We mentioned this issue way back in July, and it is still coming up.

Here is some more info from American Thinker:

Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it’s possible that he’s not a natural born citizen, isn’t eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate — or any other “gate” in history?
 

Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?
 

Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you’d hate to ruin your investment?
 

Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you’d be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?
 

Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who’s convinced something’s not right, but you’re afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?
 

Fear not!  Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.
 

Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he’s just “another politician.”  Here’s the outline:
 

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

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

 

2.  Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
 

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”
B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.“  That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.
C.  The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.  Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children.  Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life. 

 

1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today.  However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:  “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”
3.  Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently.  From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official:  “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”

 

3.  It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama’s records.  If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed.  Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing.  Obama’s refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.
 

4.  Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate.  This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President.  To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution.  If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.
 

A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed.  Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended.  Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn’t make sense.  Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing.  There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn’t disclosed because:

 

1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);
3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a “victim.”  This would energize his supporters.  This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy.  Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion.  But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he’s not only just that, but a real pro at it.  This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.

 

B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution.  See, “Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?“  Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen.  Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions.  See, “Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.” Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

 

The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what’s the downside of disclosing?  This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one.  The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people’s watchdogs aren’t.
 

The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.

2 Comments »

Is that a question you want answered? Do you think you know the answer? We sure don’t! Look at who he is appointing! Obama’s has been going around saying “We need change, we want change”. All people I talked that were pro-Obama would tell me, “You see, Obama is not corrupted by Washington politics yet, so he is a better choice.” Well, after looking at who Obama is appointing to positions, I don’t think he really wants change. (He just wants to make sure that the Clintons are happy). Read the snippet from MSNBC below.

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts.

Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America’s top diplomat, her associates said Wednesday.

Obama is ready to announce that his his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department’s No. 2 when Clinton’s husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff , is another veteran of the Clinton White House.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama’s primary choice to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department, several news organizations reported Thursday. The New York Times, citing Democrats with knowledge of the process, said Napolitano was about to be offered the job. The Washington Post also reported that she was Obama’s choice.

Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, who was national finance chairman for Obama’s presidential campaign, is his leading choice for commerce secretary, the Times reported. The newspaper said Pritzker was in the final stages of vetting by Obama’s transition team.

Does that sound like change to you! Not only is he putting Washington insiders in position, he is putting the main people of the Clinton White House BACK IN POSITION!!!! DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CHANGE!!! NO!!!
Sound off in our new poll on the sidebar.

No Comments »

Obama has made many promises. Do you think he will keep them?

Here are some of what he has said about taxes.

It’s time for change. And let me tell you exactly what that change will look like. Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and seniors and small businesses who deserve it. Take a close look at the tax cuts I’m proposing and the special interest giveaways that my opponent is proposing, because that will tell you everything you need to know about who we’re going to put first as President.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working Americans.

I will reward work through a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 for American workers and $1,000 for working families. Because when I’m President, we’ll rewrite the tax code to work for the middle class - not Washington lobbyists. That’s change.

I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner’s tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That’s another $500 each year for most middle class families. That’s change.

I will make sure our seniors can afford to retire with the dignity and security they have earned. That’s why I will eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. This will end income taxes for 7 million Americans, at a savings of roughly $1,400 each year. That’s change.

I will make college affordable for every single American who has the talent and drive to go with an annual $4000 tax credit for anyone who commits to 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that’s how we’ll make college affordable for every American. That’s change.

I think we need to encourage growth. Senator McCain thinks we need to give $200 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, but not a single new tax break for small businesses - even though small businesses are the source of 80 percent of the new jobs in our economy. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-tech, high-wage jobs of tomorrow, and help them afford health insurance for their employees. That’s how America is going to compete. That’s how we’re going to build the middle class. That’s change.

We need a tax code that creates American jobs instead of shipping them overseas. You know, just this week we learned that if an American company creates jobs in the United States, they pay more than twice as much in taxes than if that same company creates jobs in China. So you pay more than twice as much to create jobs in Dover than Shanghai. That’s a direct result of what we’ve gotten from Washington year after year after year, and it’s time for that to change.

My opponent has voted for those tax breaks, and he’ll continue them as President. I will end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and start investing in American jobs and workers.

To pay for these tax cuts, I’ll stand up to special interest carve-outs, close corporate loopholes and offshore tax havens, and ask the wealthiest Americans to give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts. It’s time for folks like me who make over $250,000 to pay our fair share to keep the American promise alive for our children and grandchildren.

When you’re running for four more years of George Bush’s policies, it’s hard to run on your plans. So you make stuff up. You twist facts, and you don’t tell the truth - that’s what John McCain has done when it comes to my tax plan. So let’s be clear about what we are proposing.

My plan - all together - is a net tax cut. My plan will cut taxes to a smaller share of the economy than they were under President Reagan. Under my plan, income taxes for typical American families will be the lowest that they’ve been in more than a half century. Everyone in America - everyone - will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s.

Sound good? Yeah, its not bad. But will he keep them? He just promised not to raise taxes, but to actually CUT them for 95% of working people.  (he also wants to increase spending, but that is another story.)

Do you think he will keep his promises to the American people and to the rest of world? If so, we want to know what you think. And if you don’t think he will keep his promises, then we want to know what you think too. Please comment below.  You can also vote in the poll on the sidebar.

1 Comment »

By Pamela Meister 

From American Thinker:

Smokers could soon have a reason to rejoice: President-elect Obama is a smoker who has tried hard to quit the habit but just can’t seem to do it. His addiction could go a long way toward making smoking a fashionable pastime once again. Hey, reliable liberal and Time magazine columnist Michael Kinsley is just fine with The One’s habit. Not only does Obama’s need for nicotine show “he’s not a superman,” but quitting could affect one of his greatest assets: his “steely nerve.”

For decades, smoking has been under attack. While always somewhat of a dirty habit due to the smell and mess (not to mention the health risks that became known back in the 1960s), smoking used to be considered a rite of passage. Even women got in on the act in their quest for equality and while they may continue to carp about “equal pay,” they are certainly closing the gap with men in smoking-related diseases such as heart attack and stroke.
You’ve come a long way, baby.
Those who continue to smoke despite the well-known health risks have gained near pariah status in many places in the United States. In 24 states, smoking is banned in the workplace, including restaurants and bars. Other states have partial bans, a few have no ban at all. In some states, like California, smoking is even banned within 20 feet of any window, door or air intake of government buildings or buildings leased by government agencies. Individual counties and towns have also taken it upon themselves to ban smoking in parks, on beaches, and in apartment and condo buildings.
It’s hard to be a smoker in the 21st century. Full disclosure: I am a former smoker. I’m generally okay with bans in public buildings, but balk a bit at the bans in public outdoor spaces and apartments. Pretty soon, it seems as though while cigarettes themselves will be legal, smoking them will not. Why not go all the way and get it over with?
For years I’ve been calling Obama’s particular brand of confidence chutzpah. My bad. Besides, I thought Obama was the Messiah, not a superman. I guess even modern saviors must be allowed to have their vices. Jesus enjoyed wine; Obama enjoys tobacco. Same diff, right?
You know, Bill Clinton enjoyed cigars. Unfortunately for smokers, that didn’t do much for their cause. But Obama’s cult status could be a boon to not only smokers but to tobacco companies in general.
In Britain, they have a Royal Warrant system wherein the warrants “are a mark of recognition to individuals or companies who have supplied goods or services for at least five years to HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh or HRH The Prince of Wales.” Those products are marked with a royal seal which, one would assume, is a positive marketing tool.
Maybe the new agent of Hope and Change could come up with a similar system. Products that he and the First Family use exclusively could receive The One’s seal - possibly the stylized “O” used during the campaign. Imagine the cigarette brand lucky enough to receive an “O” on its packaging, right next to the Surgeon General’s warning that “Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.” Since it’s common knowledge these days that Obama can do no wrong, Obama supporters may well rush to the local smoke shop to stock up on Camels, Marlboros, Kool, Benson & Hedges, or whatever brand Obama prefers.
For those who can’t wait to find out, since the press was so efficient at ferreting out all of Sarah Palin’s dirty laundry and airing it during the campaign, finding out which brand Obama smokes should be a cinch.
And all those parents who were proud to have their children sing odes to Obama that were posted on YouTube will just have to suck it up when they discover that their children have taken up the habit of smoking. “Obama does it!” will be their snarky retort. And who can argue with that?
In the meantime, perhaps the government should consider lifting the ban on smoking in federal buildings. After all, the White House is a federal building. You wouldn’t want for our leader to have to suffer the indignity of sneaking out the back door just to grab a quick smoke, would you?

1 Comment »

Well, the next four years will be interesting. We will be keeping this site going for the next four years, and we will see who wins next. With a democratic congress and senate, and president, people will be sick of them by the next election. Though the damage done will be hard to turn around, America is strong, and will rebuild itself, starting as soon as Obama is out of office.

http://www.youvotedforhim.com/

2 Comments »