Monday, August 10, 2009

He Read A Book, Once


"Woe be to him that reads but one book. "
George Herbert
Welsh Orator, Poet, Anglican Priest
(1593 - 1633)

"I think it is good that books still exist, but they do make me sleepy."
Frank Zappa
Composer, Musician, Record Producer, Film Director
(1940 - 1993)

"I read part of it all the way through."
Samuel Goldwyn
Movie Mogul
(1882 - 1974)

Recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals kicked a law suit brought against the United States by 'birther' Stephen Lee Craig. Craig had alleged he was the victim of 'involuntary expatriation', because the Congress had failed to define to his satisfaction the term natural born citizen.

One of my circles of friends has a turn of phrase for the self-styled expert who is bone ignorant on a subject, but does not hesitate to pontificate as if he knew more than he does. That turn of phrase is "I read a book once,” as in the one book, read the one time, (not even the same book several times) making someone an instant expert.

It is a phrase which, in the right company, speaks volumes with few words.

Mr. Craig, who was so unwise as to act as his own lawyer - at least, that is my understanding of the term 'pro se' - tried to enlist the three appellate judges in his efforts to define the term natural born citizen. You see, Mr. Craig wanted to define the term natural born citizen according to a book The Law of Nations, by Swiss political philosopher, Emmrich de Vattel. In the prefece of this old tome written in 1758, first paragraph, the author himself states:

"THE Law of Nations, though so noble and important a subject, has not, hitherto, been treated of with all the care it deserves. The greater part of mankind have, therefore, only a vague, a very incomplete, and often even a false notion of it. The generality of writers, and even celebrated authors, almost exclusively confine the name of "Law of Nations" to certain maxims and treatises recognised among nations, and which the mutual consent of the parties has rendered obligatory on them. This is confining within very narrow bounds a law so extensive in its own nature, and in which the whole human race are so intimately concerned; it is, at the same time, a degradation of that law, in consequence of a misconception of its real origin."

In other words, even de Vattel himself didn't believe anyone really read the darn thing before using it to support their political positions, despite all of the references to it in his own time. In a new twist on the phrase "I read a book once," Craig is asserting his meaning of natural born citizen because....wait for it... the founding fathers read a book once, this book, so it must be true that de Vattel's definition was what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. When I was trying to understand the 'birther' arguments, rather than simply assuming they were wrong, the "Law of Nations" argument was one that was accepted even more unquestioningly as absolute truth and justification than some others by the birthers.

Ah, but the court, the court says NO, a court where two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by one of the Bushes - one each for George H. W., and George W., a detail which should - should - put a wrench in conspiracy theories about this particular judiciary being in the pocket of Obama.

Of course, the founding fathers didn't SAY that de Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, which formed the basis for the principle of jus sanguinous used by some countries for THEIR citizenship, was what they were using, not in so many words. No, the very clear words they DID use are in the very first article of the constitution, that Congress should define citizenship; and Congress did, in numerous pieces of legislation over the years.

I couldn't make this up; I have a good imagination, but not THAT good. I wonder how long before it sinks in just how discredited the birther "Law of Nations" argument really is; and how quickly after that another crackpot birther notion will take its place.

Now I openly admit, I only made it through a few pages, including the preface, of "The Law of Nations". It is to say the least, heavy going. I don't think I could drink enough coffee to stay awake just through the whole first chapter of the four books that comprise de Vattel's opus, and I try to discipline myself to do regular 'drudge' reading. But then, I'm not trying to unseat the President of the Unites States by making claims from the content.

The kicker is, that I doubt that Craig or the majority of the other birthers ever read "Law of Nations" either.

47 comments:

  1. I believe that the birthers are conveniently forgetting the 14th amendment to the Constitution which states, inter alia Section 1: 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.

    President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, and as thus, it wouldn't matter if neither of his parents were US Citizens. He is a natural born citizen of the US. The US has explicitly overridden the concept of jus sanguinis in the enactment of that clause. While the purpose of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with defining who is a natural born citizen for the purposes of the presidency, it absolutely accomplishes it in this case.

    Anyone who files further court action claiming Barak Obama is not a natural born US Citizen for the purposes of the presidency should be fined heavily for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Any licensed attorney who does so should be referred to their state disciplinary authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KR, I have been following with some surprise and interest that the birther phenomenon is a growing one, not a declining one, albeit a more regional movement in primarily southern states. NOT this region, obviously.

    When this is a popular enough movement that it takes up multiple jurisdictions of court time, all the way up to the appellate level, it seems to me to be worth investigating.

    I was a bit disappointed with myself that I just could not slog through "Law of Nations" further than I did.

    As I posted over on SitD, I don't care if Palin is or is not getting a divorce; it is her business. She is not in political office or currently running for office; her family is her business. The allegations about her having an affair are OLD.

    Palin seems to be the person who is putting her family in the public eye, and not in a good way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "BTW, did you hear that Palin is getting a divorce?"

    BTW, did you hear that allegations of bribery have been added in a civil suit in federal court against Palin?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Any time I write something where the lead in includes a quoation from Frank Zappa, at least, a quotation like this one, I would hope that it is understood that there is not a lot of seriousness entailed, but rather this is a somewhat wry and humerous look at an aspect of events.

    ReplyDelete
  5. K-Rod,

    From other posts of yours on different topics in this blog, I know you're perfectly aware of what a "birther" is. For the record, it refers to those misguided and ignorant people who think that Barak Obama is not eligible to be the President of the US.

    As for the comment about Sarah Palin getting a divorce, that's also immaterial to this topic, and I won't discuss it further.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For the record: I've read good portions of the Law of Nations in my professional career. To say that its dry and heavy reading would be giving it more credit than its due. I used to use it as a cure for insomnia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 42% of Republicans believe Barack Obama was born in the United States (CNN poll July 09).

    30% are unsure.

    28% believe he was not.

    That's 58% of the people who align with Republicans who believe that there is some question about the validity of the right of the person holding the office of the President of the United States to hold that office.

    That's a very large group of insane people.

    I wonder how many believe that the President wants to euthanize (forcibly) old people? I wonder how many believe that euthenasia is to be a normal topic of conversation for treatable conditions?

    I wonder how many of those SAME people understand that, for terminally ill patients, end-of-life decisions and discussions are the normal course of business NOW?

    And then I wonder where the sanity went from those same people who recognized end of life decisions about time to die were PERFECTLY appropriate for patient's to make?

    The point is, these subterfuge arguments are MUCH more pervasive than just the 'insane' folks. They are thrown out all the time to deflect the conversation from REAL progress to inanity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for Palin's divorce rumor:

    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/sarah_palin_divorce_chatter_de.html

    I hadn't heard it, my guess is ToE hadn't either, debunking a couple of myths.

    First, we mostly couldn't give rip about Palin's private life, we don't hang on her every word.

    Second, real research counts for things. Rumor and gossip, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW, I love Frank Zappa.

    I probably most love him for noting:

    Michael and Janet Jackson have/had the same voice, and rarely if ever appeared together - thus the song "Michael is Janet"

    Second, he grasped that Reagan was a man without real chops.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/08/68496550/1?poe=HFMostPopular&loc=interstitialskip

    Here is yet another example from a "Deather" - in this case the former candidate for Vice President of the United States - suggesting that we're looking to kill people. It is such a virulent and disgusting charge, rational, SANE people would have dismissed it out of hand and never suggested that people on the left would seriously consider it. Even more, they'd have understood that 99% of the people in the United States would have stood in line to prevent it - from the most die-hard conservative to the most big-government liberal. No one has a monopoly on ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. K-Rod said...
    "in a civil suit"

    How many civil suits are filed in America each day?"

    Quite a few K-R, but not like this.

    This is a civil suit filed about the conduct of Palin in another matter, while governor, AND the bribery allegations that were just added to that suit are that she was offering the plaintiffs a payoff with resources that belonged to the state, and were not hers.

    That puts it in a rather different category than same old same old.

    What I cannot answer at this point, what I doubt anyone can answer at this point other than the individuals involved, is how much proof exists. Since this is a civil suit rather than a criminal matter, my guess is that the plaintiffs have SOMETHING, but NOT perhaps ENOUGH to stand up to a higher standard of evidence required for criminal prosecution.

    Think the civil versus criminal proceedings of O. J. Simpson scenario.

    However if the plaintiffs DO succeed in proving their allegations of attempted bribery in a civil suit, then it will be interesting to see IF criminal proceedings follow - or NOT.

    What I have heard second hand, not researched this myself, is that the attorneys for the plaintiff are considered pretty darn good at what they do; they are not known for making mistakes. Pure speculation on my part is that they are deliberately going for civil action as the foundation here for future criminal proceedings.

    What I don't fully understand at this point is the value of the bribe involved, and what if any difference that amount might make to the larger picture.

    Also let me emphasize that at this point, there is only an accusation, not a conviction for anything. Nothing has been proven.

    One final point, while it is certainly understandable that 'non-birthers' would prefer to distance themselves from what many consider lunatic fringies, as you probably have noticed, I try to act a little differently than that.

    There have been some very interesting ideas in the larger context of history that were at first considered just as wacky - that blacks were equal to whites was one, that women could be equal including politicaly was another.

    While I don't find a comparable merit in the birther's arguments, I HAVE learned quite a bit that I didn't know before about a variety of topics, by making a polite inquiry instead of being rudely dismissive.

    Lunatic fringies are not contagious, and 'birther' conspiracies are not swine flu.

    There is something to be learned from every thing and everyone, if you are clever enough to find it. For myself, I am happier with a combination of curious and courteous as a modus operandi.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ThoughtsOfEternity said...
    For the record: I've read good portions of the Law of Nations in my professional career."

    You have my heartfelt sympathy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. August 7, 2009
    Palin accused of attempted bribery
    Motion to amend says new evidence shows bribery

    Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who left office in disgrace July 26th under a cloud of ethics charges, is now being accused of a federal claim of attemped bribery. See federal claim (PDF 52 kb)

    To clarify a previous complaint, the motion also accuses Palin of a violation of Alaska's constitution.

    From the motion to amend:

    "2.Plaintiffs wish to add a very serious federal claim of attempted bribery and other violations of similar federal and state statutes under supplemental jurisdiction....

    ....offering state funds and support of legislation to third parties in exchange for them convincing Plaintiffs to drop this lawsuit in federal or state court."
    Palin has had 21 ethics complaints filed against her, two of which she has been found guilty, three are still pending. One of those involves the Alaska Fund Trust set up by Palin and her friends to fend off ethics compalints. Palin has claimed she has over $600,000 in legal bills from these complaints, documents so far have shown only $120,000 in bills.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The preceeding was from the Alaska Report.

    ReplyDelete
  15. allow me to correct my earlier comment:

    (Palin) was offering the plaintiffs a payoff with resources that belonged to the state, and were not hers."

    That was incorrect; it should be noted that the bribery was to a third party to get the plaintiffs to drop their suit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. K-Rod said...
    "who left office in disgrace July 26th"

    Got Bias? "

    Given the totality of her circumstances at the time she resigned, would you be claiming that she was a glowing success, and left in a halo of glory?

    Not my interpretation of: ethics charges, law suits and bribery charges, the medicaid scandal with a lot of deaths, significantly figuring in the splintering of the republican party and contributing to their declining numbers, failure to succeed in the stated goals she had for serving as governor such as the big oil / gas pipeline, a failed vice presidential campaign which took her away from her duties as governor to the detriment of the state of Alaska, a serious decline in support from both republicans AND democrats who voted for her in the governor's election...the list goes on, at length, and not of good things.

    So, while I could argue that the words "in disgrace" might be a little bit harsh, I'm not in Alaska where they are closer to the public opinion. They certainly are wrong only at worst by a small matter of degree but not substance.

    That matter of degree of their disapproval does not alter the reported facts.

    Or do you assert that ONLY those who praise Sarah Palin could ever be telling the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  17. How this came to be a discussion of Sarah Palin is beyond me.

    The standard of proof in most civil actions is preponderance of the evidence. Essentially, is it more likely than not. There are some lawsuits at the federal level which require a higher standard, but those are not common. No civil lawsuit requires the level of proof required for a criminal conviction, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Its actually pretty rare to find criminal charges alleged in a civil lawsuit prior to criminal charges actually being filed. (And I might note: Sarah Palin hasn't been accused of any crime) Its rare for items such as this to progress as they are because should discovery be instituted, the defendant can and should invoke her 5th amendment rights to refuse to answer questions concerning bribery. Its not uncommon for civil lawsuits to follow criminal actions, (successful and unsuccessful ones).

    ReplyDelete
  18. KR, you questioned the use of the term 'in disgrace' by a newspaper. I addressed your comment about that term.

    It makes no sense in that context to say this:" K-Rod said...

    Well, folks, let's not let that stop us... Burn her!! She's a witch!!! Burn her!!!!" That is over the top and out of all proportion to a phrase critical of Palin in an Alaskan newspaper.

    and KR says""only $120,000 in bills"

    ONLY? Seriously?" I would even question those amounts. Keep in mind that a good amount of those legal bills were from actions initiated by Palin; Alaska provides for some if not all of her legal requirements. The issue is no the size of the bills, but rather that they are so very much lower than the amount of money she has raised and continues to raise to pay for them. It is a lie to say you have $600,000 in bills when you have nothing like that. There have been serious questions raised about how the money collected for legal bills is being used, with concerns for what appear to be use for completely different things unrelated to legal issues. That is also a kind of lie and a kind of fraud.

    Failing to rate as favorably in public opinion, in large part because of her own actions, is a far cry from burning someone as a witch.

    I'm not aware that the other individuals you mention who are in their own disgrace are being praised in the press either.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As to Obama's birth certificate, he HAS provided one, some time ago. It is up on websites, no secret about it.

    The problem is that the birthers seem to prefer the ersatz fake birth certificates from Kenya / Australia rather than accept that the real one IS real. This despite the fact that there have already been multiple challenges to Obama's citizenship that have been ruled in his favor. And lets not leave out the governor - that republican governor - from Hawaii who also verified the birth certificate.

    That old adage, 'none so blind as those who will not see' rather fits here. The birthers refuse to see because they don't want to accept the facts, bottom line. It's not because the facts have been concealed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. KR wrote: K-Rod said...
    I guess we disagree, I think $120,000 is a lot of money."

    Then you must think the $600,000 is a lot MORE money. What is more significant, IMHO, is the difference between the 120k and the 600k (and rising).

    ReplyDelete
  21. K-Rod said...
    "What is more significant, IMHO, is how a person can be targeted with allegations, accusations, and lawwsuits, even frivilous ones, enough to destroy their life.
    If a lawsuit is truly deserved, that is one thing, but a shotgun blast approach is an other thing.


    Keep flinging poo until something sticks? Each peice of poo might bring upon the person thousands and thousands and thousands in lawyer fees.


    I mean this with absolutly NO offense to an upstanding attorney at law like TOE, but there are plenty of burbots that practice flinging lawsuit poo."

    KR, I found it interesting that with one exception, all of the suits have come from Alaskans. Alaska apparently has some difference in their law provisions about how suits against the governor are conducted, that are unlike most other states. IF as the results suggest, this difference is being used to unfairly bring suits, you KR are absolutely correct that this is wrong. However, I have no reason to believe that if these suits ARE genuinely frivolous, that there is not some provision for them to be thrown out - none have been - or for there to be some kind of penalties against the people bringing these frivolous suits - there have been none so far that I can find.

    So, from that I take it that there was some reasonable substance.

    As to the Obama birth certificate, I have not looked at it, but understand it is online. I am sure that you can find it as easily as I can. Again, the courts, and the authorities in Hawaii have affirmed that there is a legal, accurate, correct birth certificate proving Obama was born in Hawaii, so I think that is proof enough, or should be.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And KR?

    THANK YOU, and a big hug in your direction, for making it clear that you were not making an insulting statement in any way towards ToE. Your making that effort is noted and appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  23. KR, I think this is as good an explanation with pertinent information/ photos as I could find from the many options.

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

    Signaling a conversational turn of direction, off topic for a moment, if I may; I have been trying to get some sort of contact feature to work for Penigma, without success. So, I decided to go comparatively 'low ' tech instead.

    As of this evening, the blog Penigma (as distinct from the person Penigma) has its own email account should anyone need to get in touch with either Pen or myself about this blog. The email is: penigma2@yahoo.com. I have also posted the email adddress in my Penigma profile. Given our respective schedules at the moment, it is more likely that I will be the one handling the bulk of any email - if we even get any that is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ToE,

    It got to a discussion of Palin because of the tie between the idiotic 'birther' movement (of which 58% of Republicans seem to believe in part or in whole by having 'doubts' about Obama's citizenship), and the similarly fraudulet 'Death Panels' argument.

    The point is, between that (the birhers), the 'deathers', the 'CRA caused the economic collapse folks' etc.. the political landscape is littered with ad hominem and scurilous arguments of no value. It distracts (purposefully in most cases) from real discussion, and reflects a pattern of lack of knowledge and information by a vast swath of the country about actual issues.

    Such lack prevents us from making progress, but it also emboldens the kind of near-violent and truly violent confrontations and shouting matches going on at various 'town-hall' meetings about health care. People with truly misguided understandings of fact show up and accuse decent people of abetting, wilfully or unknowingly, the systematic murder of the elderly simply for lower taxes. They accuse decent people of not 'knowing' what secretly exists in these proposals and shout them down when the people rightly object and confront such garbage.

    Conversely, these same people, those showing up and shouting down reasonable discussion, are the same ones who for years defended an administration which argued 'state secrets' and 'national security' and said anyone who thought Karl Rove or Dick Cheney was involved in subverting justice at the DOJ, or creating fictions at the CIA (respectively) such complaints were the stuff of tin-foil hats.

    Yet, here we are, findout out that even the worst fears of conduct weren't enough (if talking about violations of FISA), but the consipiracies of the birthers and the deathers and the CRA'ers, there is no factual foundation for this crap.

    The ostrich crowd about Bush now wants to impeded democracy again by throwing out this kind of garbage - they have no worry about the method, conspiracy whack-job, thuggish intimidation, or hear-no-evil, if asked, they'll play whatever role.

    With that as a backdrop, there seems little hope for real improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry for the typos, it's late, and I can't sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  26. KR, you had requested an email contact awhile back. I don't know if you still wanted that or not; however if you would like to be the first to try the new email, it would let me know that it is working properly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Too much coffee this a.m.; sorry, hitting keys too quickly.

    the email contact is:

    penigma2@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  28. KR this is the standard short form. More details are provided at the site I posted.

    It appears that no special handling was requested by Obama, and that what was issued was consistent with the usual agency procedures and with Hawaiian law on the matter.

    There do seem to be quite a lot of people who have seen and confirmed the original long form you are asking about, with the doctor's signature, etc.

    Perhaps ToE and/or Terry could address better than I can the restrictions of Hawaiian law and birth certificates.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why would it matter to you if it was signed in the copy you can view?

    Is there any concern by anyone here that this is not genuine?

    If not, why even spend the time on the question?

    Further, since Obama would at a minimum be granted citizenship through his grandmother, it frankly doesn't matter.

    However, there was also a birth announcement in the local paper, of which there is no dispute, documenting this birth in Hawaii - so unless someone thinks this was fabricated 49 years ago (along with the certificate from the Hospital AND the state), this line of discussion seems like spending time on something we all agree isn't in question.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Penigma said...
    Why would it matter to you if it was signed in the copy you can view?"

    I think I understand what he is referring to; the long form is the earliest of the documents, and has the most information. Unfortunately it is not the one that is standard issue in Hawaii, the short form is.

    ReplyDelete
  31. KR, my understanding is that Obama is complying with the current laws in Hawaii that deal with how birth certificates are issued and released. He has made a special point of NOT asking for any kind of waiver or special treatment; and really, why should he have to?

    Given this and the other evidence in his favor, and the not very persuasive stuff, like the fake Kenyan certificate that the birthers have produced, I think he has reasonably done enough. More to the point, in the cases that have gone through court already - the courts have been satisfied that he has done enough, and he has been willing to do whatever the COURTS required of him.

    Beyond that, remember when YOU were asserting the innocent until proven guilty argument not so long ago? Why doesn't Obama get that presumption?

    Your suggestion that the long form would be sufficient is correct, for those of us who already think he was born in Hawaii, and is a natural born citizen. I think there is some truth to the statement that Press Secretary Gibbs made the other day that no matter what Obama has done to comply with proving his status, it is NEVER enough for some people, and will never persuade some people who are determined not to believe it. Sadly, each new compliance seems to only generate more lame claims. Yes, you make a lot of sense, but only if you are dealing with people willing to act in good faith with an even remotely open mind. IF NOT, as with at least some of the birthers, then I think Obama may be more correct, simply NOT to play their game.

    When I ran this, and the previous 'Naturally' piece on Politicus, as well as other politucs pieces, it was up during the 'reader blitz' that necessitated the server change -- you would not believe some of the comments asserted as gospel truth by birthers as comments.

    These are the same people that believe stories like "Obama killed his grandmother when he went to visit her in Hawaii, because she was going to reveal the TRUTH and ruin his chances to be president". That story btw was circulated by the right wing talk radio guy, whatsisname Savage.

    Please don't read this to be an attack on conservative / right wing radio; but at some point, right AND left, or in the middle, we have to not assume the worst about each other when we disagree. We have to allow for some meeting of the minds in good faith. We even have to leave room to disagree and LIKE each other. Or we end up genuinely believing birther stories like Obama killed his grandmother.

    One of the stories I'm researching right now (and my bad, I'm sorta going off topic) is about an Affininty Fraud being perpetrated right here in MN by ULTRA right wing radio /extreme christian oriented financial advisers. It involves tangentially one of the regular guests on the Patriot 1280 among other radio sources. None of it would have worked had it not been for a certain paranoia about 'the rest of society' that was used to prey on people through their worst, unfounded fear.

    I'm treading very carefully, this is one of the most painful things I have ever tried to write. One of the lines I am having the hardest time trying to walk is to be clear that while I do emphatically find that SOME factions the more extreme right wing did this through fear mongering, it was also true what I learned growing up. If it is too good to be true, it isn't. That no one can swindle you easily unless you are greedy. But ultimately more than anything, these poor people were victimized -- and hooo boy were they victimized --- by people who were dishonest that abused their trust. But with every birther, deather, or other conspiracy theory, every over-the-top exaggeration or whipping up of division and fear, I think of how this fraud was set up. And it makes me sooo very angry.

    ReplyDelete
  32. HRS 338-18 gives a fairly comprehensive list of those who can ask for and receive a copy of the certified copy of the Hawaii Birth Certificate. Apparently, there is a verification process, by which an applicant can ask for and receive a verification of the existence of a Birth Certificate in Hawaii. Whether or not that document is the one that is much bandied about, I don't know.

    However, I think its pretty clear that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't see any reason for him NOT to present the entire, original certificate (or a certified copy thereof) as being available. I might add, however, that I somehow doubt that this would satisfy the most rabid of the birthers, who would then claim that it was fake.

    Caveat: I am not licensed to practice in Hawaii and the above comes from some quick research and a glance at the Hawaii statutes involved with birth registration.

    ReplyDelete
  33. K-Rod said...
    "why should he have to?"

    Do the right thing and provide the long form to finally end this for any sane American that might have doubt."

    I see the wisdom of that KR, but I can also see where Obama might feel he had done the right thing already. AND I can see where Obama would expect to then get just as much objection for having insisted on special treatment.

    I DO think he should produce the long form; I am just less optimistic that it would do as much good as you think it should.

    This may seem kind of 'hokey' but I figure that a good solution is to begin with myself, and try to do my own best to be reasonable in what I expect from others, not just those with whom I agree. It is not in my power to persuade the President to produce his long form birth certificate. If someone can come up with a way for me to do that, though, I certainly will.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You know KR, he provided the standard, legal short form. That too many people are frankly too ignorant to understand what it is is NOT his fault. He has complied with the courts.

    I can disagree with his decision to not produce the long form as to being the wiser course, perhaps but still seeing his being fed up with this...stuff as well.

    I cannot assume it would get rid of the birther conspiracy theories, and I cannot fault his character for this one. I respectfully don't see this as an integrity or character issue. But I respect that you do.

    ReplyDelete
  35. K-Rod,

    The short form is valid for all purposes under Hawaiian law. I haven't examined the difference between a short form and a long form in detail, but essentially, the only difference is the signature of the official who was either present at the birth or who took the report from those present at the birth.

    I respectfully disagree that its a measure of his character. He's complied with the law, and as I've said repeatedly, and as I think you agree, even the long form probably wouldn't shut up the true lunatic fringe who are going to go on believing what they want anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  36. KR wrote:
    "I provided an extremely simple and easy solution: show us the long form."

    It IS an easy solution to the extent that reasonable people will be persuaded, and I don't know why he hasn't.

    One of the possibilities that has occurred to me is that there are ongoing court cases which are being handled by others, which may constrain him.

    Another possibility which has occurred to me is that having provided the short form, he is giving the Republican party enough rope to hang itself before he provides it, letting them look increasingly stupid.

    So, while I don't know why - we don't have a personal relationship - (LOL, maybe I should get arrested...so I can get invited to the White House to ask him. No, that won't work; I'm white.) I can speculate that there might be reasons that he hasn't OTHER than arrogance.

    For example, buying into these crazy conspiracy theories to the extent of humoring them with providing his long form BC, AFTER providing the legally acceptable short form...at some point, COULD start to play into jumping through their hoops, giving dignity to something that doesn't merit the attention and credibility, and so on.

    I have similarly mixed feelings about the Republicans refusing to proffer their own health care plan. It makes very good sense that as a stratagem, they are letting the Dems go out on a limb, without joining them on a limb themselves. BUT on the other hand, clever strategy or not, do they not lose the high ground, the valid claim to being a party of new ideas by failing to have a plan, to promote any alternate idea? I see that as a similar dilemma; at what point do you cede to others the timing and choice of what you do rather than being about character and ethics.

    But I CAN see how you could view this your way also.

    OR, he may just be dropping the ball on this one, and making a mistake.

    Does Obama have an obligation to 'put the Birthers out of their self-induced misery'? Yes, I think he should, but No, I am not sure I would go so far as seeing this as an ethical obligation to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  37. KR, you put up the site:

    and I checked it out. Here is the text, which accompanied a birth certificate supposedly for half-sister Maya:

    Obama’s half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng also has a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii, just like the one displayed on the Internet for Obama, even though she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia."

    This photo is the totally faked Kenya birth certificate presented to the court by Orly Taitz. The one that turned out to be derived from a valid Australian citizen's Australian birth certificate? The one rejected by the courts and everyone else. What is particularly interesting about the photo of the birth certificate at the anti-strib site...is it has the fake person listed as registrar. E F Lavendar --- who is not a person, but a brand of bleach.

    "Obama has spent over $1 million so far to keep his records private. Aren't people just a little curious as to what is in those records that is so embarrassing to BO that it's worth $1 million to keep it secret?"

    And we should believe the accuracy of Obama spending a million dollars to keep his records private...WHY? Given that groups which do not fake birth certificates have validated seeing both the long and short forms of Obama's bc - fact check.org among them.

    "The same press that went nus over Bush's faked National Guard records has absolutely no interest in any legitimate records from BO's past."

    They aren't going nuts because there are no faked birth certificates, and the real ones have been validated to the satisfaction of the serious press and everyone else who doesn't have an agenda for using this to try to get rid of Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ooopsie - sorry. I hit send before checking to see that the cut and paste of KR's antistrib site was included, and the typos were removed.

    In any case, the strib site is promoting faked, discredited info. They are either ignorant and easily duped, or sloppy. Or both.

    ReplyDelete
  39. KR, I'm confused as to what you are positing here. Do you believe that Obama IS a legal, natural born citizen of the United States, eligible for the office of President, or not?

    What I understand you are saying is that Obama should produce a copy of his long form bc, just to shut people up (maybe?) for once and for all, but he is clearly a natural born citizen without doing that. Could you confirm / clarify for me? Posting the silly anti-strib birther site confused me about what you are asserting....

    ReplyDelete
  40. K-Rod said...
    Yes, DG, you are VERY confused, once again.

    If you want to label and name call the anti-strib, at least have the guts to go over there and make your point. I never figured you to be a coward."

    KR, I went to the antistrib article you posted, as a courtesy and out of respect for your opinion. But what you posted was written here, so what I replied was written here.

    How is that cowardly, exactly? If I read something am I somehow REQUIRED to reply? I guess I misunderstood that requirment - where is that written exactly? How is that an obligation of mine?

    "But, obviously you don't have the guts or the capability to comprehend Bart's stand on the matter. (btw, he hasn't birthed any children.)"

    I do understand that this article is making unsupported statements about Obama's half sibling, and Obama's supposed million dollar expenditures to hide records - items about which I raised questions you have not answered either KR. Would you care to do so now?

    "You seem to be acting a bit foolish, DG. Birther site? Read it again with a tiny bit of effort this time.

    Here is a hint, read the title:
    "Barak could stop all of this tomorrow if he wanted to"

    August 17, 2009 12:09 PM "

    KR, did you look at the LARGE photo at the top of the anti-strib article at all? I did. I examined it closely. It was a photo of the bogus Kenyan birth certificate that has been discredited, and given the proximity to the assertion of a Hawaiian birth certificate existing for Obama's half sib, if one doesn't read the birth certificate carefully, it can be misleading.

    I have already agreed with you that it MIGHT correct the confusion of some birthers if Obama released the long form of his birth certificate - and it might not, gvien what they choose to believe and choose to disbelieve. But I stand by my label of this article as a 'birther' site in so far as they do seem to be promoting misinformation about accurate birth certificates for Obama and his extended family members, such as the photo at the top of the article. In pointing those out I think I have been both fair and accurate.

    Now, since you have called me coward undeservedly, I think you should answer my questions in turn about the million dollar record hiding and the half sib supposed birth certificate.

    And let me be one of the first to wish you a happy birthday this week KR. Just to keep our exchanges properly friendly, where however much we might disagree, we still enjoy each other's company and wish each other well.

    ReplyDelete
  41. KR,

    As you have so ably shown here, Barack Obama could produce 1500 witnesses to his birth, including Ghandi, Ronald Reagan, and William F. Buckley, and 'Birthers' wouldn't believe him, and YOU would continue to demand other proof.

    My question to you is, why should he? It serves no purpose, those who want to believe what they want to believe will do so no matter what, and those who want to petulantly snipe regardless of the truth will do so, no matter what - that is the only matter to which absolute certainty can be agreed upon on this subject apparently because clearly, CLEARLY you intend to continue to turn this into obdurate demands of a President to do something to prove no one rational questions, when he has much better things to do, and so do all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  42. -Rod said...
    "How is that cowardly, exactly?"

    KR wrote:
    "Namecalling behind someone's back. If you are going to call a member of the MOB birthers I would hope you would do it to their face and have something to back it up.
    The contributors on the Anti-Stib have shown you no reason to namecall them birthers. By your measure the Penigma blog is comprised of a bunch of birthers."

    KR, I have no reason to believe that the anti-strib is in any way shape or form interested in hearing from me. I read the information at the link you posted, but my focus was on what you wrote here, and so I limited myself to addressing your comments about the anti-strib here.

    Asserting that Obama has a half-sister who has a forged birth certificate from Hawaii, asserting that Obama has spent a million dollars in hiding his real documents, and heading the article itself with the now widely discredited fake Obama birth certificate that purported to be from Kenya -- without any disclaimer or identification of what it was -- IS I believe a fair basis for asserting the information at the link you provided to be 'birther'.

    And btw - for someone who keeps asking for answers to your questions -- WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO HIDE REAL DOCUMENTS? SHOW PROOF.' AND 'WHAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA'S HALF SISTER? - SHOW THE CERTIFICATE, SHOW THE VALIDATING PROOF.'

    I will make you a deal KR. You get me the answers, INCLUDING VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION to those questions, and I will go back over to the anti-strib and make a comment, as detailed a comment as you like. I will even give you personally the credit for calling them to my attention...by your nom de plume / nom de querre of K-Rod, or just your initials, whichever you prefer.

    If you opt NOT to follow through with that information, I will presume you are apologizing for calling me a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  43. K-Rod said...
    "KR, I have no reason to believe that the anti-strib is in any way shape or form interested in hearing from me."

    Before of after you accused them of being "birthers"?

    Either KR, and I continue to believe that now, absent any indication to the contrary.


    "Did you even read the title of the post?:
    "Barak could stop all of this tomorrow if he wanted to""

    Did you read anything else besides the title, KR?

    "And I, by the way, have provided you with a simple ethical solution to end any and all sane questioning. PERIOD." It would be period if all of the questioning were sane; it's not. It includes allegations that Obama killed his grandmother (Michael Savage on his talk radio show among others); it includes allegations that a different man than Obama senior was his father; it includes all kinds of stupidity. At some point, the best answer to that kind of stupidity is NOT to answer, because answering gives it more dignity than it deserves.


    "DG, it's not nice to lump Mitch in with the 'birthers', shame on you." KR, I do not think for a moment that Mitch is a birther, nor do I think he is a racist either. I do think he is a conservative, and I do respect and appreciate many of his values even when I disagree with him. Please do not try to foment an antagonism that does not exist.

    Now - my offer remains.
    And btw - for someone who keeps asking for answers to your questions -- WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO HIDE REAL DOCUMENTS? SHOW PROOF.' AND 'WHAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA'S HALF SISTER? - SHOW THE CERTIFICATE, SHOW THE VALIDATING PROOF.'

    I will make you a deal KR. You get me the answers, INCLUDING VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION to those questions, and I will go back over to the anti-strib and make a comment, as detailed a comment as you like. I will even give you personally the credit for calling them to my attention...by your nom de plume / nom de querre of K-Rod, or just your initials, whichever you prefer.

    If you opt NOT to follow through with that information, I will presume you are apologizing for calling me a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  44. KR wrote:
    "
    By the way, Dog Gone, I don't respond to SCREAMING left-wingers."

    KR, I wouldn't dream of screaming at you, I'm far too fond of you for any such shrillness or rudeness towards you.

    I intended only an emphasis, not unlike your bold faced type. I hope you will revisit what I wrote in that way, and reply to it in the spirit it was written.

    I am not following your reasoning that by finding specific items in the anti-strib article I have called anyone else a birther. I certainly, emphatically, do NOT consider my friend Mitch to be a birther, nor anyone else that I do not identify specifically. When I do identify someone - as I did in the case of the anti-strib link - then I consider them to be so only to the precisely limited extent that they support or promote those specific facts or factors.

    If I failed somehow to be clear about that before, I hope this illuminates that position.

    So, you're sorry for calling me a coward? (G)

    ReplyDelete
  45. K-Rod said...
    "Have you called MOB members like Mitch "birthers" behind their backs or to their face?"

    KR, I have never called my friend a birther to his back or his front; I'm equally fond of both those sides of him. (that came out looking much weirder in print than it sounded while inside my head...)

    I sincerely don't know who else you mean. What MOB members are you referring to?

    As to the anti-strib article you linked, I was very specific about what I found in it to be pro-birther in tone and substance.

    KR, I find it a very different thing from name calling, to observe something written in a public place, and to comment on those specifics and substance. I certainly don't consider crafting and writing an opinion to be cowardly. I certainly do not consider it cowardly to consider what they have written and to respond to it; there is nothing injurious or cowardly in what I did. In being very specific, I tried to be fair and objective about what they wrote. That is not name calling.

    Respectfully, I think you are extrapolating my observations and attaching them to a much larger group of people than what I wrote about. I did not paint anyone or anything with such a broad brush.

    ReplyDelete
  46. KR -

    Do you believe Barack Obama is a US Citizen? (Yes/No)?

    Assuming your answer is yes, why should anyone continue to play this game?

    The question you've asked is not rational - should the President give blood to prove that his blood isn't green?

    Should the President provide a hair sample to prove he isn't a drug addict?

    The President should take his time addressing actual problems. The cry that 'if he has nothing to hide then he should do X' is a cry used to justify the worst excesses of police states, and the President has an obligation to NOT give in to this type of bullying, abusive, and time-wasting tactic as a matter of principal.


    It is a principal I expect you'd stand up for if the person being asked were your political hero, or more likely, were in your family. What if your family member were under investigation for securities fraud, and the police said, "Well, why not just give us a hair sample and put the question of whether you drank on the job to rest?" People are NOT expected to simply give information to people who have no reasonable need of it, it's the fundamental idea of due process, and proving the need for a search warrant, etc.. it's a fundamental right.

    But this goes further, Obama has ALREADY proven beyond all doubt he's a US Citizen, no one doubts it who is sane, and these further requests are little different than asking him to prove his blood isn't green. Sure, he COULD prove it, but the request is insane, and he should not acquiesce to such idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. KR, if I may repeat my query,(note - no screaming) given you made an accusation - repeatedly - and followed it with an insult to my character:

    Where is the proof of the claim that Obama spent 1 Million dollars to hide his real documents?

    Where is the validation of an actual non-birther generated Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama's half-sister?

    (the implication being that the official Obama birth certificate is therefore somehow suspect / less likely to be legitimate because of the alleged half-sib b.c.)

    August 21, 2009 3:06 PM

    ReplyDelete