« First Pitch President - A Very Funny Email | Main | Classy Move By Henry Louis Gates »

Friday, 31 July 2009



To answer your questions in the last paragraph, (although I've already answered them in your original Birther column), BHO can't release the original Birth Certificate because if he was born out of the USA, he's not eligible to be POTUS. And he probably lied on his college records saying he was a foreign born student for student aid reasons, so he can't release the BC if he was born in the USA either.

Rational Debate

I just wanted to sincerely thank Tommy De Seno for writing his article and fox for picking it up. Its about time someone laid the blame exactly where it belongs - in Obama's lap.

When I first ran across the natural born citizen issue, I thought there surely couldn't be any basis to the claims. I sighed and rolled my eyes a bit. I believe that was before 'they'd' even started labeling anyone who so much as questioned the issue as 'birthers.' Even so, I DO hold our constitution in high regard, and am very much one for facts and logic over assumptions and speculation. So I rolled my eyes again, and started to take what I intended to be a very brief look into the basis behind the claims.

At which point I was quite shocked to find out that there are actually a number of different apparently legitimate concerns. Several of those were pointed out in Mr. De Seno's article. Others get fairly complicated legally and in terms of what the laws actually were at the time as opposed to what they are now, which all too many folks assume is the same thing -- or with regard to possible issues of multiple or dual citizenship, divided loyalties, and so on. Who knows if he actually does or doesn't qualify? I certainly don't.

Anyhow, since that time I've become more and more frustrated and even angered by the cavalier treatment of the issue by the mainstream media including all too often outright incorrect statements of supposed 'facts.' Not to mention I've become utterly horrified that something so basic as constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates turns out to be apparently almost impossible to ascertain, is not ensured by those in the system responsible for doing so, and cannot even be determined through our court system when those who ought to verify eligibility fail to do so?!?

Now its gone so far that a member of the military called to active duty refused on the basis that to follow the order would be illegal since Obama isn't legitimately the Commander in Chief. Does Obama then provide evidence? No, the military rescinds the activation orders! What sort of precedent does that set? Certainly not a good one.

For Obama to fail to immediately pony up proof of his eligibility for office on request is inexcusable. For him to not only fail to do so, but to fight release of the relevant documentation is conduct grossly inappropriate conduct for someone in the Office of the President of the United States and acting as Commander in Chief of our military. Its downright Orwellian considering all of his claims of openness and transparency. It puts to shame his claims of being post-partisan and a 'uniter' not a 'divider' because this issue almost immediately set up a hue and cry of supposed racism, right-wing nut-job conspiracy theorist Republicans, and so on -- charges which are often leveled quite incorrectly. For him to allow it to go on this long, and to this extent just leaves me utterly speechless.

In all of this Obama holds the ultimate blame -- he could fix this in two seconds flat, and yet he refuses to do so even tho it is required by the very Constitution he swore to uphold. What does that say about the value of his word, his commitments, his trustworthiness, his oath?


So Obama is "guilty until proven innocent"? Nice. Sort of like what we did to Iraq in the run up to the war. "Despite not having any WMD, prove to us that you do not have WMD we accuse you of having them"

How about YOU nut jobs on the right do two things:

1. Prove beyond any doubt that OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA (or any place outside the U.S.)

2. Show me the original copy of Sarah Palin's high school diploma


Obama can't fix this in 2 seconds flat. Despite any evidence he would put forth, you know this story is not going away. Iraq submitted 19,000 pages of documents proving they did not have WMD. We blotted out the parts where they stated they did not have WMD and gave them back the report and said, "you're lying".

You don't want him as president. It's that simple. You can't impeach him so the birth certificate looks attractive.


I don't know, I think you're being a little thin-skinned here. All MM did was attempt to disprove the point you were making about the birth announcement; I don't see where that dragged you into the debate and further than to the extent you dipped your feet in the water.

And as far as taking you out of context, they pretty much stick to that one point; there's no indication they accuse you of being a birther.

But beyond that, I don't have the answer to this, but did Obama's parents immediately move back to Hawaii after he was born? His birthday is Aug. 4, a Friday, and the birth notice appeared in the Sunday, Aug. 13 edition.

That means the health department would have probably submitted the announcement no later than Friday, Aug. 11. That's five business days from the time he was born in which the Obamas would have to have gone from Kenya to Hawaii, submitted the proper paperwork, had it approved by the health department and have the department submit it to the newspaper.

And that's assuming that Obama's mom hopped out of her hospital bed right after he was born and went home, before flying from Kenya to Hawaii. Did that happen in 1961? Were women discharged that quickly?

And do we know of any state government that works that fast?

Also, where's Scattergood's proof of what the statute said in 1961? You'd have a point if Obama was born after 1981, but as it stands, the argument rests on a flimsy foundation.

Regardless, I'm not buying that all that bureaucracy gets navigated in five days.

Susan Sanders

Tony, thank you for bringing this issue to light in a logical, unbiased manner. You stated the facts, which are, that Obama has not proven that he is eligible to hold the office of President. John McCain did, why hasn't he? We, the American people, have a right to know that he is eligible. It is unfortunate that those of us who question this and demand an answer are called several names including loonies. ...because I believe in the rule of law and in upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, I don't believe that makes me a loon, I believe that makes me a patriot.

Rational Debate

Goffredo, this isn't analogous to a someone being accused of a crime - innocent until proven guilty simply isn't applicable here. Why? Because a candidate VOLUNTARILY decides to run for PUBLIC office, and when he or she does so, he or she is required to meet certain eligibility requirements. That may entail providing any and all relevant supporting documentation proving eligibility. If a candidate chooses to withhold those documents should they be requested, the candidate isn't eligible.

This becomes all the more important, and rigorous, for the highest office in the land, that of the President. For that office, there are constitutionally specified eligibility requirements. We're now in a very weird situation in that Obama's eligibility was never properly vetted, so he is now in office, and yet STILL refusing to provide the constitutionally required proof of eligibility.

Furthermore, its a complicated situation. There is the question of the long form birth certificate and what information is on it. What supporting hospital and doctor documentation exists. Totally aside from the BC issue, there's the issue of natural born citizenship -- something that apparently hasn't ever been completely defined beyond if BOTH parents were citizens of the US, AND you were born IN the US, then you are natural born -- anything else, and natural born status, as required by the Constitution, is questionable and would need to be resolved. And so on. Point is, there are multiple, quite legitimate issues.

While Obama couldn't clear the 'natural born' issue up quickly or by himself if I understand the constitutional laws involved, he certainly COULD clear up a whole host of issues in no time by releasing the documents required to prove eligibility in the first place. The long form birth cert. and any associated relevant hospital/doctor documentation. That would settle quite a few of the issue, almost all of them, immediately. Yet he's fighting against doing so in multiple court cases. WHY?

So you see, this isn't an 'innocent until proven guilty' situation what-so-ever. Its a matter of 'if you choose to put your hat in the ring, you have to be willing to prove you have the right according to the highest laws of our land.' YOU HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE GAME. Obama, who SWORE to uphold our Constitution and those very laws, is failing miserably on this count - and causing a lot of angst in the public, divisiveness, anger, partisanship, and now even problems with the chain of military command. Its utterly inexcusable behavior on his part.


I don't remember the day when Bush released his original birth certificate. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Can someone send the link?

Of course McCain did. I believe they still used the feather and ink jar at that point in history.


You guys need to give this up. Although I'm certainly not a NeoConned Republican, we need you guys to be legitimate. No one party should have such a strong majority in both WH and Congress. If you keep up with the birth certificate insane obsession, you are on track to lose even more in 2010. Most of you still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11...that's bad enough.

Don't you think Hillary did her homework during the campaign? Or that Rove would have found this out and pushed McSame into the WH.

You guys are not thinking logically.


Goffredo, I love your stuff. You're smart, you write well, and the points you make above are excellent. I just wish you weren't so insulting to others. Believe me when I say that it isn't necessary, particularly for someone as talented as yourself.

Please accept this criticism as sincerely offered. That said, please keep writing.

Tommy De Seno


Has Goffredo authored an opinion as to why Obama won't release original documents? Why does he spend tens of thousands of dollars defending the lawsuits when he can win them for free by releasing original documents?

That would be some good writing if he would do that.

Or if anyone else could do that.


I'll let Goffredo speak for himself.

That said, allow me to take my crack at your questions.

(1) The lawsuit you mention is almost certainly frivolous. I haven't seen any sort of proof that the President was born outside of the United States. I'm no lawyer, mind you, but I've watched enough Judge Judy to know that plaintiffs in a civil suit have some burden of proof.

(2) A sizeable chunk of the general public thinks that the people bringing the lawsuit are doing so simply to harass the President.

(3) Most folks think that the people bringing the lawsuit are motivated by political ideology and not because they believe that the President was really born outside of the United States. I'm willing to bet that most folks think that the plaintiffs are a bunch of mean SOBs that want to talk about anything other than the issues that matter most to them (e.g., the economy, health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.)

(4) Most folks think that the President has more important things to do with his time. They certainly don't think that the President should be devoting all that much time to this lawsuit. (See # 3 above)

(5) The President garners a measure of sympathy from the American people for having to deal with this sort lawsuit, particularly when he is making the case that he is busy dealing with a two-front war and an economy in the toilet, among other issues. (Again, see # 3 above)

(6) The cost of defending the lawsuit is peanuts and is certainly not coming out of the President's own pocket.

(7) Whatever the cost of defending this lawsuit, it is money well spent when one considers the "sympathy bounce" that the president receives in terms of public support whenever this story gets any sort of play in the media.

(8) If I had to guess, I would say that no one in America is happier to see this lawsuit proceed than President Obama himself. Heck, I bet the plaintiffs and their lawyers are now on the President's Christmas card list. Who knows, Tommy? Maybe you'll even get placed on that list this year? :-)

And, to answer your questions, that's my theory as to why President Obama isn't releasing the documents that you and some others would like to see him release. How'd I do?

By the way, I'm a fan of yours as well, Tommy. I'm also a Republican. That said, please stop talking about the President's birth certificate. It isn't helping the cause.

Rational Debate


1) there are about a dozen different lawsuits that have been filed, some still pending, a number of which have been dismissed.

2) those that have been dismissed have been dismissed on TECHNICAL grounds. Obama has fought them all on TECHNICAL grounds, not on merit. Estimates are that he has spent approx. $1 MILLION in legal fees trying to keep from releasing these basic documents proving his eligibility to have run for the office of the president. Eligibility which he was required to swear he met in order to be placed on the ballot to begin with.

3) Your numbers 2 and 3 have nothing to do with why Obama would fight releasing the documents.

4) Your number 4) isn't reason why the president shouldn't release the info, to the contrary, its reason why the President SHOULD release the documents. It would take him far less time, effort, and legal costs to simply release the documents than to continue fighting all of these cases.

5) What classy, confident, President of the United States, a Constitutional Lawyer to boot, sworn to uphold the constitution which REQUIRES him to be (and by extension, be willing to proove) a natural born citizen of the United States, sworn to PROTECT and SERVE ALL OF THE CITIZENS of the United States -- NOT just a portion with which he can 'gain sympathy' would even conceivably behave in such a fashion? Even worse, now there are members of the US military who are questioning his legitimacy as Commander in Cheif over this issue -- and yet he STILL is refusing to release the documents. How can he possibly justify this sort of behavior as the supposed leader of the free world?

6) Your number 6) A million bucks and counting may be peanuts to you, and probably now to Obama, but its sure not to the majority of Americans. Furthermore, are you saying that you think this is being paid for with TAXPAYER dollars? How could that possibly be justified? A candidate cannot use tax dollars to fight personal lawsuits.

7) Your number 7 may be 'smart politics' but its grossly inappropriate for the President of the US, who is sworn to represent ALL OF US.

8) Unfortunately, I wouldn't be too surprised if you aren't spot on with your number 8. So much for Obama's promises of being 'post-partisan' and 'healing the divisiveness that has torn us apart' and NOT being 'politics as usual' and being 'the most transparent administration ever' -- cripes, I'm sure there are a half dozen more Obama promises that he's breaking with this one issue alone. Obama supporters have no problem with this, or worse, think its good? Democrats have no problem with this or worse, think its good? They support a candidate, a president, who would behave in such a fashion and is willing to outright lie for political gain this way? But the 'birthers,' man, they are BAD. Its a very very sad state of affairs. Sigh.

Rational Debate

Ironic timing. My bet, it'll turn out to be fake. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764


ROFLMAO....please don't stop BIRTHERS, you are only helping our cause.

Forged Kenyan Document Splinters ‘Birther’ Movement

The forged birth certificate, released early on Sunday morning, was quickly picked apart by a growing online community of freelance “birther” debunkers. It was marked as an official February 1964 document from the “Coast Province” of the “Republic of Kenya.” But
there was no “Coast Province” in 1964, and Kenya was not yet a Republic. It was off by one year on the age of Barack Obama, Sr. It was signed by “E.F. Lavender,” which happened to be the name of a popular soap in Kenya, and “entered at the District Registry Office” on August 5, 1961, a Saturday when the office would have been closed. Late Monday evening, TWI reported that the certificate had significant similarities to an unrelated Australian birth certificate, which may
have been the source of the forgery.

Liberal Patriot

"Estimates are that he [President Obama] has spent approx. $1 MILLION in legal fees trying to keep from releasing these basic documents proving his eligibility to have run for the office of the president." -- Tommy De Seno

And who, pray tell, have made these "estimates?" Can you provide a source for this claim?

"Even worse, now there are members of the US military who are questioning his legitimacy as Commander in Cheif over this issue -- and yet he STILL is refusing to release the documents." -- Tommy De Seno

Some military members have disobyed lawful orders. Doing so is more than "questioning," it is a crime. Furthermore, the President isn't required to prove anything to members of the military before they are obligated to obey his orders. If you spent even a day in our military, you'd know that.

Tommy De Seno

Liberal Patriot -

The quotes you are attribuing to me were written by a commenter on this thread. Not by me. The post is clearly marked by the writer, so it's easy to see who wrote it - all you have to do is read. Since you can't read it, can I assume the high school you went to was free?

You are a Monmouth County employee. I expect better from you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

RightyBlogs Headlines