George W. Bush sealed the records of his father, President George HW Bush, as one of his first official acts. What in the world are they hiding?
How do we know that Bush Sr. wasn’t a double agent, working for the Russians? Until we unseal those records, nobody will know for sure.
All I’m saying is that there are still unanswered questions. Nothing unreasonable about that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What is it with you pal? The whole point is he’s not concluding anything. The only thing he’s said about 50 times is that it’s common knowledge that Barack Obama went to considerable lengths to render key documentation from his past inaccessible to the public. Either he did this in a drunken blackout, or because he was bored or, being a rather calculated and intelligent fella he did it because somewhere in those documents is SOMETHING he doesn’t want anybody to see. A nominally precocious 10 year old would nod their head in unavoidable agreement, but not you.[/quote]
Though you’ve clarified it well enough, just to be extra clear on what I conclude and have said that I conclude, as some either can’t grasp it or don’t want to.
On where he was born: I don’t know.
Personal guess, most likely is that he was born in Hawaii but the only documentation is the short-form birth certificate. Conceivably Obama may have been advised that this was not conclusive proof, as it could have been obtained merely by affidavit, and it was by this time not possible to find other evidences of his mother being in Hawaii at that date or very shortly before. It would have been clever of Obama to refuse access to his birth records – other than himself providing a copy of the short form – and claim to have a long-form birth certificate that he just wouldn’t let people see, as any opponent who might consider arguing he might not be natural-born as his mother could have falsely attested for the short-form would fear being made a fool by Obama then producing the long form. This at least is a possible reason for presenting the short form but denying access to any long form or any other corroborating records the Health Department might have. To me a possible reason that makes sense has more likelihood than claiming actions were taken for no real cause. So as a guess, to me it’s the best one, though far from certain. But for anyone interested in how I’d put my money, that is it, though not at any odds much worse than 50/50. In other words, my guess is most likely he actually was born in Hawaii but has a reason, for example the above, for hiding the long form or appearing to hide a long form, whether it exists or not.
For all I know there is a long form that does provide corroborating medical evidence that he was born in a specific time at a specific place in Hawaii, delivered by a specific physician; and he denies access to that and has devoted legal resources to preventing access for some reason that no one yet has been able to think of that makes sense.
Also for all I know he was not.
And for all other folk actually know – unless they think an affidavit-by-the-mother form is absolute proof as mothers never lie – he was not. So long as he has the other records sealed, it’s unknowable.
As to why he has sealed his kindergarten, college, and other medical records: I don’t know. A logical possible explanation for why he decided to seal them on deciding to run for President is that he considered some fact in them to be adverse towards becoming President.
But random firing of neurons (by which I mean something completely senseless) is a possible explanation. Others have been invited to provide sensible explanations of their own.
As to why his passport records are sealed: I don’t know.
A possible reason is that he considered some fact in them adverse towards becoming President.
As to whether he had dual citizenship as a child: This is certain. His own website during the campaign stated that his Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 (if I remember the age correctly: if not 21 it was close to that.) It also appears certain he had Indonesian citizenship, as he attended Indonesian schools as a child that required it.
There appears to be no evidence of his ever renouncing Indonesian citizenship, nor does it expire. He has never claimed that he has.
As to whether he employed this dual citizenship as an adult, he traveled to more than one other nation as a young man and it is hardly inconceivable that he may have used corresponding passports. It’s also not clear why he would necessarily have felt a reason to renounce Indonesian citizenship. Why would he? There’s no moral evil to maintaining it. Ordinarily there would be no good reason why not. Doesn’t mean he didn’t renounce it: but then again he’s never said that he has nor is there evidence that he has. So why on Earth assume it?
As to whether dual citizenship, particuarly employed as an adult, leaves one Constitutionally eligible for President is a legitimate question to which the answer is not necessarily yes. It is pretty clear that divided loyalties is precisely what the “natural born citizen” clause was designed to prevent.
Final note: On the birth certificate, if the only thing were that there were nothing but the short form, and the short form was attainable merely by the mother’s affidavit, I’d agree that it could well be viewed as overly suspicious to doubt that the stated place of birth was the real one.
But that is not all there is to it.
Let me give an analogy with, again, the driver’s license: a document where a person’s address, similarly, is supplied merely by affidavit and not verified by the state.
Let’s say that for some year quite some time back, another state believes I owe them income taxes because they found that year I was paid monthly by a company in their state.
I produce a driver’s license obtained that year giving a Florida address. Florida provided it merely on my affidavit.
Now the other state, if they know that there was no official investigation but all this is evidence of is that I then told Florida that that was my address, is going to say “Well that’s very good but what other evidence do you have that you were living in Florida that year? Utility bills perhaps?”
“Sorry, I had them sealed by court order.”
“Rent?” “Sorry, sealed.” “Uh, the rest of your DMV records? Perhaps you got a driving ticket that year?” “Nope, I had all my DMV records sealed except the driver’s license.” “School? Passport, perhaps?” “Wouldn’tcha know it, I had them sealed too.”
“How come you had all these sealed? That’s a great deal of trouble and expense to go to.”
“No particular reason… I just thought of it, and realized I could do it, so I did.”
“By the way, when did you get all these sealed?”
“Right after I found out you were investigating me for alleged back taxes owed.”
Now if I hadn’t gone and gotten all the other stuff sealed, the driver’s license would be fairly fair evidence that I lived in Florida on the date of applying. Maybe not all the rest of the year, but at that time anyway. Certainly, it ordinarily would be received as acceptable proof of address, and should be.
But when all this effort to hide every other piece of evidence is seen, then one reasonably figures that quite possibly I got all this hid because there is something to hide, and a reasonable possible explanation is that it’s related to residency and the tax issue. Certainly I’d be under suspicion given all the above.
But substitute Obama’s name for mine and then some just somehow can’t see it.
That’s my last post on this: I’ve explained it more than enough I think.
Like I said, your posts on this are nothing but conjecture.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A possible reason is that he considered some fact in them adverse towards becoming President.
[/quote]
Make that “irresponsible conjecture”.
Please stop embarrassing yourself. If you want to show support for conspiracy theories, you might think twice about doing it on this website, where you might have a stake in appearing rational.
Photos and details regarding Obama’s birth certificate can be found here. Sensible people would probably find this satisfactory.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
The official line is that the “Certification of Live Birth” short form that Obama put on his website would have noted if Obama was born elsewhere, meaning he couldn’t have been foreign born. I think that’s probably the final word on the issue unless Okubo is ignorant or lying:
You keep ignoring the possibility that the birth was recorded as occuring at home. He could have been born anywhere and his mother could have written in their home address on the form. The short form only proves that somebody attested to the fact that he was born in Hawaii, the long-form will tell us who, and from there we can decide on the likelihood of his mother lying.
[/quote]
I see no reason to assume the birth occurred at home or that Obama’s mother is lying. It’s possible she was, yes, but that doesn’t mean she definitely was.
[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Also, in reading the various quotes of Okubo’s that have been published, I do get the impression that she is ignorant on this subject.
[/quote]
Perhaps. I don’t think she’s gotten anything outright wrong. I’m going to trust her judgment on this until she’s proven to be untrustworthy or incompetent.
[quote]tedro wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Apparently Obama would have been a natural born citizen even if he was born abroad:
http://archives.chicagotribune…
We discussed this earlier and I have not seen anywhere else that says the law is retroactive.
Furthermore, the last line of your article makes an interesting comment.
Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress canâ??t make someone retroactively a citizen at birth
That is a question worthy of discussion on its own.
[/quote]
I think you’re right on the retroactivity, my mistake. Part of (g) was amended to apply retroactively from 1952, but not the section that applies to Obama.
As for the latter question, it’s certainly a legitimate, but it hardly seems interesting, except perhaps for its possible application as regards amnesty for illegal aliens etc.
@ Bill: I think K2000s reasoning on this is sound: It’s very likely Obama simply doesn’t want people from his private life being harassed.
Or maybe it’s a political ploy. What he’s doing is perfectly legal, but the firestorm it’s roused up is probably making him look better. People think birthers are crazy, so by not immediately extinguishing the issue he’s giving them rope to hang themselves with.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
I see no reason to assume the birth occurred at home or that Obama’s mother is lying. It’s possible she was, yes, but that doesn’t mean she definitely was.
[/quote]
I didn’t say the birth actually occured at home, I said it easily could have been registered that way. There is just as much evidence that the birth was registered as occuring at home, meaning we are relying solely on the word of his mother and a witness (read grandparent), as there is it occuring in a hospital where a doctor would have signed off on the birth certificate. Without the long form all we know is that the records say he was born in Hawaii, we have no idea who attested to the fact.
[quote]
Or maybe it’s a political ploy. What he’s doing is perfectly legal, but the firestorm it’s roused up is probably making him look better. People think birthers are crazy, so by not immediately extinguishing the issue he’s giving them rope to hang themselves with.[/quote]
Is it perfectly legal? The constitution clearly says he must be natural born, but it does not specify what must be done to establish the fact.
H.R. 1503 sponsored by Bill Posey would change this. The resolution would require all presidential candidates to prove eligibility with a birth certificate. This seems like common sense legislation that would simply prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Why do you think he is getting so little support for this? Why is the media blasting him about it? He has said that he fully believes Obama was born in Hawaii.
House just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution celebrating Hawaii’s 50th aniversary as a state, including language that acknowledges that Barak OBama was born in Hawaii. Rep. Bachman of Minnesota tried to hold it up but then voted in favor of it.
[quote]comus3 wrote:
House just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution celebrating Hawaii’s 50th aniversary as a state, including language that acknowledges that Barak OBama was born in Hawaii. Rep. Bachman of Minnesota tried to hold it up but then voted in favor of it. [/quote]
All part of the conspiracy…
Colbert is a Birther too!
Just to be clear, speaking for myself, this is not something I’m fixated on with this guy. He is an abomination to everything that made this country great regardless of where he was born.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just to be clear, speaking for myself, this is not something I’m fixated on with this guy. He is an abomination to everything that made this country great regardless of where he was born.[/quote]
Agreed. This birther nonsense is just that: nonsense.
And what is the endgame anyway? What would it prove, if true? What can you make of it, if true? A citizen couldn’t sue to enforce the constitutional provision.
I do think he’s hiding something, though I’m also pretty sure he was born in Hawaii but what difference does it make? There is an overabundance of what he’s not hiding enough to keep an army of honest critics busy in shifts around the clock.
Where he was born is down on the list of what makes him unqualified as a U.S. president in my view.
Not to mention that anybody who could bring action in this regard is on his side anyway.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do think he’s hiding something, though I’m also pretty sure he was born in Hawaii but what difference does it make? There is an overabundance of what he’s not hiding enough to keep an army of honest critics busy in shifts around the clock.[/quote]
In one sense, I agree, but not on the birth issue - but I will say this: one of the supposed pieces of “proof” that he is hiding his birth origin is that he won’t cooperate by giving up the goods.
On this point, why would he cooperate? It is no-brainer - his lack of cooperation (to the level of satisfaction demanded by the conspiracy theorists) keeps the wackos baying about the conspiracy, thus helping him out during a time when his support is sinking.
If I am Obama, I keep giving these moonbats something to be whipped into a frenzy about - it does nothing but serve my interests. Keeping these idiots in the public eye right at the time when the GOP is gaining some traction is nothing but a great move by Obama.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
On this point, why would he cooperate? It is no-brainer - his lack of cooperation (to the level of satisfaction demanded by the conspiracy theorists) keeps the wackos baying about the conspiracy, thus helping him out during a time when his support is sinking.
If I am Obama, I keep giving these moonbats something to be whipped into a frenzy about - it does nothing but serve my interests. Keeping these idiots in the public eye right at the time when the GOP is gaining some traction is nothing but a great move by Obama.[/quote]
Absolutely agree.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
Here you go. Basically exactly what I have been saying, except that it appears Ann Dunham’s signature wouldn’t even have been necessary. A grandparent could have claimed to have been present and sent in the birth certificate form by mail. It’s nice to finally see a publication addressing the possibility of attaining a birth certificate in this manner.
Again, this all shows that the short-form birth certificate proves nothing except that there is an original on file that provides the same information. We will not know who provided this information and therefore none of us can attest to the accuracy of the information until the long-form is released.
So T-bolt and sloth, while you are content believing Obama was born in Hawaii on his word alone, because let’s face it that is the best evidence available right now, I will assume he is hiding the fact that he was born abroad until the release of more pertinent records.
And of course you notice how these folk just consistently slide out of the matter of whether he is hiding also, or instead, his also being a citizen of Indonesia.
They’ve made it plain that they don’t care about what the truth may be in the sealed documents, or overall for that matter in this questions, only about defending “their man” and they are quite pleased that the courts are operating under the principle that an American citizen, or any group of American citizens, has no standing in whether the President is Constitutionally eligible for office.
And they’re so happy that, while the Justice Department I suppose would be considered to have standing, that oh-so-conveniently, Obama’s Justice Department just isn’t going to do that.
And to think these folk called others “Bush-bots,” and always had a principle that anything – even if clearly material that should not be released to those at war against us, as opposed to something like his own passport records – that was not released by Bush therefore, since he “hid” it, undoubtedly had information in it proving him criminal or impeachable. How ironic.
Intellectual dishonesty in others is, at least, always entertaining, so there is that anyway. And perhaps it’s just a personal idiosyncrasy, but I also always get a bit of amusement out of their “La, la, la, I have my fingers in my ears and can’t hear a thing!” method of protecting their cherished want-it-to-be beliefs that comes up so consistently on these subjects, particularly as to exactly when Obama ever renounced Indonesian citizenship or on what basis it should be concluded he never had it or that there is no rational reason to consider it even a reasonable possibility that should be examined.
The inevitably-following steering-away from that, or otherwise behaving precisely as if they heard or saw nothing, says much about the “thought” processes, and concern for determining the truth where it could readily be determinable, of these sorts. Namely, an utter lack of each.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I do think he’s hiding something, though I’m also pretty sure he was born in Hawaii but what difference does it make? There is an overabundance of what he’s not hiding enough to keep an army of honest critics busy in shifts around the clock.
In one sense, I agree, but not on the birth issue - but I will say this: one of the supposed pieces of “proof” that he is hiding his birth origin is that he won’t cooperate by giving up the goods.
On this point, why would he cooperate? It is no-brainer - his lack of cooperation (to the level of satisfaction demanded by the conspiracy theorists) keeps the wackos baying about the conspiracy, thus helping him out during a time when his support is sinking.
If I am Obama, I keep giving these moonbats something to be whipped into a frenzy about - it does nothing but serve my interests. Keeping these idiots in the public eye right at the time when the GOP is gaining some traction is nothing but a great move by Obama.[/quote]
Quite reasonable and something his handlers are skillful enough to think of, but that still doesn’t explain why he buried all this leading up to his bid for the whitehouse in the first place. I’m not entirely uninterested, but at this point it’s a sideshow at best. He is POTUS, he ain’t goin away until 2012 at the earliest because he owns everybody who could pursue it even if it were conclusively proven that he was the illegitimate son of Idi Amin.
Another matter a reasonable person could reasonably have concern about is that Obama is NOT the only person in the world who knows what information is contained in the sealed passport (and other) records and there are other persons who, regardless of court ordered sealings in the US, can uncover the facts behind some of the potential things that might be hidden there.
We’ve already seen that Obama is quick to hand out taxpayer money to or otherwise accomodate those who have something to hold on him. For example, just a couple of days ago, immediately after offending police across the nation, the Obama Administration announced a new $1 billion dollars from Washington for local law enforcement agencies across the country.
We don’t know, as Obama has hidden it from us, but suppose that the hidden fact in his US Passport records is that no US passport was used by him in his visits to other nations such as Pakistan and Kenya as a young adult.
Does anyone really think that Pakistan, for sure, can’t turn up proof of what citizenship Obama claimed when he visited their country? (Dictatorships are usually very sharp on keeping records.)
Does anyone really think that Indonesia has no record of whether Obama was ever a citizen of their country and if he ever renounced it or not?
Does anyone really think Obama doesn’t know that these countries, and perhaps others, if such is the case have something to hold over him? Thus having a possibly vast effect on US actions or inactions due to personal conflict of interest?
Yes, I do consider it intellectually dishonest of anyone to have it that American citizens have no legitimate interest in knowing, as it certainly is provable one way or the other, what Obama’s citizenship status is with regards to for example Indonesia, and what the truth is regarding his passport records and what citizenship he claimed as an adult in his foreign travels. It cannot be that the person holding that position believes it on its merits: rather such a person is arguing it only because of being a party hack, utterly dedicated to his Kool-Aid and utterly unconcerned with truth that should readily be determinable.
They truly don’t care what is or is not the case in these matters, and truly don’t care that the truth is being hidden by Obama regarding his passport records for no reason (other than the usually correct one that records are hidden because there is something in them needing hiding) that makes sense that has ever been provided by anyone. Which says all one needs to know about their mental processes, if that term can even be used, regarding political matters.
Of course, the above does not apply to anyone, pro-Obama or not, who in fact does care about the truth of what Obama’s citizenship status with other countries may be, and does think that such truth should not be hidden. However a number of posters have made clear that in both these regards, the answer for them is that they most certainly don’t, and they express hatred or at least insult for any individual who says the people should have access to this information. What their responses really show is having a pitifully closed mind, and hostility towards any who express thoughts or possibilities they don’t want people considering. Ah, the “tolerance” of the modern liberal for ideas and beliefs, and communications of these, that differ from their own.
Chuck Norris is asking for the birth certificate too.
Tiribulus and thunderbolt23 are right. You birthers are falling for the okie-doke.
There’s simply no evidence that SAD has lied about anything. You don’t want to believe BHO is POTUS so you’re embracing the slimmest of possibilities in order to maintain that fiction. You’re well within your rights to believe that, I have no evidence to convince you if you aren’t already convinced. But this is just a sideshow.