Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another Obama citizenship case has been dismissed. It's another suit from Philip Berg, the nut from Pennsylvania, but with a different plaintiff. He found a retired military officer nut to sign on, hoping that would establish standing to bring the suit. It didn't. And the ruling is quite funny. Judge James Robertson basically mocked the attorneys. The first paragraph:
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.
Not that it will end, of course. There is nothing that would satisfy the wingnuts. Dismissing the case only embeds the conspiracy even deeper in their psyche. The end of the ruling is particularly interesting. The judge notes that Berg is the guy behind the lawsuit and the attorney who signed the filings even though he's not been admitted to the bar for the D.C. circuit court, along with a local attorney who let them use his name for the filings. This is routine. But the case is so frivolous, the judge says, that he's going to recommend sanctions against the local attorney but not against Berg:
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs -- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
Too bad he can't do the same thing to Berg.
Politics
Comments
And here's a comment on the decision which accuses the judge of threatening the plaintiff from a nutcase outfit calling themselves the Family Security Matters (which I am not going to link to). The judge certainly threatened the asshole attorney from the DC Bar in the case, who richly deserves to be disciplined by that Bar for filing frivolous law suits.
Posted by: SLC | April 15, 2009 10:08 AM
Conservapedia is still strongly pushing the secret Muslim rumor. I think Republicans have officially lost the right to mock Democrats for their response to the 2000 election.
Posted by: Brandon | April 15, 2009 10:26 AM
It seems from the judges statements that he could punish Mr. Berg (not for these specific infractions as they have to do with attorneys and individuals not party to the complaint), but he chooses not to because he feels it would only motivate them furthur.
Posted by: Julian | April 15, 2009 10:31 AM
Brandon: From a historical perspective, the reaction to the 2000 election doesn't seem too mock-worthy to me. Sure people went overboard, but it wasn't much different than the reaction of Jackson supporters to the decision in 1824. Heck, there are school districts that cover "The Corrupt Bargain" to this very day. Stuff like that is just bound to crop up in a democracy every once in awhile.
Posted by: Julian | April 15, 2009 10:36 AM
Brandon: Regardless of the "correct" outcome of the 2000 election, the Democrats certainly had a right to outrage over Republican shenanigans such as the Brooks Brothers Riot.
Posted by: xebecs | April 15, 2009 11:13 AM
Family Security Matters link for those who recognize it is not a "nutcase outfit" but full of informative articles that the liberal media doesn't want published: http://familysecuritymatters.com/
Posted by: Obama's Illegal | April 15, 2009 11:56 AM
thanks for the link - those guys give WND a run for their money in the nutcase department.
Posted by: Mu | April 15, 2009 12:01 PM
[sarcasm]Damn activist judge making rulings from the bench that limit people's freedoms![/sarcasm]
Posted by: Umlud | April 15, 2009 12:27 PM
Re Mu
Actually, the Canadian site onenewsnow is even whackier then WND or familysecuritymatters, as hard as that may be to believe.
Re Obamas' illegal
Family Security Matters link for those who recognize it is not a "nutcase outfit" but full of informative articles that the liberal media doesn't want published:
ROFLMAO
Posted by: SLC | April 15, 2009 12:51 PM
This might be the first time I've seen the term "blogosphere" used in a ruling.
Posted by: lukas | April 15, 2009 12:52 PM
From the Family Security Matters website:
Yep. I'd say that's a certifiable nutcase outfit. And morons, to boot.
And I can't help but notice that the Birther screeds on that website are by a woman named Margaret Calhoun Hemenway. My guess is she's either married to or related to the nutcase John Hemenway who's filing these idiotic lawsuits.
Posted by: Wes | April 15, 2009 1:02 PM
LOL:
What, you mean like when the claim was made about Obama not being born in the US, he allowed his birth certificate, proving he was born in Hawaii, to be posted online? That kind of 'hiding of any and all records'?
These guys are total wingnuts. Grade A ones, at that.
Posted by: Smidgy | April 15, 2009 3:38 PM
Yes, FSM is a fine site. If your into credulously swallowing the GOP party line.
An interesting write up of its president and the site itself and its connections:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3368.html
Posted by: Art | April 15, 2009 4:15 PM
Quote from Family Security Matters website:
Wait, as a card-carrying Real American, am I supposed to hang the judge in effigy for being activist or roundly applaud him for the smackdown of a political ally of the Clintons?
I'm so confused. Tell me what to do FSM!!!
Posted by: eric | April 15, 2009 4:58 PM
Don't worry, eric. He will guide you with his noodly appendage.
Posted by: Taz | April 15, 2009 5:05 PM
IF Obama were a Natural Born Citzen, he would have long ago produced his Birth Certificate (the Certificate of Live Birth is NOT even accepted by Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian Birth ) Check out the cool stickers at www.ObamaKenyanOrIndonesian.com
Posted by: Gregory Black | April 15, 2009 5:18 PM
The judge said that, "The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." Obama could have brought this to an early end last summer. Instead he chooses to block attempts to make him produce this information
If the President released the original vault copy of his birth certificate that is signed by the doctor, any supporting hospital records, Passport records, Immigration Records upon his return from Indonesia, Occidental College registration records and his Selective Service registration records. He could submit them to a bipartisan congressional committee for review. Then he can prove that he is indeed eligible and the birthers would have to go away.
It is obvious he has not adequately responded to the accusations and that the perception of his hiding something is not as bad as what he purportedly is hiding.
The judge’s remarks are not funny to me they sound prejudiced. He should not make such flippant remarks while tossing the case with out allowing the full discovery of the evidence first.
The tone of the judge, the birthers and the Obama supporters is disturbing. A note to all, this issue is not going away until it is dealt with appropriately.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 15, 2009 5:20 PM
The judge said that, "The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." Obama could have brought this to an early end last summer. Instead he chooses to block attempts to make him produce this information
If the President released the original vault copy of his birth certificate that is signed by the doctor, any supporting hospital records, Passport records, Immigration Records upon his return from Indonesia, Occidental College registration records and his Selective Service registration records. He could submit them to a bipartisan congressional committee for review. Then he can prove that he is indeed eligible and the birthers would have to go away.
It is obvious he has not adequately responded to the accusations and that the perception of his hiding something is not as bad as what he purportedly is hiding.
The judge’s remarks are not funny to me they sound prejudiced. He should not make such flippant remarks while tossing the case with out allowing the full discovery of the evidence first.
The tone of the judge, the birthers and the Obama supporters is disturbing. A note to all, this issue is not going away until it is dealt with appropriately.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 15, 2009 5:24 PM
The judge said that, "The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." Obama could have brought this to an early end last summer. Instead he chooses to block attempts to make him produce this information
If the President released the original vault copy of his birth certificate that is signed by the doctor, any supporting hospital records, Passport records, Immigration Records upon his return from Indonesia, Occidental College registration records and his Selective Service registration records. He could submit them to a bipartisan congressional committee for review. Then he can prove that he is indeed eligible and the birthers would have to go away.
It is obvious he has not adequately responded to the accusations and that the perception of his hiding something is not as bad as what he purportedly is hiding.
The judge’s remarks are not funny to me they sound prejudiced. He should not make such flippant remarks while tossing the case with out allowing the full discovery of the evidence first.
The tone of the judge, the birthers and the Obama supporters is disturbing. A note to all, this issue is not going away until it is dealt with appropriately.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 15, 2009 5:32 PM
Maybe if you posted the same comment a fourth time, Ken, America will finally wake up.
I've had to obtain my birth certificate twice in my lifetime. Both are bad reproductions with a hastily applied notary stamps. I wouldn't even know how to get my original. Are my parents not telling me something?
Posted by: Jonathan | April 15, 2009 5:42 PM
Re Gregory Black & Ken the Waterproofer
For the information of asshole fucktards Mr. Black and Mr. Waterproofer, the Certificate of Live Birth which President Obama as posted on his web site is sufficient to get him a drivers license and a passport. The information on it has been certified by the appropriate Hawaiian authorities. The fact is that there is no documentation that President Obama could possibly produce that would convince shitheads like the birthers to believe that he was born in Hawaii. The fact is that President Obama will be serving as president for at least 4 years and probably 8 years and if Mr. Black and Mr. Ken don't like it, tough noogies.
Posted by: SLC | April 15, 2009 6:16 PM
There's conspiracy theorist rationalizing in a nutshell for you. When the rest of the world ignores the conspiracy theorist's inane babble, the conspiracy theorist takes this as confirmation that everyone is hiding something.
Oh, wonderful, birther spam. (I removed the url because I doubt Ed wants it reposted all over his blog).
And if Obama were actually a human being rather than a space lizard from Zargotron, he'd submit to a full genome sequencing (a mere DNA test is NOT accepted).
Birthers have got to be some of the dumbest, most paranoid, most irrational nutcases on the planet. Creationists and moon hoaxers look sane, rational, and intelligent by comparison.
Posted by: Wes | April 15, 2009 6:27 PM
Ken the Waterlogged: A note to all, this issue is not going away until it is dealt with appropriately.
The funny thing is, this issue is going away, one dismissed frivolous lawsuit at a time.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 15, 2009 6:36 PM
Not going away? It's gone away. I rememnber the glory days a couple of months ago when even the whiff of birfer could bring out 400 comments on this blog. This thread will be lucky to hit 30.
But just out of curiosity, when you birfers say "it's not going away" tell me the sequence of events you see happening that will have any non-zero impact on the Obama presidency. Come on, I'm all ears...
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 15, 2009 6:50 PM
I'm just going to point out something in the hopes that Ken here is actually reading comments and might be able to learn one tiny tidbit.
The reason why just having a Certificate of Live Birth doesn't prove Hawaiian birth is that such a certificate can be issued with a non-Hawaiian place of birth.
However, having a CoLB with a birthplace of Honolulu, Hawaii, is sufficient for the state of Hawaii to consider one to have been born there.
You can attack the legitimacy of Obama's CoLB if you really really insist, but can you at least not try to claim that it's possible for Obama to not have been born in Hawaii if the posted CoLB is legitimate?
Posted by: Michael Ralston | April 15, 2009 7:25 PM
I'm still waiting for JFK through Bush 43's original vault birth certificate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 15, 2009 7:39 PM
Posted by: Richard Simons | April 15, 2009 8:43 PM
Richard - you are wrong when it comes to this issue. Given the law at the time, if Obama's mother had given birth to him overseas, she would not have been of age long enough to give him natural born status, which is an additional hurdle for presidential candidates beyond citizenship.
That law has since been changed, but previous cases were not grandfathered in (though one could challenge this in court since the law appears to be unconstitutional, at a minimum its arguably unconstitutional).
However, the fact is that Obama was born in Hawaii, this has been independently validated from several perspectives including by state officials and unbiased fact checking sites, along with a conservative-funded fact check site as well, factcheck.org, which is funded by the Annenbergs' - old friends of Reagan's.
Most importantly beyond the state of Hawaii validating his birth certificate, producing a stamped copy, a newspaper announcement of such at the time, election officials accepting his candidacy, and at least factcheck.org validating the authenticity of the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth; there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. Empirical evidence doesn't stop the tinfoil hat crowd given that evidence is a part of reality they typically avoid.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 15, 2009 9:06 PM
One other thing... the local Hawaiian newspaper had a birth announcement taken out by Obama's grandparents the day of his birth. Now, perhaps his grandparents were thinking that one day Obama would run for president so they falsely stated he was born in Hawaii but that seems highly unlikely.
Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2009 10:20 PM
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 15, 2009 10:21 PM
The judge said that, "The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." Obama could have brought this to an early end last summer. Instead he chooses to block attempts to make him produce this information
If the President released the original vault copy of his birth certificate that is signed by the doctor, any supporting hospital records, Passport records, Immigration Records upon his return from Indonesia, Occidental College registration records and his Selective Service registration records. He could submit them to a bipartisan congressional committee for review. Then he can prove that he is indeed eligible and the birthers would have to go away.
It is obvious he has not adequately responded to the accusations and that the perception of his hiding something is not as bad as what he purportedly is hiding.
The judge’s remarks are not funny to me they sound prejudiced. He should not make such flippant remarks while tossing the case with out allowing the full discovery of the evidence first.
The tone of the judge, the birthers and the Obama supporters is disturbing. A note to all, this issue is not going away until it is dealt with appropriately.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 15, 2009 11:21 PM
Let me fix that for you:
A note to all, this issue is not going away
until it is dealt with appropriatelyever because right winger are idiots.Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2009 11:31 PM
I repeat myself when under stress...
I repeat myself when under stress...
I repeat myself when under stress...
I repeat myself when under stress...
I repeat myself when under stress...
Posted by: DuWayne | April 16, 2009 12:01 AM
Posted by: Pieter B | April 16, 2009 2:05 AM
If we are to take the birfers at their word, it strikes me as odd that President Obama's parents could magically predict thier son's election as president of the US 45 years in the future (hence the 'fake' birth notice in the local paper, the carefully 'controlled' insertion of 'Honolulu' as his birth place & etc), yet they completely missed that the (then) newly installed Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim's right-hand
gunman would oust him in turn, 16 years later.Had they done so perhaps they would have given him the middle-name "Sidney" - ;) DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | April 16, 2009 2:39 AM
@W. Kevin Vicklund: I stand corrected.
However, as I understand it, it's possible to get a COLB from Hawaii if one was not born in Hawaii (but for some reason - presumably immigration - had their records there), but in such a case the listed birthplace would, of course, not be a location in Hawaii.
Again, this is merely my understanding, which may be wrong, and is of course only tangentially related to Obama at all, given that in his case, the listed birthplace is Honolulu.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | April 16, 2009 3:07 AM
I wonder if any passing birthers could clarify the state of Constitutional law for me. According to the Constitution,
1) all candidates for President
2) all candidates for President with funny-sounding names
3) all candidates for President whose status seems fishy to more than twenty people on the Internet
4) [other]
must submit documentation attesting to their eligibility for the office to
1) the Secretaries of State of all states who request it
2) the U.S. House of Representatives, before they certify the results of the vote of the Electoral College, if they request it
3) anybody on the Internet who requests it
4) [other]
and may not run for the office/assume the office if such documentation is rejected by
1) those Secretaries of State
2) the majority of the U.s. House of Representatives
3) more than twenty people on the Internet
4) [other]
....because until you clear this up, it sounds almost as if your assertions that Obama needs to submit his proof to "the nation" means that he needs to submit it to Phil Berg or Orly Taitz or deathtotyrants1776@hotmail.com, and it is difficult to see how the Constitution actually mandates this.
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | April 16, 2009 5:57 AM
Michael Ralston: However, as I understand it, it's possible to get a COLB from Hawaii if one was not born in Hawaii (but for some reason - presumably immigration - had their records there)...
That sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure I believe it any more. The only people who keep insisting that this is true are the birfers, and I have never seen any of them back this up with any sort of official documentation.
-
...but in such a case the listed birthplace would, of course, not be a location in Hawaii.
But in any event, this is the important point.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 16, 2009 7:33 AM
@DJ,
Aside from the birfer's basic logic failures, my favorite conspiracy kooks are the "secret muslim" crowd. I always answer them with, "If there were a secret Islamic conspiracy to elect a President in the USA, don't you think they'd run a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white guy named 'Steven William Jones', as opposed to a biracial man named 'Barack Hussein Obama'? Just to improve the odds of it being a 'secret'. Isn't the point of a 'secret' that no one knows or suspects?"
I mean, really, I can come up with a more plausible conspiracy than these kooks. It must be because I'm (relatively) sane.
Posted by: Ranson | April 16, 2009 7:59 AM
It's a slow day so I actually had a brief look at this issue and in about two minutes found this copy of the Hawaiian law on birth certificates
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/
Relevant extracts (my bold).
and if you think maybe the certificate was changed by the big bad conspiracy.
I don't think you can go better to demonstrate that a Hawaiian birth certificate is legally evidence of birth in Hawaii and that if anything like place of birth had been changed the certficate would show this.
Now thats as far as I'm willing to go on this particular conspiracy theory but as I say it took a foreigner with no prior knowledge of relevant US or Hawiian laws five minutes to find this. Why can't 'birfers' do the same?
Posted by: Matty | April 16, 2009 8:50 AM
Matty, that's because the secret Islamic time-travelling ninja commandos changed the law after the future President's birth so as to hide the (non-existent) evidence, of course!Damn they're good!
And if you don't just believe it 'cause I said so, then YOUR PART OF THE GRAT CONSPIRECY TOO*!!eleventy-one!!
(just like the other 6 Billion odd humans on Earth apparently) - :D DJ
*For some reason birfers spell almost as well as they handle logic.
Posted by: DingoJack | April 16, 2009 9:12 AM
Posted by: Taz | April 16, 2009 9:21 AM
"Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis." - Dingo "Joliet" Jack
Posted by: DingoJack | April 16, 2009 9:55 AM
wrt COLB for non-Hawai'ian birth:
If the parents of a child born outside of Hawai'i lived in Hawai'i as their primary residence for at least a year before the child was born, they can request a birth certificate issued by Hawai'i. One reason is for the extra information required for the indigenous population program I mentioned earlier. The other reason is more pragmatic: Hawai'i is in the middle of the world's largest ocean. Although not as difficult as it once was, it's a major expense for someone to get certified documents if they are not stored on the archipelago. However, as noted, the vault copy and any other copy, such as the short form (often called the COLB, even though the long form acronym also is COLB) by law must have the accurate place of birth.
For similar reasons, adoptive parents may also request a Hawai'ian birth certificate. I am unaware of any provisions for immigration (and would be surprised if there were, because the immigration documents should have the necessary information).
Hope that clarified things.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 16, 2009 10:12 AM
Glad I could help, Taz.
@DJ
Have an Orange Whip on me.
Posted by: Ranson | April 16, 2009 10:27 AM
Incoming Snark
A man and a woman who were not USA citizens decided that their son should one day become President of the USA, so they bribed Hawaii to issue a birth certificate and a Hawaii newspaper to print a birth announcement and then they named their son Barack Hessein Obama.
Perfect Plot.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | April 16, 2009 3:24 PM
Right, the Obama administration should expend time and money on every little conspiratorial fart that passes on the internet.
The internet, like a hammer is a good tool, just don't use either to bludgeon and destroy.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | April 16, 2009 3:40 PM
What exactly are the Obamers so angry about? Be real.
I think he was born in Hawaii. I think he is eleigible to be POTUS.
There is something in his past that will damage him politically. It is obvious he is trying to cover something up and his allies are helping him.
Perhaps Obama did not register for the draft when he was supposed to and that he applied to Occidental College as an Indonesian Citizen to get some money for college.
Peace Love and Understanding :) I going to go for a swim in the Gulf now and get waterlogged.
P.S. If your connection is slow only hit the post button once or everyone will think you are crazy.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 16, 2009 4:21 PM
Ken the Waterproofer: Perhaps Obama did not register for the draft when he was supposed to and that he applied to Occidental College as an Indonesian Citizen to get some money for college.
Then why did you bring up the Hawaiian birth certificate? These are questions that a birth certificate won't resolve.
-
There is something in his past that will damage him politically.
Ah, I see. An open ended, eternal fishing expedition ala Ken Starr. You don't like Obama, so you insist he must have done something bad somewhere, and, by god, you are going to find it.
-
If your connection is slow only hit the post button once or everyone will think you are crazy.
I think I can honestly say that no one thinks you are crazy just because you hit the post button more than once.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 16, 2009 4:37 PM
"Perhaps Obama did not register for the draft when he was supposed to and that he applied to Occidental College as an Indonesian Citizen to get some money for college."
Can someone direct me to the source of college aid for Indonesian citizens that is unavailable to US citizens? Foreign students are in fact ineligible for most of the financial aid that would be available to US students, including Pell grants, subsidized loans and state aid, all of which should have been easy for a brilliant minority student from a not-well-off family in Hawaii to get. In fact, foreign students at US universities generally either come from well off families that pay their way or have their expenses paid by their home government. Are you suggesting Obama had a scholarship from the Indonesian government (evidence??)?
There may be some private foundation aid for very worthy foreign students, but the recipients are generally a matter of public record. The whole idea of some grand cover up doesn't wash. Anyway, do you honestly think any of this will matter in 2012, or do you think his record will be more important?
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 16, 2009 4:42 PM
I do not like Obamma because he showed his true self when he tossed his spiritual mentor Reverend Wright to the curb and quit his church of 20 years when it was necessary for political survival.
He used that church to get up the ladder in his district
When someone shows you their true self, believe it the first time
The media black out of the birther cases is what motivated me to research the issue
All I want to know is the truth
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 16, 2009 8:57 PM
Ken the Waterproofer: The media black out of the birther cases is what motivated me to research the issue
Just out of curiosity, what sources did you use in your research, and what are your conclusions based on these sources?
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 16, 2009 9:20 PM
Ken the Waterproofer,
Where is the vault copy of your birth certificate? Did you fly, get a drivers license or passport with your birth certificate signed at the hospital?
Posted by: Hathor | April 16, 2009 9:43 PM
Ken, and any other lurkers who think Obama needs to produce his "original vault copy of his birth certificate" (TM).
Will someone please demonstrate to me that this is even possible? I've replaced my original, (i.e., given to my parents by the state) birth certificate twice. Yet the state has never given me the "original vault copy of his birth certificate" (TM).
If just one of you prove that you can get the actual document on file with your state department of health into your own hands to show the world, then I'll take time to give you a listen.
And, Ken, if you want to dislike Obama for dumping his church, that's just fine. It's a reasonable reason to question his integrity. But it has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship and birth certificates, and you only make yourself look like an incredible idiot by revealing that your birfer arguments are actually driven by your disdain for him personally.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Chiropitera: I have not researched the information scientifically, I have personally experienced the media black out. Think about this. The day after Obama's inauguration Berg's case was scheduled for conference at the Supreme Court. The case was distributed for conference by Justice Roberts. The case did not get the votes to be heard by the court. Not one major news outlet reported that the Justice swearing in the new President was going to meet in private the next day to decide whether or not to hear a case that claimed the president was not eligible to hold the office and that the case was distributed to the other Justices by Justice Roberts. Out of curiosity I paid close attention to CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNBC online and on TV. The media has not covered this story and I find that strange. One would think if Berg's, Taitz's, Key's and other claims are bogus then the media would run the story and expose them as kooks. The media covers every move the Obama makes but will not touch this one.
Hathor: I guess I should have said a certified copy of the original birth certificate that is in the vault in Hawaii.
FYI... I had to submit a copy of my original birth certificate for an ID Badge and Vehicle Pass to work at the Newport News Shipyard to waterproof concrete on a new building. One guy on our crew had a Wallet size Card from Florida that certifies birth and the Yard would not accept it. He has to obtain a copy of the original to get the security clearance. I am not ranting here just letting you know what happened. You would think the POTUS would release a copy of his original birth certificate. John McCain did.
James: I should have said a certified copy of the original birth certificate; I did not mean that the state should release the original.
There are other reasons that Obama has demonstrated to me his lack of integrity. So why would I trust him on this one? I find the Birthers/Citizenship issue fascinating and intriguing, so I follow it and have my thoughts and opinions on it. I find the Obama supporters hostility and insults to my beliefs, to reveal their fears.
I think that this issue needs to be fully investigated and that Representative Bill Posey's bill to require a full vetting system by congress is a good idea.
I believe that this is a constitutional question that needs to be fully settled in order to allow Obama to lead in confidence. I hope Obama feels the same way.
Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 17, 2009 1:32 PM
Sore loser clean up on Aisle 10 please. There's tin foil everywhere.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 1:37 PM
Ken the Waterproofer: The media has not covered this story and I find that strange. One would think if Berg's, Taitz's, Key's and other claims are bogus then the media would run the story and expose them as kooks.
Man, I really should let this one go. But talking with birfers is like eating potato chips: even though I know it's not good for me, I just can't stop!
I dunno. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, the media didn't run with the story exposing the "Iraq was WMDs" and "Iraq in in cahoots with Al Qaeda" crowd as kooks, as they clearly were at the time, either.
Personally, as much as I think Berg, Keyes, et al. should be held up to well-deserved ridicule, I find ignoring kooks to be preferable over pretending that the evidence supports the kooks kookiness.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 17, 2009 2:18 PM
Waterproofer, Any evidence that President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts discussed an active case? Any at all? Didn't think so. That's probably because they didn't. Both of them would know that would no a big no-no. Just how idiotic do you think these people are? Birfer-level?
As to the news "blackout".How is it that we all know about this? Not much of a "blackout" is it? Or perhaps you only read the sources that act as an 'echo chamber' of your own prejudices and biases.
Actually President Obama did release a copy of his birth certificate on that new-fangled 'Internet' thingy. Guess you missed it, just like you missed the fact that electronic media has overtaken the paper media. Yep, nowadays they print out electronic copies of documents, that are real enough to legally get you a Driving License, Gun license, Flying Licence, hell, it even allows you to run for President. Welcome to the 21st Century, must be a shock to be dragged out of the 10th, but get used to it, 'cause it's here to stay (for the next 92 years at least).
Admit it. You've got nothing. You don't like the Pres because he is black.
[points at ignorant, deceitful and hypocritical birfer and laughs in derision] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 17, 2009 2:50 PM
Ken the Waterlogged,
The media never report on cases that the justices are merely reviewing to see if they're going to accept them. There are roughly 100,000 appeals filed per year, and the Court hears less than 100. So the media just doesn't normally pay any attention at all until the Court makes a decision on whether to hear it. Given that there's no substance to this case, that it lost at the lower levels, there was little reason for the media to talk about it as though it was a serious case.
Second, Obama did in fact present a certified copy of his birth certificate. That's what the certificate of live birth is. Why you people insist on pretending it's somethine different is unfathomable.
Listen carefully: The documentation he presented was satisfactory for both the State of Hawaii, and the United State Department of State. That, legally, creates prima facie evidence that the documentation is accurate.
When there is prima facie evidence that documents are accurate and complete, the burden of proof is on those challenging them. The burden of proof is not on the defendant.
So far Berg and his ilk have failed to prevent any evidence that any U.S. court sees as having enough validity to even potentially overcome that standard.
You, and your kind, are insisting that Barack Obama meet a standard of evidence that is not in fact required by our legal system. And keep in mind that the judges who have ruled on this are somewhat better educated in the law than you are.
Bluntly, if you really think there's some special documentation that Obama has not already produced, you're an idiot. You're clinging to this out of your hatred for Obama. Grow up. You're pathetic, stupid, and immature. You're too juvenile to accept the fact that in a democratic system you win some and you fuckin' lose some. You guys won the last two, and this time the Democrats won one. (Meanwhile, we libertarians have lost every goddam, sigh.) So grow up and accept it, and quit making shit up just to make yourself feel better about having lost this won.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 17, 2009 3:11 PM
Dingojack
Read my post again
I did not suggest the topic of any meeting between Obamma and Roberts.
The conference the day after the inauguration was for the justices
Obamma met with the justices the day before the inauguration as do all incoming presidents.
Obamma's race is not important to me.
You do not know me and your comment suggesting I am a racist is small
Say what you will about the media. Facts are facts the new puppy has got more air time than the eligibility issue.
Don't get me wrong I like puppies more than court cases.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 17, 2009 3:44 PM
So if such a meeting between the President and Chief Justices are so commonplace, why do you suggest there was something sinister or unusual about it?
If race is as unimportant (as you claim) why are you holding this President to a standard not demanded by any other President, ever? Produce George Washington's original long (or 'vault' birth cert, or any other since for that matter), if you can't they clearly they aren't legally President. Yep that's what you are effectively saying, idiotic isn't it?
President Obama's dog gets more play simply because it's more of a story than the paranoid, ranting of a few ignorant idiots. Sorry but that's how the media works, hard to believe after 8 years of George the Least, but that's the way of it. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 17, 2009 4:09 PM
Read my prior post again--there is no elibility issue.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 17, 2009 4:13 PM
James: The eligibility issue does exist. Who is right and who is wrong is still on the table, but the issue does exist.
The media does not report on the 100,000 cases at the SCOTUS but it does report extensively on issues that could affect the president.
The courts are tossing it around like a hot potato nobody wants to be the bad guy.
So this one might be a little more incendiary than others
I am not educated in law but I can keep a court house from being damp and smelly. :)
Dingo: I did not suggest anything sinister went down at the meeting. I think you are recoiling from some other info you read. I just said that the meeting happened. The Justice administered the oath and the next day held a confrence in regards to his eligibility. The Scotus decided not to hear it and that's that. My point is the media did not report on it and I find that disturbing.
Let us wait and see how this turns out.
Hey, God Blessed America let's not mess that up.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Ken: You are completely missing the point. The legal issue is dead-not because I say so but because the Supreme Court says so. They have several times refused to hear arguments and there are no new facts or arguments on the birfer side that have even the remotest chance of changing that. The SCOTUS does not revist matters they decided a month ago-they move on and so should the birfers. And the media gave it the same attention they give any of thye dozens of cases the Court refuses to hear. I know you think it's odd, but they actually find more interest in the cases the SCOTUS DOES hear.
As a political issue it's dead as well. The small minority that cares about this are quite simply rabidly anti-Obama. It doesn't matter whether they hate him for his race (some do) or his policies, but if video surfaced of his mother giving birth to him in Times Square with 20,000 live witnesses that wouldn't change their mind. You as an individual are entitled to dislike Obama for any reason you choose or no reason at all and can vote for his opponent next time. Just please don't try to con us and yourself that there is some paperwork about his birth or education that would change that.
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 17, 2009 8:30 PM
aztecwostep: Thanks what you said made alot of sense. I do not think I am trying to con anyone or myself. I just have questions and suspicions Obamma supporters do not want to hear. You sound like a reasonable and intellegent person.
What are your thoughts on Rep. Bill Posey's bill HR 1503?
If you have not already looked into this here is some info to get you started
I copied the info below off a WND article.
I look forward to your input.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92705
Suggesting eligibility proof gets congressman scorned
Faces comments including, 'Take the Reynolds Wrap off your head'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 23, 2009
10:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WND reported Posey's H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 17, 2009 10:17 PM
The eligibility issue does exist.
If that's the case, Ken, then answer this simple question: if there's ANY evidence to cast ANY doubt on Obama's eligibility to be President, then why didn't Hillary Clinton or the Republicans make an issue of it BEFORE Election Day? They all had FOUR YEARS to dig up whatever evidence exists; so why did no one mention it?
Seriously, if there isn't enough of a case for Karl Rove to use, there's no case at all.
PS: Obama's last name is spelled with only ONE "M." Get an education, willya? You birfers are the dumbest conspiracy-buffs I've ever encountered.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 17, 2009 10:41 PM
Ragging Bee :)
Good points, thanks. I have some friends that support Obama that make the same claims. (for-real that has crossed my mind) I will think about that some more.
My challenge will be to assume the Karl Rove, The Republicans and Hillary Clinton are competent.
The Republican Party strayed away from conservatism and acted like pork loving liberals for 8 years. They did not oppose W’s spending sprees when they should have and nominated McCain.
Hillary had a deal with (Obama) and now she is Secretary of State. I would not be surprised if she gets nominated to the Supreme Court.
Karl Rove signed on as an entertainer on Fox News and goes by the script.
I do not know if I have the same confidence in their ability as you do. I only have a High School Diploma and a very successful business. I can ask the same question Joe the Plumber asked Obama in real time.
Small minds generalize people, it is a bad habit to get into.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | April 18, 2009 7:23 AM
"aztecwostep: Thanks what you said made alot of sense. I do not think I am trying to con anyone or myself. I just have questions and suspicions Obamma supporters do not want to hear. You sound like a reasonable and intellegent person. "
I DO like to think of myself as reasonable and intelligence. My reason and intelligence have led me to the inescapable conclusion that when someone's state-issued certificate (by whatever title that state chooses to call such a document) says: Place of Birth: Honolulu that they were likely born in Honolulu. If another party wants to allege differently they better bring some pretty strong evidence to the contrary. In the extant case there isn't even the slightest evidence; at best the birfer case is wild-ass conjecture.
And no, the Posey bill you mention is a foolish non-fix for a non-problem. It wouldn't have had any impact here because of my arguments above. No reasonable body would have any cause to doubt Obama's Hawaiian birth (only unreasonable bodies like birfers). And if Rep Posey actually believes Obama is ineligible where was his objection in January when Congress counted the Electoral College votes?
Let me be as clear as I can Ken. If you oppose Obama's policies in specific cases or in general, I will be happy to debate you. But you and all the other birfers need to stop deluding yourselves and above all stop wasting judges time with nonsense or rightly face sanctions. The reality is plain for anyone to see:
1. Obama is eligible to be President.
2. Obama is President and will be until Jan 2013.
3. His re-election will not hinge on his birth certificate or college transcripts but on the public's judgement as to the success or failure of his policies.
Now, try to move on and enjoy the good that life has to offer.
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 18, 2009 8:16 AM
Is this why you go by the name Ken the Waterproofer? ...because Joe the Plumber is your hero?
Oh. My. Dog. This really does explain your, um, unique use of logic and arguments.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 18, 2009 8:51 AM
Re Ken the Waterproofer
I have a flash for Mr. Ken. Worldnutdaily is about as reliable a source of information as Pravda and Isvestia were during the days of the former Soviet Union.
Posted by: SLC | April 18, 2009 9:31 AM
So, Ken, now you're trying to imply that Obama's most formidable enemies, Hillary Clinton and the entire Republican Party, were in on the Great Birth Certificate Conspiracy? And lemme guess -- they were all in on it for at least four years, which is why none of them even mentioned the issue since Obama made that big speech in 2004?
This is, of course, the standard fallback position of the conspiracy-buff: lack of evidence, and even contrary evidence, proves how powerful and pervasive the coverup really is; everyone who fails to support the conspiracy-theory is, ipso facto, part of the conspiracy.
You've just admitted you can't answer the question, Ken. Now go back to bed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 18, 2009 12:34 PM
To Michael Ralston:
My apologies. In my first comment in this thread, I quoted you to make some sort of response, then quoted Gregory Black to make another response. Somehow (I blame my computer, not SciBlogs) the middle portion of my post (the response to you and the quote of Mr. Black) got deleted. Unfortunately, the remaining text was still functional (take that, creationists!) and made it seem like I was responding to you, when I was in fact responding to someone else. And you can thank monado for getting me to notice the error.
Oops!
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 18, 2009 1:10 PM
Ragging Be :
Time will tell. This issue will follow Obama into the next election. Say what you want but the real evidence in the case has yet to be released and you know it. Say what you want but that is the way it is.
Stay tuned and do not get uptight if things do not go your way.
It has been fun blogging with you all, I learned alot.
I am going to go away now.
Best wishes to all of you and your your families.
Posted by: Ken the Waterproofer | April 18, 2009 1:37 PM
doctorgoo - I think the waterproofer because he sells and installs waterproofed concrete. Simple no? :)
By that standard why doctorgoo or aztectwostep or DingoJack (for that matter)?
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 18, 2009 1:51 PM
Really Ken? You really think the re-election of a sitting President will be decided based on completely unfounded doubts about an official document of the state of Hawaii rather than his record in office over 4 years? You really think there are more than 3 voters out there who will say, "Man, he's been a great President, the country is doing much better, but I'd really like to see his "vault copy" even though I have no idea what that is and don't have any such thing myself" or "Man, he's been a terrible President and the country is a mes, but I guess he was really was born in Hawaii after all, so I'll vote for him"? Of all the silly things you've said, that may be #1 on the list.
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 18, 2009 2:00 PM
Just in case it needed pointing out, not everyone who lacks higher education and works/runs a business in the trades is a fucking moron.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 18, 2009 2:13 PM
Ken - do you have any physical evidence that would cause a reasonable, sane person to ask for Obama to yield to a far higher standard of scrutiny on his origin of birth than any other President? Could you please provide a link to that evidence?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 18, 2009 2:15 PM
This issue will follow Obama into the next election. Say what you want but the real evidence in the case has yet to be released and you know it.
Ah, I see -- you have no evidence to support your allegations, but you're sure there's "real evidence" out there, somewhere, that'll pop up to save your paranoid bacon sometime in the future. I'll take "bluffing" for four more years, Alex.
Oh, and have you ever heard of these things called "subpoenas?" They're really useful tools for digging up hidden evidence, but you need something called "probable cause" to get one issued. Why have no subpoenas been issued to get access to that "long-form" or "vault copy" birth-certificate y'all are raving about? Most likely because no one can come up with enough probable cause to get one. And if people like you can't get enough evidence for a lousy subpoena, chances are there's not evidence to overturn the results of a history-making nationwide election.
I am going to go away now.
Running away already? Oh well, at least you admitted our questions were valid ones -- that's more than the other birfers were able to do. You still can't actually ANSWER the questions, but hey, baby steps, baby steps...
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 18, 2009 11:38 PM
Wow, before seeing Ken's comment, I didn't know there was such a thing as insecure absolutism.
Nice What About Bob? reference, RB.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 19, 2009 12:07 AM
I have been following this case for some time. Why doesnt Obama just prove that he is a citizen. Release the records to congress. Done, no more debate. But he won't do it. Very curious.
Posted by: m p c | April 22, 2009 11:24 PM
Would that really satisfy you? Really?
So it's not enough that Hawaii, the SCOTUS, and many others have verified everything, now he has to show Congress.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Just let it go.
Posted by: Bachalon | April 22, 2009 11:28 PM
I ran across this site by accident and have spent the last half hour reading and laughing. Thanks so much for a wonderful comments section!
Posted by: Beth | June 1, 2009 6:01 PM