Powered by TypePad

« Michael Lewis Explains Goldman Sachs To The Rest Of Us | Main | We'll Ban Corked Bats... Later »

July 28, 2009


Bill Clinton

I did not have Malcolm with that woman.

Patrick Fitzgerald

So the Arizona NBC certification was a perjury trap?


Oh, geez, Barry does look a hell of a lot like Malcolm X.

William Teach
I can't believe I just read all of this nonsense. Don't you have something better to be doing?

Posted by: fastjm

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, for all you naysayers, why is it so outrageous to ask for something so simple as the long form BC that says where he was born? Are you afraid of what you may find out? Or just intellectually lazy?

And, for all those saying that this is a distraction, welcome to the wonderful world of multi-tasking!


"I can't believe I just read all of this nonsense. Don't you have something better to be doing?"

You obviously fail to see the irony in that statement fatjim.



I told you it was uncanny.

William Teach

Funny how, when it was the Senate declaring that McCain was eligible, the media was questioning it and saying it was "non-binding" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

Oh, and the DU posts up McCain certificate of live birth. Rather different than Obama's certification, eh? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6137386

Captain Hate

LOL PUK; I think you just confused it.

Frau Geburtsurkunde

' ... I think we will be waiting a while before we get a serious reporter to simply say to Robert Gibbs, "Let's all look at the long form birth certificate so we can try to move on." '

Helen Thomas is definitely out of patience with Herr Gibbels and serious enough to jump up and kick his lazy arse.

Fresh Air - Sue has proposed having Skipper Gates use Barack's DNA as the start of a presidential genealogy. That is one of Gates's gigs on the side and would certainly tell us if the Presidebt has slave blood from either Davis or Malcolm.

Sylvia - It is possible that Uncle Frank was a lot closer to both mother and son than we know. He did have more opportunity than Malcolm to father a child.


One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne.

Ann Dunham was born in 1942. Wiki says Davis married his 2nd wife in 1946. Ann Dunham would have been 4 years old when Davis married his 2nd.


Don't you have something better to be doing?

Ah, one of them.

Last year, boy's line leader. Last month, hall monitor. Last week, jr. crossing guard. You're off to a great start!

Take it easy, fatjim. That community organizer merit badge is in the bag...

I swear on your framed photos of Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Alinsky, Ayers, Pelosi & BHO.






Uncanny (Running off to see Sue!)


It is the narrative,false but accurate.Davis would have if synchronicity had occured.


I'm sure he would have PUK! The man sounds like a sexual predator to me.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

Not exactly a good role model for a young Barack Obama...in my opinion anyway.


I just think it's incredibly weird that The One hasn't just released the BC long form to be done with it.

But it makes sense when you realize what a control freak he is.

JM Hanes

OK, I'm going to take the liberty of going about as long as TM here, to wind up several points, take issue with a number of TM's earlier constructions, and then abandon ship.

Yesterday, goy posted an example of a "long form" Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth from 1963. Interestingly the difference between that document and the microfiche copies supplied on the Birther/Truther thread tells us quite a lot.

Technical Implications

Goy's version is printed on the same sort of official paper as the abridged Certification of Live Birth produced by the Obama campaign, and carries the same faint impression of an embossed seal (see "7e"). The formatting seems to confirm my assumption that the paper originals were scanned prior to any putative destruction. In contrast to the uniformity of the Certification data fields, this appears to be the image of an actual filing (or a positive of a microfiche), which has variably sized, numbered fields, into which actual data was typed into the appropriate boxes, not entered digitally as in the Certification. Perhaps most significantly, the substrate here suggests that it would be just as easy to produce a copy of the Certificate on demand, as it would be to print out the "short" form Certification.

Certifications are designed for wider circulation than original Certificates. The short form can be produced for anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate interest in confirming the basic facts of an individual's birth. That sort of barebones identification is sufficient for most purposes, and represents a huge savings in terms of the time/$$ required to enter all the redected material into a Certification database by hand. Given the lower threshold of access to the Certification, restricting production of the redacted material to the listed individual and immediate family, makes sense as a security measure to protect the individual's privacy and minimize potentetial identity theft. The idea that such information is simply not available, given existing demand (acknowledged in Health Dept. reglations) for details in genealogical circles, is just not credible.

Fields of Interest

1 - Child's name
8 - The father's name and related info which follows.
7f - Mother's Street Address
23 - Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration

From the Vital Records DrJ linked to last night, it sounds like there are not a lot of obstacles to amending a birth certificate within a year of birth, and a number of common reasons for doing so. In response to questions about listing Obama Sr.'s race as "African," a Health Dept. Official stated that they just accept parental representations, and there is no reason to think that information in any number of additional fields is simply supplied by the mother or both parents, not necessarily vouched for by the "Attendant" or anyone else. If the Health Department in the 60s was actively encouraging the establishment of legal paternity, as they do now, adding a father's name might be the easiest of amendments, and absent the kind of DNA evidence now available, could only have been based on maternal or paternal say so.

If the birth certificate were amended ex post facto to reflect the Obama paternity, it would almost surely require an amended surname, assuming the original would most likely have been listed as Dunham, all of which would presumably be indicated inconveniently in field 23.

Contra TM

Polifact, linked by one of our anti-birthers yesterday, states that the reporter who came across the birth announcement -- printed in both the Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 18 and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on the 19th -- says that the "newspaper officials" he contacted "confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health." If that was true nearly 50 years ago, not just today, it seems to eliminate the grandparents as a source source for the newspaper announcements, so we're back to the Birth Certificate, alone. I'm not at all sure the grandparents would qualify as authorized parties seeking to amend the original filing, something which might be would be worth checking.

Also contra Tom's speculation, I should think that a father's unknown status would, in fact, be the most effective defense against any future custody battle! It seems far more likely to me that the most compelling reason for any alteration would have been the possible pretense that Dunham was married when she gave birth. While Hawaiian standards might have differed, in most of the lower 48 back in the late 50s and early 60s, unwed motherhood could mean near permanent social ostracism. In that regard, it would be interesting to know what Dunham listed as a home address. "As I've Always Said"(!), I think it's entirely possible that Dunham (set loose in Hawaii for the first time, right after graduating from high school) didn't know who the father was until Barack had actually been born, or alternatively had a youthful fling with an exotic fellow student from Kenya which was never on a marriage trajectory till the pressure of pregnancy of familial suasion was brought to bear.

Marriage in Name Only

There are plenty of reasons to believe that the Dunham/Obama marriage was a sham (including Michelle Obama's apparent reference to Obama's single mother, per bad); it was certainly a marriage in name only. Per TM in Shorter Marshall:

"Since the happy couple did in fact separate a few years later the possibility of a separation may not have been utterly beyond their imagining in 1961."

The physical separation of Obama and Dunham occurred almost immediately. Within six months of Barack's birth, Dunham was already living in Washington, attending the University of Washington -- which presumably means that she must have left Hawaii even earlier than that. Dunham did not move back to Hawaii, till after Obama Sr. had left for Harvard. I don't know what residency requirements might have applied, but it's conceivable that Dunham moved back to Hawaii in order to file for divorce there, and then stayed to finish her undergraduate work. Alternatively, perhaps she had always preferred the University of Hawaii, but only felt comfortable actually taking up residence there, once Obama Sr. was several thousand miles away in Boston.

For his part, Obama Sr. was not your father's Daddy. He already had a wife back in Kenya, he seems to have shown minimal interest in Barack Jr, with whom he "officially" (or supposedly) lived for a mere few months, at most. I don't remember whether Dunham's sojourn included any visits to Hawaii before she moved back, but I have the impression Obama, himself, never showed up in Washington State. He decamped for Harvard directly, and once divorced, headed home to his Kenyan family.

I believe there may be evidence of the Obama's divorce floating around; I don't recall seeing any evidence or announcements of their marriage. If it were a sham, I wouldn't think they'd have chosen a date that fell after Dunham was already 3 months pregnant. OTOH, they could hardly predate the purported first meeting in Russian class, although I don't know precisely when that is said to have occurred. Either way, even the public illusion of a marriage would necessitate a divorce. A sham divorce for public consumption, however, would put a bigger dent in the narrative.

The Big Picture According to JMH

TM in Birthers & Truthers:

"Well, Obama knows what his parents and grandparents told him; it is entirely possible that he has never examined the paperwork himself or had his staffers do so. "

Someone mentioned earlier that Obama characterizes events surrounding his birth as "murky," but IIRC he, himself, refers to having a copy of his birth certificate (folded up in a book?) in Dreams of My Father. Unlike what seem to be any and every other inconvenient fact in Obama's life story, this looks like one of the few that cannot easily be erased or disappeared. So far, even sympathetic bureaucrats at Hawaii's DoH, don't appear to be willing to do more than turn themselves into verbal pretzels on his behalf, but that could change.

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't think there's anything in the above (except the possibility of the Birth Certificate giving rise to even more inconvenient questions), that would, or should, ordinarily prove damaging either politically or socially. Given Obama's recalcitrance, however, along with legal resistance and monumental anti-birther astroturfing, I suspect that whatever he is proactively trying to keep under lock and key would completely derail the narrative upon which his entire public persona depends, and around which his entire biography campaign was built -- to the exclusion of virtually any other consideration of his experience or fitness for office. If exposure of a shell game here were ever connected up with a lifelong paper trail which appears to have been expunged, the damage could be monumental. It is also very much in Obama's interest for his apologists to keep the spotlight trained on the citizenship issue, as it is the easiest charge to dispute/ridicule without further recourse to original records.

Aside from entertaining corrections to any of the above, that's pretty much it for me.


He was just a pervert who hid behind politics and poetry. He said he enjoyed being urinated on - well we can oblige with that.
You can judge a man by the company he keeps,and did Obama have some company. Didn't know anyone nice?

Thomas Collins

Yes, fastjm, JOMers are all get a lifers. JOMers include such ne'er do wells as pilots, economists, public affairs commentators, scientists, some of the most accomplished lawyers in the country (not me) whose collective resumes include substantial governmental experience, securities litigation, debtor/creditor rights law and much else, farmers, folks who attend to various home matters including nurturing and caring for family members including an autistic child, at least one accomplished linguist, folks who analyze econometric data as a hobby and present it in an understandable manner for economic illiterates such as myself, military men and women, folks who themselves confront serious illness while keeping good cheer, independent thinkers and artists (at least one whose photography runs the range from the most breathtaking nature shots to hilarious photoshopped works), parents and grandparents, spouses, girlfriends and boyfriends with an active life with their loved ones, folks who run blogs on everything from arcane policy issues to personal relationships, and most likely much else that I am missing. Yes, all JOMers just sit in their relatives' basements while mooching off them and spouting off nonsensical drivel on their laptops. But be easy on us; we can't all be masters and mistresses of the universe like the geniuses on the blogs whose sharp analysis informs us for the millionth time that Bush lied, people died; that the only major party candidate for POTUS or Vice-POTUS in '08 with direct experience in dealing with major energy companies and raising a family including a child with Down's syndrome is a first class bimbo; that we need nationalized health care to bring us the joys such as Brits waiting years for hearing aids that take a month or two at the most to be delivered to Americans; that American middle class culture has brought only oppression to the body and soul (such analysis being brought to us by folks living off the wealth generated by a society focusing on middle class culture and values and a dream that hard work may or may not make one a billionaire but invariably brings material and spiritual rewards); that America is inherently racist, sexist, misogynistic and oppressive of all except whites of acceptable Anglo-Saxon lineage (amazing, isn't it, that such a close-minded society is the subject of such diligent efforts by those on the outside, of all races, colors, ethnicities, genders and creeds, efforts both legal and illegal, to join that society); that more government and higher taxes are the key to enhanced economic growth; and that tolerance is the be all and end all of life except for those who dare to disagree that the Eurostyle society is best, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced at all costs mindset.

Danube of Thought

"If Congress had the power to negate through redefinition the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS set forth in Article II, they would have done so at the time they passed that utterly absurd 'Sense of the Senate' resolution declaring John McCain and others like him to be eligible for the Office of President of the United States."

I suppose they would have done so if they were blissfully unaware, as some nutballs seem to be, that the Congress had already done so in 1937.

Not only did Judge Alsup find the Congressional action controlling, he gave it retroactive application to McCain's 1935 birth. He said,

"..persons in Senator McCain's circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already."

Of course, Obama is in a stronger position than McCain, in that the congress had acted before he was born. And the Congress does not "amend the Constitution" when it discharges a power granted to it by that constitution.

You seem to avoid discussing the McCain case as baloney avoids the grinder. You rely instead on an unrelated dictum from an 1874 case, while ignoring altogether the contrary dictum from the 1971 Rogers case. I wonder why that is. Perhaps Judge Alsup erred only because he didn't have a birfer as his clerk.

Frau Geburtsurkunde

correction: Uncle Frank had more opportunity than Malcolm to father teh child (aka Barry, one, lightbringer, jug ears, etc..)

Another Hawaiian mystery - a marriage license is still outstanding. The divorce document lists a marriage date and notes that the marriage was performed by a person "authorized" to do so. I have performed 3 marriages and for each one there was an actual paper license that had to be filled out and signed by all of us. It was then delivered to the proper authorities. Where is one for the Dunham/Obama marriage?

Where are the photos from the courting day/days of Barry's mum and dad? The photo I've seen used along with the wedding date shows Stanley Ann in a white prairie dress standing next to Dr.Obama. But it seems to be taken in the *same room* -there are the same decorations in the background- as the one photo of a pathetic Barry hugging his father's arm. Wouldn't photos from Ann's Kenyan period have been given to her son after her death?

Snotty troll: I've been exercising, writing the Blue Dogs in D.C., baking bread, getting allergy shots and spending quality time with my husband while monitoring and enjoying the sages at JOM. Bite me!

Danube of Thought

"...why is it so outrageous to ask for something so simple as the long form BC that says where he was born? Are you afraid of what you may find out?"

It isn't outrageous. It just doesn't bear on his eligibility for the presidency, which has been abundantly established.

I'd love to see the thing, and would hope that it would embarras him mightily if it were disclosed. But it wouldn't make him ineligible.

Danube of Thought

*McCain's 1936 birth*

Terry Gain

In light of the fact that all that Obama has produced is a documnent - A Certification of Live Birth - which Hawaii issues to people not born in the state, anyone who uses the term birther to refer to people who are asking for production of the original long form birth certificate is a moron. These people are merely performing due diligence.

"America's 44th President was born in Hospital A or Hopital B in Honolulu. Perhaps. He was delivered by an unkown doctor assisted by unknown nurses. Maybe. Despite some evdence that he may have been born in Kenya ( and thus was not eligible to be POTUS) many Americans at the time were so afraid of being called racists that not only did they refuse to call for production of the best evidence of the whereabouts of Obama's birth, they cluelessly attacked the sensible people who did."

In the battle between the diligent and the cowardly naive put me in the camp of the former. People who equate asking for routine documentary proof with a belief in an insane theory that George Bush attacked his own country should themselves be ridiculed for the idiots they are.

My grandchildren were born in a hospital 300 miles from where I live. I announced their births in the local newsapaper because their mother grew up here. Anyone who finds the newspaper announcement probative is intellectually challenged.



But good news Global Warming-wise. There's a new ">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/suntransit/"> Sunspot.


-- Not only did Judge Alsup find the Congressional action controlling, he gave it retroactive application to McCain's 1935 birth. --

But see Judge Laplante in Hollander v. McCain (District of New Hampshire: 08-cv-99-JL)

This is not to demean the sincerity of Hollander's challenge to McCain's eligibility for the presidency; as discussed supra Part II, that challenge has yet to be definitively settled, and, as a number of commentators have concluded, arguably cannot be without a constitutional amendment. What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks standing ...

Danube of Thought

For those who are actually serious about the legal issue (and you know who you are), perhaps a review of this Supreme Court language in the 1971 case of Rogers v. Bellei would be of interest:

"The reach of congressional power in this area [citizenship] is readily apparent:

"1. Over 70 years ago, the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that 'naturalization by descent' was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment....

"We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute."

Danube of Thought

"Despite some evdence that he may have been born in Kenya..."

Love to see it.

"I announced their births in the local newsapaper because their mother grew up here. Anyone who finds the newspaper announcement probative is intellectually challenged."

Unless it were shown, as it has been here, that the information was provided to the newspapers by the Honolulu hospital.


What is settled, however, is that an individual voter like Hollander lacks standing ...

Who the hell has standing? Would every voter in the country have to join the suit?

Danube of Thought

"...that challenge has yet to be definitively settled, and, as a number of commentators have concluded, arguably cannot be without a constitutional amendment."

Indisputable on both assertions. But indisputably moot, too.

JM Hanes

Captain Hate:

"McCain's fat slut of a daughter"

I guess maybe this is a point of personal privilege, but I'm afraid every time you slam Megan McCain in such terms, my maternal outrage meter just explodes into the red zone. I enjoy your energetic potshots! I just want to give you a heads up on this one, because I find it really hard to handle.


KUDOS JMH!!!!! My thoughts exactly! It's not citizenship that's the issue, it's the narrative.

And I'd like to add something. I've always suspected Papa Dunham of being a stealth member of the CPUSA. And if Davis was a close family friend, I would imagine all sorts of strange stuff went on in that household. Maybe it's either the address or the "attendant" that he wants to hide.

In any case, it is quite obvious that he wants to hide something.

William Teach

If it showed there was no proof he was born in Hawaii, as stated, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him, Danube, but, it would create a situation where an investigation would have to be held.

Let me just point out, as I have in all my posts at my site and Stop The ACLU, that I believe he is a natural born citizen till someone provides concrete proof. That said, I find it very strange that he is fighting off so many lawsuits and refuses to pony up $10. I'll give him $10. If not for the fight he is putting up, I would have moved on (except for an occassional traffic bait post.)

Terry Gain

Unless it were shown, as it has been here, that the information was provided to the newspapers by the Honolulu hospital.

Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2009 at 09:21 PM


What is your source for your statement that the birth announcement was initiated by the hospital?

Captain Hate

JMH, I've installed the governor and appreciate the head's up. I *do* find her completely disgusting and if either of my daughters acted the way she does in public I would consider myself a failure as a father.


-- Who the hell has standing? --

Each and every member of Congress, when the electoral votes are cast before them. The Constitution anticipates that a majority of electoral votes may well be cast for an ineligible candidate, and Congress is empowered to investigate and has the duty to insure that the person "elected" is qualified under the constitution.


I don't understand the fixation on the birth announcements. They don't say where Obama was born, just that he was born to his parents. They ran nine/ten days after his birth so there was time for communication from Kenya letting his grandparents know that he was born. I don't know anyone who doubts that his mother and father resided in Hawaii. How do these announcements prove where he was born? They don't. My inlaws just put a birth announcement in their church bulletin in Houston but my daughter was born in California. Why couldn't Obama's grandparents have done the same thing?

Danube of Thought

"DOT--What is your source for your statement that the birth announcement was initiated by the hospital?"

See JMHs post earlier in this thread.

Danube of Thought

"If it showed there was no proof he was born in Hawaii, as stated, it certainly wouldn't disqualify him, Danube, but, it would create a situation where an investigation would have to be held."

I don't understand. If what showed there was no proof? Who stated what? And who would have to hold an investigation, and why?

JM Hanes

Thanks, Captain. I don't think she's the brightest bulb on the planet myself. :-)

Hi cboldt!

"Congress is empowered to investigate and has the duty to insure that the person "elected" is qualified under the constitution."

I'm not sure that's strictly accurate. Congressmen are specifically empowered to challenge the electoral vote tally certified by a state, but I don't think they are empowered to mount investigations into the victorious contender's credentials and/or other matters unrelated to the electoral count itself. The error could certainly be mine, but if you wouldn't mind saving my poor overworked brain an outing, could you point me to the constitutional language on this?


jmh, I thought your post was as usual elegant in every way.

(Am I the only one having difficulty getting this site to load? It goes blank and takes forever to get thru the pages which serially go blank.)


"I don't understand"

Maybe you're not supposed to. When you see exactly what the artist wants to see (and no more) you are supposed to be convinced it's magic.



Okay. That makes sense. As long as someone has standing, I'll drop my outrage.

JM Hanes

WOW, Thomas Collins! A tour de force! And one well worth saving for future use.


I would love to ask a psychologist what the chances would be that an admitted bi-sexual child molester would abuse a teen-aged boy that he was mentoring. I'd say about 99%

And if Dunham was really a commie, he probably would not care, just as he didn't care that his teenaged daughter was running wild and screwing married men in their mid twenties. In 1960 no less.

Sexual mores are a bourgeois construct. In the Gramscian world view, that sort of mawkish thinking needs to be dismissed.

Obama makes his family out to be a little different, but warm and loving and as American as apple pie. I have a feeling that, just like the Camelot BS, the truth is much darker and nastier. And he is going to a lot of trouble to make sure we don't find out.

Every so often, Ann would leave Indonesia to live in Hawaii—or New York or even, in the mid-1980s, Pakistan, for a microfinance job.

Wasn't the 1980s when Obama went to Pakistan? I didn't know his mother and sister had lived there.


-- Congressmen are specifically empowered to challenge the electoral vote tally certified by a state, but I don't think they are empowered to mount investigations into the victorious contender's credentials and/or other matters unrelated to the electoral count itself. --

I see the power (and duty) to confirm qualifications in the 20th amendment, " ... If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify ..."


My husband does not think Obama looks like Malcolm X.


He also doesn't think he looks like his father or Davis. He does, however, think he looks like his grandfather, with darker skin.


I agree.


verner, I am increasingly coming to your point of view and at least one psychologist I know of has suggested there are some aspects of his audlt personality which suggest that as well.


The front face pic posted here of Malcolm looks pretty close. But someone needs to post on here the profile pics of Malcolm X and Obama from the Atlas Shrugged site (LUN again). I do it but I don't know how to do it. Look at the exact profile match. The smile. The hairline. Look at the exact ear match!

I always thought Obama looked as much like his mother as a mixed race child could. But now that I see Malcolm. Well if you mix the two people, you get Obama. I don't know what that means exactly, but it is uncanny.


**adULT* personality


Wait. Here's the link again. LUN


Unless it were shown, as it has been here, that the information was provided to the newspapers by the Honolulu hospital.

The only basis for this contention was the quote of an individual who admitted he didn't work at the newspapers 48 years ago when the announcements ran. Furthermore, it sounds like the source doesn't buy into the controversy. Could he possibly be an Obama supporter (a journalist who supports Obama, could it be) who is inclined to discredit Obama's critics by making claims he has no basis for making?


Also Frank Marshall Davis did live in Hawaii for many years. However, I think I remember reading from his memoirs that he visited with a white family where he abused the daughter. When people visited in the older days, they often stayed for longer periods of time, as air travel was more expensive. Especially from longer distances like Hawaii.

So I'm sure he might come often to visit his good friends the Dunhams, and when he did, he stayed for months maybe. Also, didn't I read that Seattle had a big black power scene going on at the time in the 50's? So maybe he came to do work for them. And keep in touch, after all he was probably out of the loop a little in Hawaii.




And as to the poster who said that the Anne in the FMD memior was not the same, because it was the first wife not the second, I would say don't take names and dates from that at face value. I'm sure a lot was changed to save his ass.

However, people like that do enjoy playing games and tauting people. Giving vague clues etc. At least sociopaths do. So the fact that the name Anne came up at all gives me pause for thought.

Incidentally changing names and using them for other events is something Obama seems to come up with in his book too. Hmmm.


I almost hate to ask, but what is MSU Clarice?


The TV psychiatrist, Dr. Ablow (sp?) was on one of the Fox shows today and he said that Obama is increasingly exhibiting anger. He was quite sure that Obama has some issues.


Making shit up, Sylvia. Just like you always do. You ramble on and on, no one pays attention or responds and then you start getting even more creative with facts.


I thank you once agin for your criticism Clarice. Gosh what would I do without you to tell me like it is? Your biting insight takes my breath away.

I thought most adult would know the difference between theorizing and making shit up. Or also when I say, "I think I remember", or "I believe" that is also a discaimer. But perhaps I would need to add a better disclaimer for the less bright among us next time.

As to people ignoring me, as an example, I think I got the Malcolm X idea going pretty well on this thread tonight. So maybe you should stop MSUing too. Just saying.

JM Hanes

Thank you, cboldt.

I obviously quit reading too soon and hope my unreserved assertions haven't led others astray.

I would like to see the power to make such a determination nailed down as an obligation to do so, perhaps by legislating an ancillary process for conveying any challenges to Congress/Congressman for explicit consideration.

That will always be the most difficult point in time for such vetting to occur, however, and I'd really prefer legislation creating a venue for either vetting or registering objections at an earlier stage. Constitutionally, I suppose such measures would properly be instituted at the state level, where the electors' duties are defined. OTOH, perhaps some inventive lawyer could construct federal legislation that could further both desirable uniformity and some sort of de facto federal jurisdiction over disputes.

I can probably file those hopes away with the Privacy Amendment to the Constitution that I think we may even more desperately need.


Under a pseudonym which he later admitted to, Davis wrote a pornographic book in which , ampng other things,he talked about how he and his wife sexually initiated a 13 year old girl named Anne, the daughter of friends.

Danube of Thought

Boris, I'd be more than happy to look at whatever art you place in front of me. If you understand the question, I'll respond if you'll explain it.

Accepting CBoldt's conclusion about standing, imagine the following: Between election day in 2008 and January 20, 2009, a congressman files a lawsuit challenging Obama's qualifications on the ground that, even if born in Hawaii, he is not natural-born and thus not qualified because his father was not American.

How many believe that the Supreme Court is going to rule him ineligible?

Same question, assuming he is re-elected in 2012.


Yeah, Clarice, you are confirming what I am saying. So what is your latest unsupported objection about this time?

Rick Ballard

I wonder if Ayers will put back in chapters like that when the unexpurgated Dreams From Whoever is published?


FWIW, I saved both the JMH tome (complete with links) and the TC defense of our fine community. I'd be happy to post them as requested.


Like the wife couldn't have visited too? That would actually make more sense, as that would make the parents more likely to trust Frank if he had his wife there. And second of all, you think the guy is going to provide totally accurate scenarios when he is describing a major crime?

No this thread is about wild speculations anyway. That's what's fun about it.


Tell you what Sylvia--when you are "theorizing" why not let us know so you do not contribute to confusion by presenting as facts shit you just made up--? What about putting MSU at the top of those posts so those of us who are not interested in sorting out complicated facts can just take a nice journey thru your fevered imagination?

Melinda Romanoff


An excellent summation, bravo. And one I could never write myself.

And to throw things off, I've discovered through DNA, my family made a little trip just before 1066 to some islands and never left until debtor's prison in 1610. Not a bad vacation, except for that prison thingy, but we've been keeping our end of the bargain ever since.

Just setting the record straight.

verner and clarice, that angle is just creepy, I guess I'm just too naive.

I am definitely in JMH's camp, besides the wait and see attitude that I will asume.


Please point out one place where I presented a speculation as fact above on here and I will donate $25 dollars to your favorite charity.


"I'd be more than happy to look at whatever art you place in front of me"

From the audience we see the artist make his assistant disappear. We see the assistant reappear inside a different box. We see the artist cut her in half then she is whole again. We see the artist make birds and rabbits materialize out of thin air.

Do we get to go up and investigate how all this happens? No. Based only on what we have seen there is no other explanation than the artist can defy the laws of physics.


Sylvia, I've decided to put you on my ignore list--this time for good.

Melinda Romanoff

Thanks DrJ!

That's a good idea.

O/T I'm going with a personal server/domain, duping file on 3 desk HD's and the 1T server HD.

I do NOT want to lose these files, over 60,000 tracks, so far. I have a college library coming in soon, and my work is going to go into overdrive. They were going to throw it out. I saved it. All 3500 sq feet of it, a former Chicago DJ who retired to West Virginia to teach music.

Spouse is going to kill me when it arrives...

That's why I e-mailed for guidance at info@, I hope life is strong for you and yours, and also why I didn't pester, just worried a bit.



As to people visiting longer in the old days, I would suggest you read Pride and Prejudice, or The House of Mirth, Anne of Green Gables, and read about the depictions of visitors.

House of Mirth by Wharton was interesting because it described the social life among the upper class in NYC in 1908, and back then, they wouldn't just go out to dinner and come home and call it an event, they would apparently spend long weekends every weekend at the country homes at various members of their social circles. The party lasted all weekend. Sounds like they had more fun than we did.

My own family in the 60's where my aunts would come and stay for months,like the whole summer, at a time. I would definitely say people visited for longer periods of time in times past.

Captain Hate

The TV psychiatrist, Dr. Ablow (sp?) was on one of the Fox shows today and he said that Obama is increasingly exhibiting anger. He was quite sure that Obama has some issues.

Quite sure? I've been very sure for over a year.


Frankly Clarice, I don't give a damn.

And I notice, once again,no specifics forthcoming.


-- I'd really prefer legislation creating a venue for either vetting or registering objections at an earlier stage. --

California refused to put (IIRC) Eldridge Cleaver's name on the ballot, on the grounds that he did not meet the age requirement. But generally, our system of indirect voting and political parties makes enforcement also an indirect matter. Although, I would think that if one state refused to name a major candidate on the ballot, that would be sufficient to break c=the cobwebs loose early on.

As it is, I'm fine with assigning ultimate responsibility to the derelicts in Congress.

Melinda Romanoff


Go back to bed.

You're still dreaming in type.

Melinda Romanoff

Oh, and G'night all.

Captain Hate

I read House of Mirth a few months ago; a very interesting book with not too many protagonists. I'll bet Wharton ruffled a lot of feathers with it.

Willy Johnston

Honolulu Advertiser article with lots of background information. Makes it clear that CNN report that paper records were destroyed was an incorrect report. Let's see if CNN corrects their error.



Yes that book was almost evil. It was kind of like a reality show before there were reality show, as reality shows are good about showing people in all their back stabbing pettiness.

One thing I didn't like in Wharton books is her depiction of poor people. It shows me she never had much contact with poor people. She makes them all stupid and ugly, horrible. Especially not in the old days when so many people were poor, poor was average then.

Like when the heroine becomes poor it shows her with nothing to do and no one to befriend. I'm sorry but if the woman was as good looking as Wharton kept saying she was, she would have met some strapping young working class stud, maybe a delivery guy or a post man, and married him.She would have adjusted and found some direction, like most people do. Just because you are poor doesn't mean your life is over.

Danube of Thought

I should add that, on the issue of Congressional power to decide the matter, there is no doubt that the very first congress, with the ink not yet dry on the constitution, believed it had such power:

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

A subsequent Congress in 1795 encted similar language but without the "natural born" phrase, but I have not seen any evidence that the change was made because it had reassessed its power--it simply changed the law.



I did not receive an email message from you. Would you try again? info at sonatabio dot com .

I'll check my spam box; it may have wound up there.


Melinda (and WAYYY OT),

If you are asking for advice to build a rugged music server to store a lot of music, that is pretty simple. Use a server board, a dual- or quad-core processor (probably overkill; speed is not important unless you want to transcode), a RAID array (probably RAID5 to keep costs down) in an enclosure that accommodates hot-swap drives, include a spare drive in the array, and keep a spare drive or two in you desk.

Back up with your favorite method, and keep one copy off-site. That method should be either disk or tape; forget about using optical media.

Software or hardware RAID doesn't really matter unless you have a lot of people hammering the server. If you do, go with hardware RAID. Otherwise, doing it in software is plenty good enough.

I'd suggest Tyan or Supermicro for the motherboard. ECC-Reg Memory would be helpful, but not critical. Any drive type is fine; the current crop of SATA drives is plenty good enough for this application. If you are obsessed with reliability and are rich, use SAS drives.

For software, I won't offer advice. Use what you know. I'd use FreeBSD, but that's just me. It would probably drive you nuts.

There is plenty of software that you can use to serve it up. I can provide details if you like.



Again, never was any dispute here that Obama is an American citizen nor that he's the POTUS. No dispute here he's sitting on the docs that will show him to be Hawaiian born. No dispute here Congress has the reach to confer citizenship, nor any dispute McCain is an American citizen.

The issue is thus: The framers in Article II required POTUS be a natural born citizen. That definition is well established and there is no doubt in American jurisprudence that an American citizen born of two parents who are also citizens is a natural born citizen, and that a natural born citizen is a distinct class of citizenship that serves as a restrictive constitutional requirement for POTUS eligibility.

I'm simply not as certain as you that Congress can, at will, selectively eliminate specific constitutional requirements for POTUS eligibility and violate the intent of the framers by turning the centuries old definition of natural born citizen on its head to grant eligibility to a child born in the United States under foreign jurisdiction with one American parent and one foreign parent, and, do so without a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS ruling expanding the definition of natural born citizen to include same.

Perhaps we continue to disagree, but it seems that granting American citizenship by legislation is an entirely different matter from changing the intrinsic, long established requisites which define a 'natural born citizen' or changing its role in the restrictive requirements for POTUS it was specifically written into the constitution to protect.

Further, I don't see how any retroactive legislation changes the criminal significance of Obama, by his own hand, falsely and expressly swearing he was a "natural born citizen." This fact is incontrovertibly documented by his Arizona presidential candidate registration filing.

The latter point is the only ticking bomb of I see in the subterfuge surrounding the controversy.

Granted, it may tick forever. But it is a bomb. And it is ticking.

Bill Clinton was ruined over less. So was Scooter Libby.

Annoying Old Guy

Melinda, DrJ;

Have you looked at these RAID systems? RAID plus removable auto-copied disk.


Looks like a RAID backup solution, and that's one thing I thought of mentioning. It is unwise to have all of you backup eggs in one basket, as it were, like on a single disk.

There's lots of ways to do such a RAID implementation; on first blush this one looks reasonable. They claim advantages over NAS (Network Attached Storage), but I'm skeptical if you have a decent network and Ethernet cards.

JM Hanes

Willy Johnston:

Thanks for the link to the Honolulu Advertiser. Looks like I need to correct the announcement dates (which came from the vaunted PolitiFact) in my previous post to Aug. 13th and 14th respectivcely.

I had a real chuckle over this bit, in service of arguing that it's possible that even Obama would not be allowed to see the original record:

Hawai'i's disclosure law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record ... "
I'm guessing that the ellipsis includes something like ...except as allowed by law, or perhaps .... to anyone not entitled by birth/family to see them. Especially when they discuss "direct and tangible interests" in the very next paragraph.

The Advertiser does confirm the source of the anouncements:

Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers. Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said. Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn's name, weight and time of birth.

Of course, that's Okubo speaking -- which is a little odd, when a month ago, Politifact was crediting the newspaper itself for confirming that the info came straight from the Health Dept.

Given what a chunk of the article emphasized how closely birth certificate information is held, the Advertiser is also oddly complacent about the Hospital and the Health Department just publishing personal information gleaned from vital records in the local newspapers, without parental approval, but never mind; things could have been far more casual half a century ago. Of course, amendments in the first week might have been easier too. I have to say, though, that publication on the 13th, not the 18th, narrows the window of opportunity considerably. That said, If there were, in fact, any fudging going on, I continue to suspect it probably centered on the legitimacy of Dunham's baby.

Danube of Thought

"...there is no doubt in American jurisprudence that an American citizen born of two parents who are also citizens is a natural born citizen..." There was very considerable doubt about it in cases where the person was born on foreign soil. That doubt was adressed by Congress in 1937, and judge Alsup relied on that 1937 statute in his ruling on McCain, indeed giving it retroactive effect (since he had been born in 1936).

"I'm simply not as certain as you that Congress can, at will, selectively eliminate specific constitutional requirements for POTUS eligibility and violate the intent of the framers by turning the centuries old definition of natural born citizen on its head to grant eligibility to a child born in the United States under foreign jurisdiction with one American parent and one foreign parent..."

I'm not sure where you get the part about "under foreign jurisdiction." Apart from that, neither I nor anyone else can be truly certain unless and until a federal appellate court decides the matter, which will certainly not happen in my lifetime, and I don't believe it ever will.

I am very certain that the first Congress believed it had the power to declare the meaning of natural-born citizenship, but to be sure that belief has never been tested. (Other than in the McCain case, which was decided on the grounds of standing, so the judge's opinion was merely dictum.) And my argument is of course that in doing so the Congress doesn't eliminate a constitutional requirement, it simply defines it.

It might well have been that, had a challenge been brought against a one-American-parent candidate in, say, 1804, the Supreme Court would have heard the case following the election, and possibly declared the candidate ineligible. I am absolutely certain--not a shadow of a doubt--that no Court would do so today.

At the time the constitution was ratified, the whole business of electing presidents was unrecognizable from today's standpoint. It is simply inconceivable that a modern Supreme Court would invalidate a presidential election on those grounds. And there does not appear to be any mechanism for challenging a candidate's eligibility unless and until he wins the election.

Danube of Thought

"Further, I don't see how any retroactive legislation changes the criminal significance of Obama, by his own hand, falsely and expressly swearing he was a 'natural born citizen.'"

In Obama's case, the statute would not have to be applied retroactively--it was enacted before he was born. It's not false swearing if he believes it to be true, and if he agrees with my argument, he did.

JM Hanes

Absolutely, positively, expialidociously my last word on the subject. Unless something new surfaces, of course....

The irony here is that if Obama ever decides to request an original which doesn't turn out to have any unusual features, he'll get kudos for transparency, instead questions about why he didn't resolve the matter at the outset. Considering how thoroughly the birthers have already been written off, though I don't see it filling up a lot of news cycles.

In any event, it looks a lot more like Obama is trying to run out the clock to me. His Mother was a real space cadet, in an environment that seems more bizarre the more you know about it. Her behaviour and Obama's fantasy life suggest a lot of potentially hurtful, if not harmful, circumstances. If Obama started making it up as he went along in response, it wouldn't be surprising if there were a lot of tracks to cover once he decided on a public career in politics. Probably couldn't find a better place for that than Chicago, which was also, perhaps not coincidentally, the nexus for a lot of the players in his life.



Did the judge in the McCain suit discuss his status under the 1934 nationality act? I don't see how he wasn't already a citizen from birth under that legislation.

Ralph L

Just because you are poor doesn't mean your life is over.
That was kinda the point of the book. She was too proud to marry beneath her.

I read it exactly 30 years ago during the boring parts of a summer job with DoE, working for the Economic Regulatory Administration, whose price controls and allocation rules caused the gas crisis of that summer. And I helped.



tanarg on July 28, 2009 at 4:13 pm engages Donofrio in an exceptionally interesting and descriptive exchange regarding the NBC issues we've commented on. The juxtapositions do a remarkable job of framing the key legal issues in play. Plenty of history and cites. Meaty. Best I've seen yet. Scroll well down the comments to get to tanarg at 4:13.



Wow, you guys are always so impressive. Bravo TC, JMH and DoT.

Listening to Jane and Dick from podcast on 7/21/09. You want to talk about outsmarting and outclassing someone... Jane brings up a topic that Dick has never heard about (probably only reads the NYTimes and watches only CNN) and then she just bulldozes him.
Bravo to you Jane!



Per FactCheck (and as released by the Obama campaign):

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."

Enjoyed the exchange. I share your pragmatism regarding what will likely occur.

As for the Arizona matter, I still see a bomb and it sure sounds like its ticking.

Professor I. B. Mr. Conlaw may not have it as easy as some might think.

There is no question the expansion of NBC to include a child born to a single parent citizen has not been settled. Essentially, given the language of that filing, he swore that it was settled, that the matter of him being an NBC was a fact.


Okay I read that Atlas Shrugged site some more. They didn't really connect the dots on how Malcolm X got together with a young Dunham.

Although interesting how Obama Sr friends didn't know about his kid. Also it confirmed my notion that there are no pics of Obama Sr. with Jr as an infant. Also interesting that Dunham went to Washington after Obama's birth. Don't know if that is true, but interesting.

But man - did you all watch that short video of X giving an interview? That is crazy. Look at how the guy speaks, especially the part where he laughs and flashes a big Obama style grin. The mannerisms are really close! And I can also say the nose matches too. If you look at Obama Sr, there is nothing that matches. I can't say Obama's deep voice is that close with X's tenor, but he could have gotten that from Mom's side. If Obama's is not Malcolm X's child, he has to be Malcom X's alien cousin from space's love child.

And that might also make sense that if Obama was X's child, it would explain all the connections he got to Ayers and crew right away as a young unknown student. They already knew about him. And it would explain where he got his ability to give a good speech. And why they had to hide the birth cicumstances. Crazy.


warning - this post is wild speculation..

And also - Dreams From my Father - what dreams did Obama know about from Obama Sr.? The father didn't seem like the type to have many dreams, he was just a government bureaucrat, marrying a lot of women, doing his job, and drinking a lot. Didn't seem like the dreamer type. Now Malcom X on the other hand....

The comments to this entry are closed.