Does news about the Obamacare fraud affect your perception of the birthers?

“Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!” — Shakespeare, Othello

Those of us paying attention have long known that Obama lies . . . and lies . . . and lies.  Up until recently, his known lies fell into the area of ex post facto cover-ups:  “I didn’t know my minister and mentor was a raving anti-American, antisemitic loon.”  “I didn’t know we were sending guns illegally into Mexico.”  “I didn’t know that anything untoward was occurring in Benghazi.”  “I didn’t know that the IRS had appointed itself the partisan police arm of a permanent Democrat party federal government and was harassing and silencing political opposition.”  “I didn’t know that my government was spying on everyone, whether within or outside of the United States.”  Obama told more of these lies than any other president in American history, but the lies were a known quantity, along the lines of Nixon’s and Clinton’s CYA lies.

But there’s a different class of lie, and one that people find less forgivable than those lies reflecting the all-too-human impulse to avoid censure or punishment.  These are lies knowingly told in order to get people to change their position, to their detriment, and to the liar’s benefit.  The legal word for this kind of lie is “fraud.”  These lies aren’t after-the-fact cover-ups.  They are manipulative scams intended to force people to do things they would never do were they in possession of the actual facts.

Obamacare now stands as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and Obama is at the center of this fraud.  For those still murmuring “Bush lied, people died” — sorry, folks, but this is different.  Yes, Bush definitely wanted to go to war, but he was relying on the best data available, which was that Hussein had WMDs.  Other world leaders had the same data — they just didn’t want to go to war.

In the case of Obamacare, though, the data was irrefutably in the opposite direction of the lies told.  Contrary to Obama’s statements that happy people could keep their policies, doctors, and hospitals, all while paying less, everything he said was a deliberate lie intended to trick the American people into buying into a program that would not — and could not — perform was promised.

With this in mind, I’d like to know if you now have a different opinion of those people who believe that Obama lied about his birth certificate.  Are you more likely to believe them now than you were before learning about the Obamacare fraud (as opposed to the hundreds of previous Obama lies)?

An interesting theory about Obama’s birth certificate

I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  I also believe that there’s something in or about that birth certificate that he doesn’t want to acknowledge.  A reader who used to work in social services “back in the day,” has an interesting theory, and allowed me to reprint it here:

I just read your excellent piece about Obama’s selective defense of his “integrity.”

I worked in adoptions social work in both Maryland and Tennessee between 1964 and 1967. During that period, at the time of a child’s adoption, both states pulled the original birth certificate, sealed it, and issued a new birth certificate with all the data the same, but substituting the adoptive parent(s)’s name and the adopted child’s new name for the originals. All other birth records were also sealed. If Hawaii followed the same practice, this would have happened at the time of Obama’s adoption by the Indonesian step-father. There literally would be no original birth certificate available without all parties’ permission.

I have a good friend who was born in Washington State during this same time frame. She has traced her birth situation back to the hospital where she was born. That is still on her adoptive birth certificate. But because her birth mother has not given written permission, the docs are still sealed and my friend will never learn the identity of her birth mother or the circumstances around which she was surrendered for adoption.

I have long assumed that the available birth certificate for Obama is in his adoptive father’s name, and since that didn’t fit the narrative of his public persona, he wouldn’t sign for its release and he produced that computer generated phony when things got too hot.

Of course I could be wrong, but if I had to place a wager, that’s how I would wager.

If my reader is correct, this theory would explain a great deal.

Obama is selective when it comes to challenging attacks against his integrity

Obama said that he shoots skeet all the time at Camp David.  Conservatives laughed.  Obama couldn’t let conservative deniers impugn his veracity, so he authorized the White House to release a photo purporting to show him shooting at some very low-flying skeet at Camp David this past August:

Obama shooting

There you have it:  Obama was so upset about accusations that he lied about skeet shooting that he immediately released evidence supporting his statement.  This sensitivity to his reputation for truthfulness doesn’t square with Obama’s ongoing refusal to release his original birth certificate.  Wouldn’t you think that Obama would be more even intent upon proving his veracity when it comes to his constitutional bona fides than he would be about whether he shoots little flying saucers?

Likewise, Obama has never seemed interested in refuting conservative sneers when it comes to his much vaunted, but completely unproven, academic record.  Obama and his friends say it’s good, but conservatives say that his spoken fund of knowledge is inconsistent with good high school and college grades.  Wouldn’t you think that Obama would want to refute this conservative smear against his integrity?

Given the peculiar absence of evidence about the circumstances of Obama’s birth and his academic qualifications, especially when compared with his immediate and triumphant proof that he’s handled a gun, one might be inclined to think that Obama hasn’t defended himself in those areas because he can’t.  That is, he cannot prove that his birth certificate comports with his statements about his life history (whether it shows he was illegitimate, another man’s child, or born outside of the US) nor can he prove that his academic records do not support his, and his supporter’s, claims about his intellectual acumen and accomplishments.

I know that, with Obama’s reelection, the time for harping on his birth (never mind its possible constitutional implications) and his schooling (which really is irrelevant by now) has long passed.  Still, his differing responses to these different attacks on his integrity are thought-provoking, if nothing else.

If it seems too good to be true….

Is it a coincidence that, as the birther issue reaches an ever larger audience, a purported Kenyan birth certificate, complete with raised seal, suddenly pops up?  My suspicion is that the birth certificate is about as reliable as those emails I routinely receive from Nigeria, assuring me that, if I just hand over my bank account or credit card numbers, I’ll receive millions of dollars . . . very soon.  Much as it would be rather fun if it were the real birth certificate, even if I were a wild-assed gambler, I’d bet against this one.

Speaking of the birther issue, Dave Freddoso makes a very good point about the media’s collective guffaw when it comes to the birthers:

Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are “not sure,” according to this poll.

But before liberals begin to smirk, here’s a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.

So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It’s a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they’re out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier — which is probably within the margin of error.

The only real difference between the birthers and the truthers is that the birthers’ claim is actually susceptible to proof.  If Obama releases his long form certificate it’s all over.  By not doing so, he waves a red flag in front of the birther bulls so that the media can target them for public ridicule.

Who’s crazy now?

In today’s American Thinker, James Lewis says Americans have to stop being so polite and start calling crazy ideas by their true name.  Alan Keyes manifestly agrees:

Regarding Keyes’ points, I have a couple of my own.  Keyes is 1000% (yes, I meant 1000) right about the economic and border insanity that Obama is trying to foist on the American people.  He’s right about the fact that, even for a pro-abortion type, Obama exists on the extreme, brutal edges.  He’s right that this way lies madness and that we have to speak out about this craziness.

But then there’s the birther issue, which occupies the middle third of Keyes’ talk.  Certainly Keyes has something of a point.  While we all know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Obama’s unwillingness to make available substantive documentary evidence about his birth, childhood or education is stubborn verging on weird.*  The absence of smoke here is so unnatural that it almost seems to prove that there was a fire.

As for me, while I’m perfectly willing to accept that Obama was born on Hawaii in 1961, I’d just like him to be more forthcoming about his past.  It’s Obama’s reticence, not his mysterious place of birth, that bugs me.

Having said all of that about Obama’s closely kept secrets, however, I absolutely do not want conservatives to go down the birther path.  I don’t mind that various committed individuals are working in a low key way to discover what’s going on.  First of all, there’s nothing in a free country I can or should do to stop them.  Second of all, if they turn up nothing, there’s no harm and no foul as to the larger conservative movement, while if they turn up something . . . well, that would certainly make things interesting.

The problem remains, however, that for the conservative movement as a whole being a birther looks insane.  And sadly, while we conservatives are too polite to call the ideas animating the Democrats crazy, they have no such constraints.  Every media outlet will cheerfully use the birther issue as proof positive that we’re mad as March Hares — and that being the case, all of our ideas must be discounted.

Nor will anyone out there be amenable to the concept, well known in probate law, that a monomania, even a patently ridiculous one, is not an indicator of insanity.  In probate, even if a man is convinced that all dogs are actually agents from Venus who are planning an attack on earth, that isolated fact is irrelevant if it can be shown that he understands the nature of his estate and the identity of his heirs.

Being tetched as to one thing does not necessarily mean being tetched as to all things.  Once conservatives look insane, though, no one will take seriously their sane views on the economy, national security, immigration, etc.  Giving the birthers free rein will consign conservatives to that part of the dust bin of history in which the crazy people live.

Giving up on this point is not just a matter of placating the press.  There are real virtues to appearing sane on the issues of imminent importance — the ones that affect voters’ pocketbooks.  Our manifest rationality will highlight the fact that Democratic policies function effectively only in an alternate university, one in which (a) a broke government can spend its way out of debt; (b) government control of health care doesn’t mean that citizens abandon privacy and quality, and are instead subject instead to scary rationing and personal control; and (c) the bad guys of the world, rather than having their blood lust inflamed by groveling weakness, are instead assuaged and pacified by that same submissiveness.

One other pragmatic points is the fact that, even if Obama is kicked out, we still have Biden, Pelosi, Reid and Al Franken to contend with.  Nothing changes, but the insanity increases.  How much better, then, to focus on the rational world where the outcomes are real, and the effect on the American people profound.

That’s all, except that I have to end with an appropriate song:

________________________________

*As I understand it, although I’m very willing to be educated, the Hawaii short form birth certificate Obama has made available is not an original document showing his birth.  Instead, it is a contemporary document (the type face alone proves that it is a modern, not a historic document, not to mention the code at the bottom, showing it to be an official form created in 2001) reflecting a bureaucratic reality:  In 1972, Hawaii did away with its former practice of issuing two types of birth certificates, one of which reflected actual births and one of which retrofitted off-island births.  In other words, the current document does not tell us what the facts were on the ground in 1961.  As of 1972, all those birth certificates were merged into a single on-island category.

(Click on image to enlarge)

I assume there’s a flaw in this logic *UPDATED — there are a couple of major flaws*

I haven’t banged the gong very much about Obama’s birth certificate, proving that he’s a natural born citizen.  He’s authorized the production of a copy of a document from a Hawaiian hospital, and that seems to have set the matter at rest.  In any event, there’s no getting around the fact that most people view this issue as a tar baby, one that’s likely to do more damage than good to those pursuing it.

Having said all that, I periodically get things in the mail that just make me go “hmmm.”  The following email is one of those things.  The full disclosure here is that I have absolutely no idea whether a single fact in the email is true.  I therefore have no idea whether the conclusion has any validity whatsoever.  I simply pass it on to you guys for your insight, analysis, factual data, deconstruction, etc.:

Whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural-born” American (as required by the Constitution to be president) can be resolved by Obama’s answering two simple questions.

Perhaps Fox News’ brave correspondent Major Garrett, who yesterday bluntly asked Obama why it took him “so long” to criticize Iran’s vicious crackdown on its people, will pose these straight-forward queries at the next White House press conference:

1) “How did you (one year after becoming a teenager) arrive at age 20 in New York City in early June 1981 – without the price of a hotel room in your pocket, according to your own book – suddenly come up with the airfare for a round-the-world trip one month later?”

2) “Once you were on a plane, shuttling between the U.S., Indonesia, and Pakistan, what passport did you offer as you passed through each country’s Customs and Immigration?”

President Obama’s answers would make the simmering but media-ignored debate over his citizenship disappear. They also might make Obama himself disappear. Here’s why:

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities: 1) He traveled with a U.S. passport; 2) a British passport, or 3) an Indonesian passport. Which is it?

Q: Is it possible Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?
A: No way. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981. If Obama insists with a straight face that he carried a U.S. passport, he must be asked a final question: “Who in the State Department or other U.S. government agency under Ronald Reagan authorized you to break the law against traveling to Pakistan?”

Conclusion (unless Reagan personally blessed the peripatetic young Marxist From Parts Unknown): When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British or Indonesian passport.

A British passport would prove he was born in Kenya August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. An Indonesian passport would indicate he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian stepfather in 1967.

Hat tip:  Expreacherman

UPDATE: Rhymes with Right has the flaws:

Actually, it would have been possible for him to claim dual citizenship with the UK because of his father’s citizenship, or possibly with Indonesia due to his step-father. Neither would in any way impact his status as a natural-born citizen under the US Constitution — any more than an American bishop traveling on a Vatican passport is not a natural-born US citizen, or an American Jew with an Israeli passport is not a natural-born citizen.

Next line of argument?

[snip]

This document might also help show that the email in question is bogus.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

Clearly it was not illegal to travel there.

And remember, he was traveling with an Pakistani citizen who had the money and connections to travel to the US for college. Such an individual (or his family) would likely have had the connection to get him the appropriate visa to travel in the country.

You guys do the work, so I don’t have to, right?

The Obama birth certificate kerfuffle

Bob Owens slices and dices the various arguments that Obama is ineligible to serve based on problems with his birth.  I would like to see Obama produce his birth certificate, not because I think it would establish that he should be stripped of his presidency elect status, but because being a natural born citizen is one of only three Constitutional requirements for the presidency.  In other words, I think every presidential candidate should be required to prove this bottom-line prerequisite for the highest office in the land.

Article II, Section 1

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.

As it is, the most plausible reason I’ve heard for Obama’s rigid refusal to produce the certificate is that he is illegitimate.  Although I doubt anyone in America would hold that against him, it kind of destroys the Dreams of my Father narrative that propelled him to fame.

Prerequisites to the presidency *UPDATED*

Obama refuses to release his birth certificate. I’m with the Campaign Spot in believing that it shows nothing more than some embarrassment about the fact that his birth name was a Motown sounding Barry, rather than the hip, foreign sounding Barack.

Be that as it may, given that a prerequisite for the Presidency is a “natural born citizen,” it’s worth asking this question: When the citizens ask for it, on what possible basis can Obama refuse to make a copy of his birth certificate available?

Hat tip: LGF

UPDATE:  Please see comment no. 1 to this post, in which suek introduces some fascinating information.   Wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama was disqualified from the race for failing to meet the most basic prerequisite for the American presidency?