Whisper Whisper

Yet another sneering article about the Obama Eligibility issue has appeared – this time from The Politico: Whisper Campaign Persists Despite Election. It is yet one more attempt by the media to invalidate the questions being asked by many conservative bloggers, (but not the big ones who don’t want to touch this story).

It begins:

Even with the election decided, the widely debunked whisper campaign claiming that Barack Obama is secretly not an American, and thus not qualified to be president, is going strong.

Widely debunked? I immediately scanned the article for examples of these debunkings, because, if I am in error, I’d like to know. I hadn’t noticed any convincing debunkings, to date, so I was anxious to see what Andy Barr at the Politico had to offer. But alas…no solid examples were forthcoming, just more assertions that the “conspiracy theories” are erroneous:

“I think there are just a lot of people who just want to believe it,” said Paul Waldman, who has studied the conspiracy theories over Obama’s citizenship for Media Matters.

Waldman said that like with the claims that the Clintons killed White House Counsel Vince Foster, a certain segment of the population will continue to believe Obama won on illegitimate grounds no matter how often the claim is disproved.

“When something gets refuted there a certain number of people that just won’t believe it,” he said. “If they are predisposed to believe it, refuting it will have no impact.”

And finally:

Waldman, though, doubts the skeptics can be convinced, no matter what evidence is produced. “There is nothing much you can do to reach these people,” Waldman said. “No matter how many times you tell them the truth they will continue to believe this.”

So what’s this evidence they speak of? It always comes down to the same five things, as noted here:

1. “He posted his birth certificate on his website”.

He posted a possibly forged copy of his Certification of Live Birth on his website, after it first appeared (Oddly enough) at The Daily Kos website.

The American Thinker does a good job explaining why that is not proof that Obama was born in the U.S.

Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country (applies to adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error.  See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.  From its web site:  “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

2. “Factcheck proved it”

The Annenberg owned Factcheck.org only dubiously verified that  the COLB was authentic. That leaves the questions addressed in #1 unanswered.

3. “The state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born there”.

No they didn’t.

That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.

4. “Judges meritoriously threw it out as ‘frivolous'”.

Of course they did, but because the citizen who brought the case “lacked standing”. The fact is,  nobody wants to touch this hot potato.

5. “There was a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper”.

There sure was, you can view it, here.

This is the most compelling proof available that Obama was born in Hawaii, (but still does not address the citizenship issue stemming from his years as an citizen of Indonesia).

And it still doesn’t really prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. One of my kids has a birth announcement in a newspaper in Tucson, AZ., even though she was born in Kansas City. You can chalk that up to proud grandparents. The announcement doesn’t include the hospital Obama was born at, which would be nice, because thus far, no hospitals in Hawaii have claimed him.

Jayme Evans made some cogent points at CFP:

A favorite tactic of Communists, liberals and others on the left is using peer pressure-laced name-calling to try and marginalize those with whom they disagree. If they can successfully convince enough people that a particular viewpoint is held only by those on the fringes, as opposed to the mainstream, they believe they can successfully discredit that person as a crackpot.

You know…if the people asking these questions really are truthers, maybe it would be useful for interested parties to hire a team of independent experts to thoroughly investigate the allegations, sort of like Popular Mechanics did with the 9/11 truthers.

Relying on Factcheck.org, or Obama’s own Fight the Smears website for the answers, doesn’t really cut it.

I’d just like to hear a good explanation as to why Obama has spent at least a million dollars to prevent his vault birth certificate from being seen.

Supreme Court Denies Donofrio v. Wells Citizenship Challenge

Of course they did.

Like the more pragmatic conservatives (who at least admit the citizenship issue is valid) have been saying…there’s no way the Supremes would overturn an election, “disenfranchising” 69,000,000 voters. The idea that many of those voters might not appreciate being scammed by a non-naturally born citizen, doesn’t seem to matter. We’re stuck with Obama no matter how much he lied and cheated to get into the White House.

The AP reports:

At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.

I don’t expect anything to happen with that, either.

Your eyes can stop twitching now, Obama. You’re in the clear.

Hat tip: Yid With A Lid

Yet Another Lawsuit On Obama’s Eligibility Is Filed

The people want to know, and Obama ain’t opening that vault without a court order.

Atlas Shrugs has the story:

Broe v Reed‏ (hat tip co2hog.com)

December 6, 2008

James Broe and 11 other Washington voters have filed in Washington’s Supreme Court to have the votes cast for Senator Obama set aside, because he failed to establish that he was even an American citizen running under his own name at the time of the election, let alone a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other cases that have been dismissed for lack of standing, these plaintiffs have standing under a unique Washington statute that allows any registered voter to challenge the election of someone who, at the time of the election, was ineligible to hold the office.

The Secretary of State’s office has already admitted it did nothing to determine Senator Obama’s eligibility, and Senator Obama hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence to prove he was born in the United States that would establish his eligibility, although the burden to prove his eligibility was placed on him by the rules of the national Democrat Party. Counsel for the plaintiffs Stephen Pidgeon had only a two word comment: “case closed!”

Attorney at Law, P.S.

Documents in Broe v Reed‏:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Application for Writ of Mandamus
BROE v. REED Summons

See Atlas for more info.

‘What’s In It For Me’ Thinking ‘Not Good For Anybody’

That Newsbusters headline, which caught my eye over at  Lucianne’s, confused me at first. Actually, the complete headline is, Obamanomics: ‘What’s In It For Me’ Thinking ‘Not Good For Anybody. I was confused because I thought the second part, the – ‘What’s in it for me’ thinking part, described the Obama voter to a tee. The folks who love the idea of “spreading the wealth” so they can get free healthcare…a free college education…and even have their mortgage and gas bills taken care of by Obama seem to me to have voted based on a  ‘what’s in it for me’ mentality that is  ‘not good for anybody’ . Surely Obama isn’t talking about those people?

Noel Sheppard, of Newsbusters quickly disabused me of that notion:

The failure of American media to properly vet the political beliefs of Barack Obama during the just concluded presidential campaign was on full display Sunday when the president-elect made clear just how much of a socialist he really is, and did so with nary a challenge from “Meet the Press” moderator Tom Brokaw.

TOM BROKAW, MODERATOR: Your vice president Joe Biden said during the course of this campaign it would be patriotic for the wealthy to pay more on taxes. In this economy, does he still believe that?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think what Joe meant is exactly what I described which is that if, if our entire economic policy is premised on the notion that greed is good and what’s in it for me, it turns out that that’s not good for anybody. It’s not good for the wealthy, it’s not good for the poor, and it’s not good for the vast majority in the middle.

Stop the tape. Worrying about one’s own finances is not good for anybody? Have you ever heard a more socialist statement from a president or president-elect?

Why didn’t Brokaw jump on this?

Excellent question. An even better question: Could the Obama’s, themselves, even be accused of the accursed ‘What’s in it for me?’ thinking? Noel Sheppard has some thoughts on that:

This man and his wife make an extraordinary amount of money compared to the average American. Did they ask “What’s in it for me” when they negotiated their salaries before he moved into the public sector? Did he ask “What’s in it for me” when he negotiated his million-dollar book deal? Has all that money THEY’VE MADE prior to him winning the White House hurt them?

And what about the record number of contributions he received during the campaign? When he was asking people to make these donations, wasn’t it about HIM?

History will show him to be the first billion-dollar candidate. Wasn’t his entire campaign therefore more a product and function of greed than any before it?

I had to put in bold, the first billion-dollar candidate because that still blows me away – the amount of money he was able to raise illegally, it turns out in many cases, is just staggering. What more, he’s still asking for more money via emails to his online minions, even now.

A commenter at Lucianne’s wrote:

An article in our local rag today told about the local agencies who are not collecting funds for their non-profit Christmas programs this year. One of the reasons was that people said they gave to Obama’s campaign and can’t afford to donate much this year!

Don’t you worry, folks. Obama will make that top 5 (or whatever)% take care of all his/your needs before you know it.

How much does Obama himself donate to charities? Not much, it turns out:

Looking at Obama’s charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to “spread the wealth” when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more. Their contributions didn’t increase until Barack Obama’s extraordinary book deal helped make him a millionaire and Michelle Obama received nearly $200,000 raise in May 2005 when she assumed a new position with her employer as vice president of “community and external affairs” – coincidentally, just months after he husband joined the US Senate.

You can compare that to nasty, greedy Republican, John McCain if you like:

By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.

Honestly. I could have lived with McCain. The man wasn’t perfect, but at least he wasn’t a dishonest, hypocritical Marxist.

Read the entire article at Newsbusters, as Sheppard takes Tom Brokaw to the woodshed for allowing Obama to blather incomprehensibly in this weak, and unconfrontational interview.

It bears repeating… The MSM is DEAD.