TRUMP to LEMMINGS: DO NOT LOOK BEFORE you LEAP!

October 24, 2012

©2012 jbjd

Today, in a calculated display of hubris rivaled only by a production spawned from President Obama’s re-election campaign, Donald Trump has unveiled his much touted October “bombshell“: a “deal” to entice Mr. Obama to produce both his college and passport applications and records. Trump promises that jumping through this hoop “by October 31,” and “to my satisfaction,” and “if it’s complete,” will yield a check for $5,000,000 to Obama’s designated ‘charity.’ (I put the word ‘charity’ in single quotes because in addition to listing a well known outfit like “American Cancer Society”; he lists not only the umbrella enterprise of “AIDS research”; but also the generalized category “inner city children in Chicago.”) He couches his request in terms of acting on behalf of the people, to end their “questions” and “anger.” Yes, he knows that the President will be doing a “great service for the country” by allowing them to “know something about their President.” In short, by releasing the documents Trump mentioned, the President suddenly will “become transparent.”

Of course, some of us know, no “thing” coming out of this dog-and-pony show will inform anyone where Barack Obama was born.

For starters, notice that Trump qualified his reference to Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” by adding (after an obvious pause) “or whatever it may be.” It’s the “whatever it may be” which should have been the tip-off, Trump is wearing his circus barker hat. Why do you suppose he is ‘hedging his bets’ as to the ‘document’s’ authenticity?

As I explained in SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE back on April 1, 2012 (and other articles linked therein), what was released on April 27 was the political ad campaign conceived, executed, and launched by the President’s re-election campaign, the contents of which were fully protected by the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on restrictions on political speech. Featuring the image of the mock-up of a long-form birth certificate, the ads ran on internet sites such as WhiteHouse.gov/blog. (Emphasis added.)

Do you suppose that Mr. Trump, in April 2011 still a possible contender for the Presidency; doesn’t recognize a political ad campaign when he sees one?

Trump asserts he forced the President’s April 27 release of this advertising image: “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate…” Presumably, he means, in a desperate attempt to quell doubts as to the President’s birth status which have swirled unabated for more than 3 years, since the primary in 2008; it was his – Trump’s – many references to concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, uttered as a (pseudo) Presidential candidate in the spring of 2011 which compelled the release of the document at this particular time. (Again, crediting the release of the certificate – “or whatever it may be” – to the President, as opposed to correctly attributing the release to the President’s re-election campaign, cannot have been an innocent oversight.) But, of course, Trump had no more to do with either the substance or the timing of the April 27 appearance of the long form image; than any of the other millions of Americans challenging the narrative of Obama’s birth and demanding some sort of documentation. In fact, its release was triggered by the formal announcement of the President’s re-election campaign 3 weeks earlier, on April 4, and the accompanying mandatory filing with the FEC which then allowed the solicitation of funds in his name by the newly formed re-election campaign, funds which the campaign immediately translated into expenditures on political advertising such as the long-form ad. In other words, it was the official (read, legal) kick-off of the President’s re-election campaign which provided the first opportunity to address what were ongoing eligibility issues that could jeopardize his re-election. (The formal kick-off of the President’s campaign was also accompanied by previously scheduled events associated with the re-election campaign, including a stint on Oprah and a major NY fundraiser, also on the 27th. Id.)

SHE SAID / HE SAID contains not only a lucid (albeit lengthy) explanation of the long-form image as a campaign expenditure; but also references several other articles on the “jbjd” blog, dispelling the long-form myth, including  HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard), which points to the lethal problems associated with allowing candidate ‘self-authentication.’ Indeed, did you notice that Trump’s deal for Obama’s records never specifies who must transmit these records, or to whom these records must be submitted? And while he says, the documents must be “complete” and to his “satisfaction”; he never specifies, who will determine whether these criteria are met. Because he knows better.

For example, during the recent Presidential debates; Obama verified the authenticity of some of his ‘facts’ by citing their source was “reporters.” What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document authentication confirmed, the mock-up of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; Reporter Soledad O’Brien is only one of millions of Americans who still wrongly believe, what APFC says must be true.

In sum, Donald Trump knows better than to contend that any ‘documents’ forthcoming through this publicity stunt will increase the knowledge of the American people about the circumstances of our President’s birth; or diminish our ire at what many of us feel is a con. On the contrary; by failing to take advantage of media opportunities like this, to educate the public that, legally, the April 11, 2011 long-form release by the Obama re-election campaign was only part of a political ad launch; and worse, by cynically encouraging the Obama campaign this opportunity to repeat that ploy; Trump only broadens the con, and exacerbates our ire.

Obviously, Mr. Trump thinks most Americans are as foolish as does President Obama.


SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

April 1, 2012

©2012 jbjd

This is third in the series of articles addressing the legal nature of that long form birth certificate purporting to establish President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth, released on April 27, 2011 in the form of both electronic images which were posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog and, hard copies (of those same images) which were distributed to reporters. (This is all spelled out in the first 2 articles in the series, WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG, which are meant to be read before tackling the present post,) But the article I originally had in mind to follow these 2 required re-thinking when I received an email from azgo suggesting that “by reading the ‘jbjd’ blog, [the Obama campaign] devised the [long-form birth certificate] scheme to make it look like the image came directly from HI; per our conversations [on this blog] about how state election officials should receive birth records directly from the state in which the candidate was born.” That got me to thinking. So, I looked for any articles referencing the distinction between a real identification document and a fake; which were posted here on “jbjd” before the 2012 re-election campaign launch in April 2011.

azgo could be right.

On January 3, 2011, I posted DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2), which confirms that under the U.S. Code, images such as Barack Obama’s COLB appearing on his web site “Fight the Smears,” satisfy the expenditure disclosure requirements of an electronic political advertising campaign. Here is an excerpt from that post.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

This was followed on January 12 by DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2), which discussed the criminal implications of producing and distributing electronic images, such as that COLB, on campaign sites; but pretending, these are ‘the real thing.’ Here is a snippet from that article.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

On January 24, I posted HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard). Here is an excerpt from that seminal article, in which I warn voters against accepting as true any candidate’s self-authentication to appear on the ballot. (This also contains a link to a comment in which I issued this same warning, more than 1 year earlier.)

5. NO MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL SUCCEED, WHICH RELIES ON CANDIDATE SELF-AUTHENTICATION. This has always seemed to me to be self-explanatory.

I refuse to focus on BO to establish HIS OWN eligibility. On FTS, the web site he started and for which he paid before becoming the D Corporation nominee for POTUS; he posted the COLB he said is an official document, which proves he is eligible for POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

2010/01/05 at 20:33

In other words, stop asking Obama or anyone acting on his behalf but not in an official capacity; to get the man to produce anything! And do not under any circumstances accept as true, any document or facsimile any of these representatives not acting as the “issuing authority” introduces and claims is real! 

Apparently, the usual “jbjd” readers hoping to hone their civics educations were not the only ones listening.

To see how that April 27, 2011 launch of the long form image of President Obama’s birth certificate conformed to these requirements of the U.S. Code with respect to campaign advertising and, at this same time, skirted criminal sanctions for document fraud; you can start by looking at the press gaggle that was held that morning. As no cameras or recording devices were allowed, I relied on this press release by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney, issued at 8:48 that morning and posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog; to memorialize the scene. (Since I will only reference Mr. Carney’s release; after you read my article, I urge you to follow up by reading his, to see for yourself how the fact pattern spelled out in the U.S. Code, fits.)

Attending the early morning press gaggle were Carney; WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; and WH Counsel Bob Bauer. First, a note about Mr. Bauer, who would leave that job in June 2011, 1 month after the long form launch.

President Barack Obama’s top lawyer at the White House, Bob Bauer, is quitting to return to his political law practice and represent Obama as his personal attorney and counsel to his re-election campaign….Bauer, a specialist in campaign finance, election law and ethics, is returning to the role as campaign counsel that he held when Obama ran for the presidency in 2008….

Bauer has been part of Obama’s circle since Obama was a freshman senator in Washington. He has long been a go-to lawyer for Democrats and is married to Anita Dunn, a Democratic operative who formerly served as Obama’s communications director…. He will also serve as counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/bob-bauer-resigns-white-house-counsel_n_870290.html

And this, from Perkins Coie.

Bob returned to the firm after a period of service to President Barack Obama as his White House Counsel from December of 2009 until June of 2011.  He is now General Counsel to the President’s re-election committee, to Obama for America, and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

Now, from the gaggle. (My editorial comments appear in orange. These are not intended to be exhaustive; I could have colored the whole exchange! Besides, once you get the hang of interpreting ‘Obama-speak’; you will be able to de-construct these remarks, on your own.)

MR. PFEIFFER:

In 2008 (the copyright date in the in the footer of FTS is 2007), in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign (in June 2008, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was only the D Party Presidential nominee wannabe; and the image posted on his FTS web site, which was clearly marked “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA, per campaign expenditure laws) requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.  We (the nominee’s campaign) received that document; we (the campaign) posted it on the website (FTS). That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers (lay staffers employed by Annenberg Political Fact Check), who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue.  We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that….There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was –

Q    When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.

Q    Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue.  In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you.  And Bob will explain why — the extraordinary steps we (the President’s 2012 re-election campaign) had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again.  …  And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we’re having in this country. …  And it was really a distraction. … That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. (It’s not clear to me from Pfeiffer’s reference whom the President asked to look into this matter, since he uses no names. It’s not even clear whether by “counsel” he meant, lawyer or advisor. But, technically, WH Counsel Bauer represents the Office and not the man and so, is properly referred to as “WH Counsel.”)* And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term — it would have been in his — probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come.  But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country.  And so he asked counsel (again, I don’t know to which counsel this refers) to look into this. *(Here’s a good article on the sometimes murky role of WH Counsel. White House Lawyer Role Faces Test.)

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this — not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER:  Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate.  And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. (Based on several descriptions of the job responsibilities of WH Counsel; it is totally appropriate for him to advise the President as to the legality of his conduct.)

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we (meaning, anyone associated with this ploy) had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request (and simultaneously avoid breaking the law).  She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday — counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, (the law firm in which I was a partner before coming here and to which I will return shortly) and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request.  He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast.  And private counsel (presumably, he mean Ms. Corley) forwarded his written request — written, signed request — along with a letter from counsel (okay, I give up, I have no idea whom he means here), to the state Department of Health on Friday.

The department, as I understood it (plausible deniability here), after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted.  We (those of us perpetrating this fraud, excluding the President) were advised that the long-form birth certificate (mock-up) could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th — the day before yesterday.  And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. (He keeps referring to the document as “it” but, in the letter provided to reporters, the President requested and received 2 copies of his long-form birth certificate, both certified.) (According to HI DoH instructions posted below, only 1 vital record per request!)

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii (as there is in every state)**.  The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the (facsimile of a) legal birth certificate of the President (or anyone else) that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for (and which could be used for that purpose if appropriately presented, for example, if displaying the official seal or, unaltered in any way).

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate.  The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand.  So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, (for effect, I will nonetheless speculate) it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter (id.).

MR. PFEIFFER:  We’ll be happy to take some questions.

Q    I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this.  Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q    Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q    Okay.  And this is the one that would be referred to — that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER:  They are both — the second one is the birth certificate.  The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate.  As you can see — and Bob can walk you through it (again, doesn’t take a lawyer to explain this obvious difference between a certificate and a certification but it does add an official imprimatur to the ruse) — it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

MR. BAUER:  There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification.  The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate.  The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records.  It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we (the members of then U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential preference primary campaign) posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q    This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER:  That’s correct.  It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q    Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER:  I’ll let Dan –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Sure.

Q    I know you expected that question, right?  (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER:  He even said you would be the one who would ask it.  (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008.  And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been — a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically.  But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this — it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts.  In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q    So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There has been — no one that I can recall actually asked us to — we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008.  We did that.  And then no one — it never — up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet.  And it hasn’t been until — I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday –

Q    When you say that, you mean certification — you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER:  When any Hawaiian wants — requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008.  And that’s what that is.  And we released that.  And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate.  And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again.  And so the President made this decision.  He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q    And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced.  They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper (since that is what this is), you could have typed anything in there.  Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)

Q    Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER:  He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.  But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file.  As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER:  And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states (“that” here refers to the letter, as in, “the letter states” and not, “the director of the Health Department states…”) that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to –

Q    But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue.  The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists.  It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks.  And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media.  And so the President decided to release this.  And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

Q    You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study.  You have these physical –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  I showed you one.  Just one.

Q    You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER:  No, I showed you –

Q    Does that have a stamp? (Apparently, the copy distributed to this reporter did not.)

MR. PFEIFFER:  It has a seal on it.

Q    Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The President — this in itself — when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making.  That will be in not too long.

Q    Did the President change his own mind about this?  In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based — in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don’t want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Let’s be very clear.  You were there for the campaign.  There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign.  It was a settled issue.  (HA HA HA HA HA) I was there (in 2007)  for the original decision to release the birth certificate (if we couldn’t steal the primary before people began asking questions about the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for office). I was there (in June 2008) when we posted it online (because questions about his eligibility threatened to kill his chances at the nomination).  I’m not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue.  (Liar liar, pants on fire.) So it wasn’t like — let’s be very clear.  We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done.  That was it.

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years.  It’s only been in the last few weeks.  And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he’ll talk about this when he gets here — decided to do it at the timeline that Bob (Bauer, the campaign law expert and WH Counsel) laid out (so as to protect everyone involved in this farce from criminal liability) because it was a — this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we’re facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics (meaning, our re-election campaign) that have become focused on this.

Q    Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of — sort of that bridge between what you’re calling a fringe and the mainstream?  Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER:  It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate.  They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q    Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not — and I’m going back to the birth certificate.  I lose points, I understand.  But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The point I’d make is that we weren’t the ones who — we’re not the first ones to bring this up in this room.  Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.  And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to — and when he comes down here this morning he’ll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q    Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow — I mean, people have been asking about –MR. CARNEY:  I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out.  He cares more about what’s good for the country.  He wants the debate on the issues.  He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q    Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue.  So –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue.  But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here.  So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case.  But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q    Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER:  No.

Q    Just to clarify what this document is –

MR. PFEIFFER:  This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those.  This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q    How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER:  As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q    Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Last night.

Q    What time?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Q    When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER:  What’s that?

Q    When was this gaggle put on — when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q    Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER:  The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate (as opposed to documenting an actual path undertaken to obtain a bona fide waiver from Director Fuddy on the date in the letter, resulting in her office’s production of a facsimile of a record on file with her office, evidencing Barack Obama was born in HI).

Q    The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER:  Right.  The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s — a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q    Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter?  (Yes; of course.) I mean, that’s all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER:  No.  Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website.  The certificate with the signatures at the bottom — and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to.  Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form.  They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver (which, as you astutely pointed out, only required writing the letter requesting that waiver).  We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form.  The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest — the President — so you have a letter from the President (with no file reference code for document processing, archiving, or retrieval) , and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request.  (I cannot figure out the angle on that one. Obviously, unless the President, here, the Requestor of the Record, has been adjudged to be mentally incompetent and placed under the guardianship of Attorney Corley, he doesn’t need her to ‘formalize’ anything! Maybe Bauer is still trying to fool reporters into believing getting the waiver so as to obtain a certified copy of a long form birth certificate is a big deal. Ideas?) So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q    Do we have the letter from the President –

MR. BAUER:  It’s in the packet.

Q    And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER:  I did not go to Hawaii.  The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the — the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter — signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. (Notice that now, he manages albeit awkwardly, to avoid saying either, ‘Ms. Corley signed the letter,’ or ‘Ms. Corley made this request to the HI DoH.’ Because saying that the President’s lawyer did these things is tantamount to saying, the President did these things. And as you just read, when it comes to the President and these long form shenanigans; the campaign, under the watchful eye of WH Counsel Bauer, is preserving a ‘hands off’ approach.) (434 (f)(3) of TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS, is worth a read. While I didn’t use that section of campaign finance laws with respect to the FTS web site; it might apply here, to the cost of that campaign trip to HI to retrieve the campaign document. As for the gaggle being a “campaign communication,” well, since there is no record; and since otherwise ‘official’ topics were also discussed, by non-campaign staff; I am not sure what approach the DoJ would take for the purpose of determining whether illegal campaigning was going on from the WH.)

Thanks.END              9:18 A.M. EDT

** According to the web site of the HI DoH, here’s how to request certified copies of vital information.

How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records

What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide

An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

  • Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number(s);
  • Applicant’s relationship to the person named on the certificate;
  • Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
  • Full name(s) as listed on the certificate; (not provided)
  • The certificate’s file number (if known); (not provided)
  • Month, day, and year of the event; (not provided) and
  • City or town and the island where the event occurred. (not provided)
  • For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother. (not provided)
  • If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)
  • Valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)

(H/T azgo)

On the other hand, maybe all you want is a letter.

Letters of Verification

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

Either way, you can download an application form directly from the site.

Application Forms

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

Thus, summing up these first 3 articles in the series, by clearly identifying both orally and in writing, the ‘birth’ documents distributed at the press gaggle and displayed on the WhiteHouse.gov blog are part of the “campaign”; by explicitly stating no public funds were expended in obtaining these documents; by making sure that any ‘official (looking)’ seal from the HI DoH did not appear on copies of documents distributed to the public; by distributing the documents to the public but not to a government official under the guise, this was a bona fide representation of the ‘facts’ contained therein; and by separating the campaign function from the traditional function of the Executive branch; and by transporting the false document via airplane instead of the U.S. mail; President Obama’s team likely skirted criminal violations of both campaign expenditure and public records laws.

Or did they…

(The next article in the series focuses on President Obama’s remarks immediately following this press gaggle; and the nature of comments, both oral and written, with respect to the President’s vital records, attributed over time to state of HI employees.)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.


TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD

February 20, 2011

©2011 jbjd

A brief article entitled, “Flake says:  “Get off this Kick”” appeared on the blog, Seeing Red AZ, whose byline reads, “political views from a red state.”  This blurb about Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was taken from a longer article that appeared in The Hill, citing an interview conducted by CNN, who asked the candidate for U.S. Senate to comment on the results of a recent Public Policy Polling poll showing a majority of R primary voters do not believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.  His reply?  People need to “accept reality.”  (The article on The Hill goes on to say, “Flake said the notion that Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest.”  Now, I cannot tell whether this line I quoted came from Flake or, The Hill, or CNN but, I have to tell you, having become an expert purser of Obama-speak, hearing the word “notion” in relation to anything about the man signals to me, ‘be on the alert for incoming lies.’)

Anyway, I saw the article on SRA because I was getting hits on my blog from that site and checked it out.  Well, I should have guessed, azgo had posted a great comment that included a link to “jbjd.”  He agreed I could re-print it here (with my editorial revisions).

Memo to Rep. Flake:  ‘Fight the Smears’ is Paid Political Advertising

The “Fight the Smears” web page with the image of a birth document is a paid political advertisement and conforms with TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > of the U.S. Code, § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations. This section deals with campaign funding, reporting, and other parameters.  Nothing in this law requires the advertising content to be true. And that only makes sense.  Because as the Supreme Court has ruled, when it comes to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, political advertising is legal even if the advertiser does not tell the truth. “…the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”  Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

The Obama campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement they named, “Fight the Smears,” on which they displayed graphics for visual impact, and ad copy with terms of art like ‘native born’ and ‘citizenship conferred by the 14th Amendment’ cleverly conflating these terms with the one they never mentioned, “natural born.” But this is the term emblazoned in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.  And, consistent with section 441d, they solicited the public to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all so as to spread their truth about the candidate. Even though it was all a lie.

In truth, the state of Hawaii has never claimed responsibility as the “issuing authority” – this term of art is defined right there in the Code – of that online image of a COLB on the advertising platform entitled FTS.  They never confirmed this was a genuine “identification document,” consistent with the Code.  Even the ad failed to claim, this ‘document’ came from the HI Department of Health, Vital Records.  Or to include any identifying information that would allow anyone to trace back the mock-up to its hinted origins.  And all of the venues reporting that, having seen the image, they could confirm its authenticity – L.A. Times, Daily Kos, Annenberg Political FactCheck, Politifact – also stated publicly, they had received this image directly from the Obama campaign.

In other words, when it comes to providing documentary evidence as to where Obama was born, the only thing available in the public record, that online image of the birth document, means absolutely nothing…

…except that many Americans, including not just the media but worse, our state and national public officials can be duped into believing an image is real which was only created as the focal point of an on-line political advertising campaign to combat rumors a Presidential candidate is Constitutionally ineligible for the job!

http://jbjd.org/2011/01/03/de-coder-rings-1of2/

(View a screen capture of the 14th Amendment on FTS at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO)

Not surprisingly, in 2007, gearing up for the political campaign of Barack Obama, the circumstances of whose birth, if uncovered, they believed would derail his bid to lead the free world; APFC posted this homage to the First Amendment license to print paid political lies.

Seems to me, a sitting U.S. Representative who is a candidate for U.S. Senate should be at least as well informed about the difference between protected false speech in paid political advertising, and the truth; as ordinary citizens who collaborated via email in their spare time to put together this post on a blog.


OBAMA TRIES to WIPE SLATE CLEAN for 2012 RUN

December 19, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

Regular readers of “jbjd” already know that documentary evidence available in the public record establishes Barack Obama stole the 2008 D Presidential nomination and then snookered a slight plurality of the American people into voting for him by tricking election officials in several states that require eligibility for office as a precondition to printing the candidate’s name on both primary and general election ballots, to print his name on the ballot, notwithstanding neither he nor anyone else who vouched he was qualified for office disclosed documentary evidence available in the public record that would establish, he is eligible for the job.   But you might have missed this.

Mr. Obama has begun wiping the 2008 slate clean, thereby announcing he intends to preserve the option to do this to us all over again in 2012.

Way back in August 2009 I published an article on this blog entitled, RUMORS, LIES, and UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ in which I established that Annenberg Political FactCheck (“APFC”), the source often cited by members of Congress to their constituents whose work they wrongly assert has ‘proven’ the ‘fact’ Obama is a NBC, does not actually check facts.  For example, I showed the image of a ‘newspaper birth announcement’ displayed on APFC’s web site which they accredited to the Honolulu Advertiser claiming the information they were posting on the APFC site had been uncovered by a “researcher” whose results an anonymous commenter then posted on the td (TexasDarlin) blog.   Based only on this chain of custody, that is, unnamed researcher->anonymous blogger->td blog->APFC, APFC now opined that this image they had thus obtained proved Obama was born in HI.  Just to be clear, clicking on the fourth hand image on APFC did not bring me to the work of this “researcher” or, to the birth announcement page of the edition of the Honolulu Advertiser APFC claimed was printed on “Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.” Instead, it took me back to the td blog.

Yep; APFC claimed to authenticate Obama was born in HI with the use of an unauthenticated image of text they named “Obama’s birth announcement” only viewable through the aid of a computer screen. 

Well, since I first posted that article ‘outing’ APFC in August 2009, a couple of noteworthy changes have occurred.  First, the Honolulu Advertiser is now the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. (The paper ceased publication in July 2010.)

Second, APFC has amended that suspect link so that clicking on the image of that fake newspaper announcement posted on their blog now takes the reader not to the td blog but to the current front page of the recently formed Honolulu Star-Advertiser!  (H/T azgo.)

(APFC has posted several updates on that same page I referenced in my August 2009 expose. But, for some reason, while they note the date and reason for these other updates, they notably fail to mention they updated the link in the fake birth announcement image.)

For those people who bother to verify such information, winding up at the site of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser would be enough to end their search and to assume the information posted on APFC was true.  But we know better.

If you try hard, you can find a link on the front page of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to Archives from the old Honolulu Advertiser. However, this archive  function only allows readers to trace articles back to 11.30.02.  So, even if this fictional Obama birth announcement was real, readers still could not locate this birth announcement via the on-line Archives, anyway.  If any birth announcements were published on Aug. 13, 1961, evidence of such publication might be found by researching microfiche or microfilm holdings of earlier publications.  These could be ‘screen captured’ and posted on the APFC site.  But they are not.  (Maybe that’s because the State of HI Libraries keep no copies of the Honolulu Advertiser from way back then.  http://www.state.hi.us/lrb/serials1/serialsh.html and http://ipac2.librarieshawaii.org:81/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=129F790MT7494.375&menu=search&aspect=basic_search&npp=10&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=main&ri=1&source=~!comres_train&index=.NK&term=honolulu+advertiser&x=9&y=8&aspect=basic_search)

So, it would seem even with their surreptitious tweaking, APFC again clearly intended to provide inquiring minds with no verifiable evidence the old Honolulu Advertiser carried a birth announcement for Barack Obama on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.  On the contrary, if they had meant to support their claims with verifiable documentation, they could have given readers more information than just their word, now or the last time they pulled such tripe.

Then again, why bother, when just their word was good enough to fool people the last time.


COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

November 23, 2009

*

Bob Bauer, currently White House Counsel, was formerly the Counsel to DNC Services Corporation and Obama for America, Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. (BOB BAUER BIOGRAPHY) In January 2009, he defended Mr. Obama in Hollister v. Soetoro, a lawsuit aimed at exposing his client was Constitutionally unqualified for POTUS. HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (Mr. Hollister was represented by Attorney Phil Berg.) Mr. Bauer submitted his usual Motion to Dismiss – this was not the first lawsuit aimed at reaching his client’s eligibility – but this time, seeking to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this lawsuit to end the barrage of eligibility based challenges both inside and outside of the courtroom, he added something new: a footnote asking the judge to take judicial notice of certain facts, which notice he would recycle to construct the fiction, his client was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

“Judicial notice” is a term found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It applies to getting facts into the court record and, once those facts have been added to the record, assigns what weight this evidence will receive. (For a full explanation of judicial notice, see the Federal Rules of Evidence at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.)

Simply put, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.

1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)

Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.

Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.

Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”

These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.

Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.

Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”

This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.

Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Which leads us to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession who, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swore in August 2008 Mr. Bauer’s client was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in the official DNC Services Corporation Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to election officials in dozens of states to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

Question: Instead of asking for judicial notice of representations made by APFC, notice which at best could only establish his client was a “native” of HI but not “Natural Born”; why didn’t Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, let alone submit even 1 (one) of those Certifications into the court record?
Answer: Because he knew Nancy Pelosi’s sworn Certifications of Nomination submitted to state election officials are bogus, too.

Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born?
Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

For your information, here are CONTACTS AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.


BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!

October 27, 2009

I had intended to issue these revised Complaints of Election Fraud against various members of the Democratic Party and Requests for Investigation by State Attorneys General, anyway; but when I read in FOX News that Robert Bauer, Esquire, General Counsel to the DNC and personal attorney to Barack Obama could replace White House Counsel Greg Craig by the end of the year, I decided to post these updated complaints in an homage to him. BAUER TO BE NAMED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

Judging by the historical collaboration between Mr. Bauer and the POTUS, achieving a better match between attorney and client appears unlikely.

This line in the article, which FOX attributes to Wikipedia, jumped out at me: “Bauer is highly regarded in Democratic circles as a tenacious and brilliant lawyer ….” If true, this statement exemplifies everything that is contemptible about Mr. Bauer and his Democratic clientele, including Mr. Obama: they conflate hubris with intellect.

How else to explain Mr. Bauer gets points for helping his clients – The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; and Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia and Chair of the DNC (his AG is the recipient of several of these complaints) – elect a President merely saying, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?

Or this, from the Complaints to the A’sG, describing how he asked a federal judge to take judicial notice of a mirage.

In January 2009, Mr. Obama was the named Defendant in a case filed in federal district court, ostensibly seeking to determine whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice required a military Plaintiff to obey orders from a Commander in Chief he was not certain was a NBC. (Pleadings for Hollister v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, can be found on line at http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/.) Mr. Obama submitted a Motion to Dismiss predicated on Plaintiff’s failure to establish the Court’s jurisdiction; and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (The Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert F. Bauer of PERKINS COIE LLP, who signed the pleadings submitted to the court on his client’s behalf.) Additionally, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of the following ‘fact’: he had publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Presumably, he used the phrase “publicly produced” referring to the fact, he posted that photocopied COLB on his FTS web site.) Yet he did not provide the court with the ‘original’ COLB so the Clerk could mark up the document as evidence and place it in the case record (where it would be subject to scrutiny by the Plaintiff or the judge’s in-camera inspection). Instead, he tried to authenticate that internet COLB just by asking the court to take “notice” that Annenberg Political Fact Check (“APFC”) “conclude[d] that the birth certificate is genuine.” http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/ (APFC is one of many such organizations wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also paid his salary as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999.) (And recall he wrote on FTS, this COLB only establishes he is a “native citizen,” anyway.)

Given the fact that 2008 DNC Convention Chair Pelosi is also the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, making her 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas incorporated therein, it defies credulity that Mr. Obama would seek judicial notice of the lesser fact he is a native citing APFC says he is; but not offer into evidence the DNC Official Certification of Nomination Ms. Pelosi submitted to election officials in the state of HI, swearing Barack Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” or any one of the dozens of her signed Certifications, which persuaded election officials throughout the country to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the Presidential ballots in the 2008 general election.

Eschewing reliance on Ms. Pelosi’s Certification, incredibly, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of this information: APFC “note[d] a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper.” In fact, APFC had only posted on their web site an image of an unattributed ‘newspaper announcement,’ which phantom image they admitted they had usurped from the “td” blog, where it was posted anonymously. (Note: the “td” TexasDarlin blog site was closed by its owner in August 2009.) With no further investigation into that ‘announcement,’ APFC declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) Like APFC, Defendant Obama omitted the name of this publication. And he failed to enter into the court record any physical evidence of a newspaper announcement, making his claims there was such an announcement, as with his claims the internet COLB was real, impossible to verify, too.

It’s true. Mr. Bauer actually asked a federal judge to take judicial notice that APFC ‘noted’ an imaginary newspaper birth announcement; and that Barack Obama “publicly produced” a “birth certificate” that can only be observed through a computer screen. And he had the audacity to hope the court would grant his wish. Thank goodness, the only relief The Honorable Judge James Robertson granted was the Motion to Dismiss. Because know what Mr. Bauer would have done if Judge Robertson had been as “impressed” with his tenacity as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kaine, et al.? He would have twisted judicial notice that APFC made a ‘note’ on their web site and that Mr. Obama posted something on the internet; into a ruling by the federal court that his client is a NBC.

In my opinion, more than 1 (one) ‘birther’ attorney has earned sanctions from the federal court.

(editing assistance provided by d2i)
***************************************************************************************************
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTING COMPLAINTS

1. Download complaint from Scribd by clicking on link below complaint.
2. Fill in your real name and address. Your residency in that state entitles you to the services of your AG.
3. AG complaint gets faxed; copies to parties noted on complaint may be sent by any means preferred.
4. Please distribute copies of filed complaints to the press.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS

Even if you have previously filed a complaint, please, re-file. Evidently the fax number to the AG’s office was incorrect; and this means, the copies you distributed are copies of documents not on file. So, please, re-file, and re-distribute copies. (The bad news, you need to duplicate your work. The good news? This revised complaint is dynamite.)

GEORGIA

View this document on Scribd

MARYLAND

View this document on Scribd

SOUTH CAROLINA

View this document on Scribd

TEXAS

View this document on Scribd

VIRGINIA

View this document on Scribd

IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO

August 13, 2009

(CORRECTION:  10.09.10: In this article, I wrote that HI was the only state that required explicit language in the documentation submitted to election officials that the candidate for President from the major political party was Constitutionally eligible for the job, to be entitled to have that person’s name printed on the ballot.  But as I explored the election laws of more states, I learned HI was not alone.  For example, on 10.02.09, 3 (three) weeks after I posted this article, I posted UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, pointing to the fact that under SC law, the party also must Certify to election officials the candidate is qualified for the office to get them to print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  And I posted the image of the Certification the SC Democratic Party submitted to get Obama’s name on the ballot; only, it was that state’s Presidential preference primary ballot.  Because in SC, candidates participating in the primary must register through the political party.  In this case, the Certification was hand-written by then state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley.

Ms. Pelosi also did not sign the Certification in TX.  Rather, this was signed by Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  His documents can be seen in REMEMBER THE ALAMO, posted in January 2010.)

© 2009 jbjd

FACT: NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOLD USA TODAY THAT DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN.”

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, told  USA Today that drowning out opposing facts is “un-American.”  Certainly, if drowning out opposing facts is “un-American” then ignoring facts must be un-American, too.

FACT: UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE II SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

FACT: SERVING AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, NANCY PELOSI SIGNED THE DNC’S OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION SWEARING 1) BARACK OBAMA IS THE “DULY NOMINATED” CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND 2) HE IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION.

Last summer, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives assumed the civilian role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  As Chair, her principle duty was to sign the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination, which document was then forwarded to state elections officials via the state D party chairs,  in order that these election officials could print the name of Barack Obama, the party nominee, next to the D on state general election ballots.  (Depending on state law,  some states print the names of Electors for that nominee on the ballot, either with or without the name of the nominee.)

Under the laws in every state, once elections officials receive the Official Certification of Nomination, the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is automatically entitled to appear on the state’s general election ballot.  That is, in every other state in the union except HI.  In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot.  No;  in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. (In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check.  DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).  Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)

(CORRECTION 05.18.12: In TX, the Constitutional requirement only goes to the candidates’ entitlement to appear on the ballot. The SoS may still exercise her discretion to print the name of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates even without evidence of such federal qualification.)

Here are the Certifications of Nomination submitted to HI state officials by the RNC and DNC to get the names of their respective candidates for POTUS printed on HI’s general election ballots.  The cover letter from HI elections officials cites HI’s unique presidential verification law.  (Special thanks to Justin Riggs.)

View this document on Scribd

(Note:  Usually I refrain from getting involved in discussions as to the authenticity of photocopied or scanned documents posted on the internet.  But I want to point out what looks to me to be an anomaly in the HI DNC Certification in NP’s signature.  For comparison, here is an image of the Certification of Nomination received by SC.) (While you are here, can you see the line as to eligibility missing in SC that is present in HI?)

Once state elections officials receive the Certification of Nomination, they automatically print the name of the party nominee onto the general election ballot.  (Remember, even in states that have passed laws requiring the party candidate for POTUS to satisfy the qualifications for office, no provision of law requires any state official to check.  Indeed, when asked, state elections officials confirm, all vetting is left up to the party.)  So, on what basis did NP (and the state D party Chairs) Certify to state elections officials in all 50 (fifty) states, BO is a NBC?

Given the narrow window of time between the Convention nomination and the deadline for submitting the party’s Certification of Nomination to state elections officials – these deadlines vary state to state – any determination as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility presumably was made some time before his August  nomination.  So, what could have been the basis for such verification?

FACT: IN JUNE 2008 THEN DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE HOPEFUL BARACK OBAMA PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED ON HIS NEWLY FORMED WEB SITE, FIGHT THE SMEARS, HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT ON THIS BASIS:  HE IS A “NATIVE CITIZEN.”

Explaining he was ‘reacting to questions swirling around as to his Constitutional qualifications,’  BO created the web site “Fight the Smears” in June 2008, less than 3 (three) months before Ms. Pelosi would sign his Certification of Nomination.  NOTE:   THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THE WEB SITE NAMED “FIGHT THE SMEARS.”  SOME OF THESE ARE .ORG’S; SOME ARE .COM’S.  BURIED IN THE FOOTER, SOME OF THESE FTS SITES REVEAL THEY ARE “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA”; SOME ARE PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA; SOME SAY THE DNC. But whatever the iteration of FTS, prominently displayed on the site is  a photocopy of the document everyone has seen by now, entitled, “Certification of Live Birth” (“COLB”).  (Until the fall of 2008, HI officials noted the distinction between a “Certificate” and a “Certification.”  See, for example, Atlas Shrugs, linked above.) BO claims the “truth” is, this COLB proves he  is a “native citizen”; and in the following note, he asks his supporters to spread this “fact” around.

Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

(Accessing that link now leads you to http://www.barackobama.com/fightthesmears/articles.)

(Note:  In December 2007, BO did swear he was a “natural born citizen of the United States,” in nomination papers he submitted to the SoS of AZ to participate in that state’s Presidential Preference Election (primary).) http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

In the following version of FTS, BO actually cites the 14th Amendment to support his nativity.

BUT NONE OF THESE ITERATIONS OF “FIGHT THE SMEARS ” ARGUES CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

Also prominently displayed on all of these FTS sites is the logo for the organization called Annenberg Political FactCheck.org (“APFC”).   FTS directs readers to an active link to the APFC site, claiming APFC “clarifies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.”  Here is how APFC summarizes this situation.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.

They go on to report that APFC staff personally examined Obama’s COLB before rendering this exact opinion.

Our conclusion:  Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

FACT: CONTACTED BY CONCERNED CONSTITUENTS PRIOR TO RATIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE IN FAVOR OF BARACK OBAMA,  MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INSISTED, ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK PROVED HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Some time after the general election on November 4, 2008 but before the Electoral College vote on December 15, constituents contacted their U.S. Senators and Representatives with concerns as to whether Barack Obama is eligible for POTUS under Article II, Section 1  of the U.S. Constitution.   Specifically, is he a natural born citizen?  Here is just a sample of the responses they received from these federal elected officials. (Special thanks to Citizen Wells.)

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader from Nevada:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

According to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, any person
serving in the United States House of Representatives must have reached
the age of twenty-five and must have been a citizen of the United States
for at least seven years, and any person serving in the United States
Senate must have reached the age of thirty and must have been a citizen
of the United States for at least nine years. In addition, Article II,
Section 1 mandates that a person must have reached the age of thirty-five
and be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President of the
United States.

As you mentioned, some reports have surfaced that my former colleague,
President-Elect Barack Obama, is not a natural-born American citizen.
These reports are false. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in
Honolulu, Hawai’i. His birth certificate is a matter of public record
of the State of Hawai’i and is available online through various news
sources, as well as on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit
Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org. I hope you
find this information useful.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United
States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on
the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at
http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.

U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat from Washington:

Thank you for contacting me about claims about President-Elect Obama’s
status as a natural-born citizen, as required for admittance to U.S.
Presidential office by the Constitution. As always, I appreciate hearing
from you.

As you know, President-Elect Obama has indeed provided his actual paper
Certification of Live Birth to several media organizations, as well as
the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan “Factcheck.org” website and the
conservative news website World Net Daily, which reported that a “WND
investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts
also found the document to be authentic.” In fact, all of these groups
have recognized that the President Elect’s actual birth certificate
document is real and genuine.

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from
you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Hawaii became a state on August 21st,
1959. President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961,
making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section
of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. President-elect
Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely
available online. This document has been authenticated by a
variety of sources, including…the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President-elect Obama’s
citizenship. It is always good to hear from you. As you know, some have suggested that President-elect Barack Obama  may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. During the presidential campaign,
President-elect Obama voluntarily posted his birth certificate on his
campaign website indicating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.

U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan:

From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov senator_levin@levin.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
To: xxxxxxxxx.com
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:53 PM

Dear xxxxxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding
President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you
sharing your thoughts with me.

As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen
of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen
of the United States. Thank you again for writing.

U.S. Representative John Tanner, Democrat from Tennessee:

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the allegations that
President-Elect Barack Obama was not born in the United States. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this
issue.

There are claims that President-Elect Obama was born in Africa and not
in the United States which would make him ineligible to become
president. The Obama campaign released a scanned copy of his birth
certificate in June 2008, but many people believe it was a forgery.
The non-partisan organization Political Fact Check (this group monitors
the factual accuracy of political information) has examined Mr. Obama’s
birth certificate and they report that it is valid and he is a U.S.
citizen. I have included a link to a Newsweek article that was written
on this subject and includes links to pictures of the birth certificate
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599).

(Note from jbjd:  Newsweek credits that article to a member of FactCheck.org staff. )

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me and I hope you will feel
free to contact our office with any issues of concern to you in the
future.

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland:

Thank you for getting in touch with me. It’s nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/us-constitution-hall-of-shame/

(Interestingly, none of the legislators cited as a reason to guarantee BO’s Constitutional qualification, the fact that NP signed that   Official Certification of Nomination swearing he was eligible for the job.)

In sum, between June 2008, when BO admitted questions had been raised as to his Constitutional eligibility for President; and August, when NP signed his Official DNC Certification of Nomination; the only ‘evidence’ he proffered to establish his  qualifications was that COLB he posted on FTS, on which basis Congress ratified the voting by the Electoral College, citing as their reason, ‘FactCheck said, he’s for real.’

FACT: ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK DOES NOT CHECK FACTS.

See “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS.’”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers