the OTHER SIDE of the BIRTHER'S STORY

Editors note: I, personally, dispute information highlighted by myself in "orange".

Birthers

Wednesday, Aug 5, 2009 03:32 PDT

Salon's handy-dandy guide to refuting the Birthers

Now you, too, can silence the annoying Birther in your life -- and in just eight easy steps!

By Alex Koppelman

AP Photo/Obama Presidential Campaign

This photo provided by the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shows Obama with his mother Ann Dunham in an undated photo from the 1960's. Dunham met Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr. from Kenya, when both were students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa; they married in 1960.

There are, sadly, a lot of Birthers out there. A recent poll showed that 11 percent of Americans -- including 28 percent of Republicans -- don't believe President Obama was born in the U.S. Another 12 percent aren't sure.

So, at some point, you're likely to find out that a friend or relative is a Birther. Your Uncle Floyd will forward you a chain e-mail that says Obama was actually born in Kenya and there's a Kenyan birth certificate that proves it and hundreds of government officials and reporters are in on a conspiracy to hide the truth of his ineligibility for the presidency from the public. And you will wonder: How can I possibly deal with all the falsehoods in this e-mail without disappearing down a rabbit hole?

Well, wonder no more. In the spirit of public service, Salon has compiled this list of the most popular Birther myths, along with all the debunking you could ever ask for. Now you can just e-mail this list to Uncle Floyd and get on with your life.

Unfortunately, there is some small print involved in this offer. We can't promise this article will convince Uncle Floyd that Obama was born in the U.S. and is the legitimate president. In fact, we can just about guarantee that it won't have much effect at all. That's just the way conspiracy theories work: Believers are unlikely to change their minds, no matter how much evidence you present.

Still, it's worth a try.

Myth 1: Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

This is the big one. It may also be the most easily refuted. First of all, during the presidential campaign, Obama released a certification of live birth, which is the official document you get if you ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate. There are allegations that what Obama released is a forgery, but state officials have repeatedly affirmed its authenticity and said they've checked it against the original record and that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

If that wasn't enough, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of Obama's birth in August 1961. (Read the Honolulu Advertiser's item from Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after Obama's birth, here.) The traditional joke that Birther debunkers make is that his grandparents must have placed those announcements because they knew that he'd want to run for president nearly five decades later. The truth, though, is that the notices are even stronger pieces of evidence than that. Obama's family didn't place them -- Hawaii did, as it does for all births. The announcements were based on official records sent to the papers by the state's Department of Health.

Myth 2: Obama can't be president because his father was a British citizen

Some of the Birthers -- like de facto leader Orly Taitz -- believe that Obama wouldn't be eligible for the presidency even if he were born in the U.S. That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of phrases they never really bothered to define. One of those is this explanation of who can be president: "No person except a natural born citizen."

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what "natural born citizen" means. So the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition -- someone born to two citizen parents -- and found a source,"The Law of Nations," a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to back them up.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most important, Obama isn't the first president with a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president's birth.

Plus, even if the Founding Fathers did rely on Vattel as much as the Birthers say -- always a dubious proposition -- Swiss philosophy books aren't legal precedent in the United States. British common law is. And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of "natural born" in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.

Myth 3: A Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, showing he was born in Mombasa, has been discovered

It's a hoax. Once Taitz released the document, purportedly a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate, it took less than two days for Internet sleuths to prove that it had been forged.

The first signs were a couple of small but revealing errors: The certification is dated Feb. 17, 1964, when newly independent Kenya was known as the Dominion of Kenya. It wouldn't start calling itself the Republic of Kenya until December of that year -- but the document refers to the republic. Additionally, the document's header refers to "Coast Province," but as two British professors who are experts in Kenyan history pointed out to Salon, at the time the certificate was supposedly produced, the country's provinces were referred to as regions.

For the final nail in this myth's coffin, one particularly enterprising man, Steve Eddy, located the original Australian document on which the Kenyan certificate was apparently based. The two documents share several identical numbers, including the page and the book of records in which they can be found, and minor changes were made to the names of the registrars responsible for the Australian copy. Taitz claims the Australian certificate "was created to try to discredit my efforts" but it was in fact available on the Internet as far back as 2007.

Myth 4: Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya

There's a kernel of truth to this one. In an interview with a street preacher named Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, the second wife of the president's grandfather, did say she was there, in Kenya, for her grandson's birth.

Unfortunately for the Birthers, it was the result of a miscommunication -- or perhaps a mistranslation -- and as soon as McRae started pressing the issue, Obama's family realized what had happened and corrected him. Most Birthers simply ignore the corrections, excising them from audio and transcripts of the conversation posted online. McRae just believes it's part of the conspiracy and that Obama's younger relatives were coached to hide the truth.

The full audio can be downloaded here. What follows is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

TRANSLATOR: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

TRANSLATOR: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

TRANSLATOR: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

TRANSLATOR: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

Myth 5: Hawaii allows parents to get birth certificates for their foreign-born children

This one is actually true -- just not in the way the Birthers think. Here's their position, as outlined by World Net Daily, a conservative news site that's become the unofficial Birther Web headquarters: "The 'Certification of Live Birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii."

Children not born in Hawaii can get a birth document from the state. But it won't say they were born in Hawaii, as Obama's does.

"If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali," Janice Okubo, the director of communications for the state Department of Health, told the Washington Independent's David Weigel recently. "You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."

Myth 6: Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport

When the Birthers tire of arguing that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., they take another tack. At some point during the time he spent in Indonesia growing up, they say, Obama must have taken Indonesian citizenship or renounced his American citizenship or both. As proof, they cite the trip he took to Pakistan in 1981 with a friend from college, and say the U.S. government had issued a ban on travel by its citizens to the country.

Thing is, there was no travel ban. "We have no record of any travel ban between America and Pakistan during that period or since," a State Department spokesman told Weigel. And FactCheck.org's Brooks Jackson notes that the New York Times printed an article about travel to Pakistan on June 14, 1981, which said Americans just needed a visa to travel there. Two months later, the U.S. consul general in Lahore, Pakistan, wrote to the Times to say he'd "welcome an influx of Americans."

Myth 7: Obama hasn't released his birth certificate

Here, we'll admit, Uncle Floyd has a point -- at least a limited one. Strictly speaking, what Obama's campaign released wasn't called a birth certificate; it's a certification of live birth. But there's no functional difference between the two: Ask Hawaii for your birth certificate, and you'll get the certification of live birth back.

"Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations," Okubo told the Honolulu Advertiser. "With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver's license."

There's been some confusion about whether the original even still exists, but that's now been cleared up. Okubo told the Advertiser that in 2001 the state's paper documents were put into an electronic form, but "any paper data prior to that still exists ... we have backups for all of our backups."

Myth 8: If Obama would just release his birth certificate, he could end all this

So why hasn't the state of Hawaii released the original paper document? By law, the state can't release Obama's birth records without his OK. State law says that the document can only be released to or "inspect[ed]" by someone with a "direct and tangible" interest. (Though, again, except for "permit[ting] inspection," the law refers to the release of copies and certified copies, not the original record.)

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama could get the original paper document out of its undisclosed Hawaiian location and show it to reporters. Shouldn't he? Maybe not. He's already released a completely legal form of proof of his birthplace; to cave in to the Birthers' demands now would legitimize them. It would also likely lead to a wave of stories asking why the change in stance had happened, and what had taken so long.

The truth is that it was the original release of the certification of live birth that kicked off the Birther movement to begin with. And some of its leaders wouldn't cease their quest even if they were given the original birth certificate -- along with a video showing Obama being born, lei already around his neck.

Conspiracy theorists cling to their theories in the face of all evidence, and in this case the groundwork for disputing an original birth certificate has already been laid. In October of 2008, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his dying grandmother might really have been made in order to do some quick forgery. Limbaugh's fellow talk radio host Michael Savage jumped on that bandwagon, too.

Plus, the Birthers have a long list of other demands. Here's one sent out by Gary Kreep, who's representing Alan Keyes in his lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility. Read it, and abandon all hope:

• Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
• Passport files
• University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
• Harvard Law Review articles
• Harvard Law School records
• Columbia University records
• Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
• Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
• Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
• Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
• Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
• Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
• Illinois State Bar Association records
• Baptism records
• Obama/Dunham marriage license
• Obama/Dunham divorce documents
• Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
• Soetero/Dunham adoption records
  

Obama in a Bind Over Country of Birth

Obama in a Bind Over Country of Birth

Obama in a Bind Over Country of Birth
By Alan Gray, NewsBlaze


President Obama is in a fix over his country of birth.

The President started to dig the hole as Senate candidate and now he is president, the hole is getting deeper and uglier, mainly because of his evasive actions. Many Democrat supporters are either ignoring the problem or are vehemently attacking "birthers" who question the President's eligibility.

Republicans are not the only ones concerned about his eligibility. Libertarians, independents, constitutionalists and even democrats are wondering why Obama is fighting so hard to hide his origin.

Unfortunately, Obama dug the hole himself, and like a hole created when a water main leaks and then bursts, the hole is expanding day by day and as it does, the fallout is increasing.

The President and his legal teams have done everything in their power to prevent anyone from accessing his real birth certificate, if he has one, but there are other lines of investigation they cannot block.

During his campaign for the Senate, he and his team touted his Kenyan birth, possibly because it made him more appealing to the voters they needed. Unfortunately, admitting to his birth in Kenya makes him ineligible for the Presidency.

So the question now is, was he really born in Kenya and he told the truth in the Senate campaign, or was he really born in Hawaii, and the Kenya story was a lie, used to deceive Illinois voters.

Obama can't have it both ways. The answer to this question will be interesting!

Of course, he could say the campaign and the reporters all got it wrong, but it will be interesting to follow the trail on this investigation and discover the sources for the AP story that documents the apparent fact that Obama was Kenyan born.

If it wasn't the truth back then, why didn't he stop the campaign using that information and why didn't he make the AP issue a retraction?

Obama supporters who say it is nobody's business, need to take a step back, imagine the president is George Bush and ask themselves the same question they should ask now. "Is it OK for the President to hide his origin and what are his motives for doing it?"

I want there to be a simple, truthful answer to these questions, but I have a strange feeling the answer is not what any of his supporters wants to hear.

Federal Court requested to investigate AP Story

from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email published

INTERNATIONAL NEWS AGENCY MAY SOON BE FOCUS OF ELIGIBILITY CRISIS
by John Charlton

(Oct. 25, 2009) — Eleven days ago The Post & Email published its story about the East African Standard report in 2004 naming Obama “Kenyan-born” — AP declares Obama “Kenyan-Born”! —; while this story had been reported elsewhere on the net in the previous 12 hours or so, The Post & Email was one of the first to attribute it to the Associated Press, on the basis of the “AP” logo attached to the report by that paper. The story took off and ended up being discussed on the Imus Show. As the writing of this report, more than 27,000 individuals have viewed our coverage, making the single most read article of our site, all-time, and each day.

Since the report was published, no credible denials of it have been published anywhere.

For this reason it remains convincing, if but hearsay evidence, that the Obama Campaign was painting a different picture of their candidate during the last 5 years.

Now Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama (a case suing Barack Obama and others, in Federal Court, Santa Ana, California), has asked Judge David O. Carter to take judicial notice of the article.

In her request, Dr. Taitz makes the following presentation:

Come now the Plaintiffs with this Request for Judicial Notice of 2004 AP Newswire, embodied and included in the Kenyan publication attached as Exhibit A.

Although the contents of this document are self explanatory, this document is classic hearsay: an unsworn out of court statement to be submitted for the truth of the matters stated therein. Moreover, it is unauthenticated, but is allegedly derived from a well-known and highly respected news wire service, namely the Associated Press.

If it were possible to authenticate the source for this information, and/or to trace, locate, and depose the authors and informants, and also to track the subsequent changes in the “story” as told over the newswires over the following four years, the Plaintiffs submit that they would obtain additional and important, and very solid, grounds for outlining the contours of a Complaint for Civil Racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)) concerning the 2008 Presidential elections, involving a massive scheme to defraud using the postal (document delivery) and electronic wire services for the purpose of depriving the American People of their intangible right to honest services.

Then Attorney Taitz reminded the Court that it has allowed limited discovery regarding evidentiary issues which might bear upon the Court’s decision regarding whether to grant or not to grant the Motion to Dismiss the case, presented by Obama’s lawyers, when Judge Carter ruled:

All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

For this purpose, and to prepare a Second Amended Complaint, Dr. Taitz argues for permission to undertake discovery of whether the AP did report this “Kenyan-born” attribution, and to depose the reporters who wrote it:

Plaintiffs submit that they need to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of preparing this Second Amended Complaint (to flesh out more fully the extent of the fraud and accordingly solidify with evidence allegations necessary to establish Civil R.I.C.O. standing). They accordingly ask the Court, in addition to taking judicial notice of the A.P. Wire bulletin attached as Exhibit A, to allow the following discovery to take place, addressed to a non-party, non-governmental source:

A deposition duces tecum on 15 days notice (rather than 30) of the custodian of records and archives at “the world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization:”

The Associated Press

Headquarters: 450 W. 33^rd Street, New York, NY 10001.

Taitz then argues that such a request is not burdensome:

There can be no doubt that the information to be retrieved is relevant to framing the Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint. There can be no objection that this deposition will impose too great a burden on the Defendants because it is not addressed to them. There can be no objection that the examination of the history of reporting concerning the history of reportage concerning the national origins, birthplace, citizenship, and life history of the President of the United States world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization will impose any undue burdens on the Defendants, or on the Associated Press as a deponent.

Such an investigation of the Associated Press Headquarters would undoubtedly cause a national sensation; and hopefully shed light on what the Obama Campaign has been claiming regarding their “man in the Whitehouse.”

The Post & Email has prepared this report from an original copy of the Request for Judicial Notice provided by the office of the Plaintiff’s counsel. It should appear shortly in the docket of the case.