. So don't even go there about "Internet Rumors."

Uh, no, actually it originally came from the Obama campaign. And factcheck.org didn't repost that image, they got the original and photographed it:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

But you don't like them? Fine. What about politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

So Fact: Multiple objective sources have not only seen Obama's birth certificate, they've provided pictures of it from multiple angles for you to look at.

As far as Berg, if Obama's fighting it, wouldn't that involve him showing his birth certificate in court to a judge? I'm missing your point here.

As to the rest of your stuff, concede this point and we can talk theory.

J. L. Krueger said...

Uh, no, actually it originally came from the Obama campaign. And factcheck.org didn't repost that image, they got the original and photographed it:

I first saw the questionable birth certificate on Kos. About a week later it appeared on Obama’s site “Fight the Smears” followed by FactCheck.org on 16 June 2008.

As FactCheck.org is primarily funded by the Annenburg Foundation, any claims of non-partisanship are highly suspect. Barrack Obama was cofounder, chairman and president of the Annenburg Challenge in Chicago (also funded by Annenburg Foundation). FactCheck should recuse themselves of defending Obama for this reason alone.

The original FactCheck picture that I referenced, and explanation from 16 June 2008, is this link (which is contained in the link you provided):

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

They claim they got the digital image from the Obama campaign, but “Fight the Smears” got it from Kos. FactCheck’s original ham-handed defense of Obama using that original image as “proof” destroyed their credibility as far as I’m concerned. I view their follow-up as damage-control.

Yet it is still amusing that “Fight the Smears” (Obama’s own web site) does NOT have the same pictures of his alleged birth certificate as the FactCheck link you provided, or anything even remotely close.

“Fight the Smears” still has the questionable picture that raised suspicion in the first place. One would think that Obama’s campaign would post something other than the Kos picture which is the same one the original FactCheck article posted, on his own web site.

You can point me to as many different liberal media analyses as you wish; a biased source is a biased source. Show me a judge's ruling instead.

As far as Berg, if Obama's fighting it, wouldn't that involve him showing his birth certificate in court to a judge? I'm missing your point here.

Clearly you have not read the lawsuit or the pleadings from either side. If you had, you would get the point. The lawsuit is an attempt to get Obama to present his birth certificate to a judge in order to put the matter to rest in a truly objective manner.

The point is that Obama has NOT presented the birth certificate to a judge and is fighting to prevent that from happening. Obama and the DNC are resisting producing the birth certificate to a judge.

One would think Obama would jump on the opportunity to slam his detractors in court, but he is reticent to do so. Yet for some reason he has no problems presenting “credentials” to clearly biased audiences.

Why should Obama resist showing his birth certificate to a judge when he supposedly provided it to FactCheck? Could it be that a judge, with the power to order a legitimate analysis, would discover that the birth certificate is a forgery?

If Obama had nothing to hide, he (or a flunkie) would take the birth certificate to the District Court Judge who is hearing the case. That judge, the Honorable Barclay Surrick, would then make a ruling that most reasonable people (including me) would accept.

So Fact: Multiple objective sources have not only seen Obama's birth certificate, they've provided pictures of it from multiple angles for you to look at.

Fact: You’ve yet to produce a single objective source, let alone multiple sources. The pictures you reference (FactCheck.org) are from a single, and now tainted, source.

J. L. Krueger said...

The link to the original FactCheck article got hosed on my last comment. Here it is again.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_
disclosed.html

Jim said...

Fact: You’ve yet to produce a single objective source, let alone multiple sources. The pictures you reference (FactCheck.org) are from a single, and now tainted, source.

So what do you consider an objective source? You never commented on the politifact article.

Are you aware that you are putting forth an invalid form of argument? Since the facts of the factcheck.org article don't come from them, only the argument, their associations don't matter.

But lets pretend they do. You are still wrong:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/is-factcheckorg.html

The facts come from the state of Hawaii. You have the name of people there now that will reportedly verify the authenticity of the birth certificate. Email them.

But here, here's more information:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/reports-that-ob.html

The overwhelming body of evidence denies your claims.

As far as why he doesn't go to court with it... I don't know, because nobody really believes this berg guy and they don't want to give him the air time that would be involved with going to court?

If I filed a suit saying he was a space alien, should he go to court to refute that with his birth certificate?

J. L. Krueger said...

You keep providing circular evidence via blogs. I’m not using blogs. I don’t trust the right-wing blogs any more than I trust the liberal ones.

Your PolitiFact evidence states: “On June 13, 2008, Obama's campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com.”

That’s exactly one day after Daily Kos posted it! (Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:44:37 AM PDT) Daily Kos never claimed to have gotten said image from Obama (the only person to whom the State of Hawaii would release a birth certificate).

This was then followed by the original FactCheck.org post which used the Daily Kos/Fight the Smears image on 16 June 2008.

Do you care to disprove this timeline? Do you care to prove that “Fight the Smears” is using a different image than that posted on Daily Kos?

From your latest: “A Honolulu, Hawaii newspaper (apparently, the "Sunday Advertiser") published an announcement of Obama's borth on August 13, 1961 - six days after his birth.” 13 August, back up six days equals 7 August, not 4 August.

The clipping showing the newspaper name, date and announcements is impossible to read. Their “magnified” section could easily be created separately. If one can get the “magnified” section, one can get the actual legible newspaper image in its entirety in digital form (I’ve done it doing genealogy research). Disconnected as it is we cannot verify authenticity, nor is this proof of birth in Hawaii.

If your source can’t even do simple math, or spell (borth vs birth), it isn’t much good as a source. The allegation in the Berg lawsuit is that Obama’s mother registered his birth on 8 August after she returned to the US from Kenya.

Your latest evidence states: “But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health.”

But there is a US Constitutional difference. The state’s view does not trump Federal Law or the US Constitution. If, as alleged, Obama was born in Kenya and then his mother returned to Hawaii and registered his birth, then he does not pass US Constitutional muster especially since the birth-father was not a US citizen.

Due to the state’s logic it is entirely possible to obtain the pseudo-certificate that is circulating in your evidence, but it does not prove natural birth by US Federal statute and that is the issue.

Amy Hollyfield of PolitiFact alleges that she talked to Janice Okuba in order to verify the information on the Kos certificate. But Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute. (Obama or as ordered by a court.)

What Ms Okubo said was, "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. That does not mean that it is genuine and Ms Okubo was talking about the digital image, not a legitimate “vault” copy.

Fact: There is a lawsuit. The lawsuit is asking for a certified “vault” birth certificate which would prove live birth in the US, not the pseudo-certificate that can be obtained by registering birth after the fact. The “vault” certificate, if it exists, will not be printed on a laser form dated 11/01.

Fact: Obama and the DNC are filing motions asking for dismissal, which the judge has, to date, not granted.

Fact: If there is a “vault” copy, Obama and only Obama can acquire it (without a court order releasing it to a third party). He has not done this.

So, what is your explanation for Obama’s site still carrying the suspect certificate rather than the “new” images as provided on FactCheck.org? No comment on the original FactCheck.org posting on the subject which used a different image than the new post?

As far as why he doesn't go to court with it... I don't know, because nobody really believes this berg guy and they don't want to give him the air time that would be involved with going to court?

Earth to Jim! THEY ARE IN COURT! Obama and the DNC keep filing motions to block or delay the suit rather than answer the questions! Rather than filing delaying motions, it would make more sense for Obama and the DNC to join with Berg in asking the judge to expedite his decision and to provide the judge with a certified “vault” certificate rather than fighting disclosure.

If I filed a suit saying he was a space alien, should he go to court to refute that with his birth certificate?

If you filed such a suit the court would dismiss it without argument because such suit would be frivolous on its face. That the court has not dismissed the Berg suit, but rather continues to weigh the motions would seem to indicate to an objective mind that there is enough doubt to consider the suit.

One would assume that anyone running for the highest office in the land would be eager to prove beyond doubt that he/she meets the Constitutional requirements for the office when so challenged. It is a legitimate Constitutional question that Obama should be willing answer. Why is he not so willing?

J. L. Krueger said...

I first saw the questionable birth certificate on Kos. About a week later it appeared on Obama’s site “Fight the Smears” followed by FactCheck.org on 16 June 2008.

That is to say, I saw it on Obama's site about a week after I saw it on Kos. Which would have been around the 18th or 19th of June while I was in Washington D.C. enroute to Afghanistan.

I didn't see the FactCheck.org posting until after I got to Afghanistan which would have been shortly after 22 June 2008.

Jim said...

But you have since seen the new FactCheck.org posting. Convincing, no?

Jim said...

Oh, and on the validity of his birth certificate for proving he is able to serve as president...

Their statement is relevant. He has essentially proven himself to be a US citizen, and any reasonable analysis would assume he was born in the US.

It is the burden of someone wishing to prove otherwise to provide evidence to the contrary. And as of yet I haven't seen any.

J. L. Krueger said...

But you have since seen the new FactCheck.org posting. Convincing, no?

Actually, no.

I can see how someone might accept it at face value if one glosses over what is actually written and if one does not check the EXIF data on the images.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the FactCheck piece beginning with the embedded EXIF data on the images which have a date stamp of 12 March 2008 (prior to any discussion of the validity of the certificate posted on Daily Kos and a lot more prior to "recently" as stated in the August FactCheck post).

I am preparing a more detailed rebuttal of the FactCheck posting, but as it is rather late here in Afghanistan, I'm calling it quits for today. The rebuttal as to why their posting is not convincing will be posted tomorrow.

J. L. Krueger said...

Their statement is relevant. He has essentially proven himself to be a US citizen, and any reasonable analysis would assume he was born in the US

Proving citizenship and proving natural birth are two different propositions. And actually, the burden to prove that he is qualified under the US Constitution to be the President is his.

You are demanding proof of a negative "that he does not have a valid "vault" certificate" which, without his cooperation or a court order, is impossible. Which is the point of the lawsuit.

Jim said...

I thought you were going to bed!

And no, the burden to prove he is a citizen is not his. John McCain doesn't have to prove his eligibility.

In fact, in a similar challenge to McCain's eligibility, the court found that a private citizen doesn't have the right to challenge McCain's eligibility.

The burden is on an interested third party to prove he was born elsewhere. And no, it's not impossible for them to prove he wasn't born in America. Prove he was born elsewhere, and then he wasn't born in America.

You are thinking of trying to prove the absence of something, which is impossible in a sufficiently large system.

J. L. Krueger said...

And no, the burden to prove he is a citizen is not his. John McCain doesn't have to prove his eligibility.

Only because McCain has been through it all in other election cycles and he’s never claimed to have been born anywhere but the Canal Zone. His case has been entirely different.

Someone with nothing to hide does not go through legal obfuscation and dissembling to avoid disclosure. This is not a criminal case where self-incrimination is at issue. It’s no different than proving qualifications to obtain a license, passport or any other number of certifications. The burden is on the individual to produce the documents in all such cases.

In fact, in a similar challenge to McCain's eligibility, the court found that a private citizen doesn't have the right to challenge McCain's eligibility.

The cases are not at all similar. Read the briefs. In McCain’s case(s) the plaintiffs were seeking disqualification on grounds that he was born outside the territory of the US (a fact never denied by McCain). However, US Statute is clear on the matter since both his parents were bona fide US citizens and a court clarified the rule.

In the current Obama case the plaintiff is seeking discovery. Berg is asking that Obama produce the “vault’ or long-form birth certificate that would unequivocally close the case.

Berg did file a request for a restraining order to block the nomination of Obama, but Judge Surrick denied that motion and did so within 24 hours of Berg filing the motion. To date that is the only ruling Judge Surrick has made.

The burden is on an interested third party to prove he was born elsewhere. And no, it's not impossible for them to prove he wasn't born in America. Prove he was born elsewhere, and then he wasn't born in America.

We can go around on this one forever since there is no equivalent precedent in law or in the history of US Presidential elections. At this point the only opinion that will matter is Judge Surrick’s, an appellate court if the case gets there, or the US Supreme Court. And yes, if you are born in a country where, at the time, they are not recording all births, it would indeed be impossible provide documentation to that effect. (Kenya, circa 1961 as a British colony, was not recording all indigenous or mixed-race births.)